VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thu, May 17, 09:41:08am CST
Author: Randy Oller
Author Host/IP: 74-38-19-193.dsl1.pco.ca.frontiernet.net / 74.38.19.193
Subject: Re: Single Registration
In reply to: Bill Boester 's message, "Re: Single Registration" on Thu, May 17, 05:53:14am CST

>>Jed and I have no intention of allowing any single
>>registration. We have a more than adequate gene pool
>>already. I really believe that there are very few guys
>>who want single registration to be part of the agenda.
>>It isn't our plan at all. The question is simply about
>>those already single-registered. However, if we are
>>wrong and the majority want single registratio, we
>>will develop a consistent procedure to accomplish it.
>>I seriously doubt that it will happen.
>>
>Randy just out of curiosity if you had owned the
>registry when jug first apeared what would you have
>done about the false papers.this sort of thing could
>very well happen again in the future.
>>We have not blanked out any of the pedigrees that have
>>followed single-registered dogs...not yet. We decided
>>not to do anything with that untill we had assessed
>>how the members feel about. So fill out the survey; it
>>isn't a threat. It is the first attempt to determine
>>what the membership want as a group. Regardless of
>>what the membership want to do about that, we will
>>consistently apply the "rule" to all... not do some
>>and not others. Remember please that we inherited the
>>problem. We did not create it. We are bringing it
>>straight to as many members as will contribute their
>>wishes by answering the survey and we are not hiding
>>what we are doing.
>>Randy

Bill,
I don't know exactly what I would have done, but the first thing I am sure that I would have done would have been to talk to all the guys that that had had access to the pedigree papers that were dishonestly attached to Jug. I would still really like to know who actually put those papers on Jug. To me a very important question is: Who is the one who committed the crime? I don't know who it was for sure, but there are two who are very "SUSPECT" in my mind and believe me, both will have a lot of extra scrutiny given whenever they try (if either ever does) to register a dog with us. It is crystal clear that the breeder was innocent. When he brought the situation to the attention of the office, something should have happened.
I am sure that I would have required a DNA test on at least a couple of dogs right away. I assume there were some dogs around whose DNA could have been checked against Jug's... i.e. littermates to the dog Jug was suppossed to be and wasn't... That would have proved that his papers were faked.
In case you aren't aware, I have already required one person to do DNA tests before I would issue pedigrees. In that case, the registration has not yet been done. I doubt that it ever will be. I also doubt that the man in question will ever talk about it. I won't tell anybody who it was. I believe that this was an attempt to pull a fast one, but I really don't know and I am NOT going to tell anybody who it was. Situations like that will remain between me and whoever else is involved. Jed does not even know.
The faking of papers or falsification of papers is something I hate. I may not do the exact same thing in each case, but I will attempt to get the truth whenever there is a credible complaint. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we knew without any doubt that the pedigrees on all our dogs were the true records?
Back to Jug specifically... The question in my mind would not have been how good Jug was, but primarily whether or not his papers were really his and secondly what was he actually, that is breeding wise. I don't believe that will ever be known. Now what should we do about the Jug dogs and a few others who are already registered in the breed and maybe have numerous offspring and maybe grandpups or even more? In Jug's case, there were already a couple of generations and that really presents more complications.

There are several concerns in my mind about all the related "questions". My feeling is that he dogs we have in the registry now are what we go forward with.
This is why standards are so vitally important. If we continued bending standards and not consistently applying them to ALL dogs, we will not have much progress. I am as enthusiastic about the Leopard Cur breed as anybody alive and I am willing to work and promote the American Leopard Cur. Jed and I want to work with all with all of you who share our passion for Leopards, to improve OUR breed.
Randy

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.