LIFT THE BAN ON NERO'S PROGENY - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by solo on 05 October 2004 - 13:10

I am genuinely shocked by the decision to ban all Nero's progeny. I considered his progeny at the 2004 Sieger Show to be second only to Yasko Farbenspiel's progeny. I can think of no justification for this decision, many of his progeny are obtaining 'normal' for both HIPS & ELBOWS. It does not make any sense to me, to say that Nero had an operation on some part of his anatomy without which he may never have been shown or obtained his breeding qualifications, therefore let us decide to eliminate everything that he has done, including the siring of hundreds of offspring. Many hundreds of totally innocent people in our sport will SUFFER by this decision, and for what?? I SEE NO REAL PURPOSE IS SERVED BY THIS DECISION The SV owes it to ALL their members, and to our breed to fully explain their decision, and to explain it in several languages. I would also appeal to them to re-consider their decision to ban Nero's progeny. I see this as totally unnecessary.

by Martin on 05 October 2004 - 14:10

dura lex sed lex The law is hard, but it is the law

by solo on 05 October 2004 - 15:10

We are NOT talking about LAW or LEGISLATION Why the use of totally inappropriate words? The SV has rules and regulations, and many times they are bent or broken. When this happens they investigate and use may use their discretion. All I ask is for them to use their discretion and lift the ban on Nero's progeny.

by Loner on 05 October 2004 - 15:10

Hi David, I totally 100%agree with your statement regarding lifting the ban on Nero's progeny. Why should all the owners of Nero's progeny suffer because of him. After all, whatever was done wasn't done to them was it? I think the decision made by the S.V was a totally rediculous one and should be fully explained and if a reasonable explanation cannot be given AND excepted by their members, it should be lifted INSTANTLY, after all the S.V is supposed to be run by it's members. On a personal note though David. I've heared rumours that you are moving away. Can I say that your decision is your decision but PLEASE reconsider because the English people in our breed WILL lose a very Knowledgable and helpful person. Once again David I say PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US, even though some people say nasty and hurtful things about you, you are the top in our breed in England and always will be.I enjoy watching your doge perform in the ring,even when our dogs are up against yours. STAY WITH US.

by Martin on 05 October 2004 - 15:10

"The SV has rules and regulations, and many times they are bent or broken. " So it's ok to break it again?? SV rules and regulations is the LAW by which we breed. For once they acted according to their ¿rules, and everybody is complaining.... Long live the cheating or what. I feel sorry for all the owners of the progeny. But rules are rules.

by cww on 05 October 2004 - 15:10

David, The "rules and regulations" of the SV are indeed the "Laws and Legislation" of the governing body of the German Shepherd breed in Germany -- the "SV". It was their discretion that initiated the ban. Your opinion is what is different, from their discretion. Lets see if there is support for your opinion/suggestion. If there is enough support -- then maybe it would be worth the progression to a formal request/inquiry. However, keep in mind the perspective of what is best for the whole ... not just the few.

by Barny on 05 October 2004 - 15:10

Nero's progeny should be put under "observation" or something. If what Solo is saying is true, and I would not doubt his word, then I do not see any reason to ban perfectly healthy dogs. Rules have been bent and broken in the past. In best case they have been interpreted favourably for some out there.

by Loner on 05 October 2004 - 16:10

Rule & Regulation are intended, in this instance for the perpotrator and not them that ARE NOT involved and this goes for his Progeny.

bilko

by bilko on 05 October 2004 - 16:10

I THINK THAT THE SV HAS THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE BREED IN MIND WHEN THEY PUT A BAN ON NERO FOR BREEDING.I FEEL THAT BAN IF FOR GENUINE REASONS IS A GOOD THING.AFTER ALL THE SV IS THERE FOR GUIDANCE.

by VomInsel on 05 October 2004 - 16:10

It is simply, the owner who allow the surgery to take place and then show the dog is indeed at fault here,not the SV. The own cheated, the people who own offspring of Nero. There is something in genetic called a recessive gene which may have caused this problem. The problem may not be evident in the first generation, however may show up in later generations. You guys are breeders, you know. I think the SV may have made their decision base on this fact. We must look beyound an individual dog. I agree with the ban 100%





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top