# AKC vs. UKC



## rvamutt (Jan 8, 2008)

Whats the difference? Why would I want my dog registered with one and not the other? Does it matter? I know some dogs can only be registered with one (American Bulls and the UKC) but what about dogs registrable in both.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

Some breeds aren't recognized by the AKC but are by the UKC. The Portuguese Podengo is one of those - though the process has been started for AKC recognition and Podengos in this country should be registered with the AKC FSS if they're eligible (all of ours are and registered with the UKC as well).

I've been told that showing in the UKC is much more laid back and relaxed and that they don't allow professional handlers (not sure if that last part is true). I think the UKC also has more emphasis on performance events compared to the AKC.

I'll be interested in reading responses...there was a recent debate on another list I'm on that the UKC "allows" puppy millers, while others countered that the UKC was one of the first registries to implement a puppy mill policy.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Really varies by breed, for example most papillons I know are only AKC registered and shown. Most of the UKC people in my breed are those who are angry with the AKC for whatever reason. If you want a lot of competition in conformation and to judge your dog against many of the better specimens, AKC is probably the way to go. Like I said, it depends on the breed. From what I understand from my friends that show both UKC/AKC is that AKC is generally more competitive and harder to conformation title dogs in. UKC also has Champion titles and then grand champions, which confuse me, lol.

UKC is more performance based, which I think is a good thing. Showing is more laid back, which I think is another good thing. 

I'd also guess if you were competing in certain types of events you could find more trials to go to if you were registered with both. I know AKC obedience and agility events can fill really fast and make it hard to compete. 

All my dogs are just AKC registered.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

rvamutt said:


> Whats the difference? Why would I want my dog registered with one and not the other? Does it matter? I know some dogs can only be registered with one (American Bulls and the UKC) but what about dogs registrable in both.


Not sure on exact differences. The AKC ring is more competitive which sometimes makes for some not so nice people. They both have a nice line up of performance events. Although the UKC dogs in general are much more working oriented, there are still a lot in UKC that don't breed working dogs but AKC is smaller percent, especially in certain breeds. There are many AKC which dual register with UKC. 

I think what you want your dog registered with is personal preference. What you plan to do with the dog. Some people register dogs under multiple registries and compete in them, instead of just choosing one or the other. 

My main breed (APBT) isn't AKC recognized so I can't register with them and I don't wish to. They have the AmStaff which came from APBTs that were allowed to be registered and now it is closed as with any other breed. So its not much different then getting a UKC registered Lab, you can't AKC reg. that dog. So even if they had the same name APBT you couldn't AKC reg. APBT that were registered with UKC or other registries. The APBT and the AST are pretty different now in most cases. There are some exceptions of course. 

There is also the AKC FSS which is used for recording foundation stock of breeds not yet AKC recognized. They had this for the Boerboel but I didn't do it and never would because it goes to supporting them being AKC recognized which I'm against. Although I know it will happen eventually. Its never a good thing as then your breed is ruined by the show ring (not exactly by the show ring but by the type of breeders who obtain them for show only and will change them) and they also become a big target for puppy mills and bybs. Once they are an AKC breed which makes them known to the world its always bad on that "new" breeds popularity. While everyone loves their dog breeds and enjoys others liking their dogs they know that popularity is almost always bad for a breed. My Cane Corso's sire is AKC FSS so it really just depends on the owners views.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

As I understand it, the AKC is considered the (one and only) legitimate dog registry in the US, while the UKC is "the other" (or bogus) registry which registers "anything & everything" the AKC wouldn't (including AKC recognized breeds). Used by questionable "breeders" (i.e., puppymillers and byb w/sloppy record keeping). 

Personally, I wouldn't buy a puppy from someone who registered with UKC.


----------



## OC_Spirit (Feb 6, 2007)

poodleholic said:


> As I understand it, the AKC is considered the (one and only) legitimate dog registry in the US, while the UKC is "the other" (or bogus) registry which registers "anything & everything" the AKC wouldn't (including AKC recognized breeds). Used by questionable "breeders" (i.e., puppymillers and byb w/sloppy record keeping).
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't buy a puppy from someone who registered with UKC.


Someone who claims this is only trying to sell their own AKC registered pups.

I much prefer the UKC over the AKC because of how they highly encourage performance. They even reward it. A dog that gets a Gr CH in the UKC may not in the AKC not because it is an inferior specimen that the UKC just randomly decided was a good looking dog, but because since the UKC is focused on performance, their judge's interpretation of the standard is slightly different than an AKC judge's who doesnt really bear performance in mind. In many breeds, performance is part of the standard so how does it make sense to put up a dog who wouldnt be very good at what it's breed is meant to do, over a dog who is obviously built and very capable to do said task (especially if it is even titled in that task!).

I was at the UKC Premier last year watching the Sibes while they were on the bench to go in the ring. I had being eyeing them all day. Finally I went up to one lady and tld her "I dont give a rats arse who the judge picks today, this is my favourite Sibe here and you should be quite proud to own such a stunning animal" The dog truly was amazing. He was beautifully proportioned, looked strong and healthy and FAST. He had lots of drive from his rear end, moved smoothly and just looked like he would make a fine sled dog. The Sibes entered the ring and I watched them parading around. I was pleasantly surprised when the judge picked my favourite!!!! Another lady went storming out of the ring muttering about how her Sibe is an AKC multi BISS CH or some such thing and how the judge is obviously blind etc etc Meanwhile the dog she's toting along was at least 10Lbs overweight, had legs too short for his body, a very heavy coat and though he moved nicely there just didnt seem to be much drive...

Oh ya and it is true that professional handlers are not allowed in the UKC ring. I prefer this because a well-experienced handler can hide many flaws in a dog with little tricks such as the way they groom the dog or even angling the dog from the judge a bit when stacking, or just the way they have the dog stacked.


----------



## wabanafcr (Jun 28, 2007)

For me, one of the biggest differences between AKC and UKC is that as far as I know, the AKC is the only registration recognized by the FCI and other foreign Kennel Clubs. I work pretty closely with several breeders in the UK, and if my dogs were UKC registered, I could not do that.

I do like UKC's performance events, particularly their hunt tests, which are much more like "real" hunting than the AKC tests, but I have seen some of the dogs that show in UKC conformation and been less than impressed (and I could say the same thing here about AKC conformation, too!). I once saw a photo of a sporting breed dog that won a Best In Show and I was horrified, as it lacked several important breed characteristics and would probably have had awards withheld had it been shown in an AKC ring.

What really bothers me about UKC, however, is that they will give full registration to a dog with AKC limited registration. So if I sell a Flatcoat puppy on limited registration because I feel that puppy is lacking a quality necessary to be a potential asset to my breed in terms of breeding, the new owner can take that puppy and register it with the UKC and breed a UKC registered litter or litters. This elminates the power of the limited registration, which is one tool that I find to be really important in working to improve my breed!


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

The Toy fox terrier pup I'll be getting will be dual registerable in AKC and UKC. The UKC has the breed in their terrier group while in the AKC they're in the Toy Group. Many TFT people are upset that in the AKC the breed seems to be getting more "delicate" and losing some of the terrier qualities that drew many of us to the breed.

Both are legitimate registries but, as pointed out, the AKC is the one recognized by the FCI (only one registry/country is recognized). Originally the UKC was exclusively performance events and the AKC exclusively confirmation. That, of course, has changed. I too have heard the UKC is more laidback and informal.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

poodleholic said:


> As I understand it, the AKC is considered the (one and only) legitimate dog registry in the US, while the UKC is "the other" (or bogus) registry which registers "anything & everything" the AKC wouldn't (including AKC recognized breeds). Used by questionable "breeders" (i.e., puppymillers and byb w/sloppy record keeping).
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't buy a puppy from someone who registered with UKC.


That is not true....at all. Perhaps you are thinking of the CKC (Continental Kennel Club) or any of the other myriad of registries used by/created by puppy millers. The UKC has a puppy mill policy...I couldn't find a similar policy on the AKC site...not to mention the AKC got in a bit of hot water in their attempt to establish a relationship with Petland to have puppy buyers AKC register the pups purchased there. Now, where do Petland puppies come from? Anybody? Andybody?

Link

An excerpt:


> Fully communicating the benefits of AKC registration is best done before the buyer takes their new pet home. Therefore, AKC is embarking on a strategic relationship with Petland that involves educating their employees about the benefits of AKC registration and providing their customers with materials about registering with us. *As you know, AKC registered dogs have always been sold in pet stores.*


Note, their concern was not to end AKC registration of puppy mills dogs, but to ENCOURAGE the registrations of said dogs. 

The UKC puppy mill policy, from their website.



> United Kennel Club was the first dog registry to publish a Puppy Mill policy. During its first eight decades, UKC registered few breeds that were sold through pet shops so puppy mills rarely used the registry. As more breeds were added, the Registration Department was alarmed to discover a few breeders registering large numbers of litters and breeding females at every heat. These practices prompted the formulation in 1990 of the UKC Puppy Mill Policy.
> 
> UKC defined a puppy mill as a kennel operation that mass produces puppies for profit only. Numbers alone do not make a puppy mill, since many breeders who register above-average numbers of litters per year have clean facilities and well-cared-for dogs. As a starting point, however, UKC looked at breeders who produced a high number of litters annually and those about whom we received an inordinate number of complaints.
> 
> ...


Link

Personal preference is personal preference, but it should at least be an educated preference - i.e. evaluation of the competition level in various events. I know several people who wont' compete in AKC lure coursing on principle b/c of their relatively easy entry level "title." I haven't coursed my greyhounds in AKC b/c they won't accept an alternate registry - the NGA - which has an insanely more strict registration policy than the AKC. Instead, I have to cough up a chunk of change (read: AKC profit) and go through the ILP process for my *registered* and *pedigreed* pure bred dog from a legit registry. Ridiculous.


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Wabana, doesn't AKC do this with CKC (Canadian, obviously) and (I think) KC registrations as well? *NOT* excusing it, but just saying..

There's some things I really like about UKC, and others I don't care for- just like with AKC. (for example, their policy on not registering dogs with a DQ is good in theroy, but means I can't show Lizzie in their performance events until she's been spayed- which won't happen utnil her breeding career is over.) 

Cait


wabanafcr said:


> For me, one of the biggest differences between AKC and UKC is that as far as I know, the AKC is the only registration recognized by the FCI and other foreign Kennel Clubs. I work pretty closely with several breeders in the UK, and if my dogs were UKC registered, I could not do that.
> 
> I do like UKC's performance events, particularly their hunt tests, which are much more like "real" hunting than the AKC tests, but I have seen some of the dogs that show in UKC conformation and been less than impressed (and I could say the same thing here about AKC conformation, too!). I once saw a photo of a sporting breed dog that won a Best In Show and I was horrified, as it lacked several important breed characteristics and would probably have had awards withheld had it been shown in an AKC ring.
> 
> What really bothers me about UKC, however, is that they will give full registration to a dog with AKC limited registration. So if I sell a Flatcoat puppy on limited registration because I feel that puppy is lacking a quality necessary to be a potential asset to my breed in terms of breeding, the new owner can take that puppy and register it with the UKC and breed a UKC registered litter or litters. This elminates the power of the limited registration, which is one tool that I find to be really important in working to improve my breed!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

poodleholic said:


> As I understand it, the AKC is considered the (one and only) legitimate dog registry in the US, while the UKC is "the other" (or bogus) registry which registers "anything & everything" the AKC wouldn't (including AKC recognized breeds). Used by questionable "breeders" (i.e., puppymillers and byb w/sloppy record keeping).
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't buy a puppy from someone who registered with UKC.


No no, UKC is a reputable registry. The AKC breeders I know will tell you this as well. So is the AKC. Both are just registries and can't go policing all breeders. You can find a lot of puppymill dogs that are AKC registered, though it seems most around here are CKC registered these days.



Dogstar said:


> Wabana, doesn't AKC do this with CKC (Canadian, obviously) and (I think) KC registrations as well? *NOT* excusing it, but just saying..
> 
> There's some things I really like about UKC, and others I don't care for- just like with AKC. (for example, their policy on not registering dogs with a DQ is good in theroy, but means I can't show Lizzie in their performance events until she's been spayed- which won't happen utnil her breeding career is over.)
> 
> Cait


Wow, did not know that one. That sounds like a really bad idea imo. I know several DQed dogs that are used successfully and responsibly in a breeding program. Not all DQs are created equal.


----------



## wabanafcr (Jun 28, 2007)

Dogstar said:


> Wabana, doesn't AKC do this with CKC (Canadian, obviously) and (I think) KC registrations as well? *NOT* excusing it, but just saying..


 No. A dog must have FULL registration from the CKC or any other FCI/acceptable foreign registration in order to be registered with AKC at all. With imported dogs from overseas/foreign countries, they must come with an export pedigree and full registration to be eligible for AKC registration. They cannot be registered if they come with pedigrees that are labeled "Not for Export" or "Progeny not for export." No, it isn't the same thing at all. 

I have imported from Canada, the UK and Denmark, so I have been through the paperwork for all of them and they all had to have full registrations. Otherwise, they would have had to be ILP'd. Also, several of my pups that were sold on limited registration to folks that wanted to compete in Canada had to have their registrations reversed to full in order for them to be eligible for competition in Canada (they were already spayed/neutered, so it didn't matter).


----------



## Dogstar (May 11, 2007)

Ah. My bad. (That's what I get for not checking what people tell me. )

I *am* annoyed about the DQ thing- especially with a mismark DQ. It's not the end of the world- Lizzie is FSS registered and as long as her (theoretical, at this point) pups are correctly marked, they can be registered individually with UKC, but darnit, I want to show HER, because she's a gorgeous dog.)


----------

