This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Gigante on 05 December 2015 - 15:12
There is no sentencing phase here ;) so the court of law analogy is not really valid. The "ban" is not the relevant issue, the results from the breeding are. Since there is no requirement for the litter to be judged by the SV it can only be judged with skewed results, the passing littermate.
Its being posted that theres a concern the dogs where banned, to be clear no one has ever stated, that Ive heard, the dogs where banned, only that the pairing was not to be done again. We don't want people to go away thinking that Sven or Sindy might have been banned. People not familiar might over think having these dogs in there line individually.
by susie on 05 December 2015 - 15:12
Now we are fine...
by Gigante on 05 December 2015 - 16:12
by susie on 05 December 2015 - 19:12
Gigante: "If serious problems arise but the basics are met and money is collected the dogs will enter the pool and the breeder may continue to produce the issues."
I am glad at least over here we do have "some basics" ...
My English is not the best, but even I am able to understand sarcasm - I simply questioned your statement.
by Gigante on 05 December 2015 - 20:12
by susie on 05 December 2015 - 20:12
In this case I think different - the "institution" SV with its rules and reglements is very good, made for the breed, not for money.
SV is no breeding registry, but a breed club with a own registry, responsible for one single breed.
A lot of shit happened in SV ( and still happens ) - but all of this was and still is produced by humans ( breeders, handlers, judges...), not by the institution in itself.
Our breeding rules are great, but they need to be followed, not undermined by some of our own members and high officials.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top