Dog lovers, somebody told me back in the 1970s that if a dog was registered

[raccoon]

and she had pups by a (gasp!) non-registered male dog, then none of her pups in any subsequent litters could be registered.

I thought at the time that was crazy. My sister said she thought it had to do with sexism.

Anyone know if that's true--about not registering subsequent litters?

[jmowreader]

1. It's true

Registration is largely about tracking pedigrees. I worked on a Labrador magazine for quite a while and got real familiar with pedigrees, unfortunately. (My dad used to be a big Labrador guy, but he got out of it a while ago. When I sent him a copy he asked me why there weren't any Labradors in it. The dogs in it looked nothing like the ones he worked with, which sadly is the case with a lot of breeds.)

If you cross a registered male to a registered female, the pedigrees of both parents are recorded and can be tracked back. I'll give an example:

We own the Northview Kennel and our new Doberman is named Ralph of Northview. (Most breeding kennels' dogs' names contain the name of the kennel.)

Ralph of Northview = Byron XI Di Altobello (All Jacked Up DiAltobello x Kimbertal's Aristo) x Legards Whistling Dixie (Aristo Leo Di'motta Visconti x Lily Dew of Kimbertal).

They have the lineage of all four of the foundation dogs, and their eight foundations...you're supposed to check this shit before you breed so the same dog doesn't show up repeatedly in your litter's bloodline.

Crossing a registered dog to a non-registered dog means you lose half the bloodline data, and there could be anything in there--the same parents on both sides, defective dogs, pet-grade dogs, American Fence Jumpers...

[Lyric]

2. I think you might be misunderstanding the OP

The OP seems to be saying that, if a registered female dog has puppies by a mutt or an unregistered dog even ONE time, then she can NEVER have "registered" puppies ever again, not even by a registered dog.

I've never heard of such a thing, but who knows?

[raccoon]

5. Yes, that's what I meant. nt

[hippywife]

3. If I read this right

they asked about the pups of subsequent litters, not the one resulting from the breeding to the non-registered male.

But then again, I may not have read it right, either. :hi:

[raccoon]

6. You read it right. nt

[flvegan]

4. I've heard of this.

It was more of a punishment, IIRC, for letting a purebred get pregnant by an unregistered dog. I don't know for sure if that's the case, but I don't believe that's the case anymore.

[skygazer]

7. If that was the case, I don't think it is anymore

Just because the owner of a papered Boxer bitch asked to breed to my male to prove her bitch. She'd tried a couple of times with frozen semen and had no luck, vet checks showed no reason the dog could not produce so she wanted to make sure before she spent the bucks to breed again.

My dog was registered but we did not have the papers and she did not want to register the pup, instead selling them as pet quality. I bred for pick of the litter - that was my Dixie. Her bitch went on to produce several litters of registered pups.

Dixie

[raccoon]

8. Good picture--the way you caught her with her tongue curled up :-) nt