sorry but your talking to some who as posted has paid 550 for a pedigree non kc registered pup.
me........... as i have stated buddy our pom isnt kc registered,but that doesnt matter to me hes a pedigree pom, hes healthy etc so thats all that counts.
any price of any dog is what you as a possible owner is willing to pay, and what your happy with.
i'm quite happy with all of mine, i had this out the other day at work with some one asking me why i paid what i did for the leo's,and why have dogs that are as big as they are etc etc simply answer was because i was prepared too and wanted leos.
just as my 1st boy benson pedigree non kc, if you dont intend to show/bred etc then the kc paperwork makes no difference to the owner. you get the breed of your choice because you want it, providing ppl take on the breed and take care of its needs as they should cost is irrelevant.

I didnt want to argue this out as it isn't anything to do with the original topic. But what you're saying makes me so angry. I can see why so many puppyfarmers are making so much money if this is the attitude of some people. I dont know what you paid for your pom, but your probably could have paid the same price, or maybe a couple of hundred ££'s more (which is nothing when you think how much you spend on a dog in its lifetime!!) for a registered dog. So WHY pay for one from someone who hasnt registered the puppies? I honestly cant understand that. Did the parents of your poms have full health screening and were you shown the certificates? Were you provided with a pedigree? Not to mention the free 6 weeks insurance you usually get with KC registered puppies which i think is a great idea!! If you were provided with all that, i think you would be one of only very few that were.

Until people stop buying dogs from these people, they will continue churning out puppies just to make some quick money. There is no one monitoring how many litters they're having from one bitch and if you weren't provided with health screening certs, then for all you know your puppy could have had serious health problems passed on genetically, which maybe wouldnt have been if the parents had been tested. You may just want a pet, but surely you want a healthy, carefully bred pet too???? I just cant understand the reasoning behind it...

There IMO is nothing wrong with an unregistered dog, the people that breed them, if done properly, may well produce well reared, well socialised pups. There are people in some breeds that charge much more for certain coloured dogs that are in no way any different to the littermates in health, type or temperament, yet they feel charging people more money for them is justified, this to me is conning people into thinking they are getting something special when they are not. In the case of unregistered dogs, if that is made clear from the start, then there is no conning going on, they are paying for exatly what is in front of them and not made to believe its something it isnt.

Although persoanlly I agree with jessica and would only buy a registered dog, I do see why some people prefer not to, or why it wouldnt matter to them.
Dawn.

JESSICA i didn't buy buddy from a puppy farmer, there is breeders out there who do all the usual stuff as kc registered breeders with health etc but choose not to register the pups because they are bred as pets only, without the kc paperwork.
regardless of what i did or din't pay for buddy as a pedigree dog not all non kc registered dogs actually start their lifes in puppy farms.

for instance if i bred my leo's they are 100 % pedigree but say not kc registered, as a breeder i may well have my dogs health checked, stick to the same ruling as the kc re breeding 1 litter per yr etc this doesn't turn me into a puppy farmer who treats the dogs as investments.
what breed and what is paid is down to the individual person it is up to them to ensure they are happy with the breeder and the health side of the pup they wish to purchase.

I can understand why breeders of some working breeds prefer their breed not to be involved with KC registration because they fear the show world would alter them beyond what they would wish, Dawn, but I just can't see any legitimate reason why anyone else would shun KC registration when their breed is recognised. It cost so little after all and would almost certainly be recooped in a better price anyway. I can think of all the bad reasons why you would not register but I just can't imagine any reasonable one, am I missing something?

not sure..if you me and my leos i dont bred just used it as an example.
i will not be breeding anyway as hollys hip score are too high, hence her being spayed in june.
the point is i was trying to make just because some breeders choose not to register the litter with the kc doesn't automatically mean they are puppy farmers, or in fact the pups are then going to go on to become breeding stock themselfs.
at the end of the day kc....non kc....x's are all dogs regardless of cost etc and the fact my leos are kc registered etc doesn't mean they are going to be a better dog than my pedigree non kc pom.

No I didn't me you :smt001 I don't suppose it does automatically mean they are less than responsible breeders but I just can't see why they would reject registration, I honestly can't think of a reasonable explanation so I was wondering if anyone else could.

choice maybe a bad experience in the show world, who knows, just the fact they as the breeder dont want their pups to be bred or shown.
its only like the breeding restriction placed on kc registrations re breeding etc.

Sorry Dawn I have to disagree...and I have living proof.We were given a 9 month old puppy bec aue she had 1 tooth which was SLIGHTLY undershot...she now has a fully undershot jaw ...by about 3-4mm.Not a hue amount but then she is only a small do.Does however prove that bites can change after 8 months

I personally think it's down to the individual buying the dog. Some prefer KC registered dogs, while others don't give a hoot either way.