Is there any need for DNA testing when looking at acquiring pups from an AI breeding, from a puppy buyers perspective? The owner of the dam may have been sent sperm for the correct breed, but what proof is there that it came from the exact sire as advertised? Maybe it's just a question of trust in the breeder of the dam, and trust in the owner of the sire shipping the sperm as advertised?

Take a look at the AKC AI registration page.

Thank you very much for the link <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I may sound a little bit harsh here, but I think the AKC DNA testing is a half hearted attempt at addressing a problem. Until they require the DNA test to be tied to a microchip number, there is still a lot of room for a scam.

The other problem with the current system is that a "dna proven" dog can still be deregistered if an even earlier dog in the lineage is tested and is shown not to be who they thought he was. If you want to be extra careful, I would make sure that all the pup's grand or great grand parents were all DNA proven too.

In the end, I think an AKC registration without a dna test is near worthless, and even one with a dna test should a best be considered 'provisional' until this entire dna thing gets washed out. I suspect the lawsuits that will be coming out in the future will really shake things up.

I don't think there will be lawsuits. I also am not going to -F- around with making sure DNAs are done on the other dog's back in the pedigree.

If you don't trust the person you're buying semen from, don't freaking buy it. If you don't trust the person you are buying a pup from, don't freaking buy it.


The registration system does not need to get more complicated IMO.

Well first let me say that I am talking broader than just GSD's.

yes, the system does not need to be more complicated, but if the AKC is going to do something then they should at least do it right. I wager that if the AKC did do the DNA thing 'right' a good portion of their registration system would collapse very quickly out of inaccuracy. I wager they are going at it the way they are in hopes of letting sleeping old dogs lie.

As far as lawsuits, here is the risk. I buy a dog from reputable breeder "A" for use in my breeding program. I sell pups out of that mating. Several months later I get a letter from the AKC that Breeder "A"'s grandparent was not who was thought. (who knows the cause, maybe multiple sires, maybe some fraud from an earlier breeder).
Now AKC sends a letter to every registered owner who has progeny from Breeders A's great grand parent and placing all those dogs on the "referral" list. All of a sudden every dog I have sold out of that line has lost significant value (especially if I touted the pedigree in the marketing of the pups).

What do I do? Do I refund the puppy price to every purchaser? They certainly could sue me for the lost value of their dogs. In turn, what is my recourse? I can sue Breeder "A" for all my losses.
He in turn has to push it further back up.

The way the AKC is handling the DNA issue is just one giant cluster-mess waiting to happen, In any case, anyone selling AKC registered dogs with out dealing with this possibility in their contract is at some serious financial risk.

Well, my concern is more about working ability. I am evaluating a breeding of a working dam and sire. If the AKC process can help guarantee geneology of the parents, than I'm all for it. I'm not so much interested in the grandparents, because both dam and sire have well-known working line pedigrees. However, the sire is not owned by the breeder of the dam. I'm just interested in ensuring that the owner of the sire actually produces his sperm, and not some other dog's sperm. Why would the owner of the sire not produce his sperm? I don't know, maybe the dog is newly infertile and the owner of the sire still wants to make money off the sire's good name. As VanCamp said, there's an element of trust involved. But I think the AKC process, as I understand it, can help in this situation to confirm that sperm "a" is from sire "a".

I think on the working dog side, if you are not a breeder, you have a bit of safety for the reasons you state. And from that perspective, you did describe the primary means of "scamming" some one in your shoes. Namely the desired dog can not produce, so the breeder substitutes another dog. The key for the breeder would be to consistently substitute the same dog so the dna does not "foul up". The chances of that happening can be greatly reduced if the AKC tied the dna to a microchip number.

I think if I were addressing it from your perspective, the key would be to work with someone reputable. For a reputable breeder to pull something like that, I would think there would have to be a lot of money involved.

As far as most vets are concerned, after you have seen one show dog you have seen them all. Most people couldn't tell one from the other unless they were side by side. I could definitely see the possibility of things going bad since not every dog has to be tested. It wouldn't be that hard to require a tattoo or chip at the time of DNA testing, and require DNA before offspring can be registered. Might curb BYBs too, since they would have a bit more trouble registering an oops litter out of their way too young female. I'm all for a 3 month turn-around time and requiring it before breeding. The AKC won't do anything else to curb bad breeding, so maybe a little expense and a wait is a good thing.