German Shepherd Dog > 3rd SV Website Announcement (86 replies)
by GSD Admin on 08 February 2012 - 02:29
|The problem Uli is you talk about what is best for the breed. You post warnings on only one dog when IMO there are at least 3 and possibly more dogs that this same warning should be posted on. Then when I question why it is only on one dog you tell me to go post it on the other dogs. I am not posting it on the other dogs pedigrees but the motivation appears to be other than to warn the world of Jaguars bad hips so his progeny will not be bred. Because if that was the case you would have made those same complaints on the other dogs pedigrees. No?|
BTW, you lost the bet on your above post lasting. It is still here.
by Oskar1 on 08 February 2012 - 03:00
|No, you got that wrong, it was just about Harley & Jaguar, so I / we did direct our attention only on them, not more not less. If I would name all dogs I have a problem with, or rather I see a problem with I would be digging around all day. |
So yes, I ment what I wrote; if you see a reason to warn about Jaguars parents because they do have bad hipps &/or ellbows, write away, if this again prevents stock with healthrisks beeing bred - more power to you ! I have not checked into it - that's all !
One only has a certain amount of time. No GSD, it is what it is - wrongdoing and fiddeling around with the health of the breed, it needs to stop. And yes, this Harley / Jaguar ordeal turns out to be much greater than was thought in the beginning, but again, this is not the fault of the messenger - the "bad" guys doing it are responsible for it !
Didn't thought it was a bet - but hey, next time I see you around I will buy a coffee !
by allanf on 08 February 2012 - 04:14
German shepherd dog (admin)
If in your opinion there are at least three dogs and possibly more dogs that should have this same warning, then NAME THEM. If you are scared that your opinion is misguided then send the list to me by PM and I will name them on whole new separate topics. At least I will know that the posts will not be deleted, because in your opinion (i. e. the admin's opinion), those dogs should have the same warnings as the dogs named in this topic.
by Louis Donald on 08 February 2012 - 07:00
Putting aside that I don't have a problem at all with people having a need to get an absolutely clear understanding of what the SV announcement actually means, especially if you are not fluent in German and familiar with their way of describing things in official documents. I have to say I look forward to some comment from the SV in regard to who was actually responsible. I think we would all agree that the dogs and indeed the unfortunate Jaguar who was inflicted with the elbow condition had no say in what happened to him nor what was done here and before someone feels a need to point out that the 'unfortunate Jaguar' can inflict the disease on other dogs and needs to be eliminated from the breeding program, responsibility rests with a person or persons who attempted a fraud and serious infliction to possibly many hundreds of other dogs and their owners and this is the area that usually creates the greatest difficulty for an organization like the SV to deal with. Often it is because of well covered tracks creating confusion and ambiguity but too often it's because of politics and dare I say it, in some way or another, underneath it all, money. I have faith in the SV dealing with this matter because they really have no choice in todays skeptical environment. It is in this area that I particular await enlightenment and outcome.
by hexe on 08 February 2012 - 07:49
|I have a question for everyone who's participated in this discussion, as well as the Uran thread: if you've ever had a dog x-rayed for hip and elbow certification, can you HONESTLY and WITHOUT ANY DOUBT declare that the vet who did the radiographs PERSONALLY checked the dog's permanent identification, be it a microchip or a tattoo, compared what they observed or scanned to that which was shown on the dog's registration paperwork, and did all of this BEFORE shooting the films?|
This topic came up elsewhere recently, in regard to something entirely apart from the threads here, and I can tell you that in the majority of instances, the owner fills out the forms before they even get to the vet's office for the x-rays, and the vet rarely, if ever, even sees the dog's registration documents. Unless the vet is in the habit of doing A LOT of certifications, most of them don't check the ID, and it doesn't occur to them that a client might be trying to substitute a 'ringer' for the dog that is allegedly being presented...
My point being that there is always going to be the potential for someone to commit fraud in this capacity, as it is with everything involving animals and money. It's a small percentage of the total who are underhanded enough to do this sort of thing, but that small percentage still should make the rest of us extremely vigilant when it comes to buying or breeding dogs. Poor Jaguar doesn't know he's the subject of a scandal, and I can only hope that whoever has him right now sees him as a loving companion first, and a checkbook second (or not at all, preferably!!). This isn't the dog's fault, and he has as much right as any to a good home with people who love him, bad elbows and all.
by Oskar1 on 08 February 2012 - 09:16
yup, the last one responsible for this are Jaguar & Harley !
And yes, of course the Vet is responsible to check the ID of any dog that he/she x-rays for the SV ! And yes, the Vet has to have the paperwork of the dog to be x-rayed at hand !
Louis, we are all eager to know that, but knowing how this crap was handelt in the past, I dont know if we are ever told.
At least the SV has confirmed that the findings from Sweden were the only legitimit ones ! And that the 1st x-ray taken and the 3rd x-ray showed the same dog. Therefor the x-ray taken in Germany is of a different dog !
by Louis Donald on 08 February 2012 - 10:08
|What will become of Jaguar and even Harley will be what it will be and the outcome of that won't take a lot of imagination and as a consequence before you know it this event will become a matter of history and other equally distressing events will take it's place.|
Whilst a general awarness of such things is very important for the breeds well being, stopping the perpetuation of such acts by the person/s who did it is critical. A person with a name and presumably an address submited X Ray plates for Jaguar to the SV?! It would be very interesting to know what that person had to say wouldn't it and hopefully, in time, we will be told?
by Oskar1 on 08 February 2012 - 11:31
I am pretty sure it will come into the open - thing is , will it be addressed by the SV ?
by Silbersee on 08 February 2012 - 18:35
In Germany, the SV has to approve the vets which will be authorized to take x-rays on their behalf. These vets will definitely check the tattoos/micro ship nos. and have to take the pink papers. Once the x-ray is done, the vet will forward it and make a recommendation as to the grade (the owner of the dog never gets his/her hands on the x-ray). The vet also stamps the pink papers (or foreign pedigree) and signs it. The SV will write to the owner, once the evaluation is done and ask for the pink papers/pedigree to be sent to the breed book office where the stamp is issued.
In the U.S., of course, you know the answer to your question. It is up to the individual vet's discretion to check the identity, plus the owner receives the x-ray. Honestly, not much of a safety check to prevent possible fraud. My vet for example does not check anything for prelims. but does check for certifications. If I would x-ray my dogs for a-stamp here, he will sign a letter (which I type up and give to him) that the dog x-rayed is dog xxx with tattoo No. xxxx. A few years ago, I stopped this here in the U.S. and only opted for prelims. (which I usually send to OFA since I stopped believing in vet's opinions) because I like the accuracy of the German vets better. In Germany, vets actually put the dog in a cast/mold (for lack of a better definition) to ensure that the dog is straight in the film. Here, the assistant holds the legs and that is it.
by inx on 08 February 2012 - 18:57
|In Denmark, Jaguar has 9 pieces of progeny x-rayed.|
7 dogs got ED: 0 (normal)
1 dog got ED: 2 (mittlere)
1 dog got ED: 3 ( schwere )
by Louis Donald on 08 February 2012 - 21:01
|Hi Oskar - even though money is a primary driver [especially at the top end of town] in Germany and I stated this in the Our Dogs article that I wrote on the last Sieger Show and keeping in mind that most if not all transactions are based on the very nice for the owner 'cash on delivery caveat emptor arrangement' the SV will need to address it in an honest and forthright way because they have a dire need right now to restore credibility to their organization.|
I appreciate how easy it is to be cynical about the outcome but ironically, thanks to Harley's superstar status this will be a good litmus test for them won't it?
by allanf on 09 February 2012 - 05:03
Thanks for the professional translation, but there seems to be an inherent contradiction in the statements:
by Oskar1 on 09 February 2012 - 08:23
dogs shown on the Siegershow from foreign countrys dont not have to fullfill the same requirements than the "german" dogs !
by Videx on 09 February 2012 - 10:36
|alanf: The SV Judge, particularly at the German Siieger Show, considers ALL factors regarding each dog. One of the factors is whether the sire & dam of a dog has a Korung. With the Korung withdrawn now by the SV, thise means Harley has a father with his Korung removed, therefore the Judge at the 2011 Sieger Show has states "Mr. Lutz Wischalla has stated that this dog would not have received a top rating if the true status of his sire would have been known."|
Harley had gained the top rating position SG1 - YOUTH SIEGER in the 2011 BSZS
by Abby Normal on 09 February 2012 - 11:26
by Abby Normal on 09 February 2012 - 11:36
|I find it extraordinary and very worrying that the SV, having discovered a fraud, and by the judges admission awarded top honours to a dog which, had the truth been known would not have received the placing, are going to do nothing.|
So he keeps his title and will remain YOUTH SIEGER despite the judges comment ?? !! Lucky for someone, and a good promotional tool.....
For me the credibility of the SV just hit rock bottom if this is correct.
by Videx on 09 February 2012 - 12:12
The credibilty of the Kennel Club (UK) must be LOWER than rock bottom -
The Kennel Club (UK) do NOT require Hip & Elbow grades/scores for breeding and registrations AND Showing
for "Assured Breeders" - they MUST Hip X-ray -
HOWEVER IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE HIP SCORE IS.
Says it ALL really -
I would add
DOGS DO NOT EVEN REQUIRE A TATTOO OR MICROCHIP FOR ANY OF THEIR SHOWS.
by Oskar1 on 09 February 2012 - 13:55
I did answer your questions in the other thread. I also put down the screening dates & results down for Jaguar, hope this helps.
by Abby Normal on 09 February 2012 - 14:13
|You illustrate my point. Whilst other organisations like the UK KC have no credibility in terms of health testing etc, the SV have always stood above that, by being the polar opposite. To allow this title to stand demeans that position IMO, and there is no doubt that holding this title will do Harley's image no harm at all. As I said, a wonderful marketing opportunity, and one that I am sure will not be missed. |
What possible logic is there in allowing the title to stand? It does make you wonder.......well it does me.
by allanf on 09 February 2012 - 14:43
Based on my own assumptions, those statistics confirm that Jaguar (and/or the dam of his progeny?) has inheritable ED. If possible, the responsible bloodline should be traced and eradicated from all breeding programs. Who wants to see any one of the most noble of breeds wobbling around in pain?
Thanks for explaining. I have tried to find a decent translation of the SV Show Regulations, but had no luck, so I am just speculating here. I may have to edit stuff as information comes to hand.
With regards to Harley, what are the facts that apply to him winning the Youth Sieger? He is not a German-registered dog. He is not in the SV Breed Book, and never has been. Before the show, he won some other titles to qualify for the show. After Harley's award, his father, Jaguar, was found to have ED. Harley meets all the formal requirements to compete in the show and receive the award of SG even though his father has ED.
When it was discovered that Harley's father had ED, the show-judge, Mr Wischalla, said that, if he had known his father's status, he would not have placed Harley so highly. Clearly, the formal requirements can not describe in total how a judge can select the best dogs at a show. One of the other factors taken into consideration is the health-status of a dog's ancestry (according to Mr Wischalla). I don't know if this would be written anywhere or if it is established un-written practice or if it is discretionary? (Thanks also to David for indicating what Mr Wischalla meant.)
The Kennel-Group placing awarded to Team Marboro was revoked for "technical reason". After Jaguar was found to have ED, the team no longer met the formal requirements. In this category, the satisfactory health of the ancestry is a formal requirement (unlike the Youth-Sieger category).
My initial understanding of the whole show and its awards was that much consideration should be given to each dog's suitability for breeding. This is not so, because Harley has retained the title of Youth Seiger and the rank of SG1 even though he is not suitable for breeding.
I am glad I was not the only one who saw the contradiction.