Check Your Patch Pedigree`s

[Bev]

In the beginning, there was "only" AKC. Then in the 80's, there was ARHA, an open registry for registered, grade or any of questionable linage. Now we have AKC, ARHA/NKC aaaannnnd UKC.
I know alot of hounds are registered with ARHA and UKC an their competition and titles won't be affected from what ever AKC does.

Not trying to be argumentative, bit there is virtually no age difference between AKC and UKC. AKC was founded in 1884, UKC was founded in 1898 by Chauncey Bennett. While AKC at the time was geared more toward preserving purebred show/companion dogs, Bennett's United Kennel Club was formed with the working dog in mind. Needless to say, in recent days they each promote both, but as far as age of registry, there basically is none, and UKC has always had a superior pedigree sysem and DNA programs. In fact, UKC was the first to offer it. Just clarification on that point lest any newbies here think UKC is a recent up-and-comer to the dog registry world.


lowell, I've often been quoted as saying "God didn't open up the heavens and drop a blanket-backed tri-color 13" Beagle on a hill in Missouri." It was usually during one of my "all dogs were wolves" sermons. That having been repeated, let me also repeat my on-going mantra that the concept of "purebred dogs" is a mare's nest; it's an illusion. To believe that over the decades, given that anybody who can stick two dogs together in the back yard, and write their ABCs well enough to fill out the papers constitutes integrity of a pedigree, is living in a state of denial. Purebred is a marketing tool, no more-no less. How can any registry AKC, UKC or otherwise, make the purebred claim when new breeds are recognized almost every year? In 2010 alone, AKC recognized 3 new breeds; the Cane Corso, the Leonberger, and the Icelandic Sheepdog. How do these new breeds become recognized as purebred? Create a small following of people who have mixed (yes mixed) the same current breeds together enough that the dogs start to take on their own look and function. Then register them with AKC's Foundation Stock Service.

After about 3 years of good record-keeping and the formation of a good, active Breed Club, the Board will review and yay or nay the new breed. Sometimes this process happens in less than 3 years if the breed club can show where it has maintained accurate records for 3 generations of the same mongrel (or some such) and take that bit of legwork off the AKC's plate.

[cojax]

Mr. robertson if papers dont mean anything to you then why did you post in a thread that says check your patches pedigree While they mean little to you they are important as a tool for a breeder to use and yes i know they dont run a rabbit. Your post about a signature on the breeders paper is the problem here and that is the "word of the breeder" and in this case was false No that is not the AKC FAULT ITS A LIE

THE WHOLE POINT HERE IS A TRUSTED BREEDER LIED AND PUT IT IN WRITING ON A FAMILY OF HOUNDS THAT HAS BEEN CLOSELY BRED FOR YEARS FOR SPECIFIC REASONS AND THAT IS THE POINT COJAX

[Pulpwood725]

I thought everything I've heard about patch dogs rreally sounded a lot like them Tennessee Red Ticks.

[Salzer mtn]

Willet Randall just rolled over in his grave.

[PREACHERS,KENNEL]

a person would think ,grown men would act as such..

akc will do what they gonna do before long and till then i dont think theres any reason to fuss about anything ,, yet//// after they do their thing then , the chips can fall where they may ...who knows what strange twist may yet arise..

that not takeing up for anybody or anything .. just waitign for facts to be all put out before our fingers overload us ,typing on this board ..

just saying lol.

[buffett]

I'm also not trying to be argumentative Bev, but 14 years in dog breeding is certainly not "basically nothing", especially since you go on to point out that you can establish an entirely new breed in just a few years. Soooo, in the beginning there WAS only the AKC, and the UKC came along significantly later to try to rectify the breeding problems that were occurring during the Victorian craze of showing dogs and establishing new breeds. Not that it matters.
Full disclosure: I am affected by this and have sold a few litters from this line. Half of my very modest kennel are now grade beagles.
You are right Bev....there has never been such a thing as a "purebred" dog (Sweet Polly notwithstanding of course!). As soon as the AKC started DNA testing I saw the writing on the wall. In man's entire history of selectively breeding animals the really knowledgeable breeder has known that you have to mix in diverse genes or you run out of the concentration of traits you desire in just a few generations. Not to even mention the health problems. Everyone knows that Britannys, pointers, Dachshund, Chihuahuas etc. have been mixed in, out-crossed, recrossed, etc from the beginning of the breed and certainly from the beginning of trialing in the US. I won't even begin to address the issue of multiple sires within a given litter or pups from diverse litters on the ground at the same time being honestly confused: there is no such thing as a purebred line of beagles and now we all have to deal with sorting this out in the brave new world of DNA.
I'll just say this: You never have and never will see someone of prominence and influence in the AKC have their line of any given breed called into question by DNA testing. A DNA established lineage is whatever the persons in charge want it to be. There is no way any sanctioning body can justify cancelling so much of the Patch line for "the betterment of the breed". The AKC is just as liable as any breeder other than one who knowingly commited fraud.

[Bev]

buffett, everything's relative I guess. SR Patch's original statement, to which I was replying, implied that UKC came along after ARHA in the mid 1980's. That's a hundred years' difference, not 14, and quite significant in my book. 14 years?

[S.R.Patch]

Holy Moley!!!
What I said was only relating to "BEAGLES"
It's easy to find out when UKC was established, My post was about, I got into the ARHA in the late 80's, Along about the year 2000, I heard UKC had also taken up registering "BEAGLES", I didn't mean UKC came into existence at that time...
I had UKC registered coon hounds for years.

We may not want to "cut off our nose despite our face" on this litter registration problem. I'm sure this is not the first time this problem has occurred and as I had previously said, with the event of DNA testing, I believe parentage can be proven on these hounds, and I still believe people know who the true daddy of Frosty is and this can be established.

All we're after here is the correct individual that belongs in the spot of the pedigree. If it's another AKC registered "BEAGLE", there's really not much of a problem, is there?

You all can belittle the purity and integrity of the registry all you want, ALL I want is the correct names in the pedigree that I paid for, That is the least we can do to keep these "mongrels" straight...


We must also remember, this discrepancy in the pedigree was not brought to surface by DNA testing, as others have been...but...was recognized when the owner of a stud hound took notice that his sire was in the pedigree of a breeding "HE NEVER MADE". This was a forgery of hound parentage, this was not a confusion of which hound in the lot got to the bitch,...this hound in the pedigree was never there...period.

[sammiller03]

I was not going to comment on this post and was going to wait to just hear the out come.. after thinking about this alot. I think the best thing that can come out of this is for SOMEONE... whoever it might be to stand up and tell the whole truth.. the papers need to be made right on the dogs affected.. if the dogs in question were bred to an akc dog that was not patch.. drop the patch of the name and let them still be registered dogs..
i personally have only had patch dogs for the past five years.. I would be devistated to find out my papers arnt right.. I dont have any of the blood that is in question and feel bad for the people this may affect.
If this is true it is more to me than a weasel in the woodpile cross that happens. There are alot of stand up people out there that care alot about this blood. It has messed with a blood line that i stand proud behind and want to see around for my son to hunt some day.



sam

[Bev]

Personally, I don't see what all the squawking is about. If there was a screw up, it was probably unintentional. Y'all have been running the dogs supposedly out of Frosty and enjoying what you've got, so what's the big deal? Get the names corrected and keep enjoying the hounds. Whatever it was, it was obviously a cross that worked for ya.

Patch, sorry for the misunderstanding. I read your comments literally. UKC has been registering Beagles forever, they just didn't have an organized Beagle field trialing program until after ARHA, and that's I'm guessing where you were coming from.

[Swampman]

Unintentional, are you serious????

I have never heard of forgery being anything but intentional!

Question, if it is no big deal, and we are squawking over nothing, why do we register the hounds and keep pedigrees to begin with then?

Maybe its just a Patch thing, we Patch guys DO care where and what they come from.

Swamp

[Bev]

That's fine, swampman, if you believe it was malicious, but it changes nothing; the solution's the same. Fix the names, and enjoy the dogs.

[Swampman]

I honestly hope that they can correct the name of the sire.
It was never my intention to have all these hounds loose their papers and become grade.
I believe that will take a DNA of both the real sire and one from Frosty also to confirm.

I still believe that the perpetrator needs to be banned from AKC.
There really is no excuse for ever doing this.

Swamp

[bucks better beagles]

Bev said, "Personally, I don't see what all the squawking is about. If there was a screw up, it was probably unintentional. Y'all have been running the dogs supposedly out of Frosty and enjoying what you've got, so what's the big deal? Get the names corrected and keep enjoying the hounds. Whatever it was, it was obviously a cross that worked for ya".

Having read every entry on this thread, this seems to be the most real of them all. Other than the thinking that a patch hound is somehow more special than any other breed, what is the big deal. Everyone is happy with their dogs. Are you not? Humility is a virtue you know.

The bottom line to me seems to be that there probably are very few "pure" patch or anything else out there. Maybe we are all taking this thing entirely too serious. Who can say whether old Willett ever fudged a paper here or there?

I really doubt if AKC will do anything at all about this. It might cost them in the long run and money talks you know.

[Bev]

Thanks, bucks. And between you and me and everyone else, an outcross was probably due.