A 100% DDR is a 100% DDR because Mr Sosnovsky says it is .... no corroborating pedigree required - Page 1

Pedigree Database


by stormins on 23 December 2018 - 01:12


My male Don STASI in my avatar and other GSDs from my kennel are 100% DDR: STASI Kennel - my DDR GSDs 


here you are :-) Bazooka iz Mnskoi Tamozhni http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=652531 Don STASI http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=652532 Dora STASI http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=652533 Zoran STASI http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=733936 Zara STASI http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=733938


Best regards, STASI Kennel Alexander Sosnovsky


Mr Sosnovsky where is the proof???


No less than 15 of these "no info" in a 7 gen pedigree for Bazooka iz Mnskoi Tamozhni and the same for many of his his "Stasi" dogs.


No information about the sire HD- Sire

No information about the dam HD- Dam


When asked Mr Sosnovsky stated ""I know that those dog is DDR rooted. It's enough for me""


Mr Sosnovsky takes home over 39 MILLION  rubles for each dog he sells at the current USD/BYR  exchange rate..... and even that doesnt seem to be enough money to research and show his clients the verified DDR pedigree.

Fantom76 (admin)

by Fantom76 on 23 December 2018 - 02:12

Until 2 generations of pedigree information for Dezy CPSS GUVD MGI and Dzabar iz Berestiya are entered I can not verify that the dog comes from 100% DDR lines. Without that information. all I can say is that the dog is 81.25% DDR lines. Mr Sosnovsky Please enter their registration numbers and the dates of birth.

Western Rider

by Western Rider on 24 December 2018 - 03:12

I have moved this thread to here we don't need more than one thread per topic.

by stormins on 24 December 2018 - 00:12

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=652531-bazooka-iz-minskoi-tamozhni  Mr Sosnovsky has listed Bazooka as having A1 hips when in reality the BCU has her listed as HD-A3 


Who should you believe?  Alex or the BCU??


An image



mrdarcy (admin)

by mrdarcy on 24 December 2018 - 06:12

Well thanks Western, now the first post here makes sense, lol,lol.

Fantom76 (admin)

by Fantom76 on 24 December 2018 - 10:12

I have a question. How do we know that the dog on the pedigree is the same dog as on the PDB database? Certainly the Registration number is the same, but the spelling is different, and the dog on PDB has a kennel name whereas the one on the pedigree does not.
Is there more of the printed pedigree that we can see? I would like to see the previous generation that lists the progeny, and an additional generation that lists the sire/dam of Bazuka.

As I said, the dog listed in PDB could be a different dog and someone (even the member) grabbed her name by mistake and listed her as the dam of "Don Stasi" This happens all too frequently

And the hips should not be listed as SV: HD ......anything, because they are not on the SV database, but should be listed as HD-A3, same as on the pedigree. HOWEVER, the BCU can and does make mistakes.  I have seen many errors on certified pedigrees, after all, they are entered in the BCU database by humans who do make mistakes just like members do.  If it concerns me that much, as a prospective buyer, I would ask to see the actual hip rating from the organization that did the x-rays.

And BTW, I am not defending the member, just saying that ...yes the hips are listed wrong according to the BCU pedigree, but I have seen this so many times, and have myself typed in something wrong when entering several dogs. Unless I see this done repeatedly, I would not hold this against the member. I am more concerned with the wrong name being listed. Anyone who believes totally what is written on PDB must know that there will be errors. Titles change, hips can change and anything can be entered by mistake. It is up to the purchaser to ask for and verify the pedigree and any other things like titles and hips when they are buying a dog.

by stormins on 24 December 2018 - 17:12


Good Question...

Hopefully all of this is just a clerical error.... But wouldn't a reputable breeder address my concerns instead of blocking me (and others) on Facebook when  asked  to clear up the Ghost entries in the pedigree??

I do know he was removed from the DDR Legends board for allegedly falsifying records (The Admin had purchased several dogs from him) before she started seeing inconsistencies.

It is also alleged that he shipped some dogs with Brucelosis... the death knell when introduced into a kennel

I will post more docs as they are sent to me by others who have been mislead by his sleight of hand.

Anyone that can fill in the missing entries is encouraged to post the missing dogs here as there are many owners who are affected by this.

At the end of the day we want to know that the GSD's that he claims here on PDB are  "100% DDR" have bloodlines that can be traced back to a true DDR.  http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/community.read?post=513665-stasi-kennel--my-ddr-gsds

by stormins on 24 December 2018 - 17:12

In relation to hips record changing..... I just got this message from a new owner who bought from Alex

I bought a DDR female from Alexander in sept
She has bad Xray ๐Ÿ˜ž
Nothing guarantee
And still I havenโ€™t got the pedigree ๐Ÿ˜ž

by ValK on 24 December 2018 - 17:12

As I said, the dog listed in PDB could be a different dog and someone (even the member) grabbed her name by mistake and listed her as the dam of "Don Stasi" This happens all too frequently

reg. # BCU  166-000473 is the same as in scanned paper.
lack of data on some ancestors, given that Belarus was a part of USSR with conditions of dogs breedings no better than in the rest of Eastern bloc, it's understandable. but one can be assured, if those missing dogs in range of 70-80s, that definitely these not the dogs from Western breeding.
i would be more suspicious about quite significant gap between birth dates of some later dogs.

by stormins on 24 December 2018 - 20:12

reg. # BCU 166-000473 is the same as in scanned paper.


Correct but the hips are listed better on PDB then on the BCU

Fantom76 (admin)

by Fantom76 on 24 December 2018 - 21:12

I said reg. # BCU 166-000473 is the same as in scanned paper., but what I was saying is that often I have seen a dog with the same name (which in this case... it is not the same name) being given the wrong data such as a registration number. And this dog can have different everything else......sire/dam/ hips ...etc. Members are not nearly as careful as they should be.

As an admin, I have a problem changing the hip information because of the difference in the names, however I would attach the pedigree in the gallery and let those interested in the dog make up their own minds.


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