# UR registered #'s-



## Prism Goldens

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 everywhere

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.


----------



## ArchersMom

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."


----------



## Prism Goldens

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.


----------



## K9-Design

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....


----------



## Prism Goldens

DK if I will get her or not, but she's still on the roster. I did call and lm. Will let you know.


----------



## Prism Goldens

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....


----------



## Prism Goldens

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.


----------



## Prism Goldens

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.


----------



## BlazenGR

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.


----------



## Prism Goldens

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.


----------



## Swampcollie

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 everywhere

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.


----------



## Swampcollie

puddles everywhere said:


> 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.


----------



## Swampcollie

Prism Goldens said:


> 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.


----------



## BlazenGR

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 everywhere

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.


----------



## Prism Goldens

BlazenGR said:


> 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.


----------



## Prism Goldens

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.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Swampcollie said:


> 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.


----------



## LJack

I have a simple fix that might work for this and also protects from UKC registration. Breeders could register all pet puppies in their name, hold the pappers unil receiving proof of alter and then transfer ownership. Surly they could not re-register a dog that already has a registration and they know how many puppies were in the litter.


----------



## SheetsSM

LJack said:


> I have a simple fix that might work for this and also protects from UKC registration. Breeders could register all pet puppies in their name, hold the pappers unil receiving proof of alter and then transfer ownership. Surly they could not re-register a dog that already has a registration and they know how many puppies were in the litter.


But then you're cutting out participation in lower level rally, obedience, hunt tests...


----------



## LJack

SheetsSM said:


> But then you're cutting out participation in lower level rally, obedience, hunt tests...


I think a pet home who would be this active would be special case. Most simply don't. 

Even with an incentive program for puppy kindergarten on 5 puppies, I have only paid out on one. I think 2 other homes also did classes so I have to check back in, but at 9 months old all my pet families are miles from the idea of competition.


----------



## puddles everywhere

Again, I'm posting from a consumer's point of view. What you breeders do with registering litters is way above my pay grade. 

I would have been happy to receive a packet with copies of clearances, LONG pedigree to verify it was free of non-AKC dogs and shot/vet records with puppies weight. If you want to compete just submit a request for an ILP or whatever they call it now. The same reg. they give to mixed breed dogs. When I got one for my Dal rescue I submitted a picture. Guessing because he looked so much like a Dal I was not limited to "all breed" venues. At least in obedience anyway.

If the breeder goes online to register the entire litter is there a way to flag it as a "on hold" type status vs. limited registration? I like the suggestion of withholding the reg. cert. until proof of spay/neuter. If you're not going to compete you don't need the reg. cert. unless you want to give someone full registration.

Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, just trying to help.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Even withholding reg cert is problematic. It's against AKC rules, for one thing. And if the person were savvy enough to know that, they'd know that with a contract that states parentage they could get the papers anyway. 
I get so many inquiries a day = probably 10+ most days and most of them are just pet people or I think they are. I never have enough pups to go around of course. But I do make referrals. Now I feel like I really have to research the person, more than meeting, verifying vet ref (which to me is almost no reference at all because vets are not breeders and are not uTD to registration issues unless they are also breeders) and personal references as well as looking at their home/neighborhood and finding them a school to attend. But what if they want to make puppies w the lab or poodle next door? Registration makes no difference. I've only had one family have an oops, with their own dog, and I made sure she was spayed while being terminated. Those folks were easy to work with- what if the person wasn't? 
This dog in particular has found himself being the product of an Amish puppy mill. How'd that happen? Obviously, the Yoders of the world are educated on getting around AKC registration and have a market for their puppies whether registered or not. But after getting a UR#, the puppies down from the originally limited dog are all fully AKC registered! That's so wrong! And it was not the intent of the breeder if we are to believe her (and I do in this case). They aren't the best genes to be populating 100's of pedigrees from the puppy mill! JMO but likely would be the opin of anyone in the know. 
This one dog's pedigree is such a good example, since there are more than one UR # dogs in it, and it's obvious how just a few generations away you can have a pedigree that appears to be all AKC reg dogs who left the breeder on full rather than limited. 
I'm composing my letter to both Bill and the research department of AKC. Though it has not happened to me personally I feel betrayed around it and if they want me as a fully participating partner I expect to at least get a response that makes sense to me and that would assure me that it can never ever happen to my pedigree.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Lesley, if I go on k9data and put under honorifics 'UR REGISTERED DOG behind -AKC registry withheld by breeder
' under every dog down from the ones we know are UR and producing SR, would you remove it? If you would not, I will do that. At least then if it is kept up with, there'd be a heads up 5 gen down.


----------



## Golden State Mom

Prism Goldens said:


> Even withholding reg cert is problematic. It's against AKC rules, for one thing. And if the person were savvy enough to know that, they'd know that with a contract that states parentage they could get the papers anyway.
> I get so many inquiries a day = probably 10+ most days and most of them are just pet people or I think they are. I never have enough pups to go around of course. But I do make referrals. Now I feel like I really have to research the person, more than meeting, verifying vet ref (which to me is almost no reference at all because vets are not breeders and are not uTD to registration issues unless they are also breeders) and personal references as well as looking at their home/neighborhood and finding them a school to attend. But what if they want to make puppies w the lab or poodle next door? Registration makes no difference. I've only had one family have an oops, with their own dog, and I made sure she was spayed while being terminated. Those folks were easy to work with- what if the person wasn't?
> This dog in particular has found himself being the product of an Amish puppy mill. How'd that happen? Obviously, the Yoders of the world are educated on getting around AKC registration and have a market for their puppies whether registered or not. But after getting a UR#, the puppies down from the originally limited dog are all fully AKC registered! That's so wrong! And it was not the intent of the breeder if we are to believe her (and I do in this case). They aren't the best genes to be populating 100's of pedigrees from the puppy mill! JMO but likely would be the opin of anyone in the know.
> This one dog's pedigree is such a good example, since there are more than one UR # dogs in it, and it's obvious how just a few generations away you can have a pedigree that appears to be all AKC reg dogs who left the breeder on full rather than limited.



Wow, who knew this could happen? Scary... One possible way to control the problem is to do some version of what my breeder did: on pick-up day, in addition to the $$ for the purchase price, we were to bring the AKC registration fee. We filled out the paperwork there and then, and SHE sent the forms in.


----------



## Prism Goldens

What I believe may have happened in this case- and could in others- 
she probably marked limited and sent home the form to apply for individual registration. Also probably had a contract that named parents. 
They then could have claimed that they were not given reg app. 
With the contract that named parents they then got the UR #. 

With my litters, I have for years collected the fee to AKC as you suggested and mailed in the forms all together. I had one fall through but I went to the trouble to call AKC and check on status two weeks after mailing and they had made a mistake on that one, giving full which they then retracted. If I hadn't called, though? Now I collect the fee along with payment for puppy and do them myself online,figuring that way it isn't up to another human to not make a mistake. 
I hope not at least - that once I do it correctly, it is processed correctly. Most people are honest and wouldn't sell a puppy they bought to a puppy manufacturing plant like Yoder, but one never knows no matter how much one checks out the people and tries to keep up with them. We just don't need to HAVE to do it. AKC really is hurting good breeders by creating this loophole.


----------



## Prism Goldens

puddles everywhere said:


> If the breeder goes online to register the entire litter is there a way to flag it as a "on hold" type status vs. limited registration? I like the suggestion of withholding the reg. cert. until proof of spay/neuter. If you're not going to compete you don't need the reg. cert. unless you want to give someone full registration.
> 
> Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn, just trying to help.


There's no way to do that online, you can register the whole litter, then complete online the individual registrations on behalf of the new owner, and you can do that partway and come back to it later (for instance, if they have not yet given you their choice of reg name) but until you complete it and pay, they get no confirmation of registration.


----------



## BlazenGR

I have started putting NOT AKC REGISTERED in the honorifics fields. Some of them are locked also. Also, for registry, I am entering Unknown. I think going forward I am going to do the following:
Honorifics field: NOT AKC REGISTERED
Registry: unknown
Registration #: UR#
..and then lock the dog.


----------



## Ljilly28

Thank you for starting this thread about UR dogs. It is eyeopening, as I never would have imagined it possible.


----------



## Prism Goldens

Thank you Lesley- do you think that putting "AKC reg denied by breeder in prior generations" on all the dogs who descend from these dogs would be useful? Cause if we don't have something noted, by the time the current dog's page comes up some people might not look any further. I'd be willing to help of course, and send you links so you could auto lock the files since I don't have that power and you wouldn't have to try to find them. [email protected] just lmk. It's important to me, for many reasons, but I just hate that AKC has allowed this and want to do what I can to at least make it obvious when people are breeding these dogs whose breeders never intended them to be in the gene pool. Thanks again.


----------



## BlazenGR

Prism Goldens said:


> Thank you Lesley- do you think that putting "AKC reg denied by breeder in prior generations" on all the dogs who descend from these dogs would be useful?


I think it could get us in a lot of trouble, unfortunately. We don't have a way of knowing WHY a particular dog started the string of UR#, whether it was because the dog was sold on limited registration, or the buyer committed fraud, or was just never registered, and you are never going to get that information from the AKC. Sorry.


----------



## Prism Goldens

How about in the offspring something like 'UR reg. # in background' or something?
I know... I'm grasping. It just SO grates on me that AKC is registering the offspring fully.


----------

