Check Your Patch Pedigree`s

[S.R.Patch]

Hey Swamp, you need to call up Windkist and see what she'd do if someone forged her signature on one of her hounds, and explain to her that pedigrees don't matter.
Then, call Fredia and get her opinion...WOW!

See, you gotta be walk'n on the right toes for this to matter...
I think these folks are in for a big surprise no matter how much they want to play it down...

[bucks better beagles]

You're welcome Bev. However, "outcross", though due maybe, will certainly stir this hornets nest.

As a peacemaker, righteous indignation is the quick and easy road to take but, not always the way to resolve issues.

[sammiller03]

OUTCROSS Needed If it aint broke why fix it..


sam

[S.R.Patch]

Mr. Allen, there's no issue with an outcross, the issue is with rules and honesty.
We all had the discussion on rules to run in the trials, and the biggie about height limits. Everyone seemed to agree , pay to play, obey the rules. That's all this is about honesty and playing by the rules.
I read one of them litter registration appl. and it say at the bottom, this sire owned by me was mated to this Dam and I certify. All we ask is what sire and owned by whom?
It also say, this dam was mated to no other sire while in her season, I certify.
AKC reserves the right to cancel registration of this litter and it's descendants for any misrepresentation on this application.
The END

[Swampman]

Sam,
It took longer than I thought it would, but the know everything about them, never had one, anti Patch have finally posted.

I have to agree with SR, if this same thing happened to Branko, Windkist, Oakhill (no offense meant to any listed, just trying to make a point) you would be hearing a different tune.

Actually, I would really like to hear from the three listed, if you found out that someone falsified a breeding as one of your hounds being the sire, would you feel it was no big deal, and would you be ok with it or not?

Freida, Heli-Prop?
Winkist, Uno?
Sally, I apologize, I don't know any of your good studs, but?

Swamp

[cojax]

i agree with you guys (swampman and sr) It kinda of amazed me the # of people to get on here and say it doesnt matter I had a certain respect for some of these guys and gals till i read the comments on this post. I dont know how with that attitude you could be bettering the breed with anything you do
I do know this and that is that chuck was trying to build his kennel around this male and when he found out the pedigree was false think if that were your kennel and what the years of hard work were wasted because someone didnt man -up and do what should have been done 13 years ago i hope akc gets this straightened out and follows that with a fine or suspension because of the lack of integrety by the breeder. WHAT SCARES ME IS THE PEOPLE ON HERE THAT BREED ALOT OF DOGS THAT DONT THINK THIS IS A BIG DEAL--- INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE

[bill huttozac]

There are several post on this thread by those with the attitude of "just forget about it and let the culprit walk free". I guess that comes easy to those that this mess does not effect. The idea of fixing all of the registrations with the correct Sire is a great idea. But.....some are assuming that the true Sire was a registered dog. Chances are that it may have been a grade dog. If the culprit came forward and said it was a grade dog, that would again lead to canceling Registration Certificates. If he, the culprit, said that it was another AKC registered male, then a bunch of dogs are going to have to be DNA profiled to prove the Culprit's claim. I surely would not take his or her word after fileing a false Registeration Application.

Swamp --- It is hard to think that signing one's name to a document, to certify a statement, can be "unintentional'. It is true that I was born at night, but it was not last night.

[davidc5936]

There are several post on this thread by those with the attitude of "just forget about it and let the culprit walk free". I guess that comes easy to those that this mess does not effect. The idea of fixing all of the registrations with the correct Sire is a great idea. But.....some are assuming that the true Sire was a registered dog. Chances are that it may have been a grade dog. If the culprit came forward and said it was a grade dog, that would again lead to canceling Registration Certificates. If he, the culprit, said that it was another AKC registered male, then a bunch of dogs are going to have to be DNA profiled to prove the Culprit's claim. I surely would not take his or her word after fileing a false Registeration Application.

Swamp --- It is hard to think that signing one's name to a document, to certify a statement, can be "unintentional'. It is true that I was born at night, but it was not last night.

Bill-
This mess does effect me. I have dogs out of this line and have sold 2 litters of pups that are effected. I don't think we should "just forget about it and let the culprit walk free" at all, but I do think the response to this situation should be proportional and should fall on the shoulders of the culprit, not all the innocent breeders who are caught up in it. Maybe they make all the registrations "provisional", although I am not clear on what that means. I don't know what they should do or will do. The amount of the blood in question in dogs that are 4 or 5 generations removed from this unknow sire is very small and I think the consequences ON THOSE DOGS should be small. Not so for the person who knew he was signing a bogus breeding certification.

[davidc5936]

This may be the answer to what the AKC will do- This is directly from the AKC web site:

When unknown parentage is indicated via DNA testing, the status of the registration will be downgraded to “conditional” until a three generation pedigree is established. “Unknown” will be noted on the registration or pedigree for the ancestor in question. This will only occur in cases where the dogs are believed to be purebred, but a registered parent is found to be incorrect.

If the AKC does this it would mean that Plowboy's Frosty Patch would be declared "conditional", Plowboy's Polka Dot Patch would be "conditional" and Briary Creek Pache O'Hammer would be "conditional" but any offspring of Briary Creek Pach O'Hammer could be registered without the "conditional" notation if all other of their ancestors were correctly registered.

[hillbilly]

[quote][/quote]When unknown parentage is indicated via DNA testing, the status of the registration will be downgraded to “conditional” until a three generation pedigree is established. “Unknown” will be noted on the registration or pedigree for the ancestor in question. This will only occur in cases where the dogs are believed to be purebred, but a registered parent is found to be incorrect.

This answers alot of questions. thanks davidc5936

hillbilly

[Tim H]

When unknown parentage is indicated via DNA testing, the status of the registration will be downgraded to “conditional” until a three generation pedigree is established. “Unknown” will be noted on the registration or pedigree for the ancestor in question. This will only occur in cases where the dogs are believed to be purebred, but a registered parent is found to be incorrect.

However, this was not indicated via DNA testing. This had nothing to do with DNA testing. They may or may not apply this rule but it seems to me that they may be a bit harsher when (if it's proven to be true) there is purposeful fraud.

This is just my opinion but if AKC is going to maintain any integrity as a registry they need to make one of two choices. Do DNA tests on ALL dogs in question and put the right pedigree on them (if both parents are registered dogs) (of course you have to DNA the parents). Or drop them from the registry. I think AKC also needs to look at ALL of the breedings done by this breeder and DNA ALL the parents. If they did it once so blatantly and got their payoff, they did it again. There is also the possibility that others knew and while not directly involved may have turned a blind eye in order to get what they wanted as well. That is why I think ALL dogs involved should be mandated to get DNA tested. If I had ended up being one of the unfortunate people down the line then I would be anxious to get my dogs DNA tested as soon as they could establish the true parentage.

I think this is really bad for the beagle world and have no intention of putting it in a worse light then it already is but we need to step up and bring it all into light and expose what IS there and fix it right so there is no question or doubt.

[Bev]

What is wrong with you people? NOBODY here said that "it didn't matter" and to "let the culprit walk free." Just because we aren't on here waving torches and swinging ropes doesn't mean we think your problem is insignificant. I'm just saying, IT'S DONE. YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. All your bitching and moaning and damning the people responsible isn't going to change your CURRENT SITUATION one iota. The milk is already spilt. All I'm saying is FIX THE PEDIGREE and MOVE ON. Whatever moving on may be. There is no other alternative. What AKC decides to do about those responsible, AKC will do.

Those of us who you've so judgmentally deemed "anti-Patch" were simply trying to make you NOT FEEL SO BADLY ABOUT YOUR DOGS and point out that you still value them, regardless. Unless of course you DON'T value your dogs anymore because of a breech in the pedigree. This isn't cancer, it's dogs. One dog occuring once in a 3-generation pedigree is not going to influence what you've got that much, whether it's Patch, Branko, Oakhill, or Freedom Run.

We "Patch haters" were just trying to cheer your indignant and embarrassed asses up.

[Tim H]

I want to add a word of encouragement to my fellow beaglers as well.

If your dog is effected by this and it proves true that it was a purposeful fraud then the worst case scenario would be AKC drops ALL the dogs from the registry that came from this fraud (if parentage ends up being a grade dog). If that were to happen, don't let one or a few dishonest people drive a bunch of honest people out of beagling and field trialing. This is a case where those with integrity need to become more involved, not less. Don't let the dishonest create a void to be filled by more dishonest people.

I give this word of encouragement because I can only imagine how I would be feeling if this included ANY dogs I have or have had and bred.

[Ken Yerian]

If my memory serves me right a few years back ( early 90's) there was a Dog advertized in better Beagleing for stud that had earned a FC. Branko was suspious of the dogs' linage because he thought he recongnized it as being from his kennel but did not have his Kennel name on it. As he tattoes all his dogs he contacted the Dog's current owner and had him check his ear. I don't remember all of the details but the dog did come from Branko's kennels and it did have the wrong papers on it, both UKC and AKC. It took a while to resolve but the guy who switched papers was banned from AKC and UKC ( For 10 Years I think) and the papers were all corrected. The Krpans confronted anothers dishonesty headon and took steps to stop the fraud. My hat is off to them.

[dingo]

I was trying very hard to stay away from this but..............

This has nothing to do with "Patch Haters" or "Patch Lovers" but it has everything to do with an unscrupulous breeder and his dishonesty based on the claims I have read.

I am not Solomon nor do I have his wisdom but someone is being dishonest about something or there would not be a disagreement.

This is not an issue of "intentional" or "unintentional" it is an issue of right and wrong period!

Honesty or dishonesty period!

We have laws, rules, or whatever you want to call them and they are in place to make it equal for everyone.
If it is "OK" to bend them here and there how can that be fair to everyone? Is it OK to "unintentionally" be dishonest in any way?

HELL NO!!!!!!!!

I am amazed at the liberal thinking that it is OK and no one should be upset because it is the way it is and you just have to accept it and go on.

I say BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!
This is part of the reason the world is the way it is.

I would be mad as hell if I found out my dogs were somehow misrepresented. I would still keep right on hunting them but I would also do everything in my power to let the world know they were misrepresented. I might even breed them if they were good enough but I would tell the whole story and the truth before any were sold or given away.

Several breeders have been mentioned and why would they be mentioned other than the name of that breeder is recognized as having a certain line of dogs that have certain characteristics? If all of this is so unimportant and it is OK to be dishonest about the lineage how would we recognize a line of dogs without the breeders name? Maybe we could just say "These dogs I own are from a long line of unscrupulous breeders so there is no need to mention all those dishonest breeders you can just say whatever name of breed and whatever breeder you like and that is what these dogs are".

Papers do not make a dog run but they do make the dog's ancestry which most people use to make a decision.

Every dog in question might be super dogs or crap eaters but the fact is they are either misrepresented by the pedigree or they are not.

If they are misrepresented either "intentional" or "unintentional" that breeder needs to be held accountable for his actions and the pedigree needs to be corrected.

To the honest people that have brought this out I say stand firm and no matter what others say do the right thing and you will never regret it.

Dingo