AKC

[S.R.Patch]

Again, let's not detract from the subject at hand...

"Policing ourselves" was just what happened to bring this inaccuracy to light. If I remember correctly, this breeder was inspected by AKC just a few years ago for breeding a large number of litters and that gave way to nothing being found. So, Swampman was the police for the AKC but they chose to throw his facts out and carry on with "business as usual".

[Bev]

Who was policing Joe Sturgis? Anybody have any of that old Mikie/Fannie cross still in circulation? Not sidetracking, it's relevent.

If AKC inspected the guy's operation just a few years ago and found nothing out of order, why would they take 13-year-old "evidence" and shut the guy down? You might want to re-read the purpose of ststute of limitations. If AKC suddenly started inspecting every single kennel that registered puppies with them, you would be able to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Jupiter. Is that what you think they should do? Inspect everybody?

[cojax]

Great point Sr. Patch we were policing ourselves and when the discrepancy was found and brought to their attention by people that care what they are breeding too and the reasons they are making the cross the akc decided that the forged papers were too long ago
Bev....u gotta be kidding...... they did nothing wrong in this type scenario. What you are asking is actually is for them to police and then subsequently punish the breeders....who need to be policing themselves AKC Mission Statement

The American Kennel Club is dedicated to upholding the integrity of its Registry, promoting the sport of purebred dogs and breeding for type and function. Founded in 1884, the AKC® and its affiliated organizations advocate for the purebred dog as a family companion, advance canine health and well-being, work to protect the rights of all dog owners and promote responsible dog ownership.

AKC’s Objective:

* Advance the study, breeding, exhibiting, running and maintenance of purebred dogs.

AKC's Core Values:

* We love purebred dogs
* We are committed to advancing the sport of the purebred dog
* We are dedicated to maintaining the integrity of our Registry
* We protect the health and well-being of all dogs
* We cherish dogs as companions
* We are committed to the interests of dog owners
* We uphold high standards for the administration and operation of the AKC
* We recognize the critical importance of our clubs and volunteers

Just in case you haven't read them lately ....... thanks cojax

[Bev]

You still haven't convinced me that this situation is AKC's dysfunction. In fact, nobody here can even suggest what AKC could reasonably do to fix it; they're just screaming, "Do..........something!!!! ". You guys are just out for blood, not a remedy. There is no remedy for this. And Charley can't convince me that he's worried about the integrity of the breed whatsoever - just his own hounds. He admitted that. So screw the thousands of other bloodlines that might not be on the up-and-up, just fix mine and kick that guy's ass while you're at it. He lost me with that.

This is a no-win for AKC and everyone else involved, and they know it. The people in this fight don't seem to give a rat's about straightening out the genetic mess. They just want someone's head. Someone who just passed an inspection. I'm not faulting Swampman for trying, but the police work needed to come a long time ago.

[Salzer mtn]

If we think about it can we say that any dog, horse or any person is who they say that are. I think if we use common sence we can all agree that somewhere back in time on all breeds and bloodlines someone has falsified papers. This use to be a common thing with Tennessee Walking Horses back before blood typing began. Horse traders kept desk drawers full of registration papers of dead horses that they would slap on a grade horse and then take him to the sale or sell him to an individual. The horse trader never got caught because he never had to sign anything just leave the papers in someone elses name. Also i don't think any person is who they think they are either. Do you actually believe because your last name is Smith or Jones that you are really a Smith or Jones. I bet all of us if we had the ability to look back in time we would see some of our ancestors were not as virtuous as we would like to believe. You can't make me believe that one or more of our forfathers somewhere down the line didn't sneak behind their wife or husbands back and have an affair, get pregnant and then give the childs name to her husband. Or what about some woman in our family tree that got pregnant before wedlock and then got married to give the child a name. Everyone of us can lie to ourselves and say these things didn't happen in our family tree, but i bet it did. Welcome to the real world.

[S.R.Patch]

Bev., just sit down and take a breath...honey
I suggested these hounds go on conditional papers or the "open" registry.
Nobody is ranting like you, we don't want blood or heads to roll(well maybe Chuck does ), we just want the pedigree corrected, or let it end here and give them conditional or open status.
It is not necessary for us to convince you, but it is our duty to see that AKC does not error in there goal to maintain integrity of the pure bred dog. You see, we are not the enemy you perceive us to be, we are their best hope of accomplishing all our goals...

[Kenny VanHoose]

Ah Bev, somebody is finally thinking with a level head. Thanks for bringing some logical thinking to this thread. AKC cannot simply take somebody's word for something that happened 13 yrs ago. Its silly to think they would. Just sounds like sour grapes to me. Why would anybody wait so long to try to resolve this? We are not always as important as we think we are. As far as personal records go they could be false.

[Bev]

Okay, Patch, no need for the condescending head-patting. I'm not ranting; I would spare even you of that. I just find it mind-boggling how people can expect a pedigree to be fixed when they can't prove who the sire is. You can prove that the papers were forged, but even at that, it's Swampman's word against the breeder that it went down that way. Maybe Swampman told the guy "Go ahead and sign my name," and then forgot all about it until it came back to bite him. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility -- especially to organizations like AKC who have probably heard it all. So even if they believe the evidence of forgery, and consider it proof that the dog was not the sire, how are they gonna prove who WAS the sire? Are they supposed to take somebody's word on that? You're not gonna fix a pedigree until the real sire is proven. You got no DNA on the actual sire. You got nothing. It's a closed case on fixing the pedigree.

Even you can follow that, right?

-- -- -- -- ETA: Kenny, you and i must have been having the same thought at the same time.

[S.R.Patch]

no need for the condescending head-patting.

Even you can follow that, right?

-- -- -- -- ETA: Kenny, you and i must have been having the same thoughtlessness at the same time.

Bev., your a hoot!!!

Hummm, hound of questionable parentage... I wonder if AKC has ever had to deal with this before. hummm


Edited by Bev: Gee, Patch, if you're going to "quote" me, then don't falsify what I said.

EDited by Patch; I'll give you the "t" back in "thought" if you'd like to claim it.... ...sorry, i've picked up some twisted humor by swimming in the "shark tank"

[Mo. Beagler 5000]

Well if everyone knows the perpetrators name then why not post it on everybody's websites and forums that this guy is a crook.. then they can have their "blood" and akc can get back to making money...

I mean seriously if everyone heard about this and knew the kennel name and such involved then his business would drop. let free market decide.

[T LEE]

We had a guy in our state that had a run in with AKC. He had never been kennel inspected until the run in. Make sure your ducks are in a row. Common errors AKC will find are……..

1). AKC wants a way to indentify each dog. Meaning, dogs AKC registered have their AKC name on their collar or individual kennels.

2). AKC will frown on several dogs in one kennel regardless of size. This makes it hard for the AKC Rep. to indentify each dog. They don’t want to take your word that it’s Joe, Blue, Fred or Nancy in that kennel.

3). Make sure AKC papers are in Order. If you have made a purchase on a dog and the dog is still in the former owners name for example. They don’t want to hear that you have not got around to putting it in your name.

4). Make sure puppy papers are up to date.

5). AKC dogs that you have sold may still be in your name. New owner s sometimes don’t put the dog in their name right away. They may want a contact name and sometimes address of new owners and even pups sold that have not had paper work updated.

Maybe unrelated but this guy also got a letter in the mail several days later that the county was informed he owned 22 dogs and only 5 had a rabies tag on.

Good luck on any Action you take. Just be careful.

[Swampman]

Bev,
When a pedigree was posted on your site and I noticed the false cross, I notified AKC immediately. I didn't have a computer in 1997, in fact I didn't have one until about 2002.
Please tell me how I should have policed or caught this sooner when I live in WI and the forgery took place in TN?

So now you are insinuating that I am the liar, that I gave him permission to forge my name, yea right!
If so, why isn't the accused coming forward now?

Kenny, take a step back, READ the former posts and link below. It is not my word against his, it is AKC documents against his!
http://americanbeagler.huntingboards.co ... 8&start=30

Sport was DNA tested in Dec. of 2001 and certificate recieved in Feb. 2002.

I do want one head to roll, the forgerer.
I asked AKC to ban him for life from ever registering a dog with AKC again, nothing more, nothing less.

I corresponded with him on 3 different occasions and he told me 3 different stories.
I asked him why he didn't go to AKC and come clean so this could all be straightened out, he chose silence.
He basically admitted to me that he does not know who the sire is, but still forged the litter registration.
For that, he should be banned.

I am upset with AKC because they continue taking money, yet don't follow up with clear cut evidence to ban a guy.

I agree that it has been 4,5 maybe 6 generations and the blood of the unknown sire is basically gone, but that doesn't change the fact that he forged a AKC litter registration.

I had asked Sally (Oak Hill), Frieda (Branko) and the breeder of Uno (I forget her name) if this happened to them, what would they do?
None of them ever responded, so I'll ask again, well?

So, if Uno's owner found out 13 years after the fact that someone had forged her signature and the Westminster dog show champion Uno had sired a false litter, that would be OK and should just be forgotten about?
Bev, I'll ask you, what is the appropriate time frame that forgery should be accepted, 2,3,5 years?

One thing I have learned through this whole process is there are people on this board with high integrity and character, and those, well, not so much.

This is the very reason hounds are looked down upon in the dog world, we are looked at as a bunch of cheating, no nothing hillbillys.

The bird dog world world be irate if this happened to any of there breeds, be it GSP, Brittanys, Springers or Labs.

You can banter back and forth all you want, try to justify however you want, accuse me of lying and attack my integrity and character all you want , I have very thick skin and broad shoulders so pile it on.

Cojax, good post, thanks.

I'm done with this.

Swamp

[mobeagle]

Bottom line is that AKC keeps track of registerd dogs. If given reasonable evidence there may have been falsified documents it should be investigated the best it can be and in this case it looks like they have put in little to NO effort. I understand that it was 13 years ago but that is of little concern IMO. Fact is ONE false document can affect 1000s of dogs and there should be atleast some effort put into checking this situation out instead of sending a letter saying NOTHING is going to happen. The AKC should take matters like this VERY seriously as it affects the integrity of the breed as a whole. I am SHOCKED that anyone would come here and defend the actions of the AKC. I am even more shocked that more AKC members arent outraged at what has transpired here.

I know of people who've used dead dogs papers on a hound they really like and wanted to breed to register them and sell the puppies for more money. Sickens me to think of how many people really have NO IDEA what the history of their hounds REALLY looks like.

I dont run registered hounds and with stories like these I never will. I have a breeding book that dates back 20 years on my big hounds and that is the only way I can be sure of what I've got.

[Bev]

Swampman I didn't accuse you of anything. I was simply pointing out that the scenario I mentioned was a possibility (for whomever) in AKC's eyes, along with some other scenarios to circumvent the system -- and also not directed at you in particular.

If given reasonable evidence there may have been falsified documents it should be investigated the best it can be and in this case it looks like they have put in little to NO effort. I understand that it was 13 years ago but that is of little concern IMO. Fact is ONE false document can affect 1000s of dogs and there should be atleast some effort put into checking this situation out instead of sending a letter saying NOTHING is going to happen.

So what are they gonna do once they "check out the situation?" What constitutes "checking out a situation?" What does that mean in real terms? And how many man hours and dollars will be wasted on an investigation, when it will never produce reasonable outcome? It will not solve a mystery or clear up the pedigrees of those 1000s of dogs if this following statement is true:

He basically admitted to me that he does not know who the sire is, but still forged the litter registration.

What are you gonna do with that? Put a bunch of well-liked sires names into a hat, have somebody draw one and then make 1000 pedigrees reflect it? Shall we put conditional papers on 1000 dogs as Patch suggested - which means their offspring cannot be registered, nor their offspring's offspring. How many dogs are we up to, and where are they all? You might as well leave the first false sire on the paperwork and save everyone the time and trouble of getting the same results - one dog wrong in the pedigree. Any good businessman knows when to cut his losses and go on.

I hate having to explain crap because people are looking for insult instead of reading the words for what they are, but I'll try this again:
"I'm not faulting Swampman for trying, but the police work needed to come a long time ago." Because then AKC wouldn't consider it too far gone to reaonably correct. It has nothing to do with when you got a computer. Somebody could have called you about a pup right out of that litter or the next, tipped you off, and you could have nailed this guy 10 years sooner. There's another scenario that could have happened but didn't. But it could have, should have, a long time ago. I'm not placing blame, I'm saying it's a shame so much time passed. It needed to happen a long time ago. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as a statute of limitations on forgery? I don't think it's a matter of what I feel is reasonable, or you feel is reasonable. For example, in the State of Tennessee (which is where the crime was committed), check forgery is considered a Class E Felony. Class E Felonies are punishable by not less than one (1) year nor more than six (6) years in prison. In addition, the jury may assess a fine not to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000), unless otherwise provided by statute. So following Tennessee's strictest sentence of a similar crime, 6 years tops. The statute of limitations for a Class E felony in Tennessee is 2 years. You have 2 years to prosecute, or it's considered forgiven. I'm sure AKC (and any other registry) is not going to subject themselves to a possible counter suit for banning a guy they just inspected and gave their seal of approval. Can you imagine what an attorney could do with that?

I know it sucks, but sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug. Doesn't mean you're wrong - just means you're too late.

But this.

One thing I have learned through this whole process is there are people on this board with high integrity and character, and those, well, not so much.

Who here have you judged to have no integrity and character? Those who can see both sides of the situation and see how impractical it is to expect resolution? And since you've already stated you don't care about the falsification of anyone else's dogs, just your own...which category do you fall into?

[Kenny VanHoose]

GREAT explanation Bev on all points. Its time to move on. Its got nothing to with or wrong.