Back to Middle Ages or a kind of modern witchcraft trial ???

 

Facts:                

A person gives up membership in a dog-club - on her own decision - for very private (and for the person important and good) reasons to the end of 1995. There is no law or obligation that one – even if being a dog-owner – has to be a member of a dog-club.

The same person became – before giving up this membership in the one club – a member of 2 
other dog clubs in 2 other European countries and a member of a dog-club in the USA.

The same person passed the breeding-examina with one of the owned dogs – in 2 European countries – and the concerned dog is on the studdog-list of 3 countries.

The conc. male sired 5 litter's – 1 accidentally in Germany "could happen everywhere and happened already in the very famous kennels, belonging to the national dog club – an accident is an accident and not comparable with  planned breeding" – and the dogs can’t be blamed for following what’s just natural for them. The reproach can be made that the 2 dog-owners didn’t make enough efforts to keep the dogs separated. Well, that’s true but also human as "errare humanum est".

The "follows of the moral lapse", 9 puppies, meanwhile adult Leos, where registered in this national dog-club but didn’t get a pedigree and will surely never get one from this club. They found their homes with people who don’t care about pedigrees – but about dogs – and so this turned finally out to the good.

3 other litter’s where sired in another European country – and the studdog’s and bitches‘ owner had a breeding-alliance, everything registered and recorded in that country and national cynological association, just as it is usual and had to be done. As this country is a FCI-member-country and all dogs involved in breeding are breedable due to the rules of that country and dog-club, this puppies, all together 14, got their FCI-recognized pedigree’s from the cynological association of this country.

 1 of this dogs lives in Germany for good, another one lives partly in Germany, partly in the other country,
2 where exported to another FCI-member-country – and 10 live in the country of birth – all with FCI-pedigree’s
(4 dogs have an export-pedigree because either for good or partly living in another country).

Another litter was sired in 1999 – and this country is indeed not a FCI- member-country – but the rules of the national cynological association are met completely – the puppies got their pedigree’s from there. 
Well, some countries still don’t belong to the FCI, therefore the breeding-rules of the FCI aren’t valid for those non-member-countries (the breeding-rules of the FCI contain a written passage about such cases, just to let the people know that they do best to make written contracts due to the law in the conc. countries).

But – if this is a crime – many crimes happened, not by Mrs. S. but by active club-breeders and –members, as it can be prooven that puppies are exported – to member- and none-member-countries – and this puppies grow out to adults, might be meant for breeding !!!

The accused / concerned dog-owner is highly interested in the breed, their healthiness and progress and always willing to share the knowledge with others and in exchange to learn from others too.

To keep it simple and understandable let us name the involved person's with initials:

The person’s accused by the national dog-club are Mrs. S. and Mr. H.

The accuser’s are active members of the national dog-club – if they do that for private reason’s or on behalf of other’s from the club is not known – and we won’t make a guess as it could be an "action on behalf of xxxx as well as an individual one".

And now a short overview about the "so-called crime(s)":

The "crime" of Mr. H. is due to the fact that he put a link on his private homepage
– a link to Mrs. S.‘s homepage – and the arguments of the accusers are

"that it is not right/good to link to somebody who is
no member of the national dog-club

whose dog is not breedable in the national dog-club

breeding-activities are known outside the country ....

this is not due to the rules (who’s rules?) and surely
not conform with the FCI

a link to a non-members hp might be a risk as each
visitor of our (whose?) homepage's must come to the
conclusion that the mentioned breeder’s are breeders
of the national club and association


Refutations against this reproaches:

<<the dog can’t be breedable in the national club as the owner never demanded to participate a
breeding-examina and even not knows if one could do that without being a member; never tried to
find out as there never was an intention to do so.>>

<<why should visitors of a private homepage on the link-site come to the conclusion, that each other private homepage means another breeder ?? Mrs. S. isn’t mentioned on the homepage of 
Mr. H as a breeder but as an individual. This is a difference – breeder's as well as individual's are mentioned .....there are a lot of other homepages linked – and a lot of this links leads to individuals .....there is no rule that only breeders must be linked or only members of a national club or something like this.>>

<<not due to the rules .....which and whose rules? 
The rules and regulations of the country where breeding took place are fulfilled, because otherwise the descendents wouldn’t have got FCI-recognized pedigrees ....
and the questions if it might be due to the rules of the FCI is answered herewith.

 Besides that – Mrs. S. asked for the breeding- and show-rules of the FCI (and she had read and understood the prints) before she started any breeding-activities.

The studdog fulfilled the requirements of the country where the litters had been sired as well as of other European countries – because otherwise the dog wouldn’t be mentioned on the "stud-dog-list" of other countries.>>

The crime(s) of Mrs. S. – well, read the explanations above .....those are the horrible crimes of Mrs. S.

Mr. H. was told that his homepage couldn’t any longer be linked by the official club-homepage because of the link to Mrs. S.‘s homepage – and as Mr. H. is a "stubborn individual, claiming the basic right’s given by the law of the country", he is not willing to remove that link.

Another active club-member let Mr. H. know that he couldn’t be mentioned on a mailing-list the club is going to make because of the same matter (link to Mrs. S.‘s homepage/contact etc.) as
"Mrs. S. is not interested in our club, doesn’t care about the club ....
is waiting for a 2nd club to be founded .... "


<< Just curious to know "why should a non-member of a club be interested into club-matters?"

 This is very strange reproach and surely there are NO rules NOWHERE for what 
an individual has to be interested or not interested ! >>

– Well, this must be a man with high spiritual qualities – as he must be able to read the thoughts of others, even over a certain distance, because Mrs. S. doesn’t know this person which simply means "he doesn’t know her either" – but he seems to know her very private thoughts – well, YOU KNOW: "Hearsay & Gossip" can cause a lot of problems – and "Hearsay & Gossip" shouldn’t be a basis for any decisions of any people working with or for an official institution!!

We are going towards a new millennium – the year 2000 isn’t far away anymore !!!

But in some heads it seems to be 1699 or 1799

 

It is a pity that obviously not all owner’s of this beautiful breed have the qualities of the breed,
- the ability to capture almost everybody’s heart
– and to leave alone those who don’t belong to the pack
or don't howling with the wolves!

None of the various species known hunt's just for fun, none of the species known is as cruel as
the most dangerous beast of pray (human being, man)
and therefore it’s much more easy to trust into animals and to live with them
and to appreciate sometimes their company better than the one of people!

Maybe we should go and search for
"the better place - for you and for me and for the entire human- and non-human races";
the is hopefully big enough to find that place !

 

 

October 1999