Sara Jonas
Guest
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
We received a few exclusions where Spanky was supposed to be the sire. There were not many considering Spanky produced 84 pups, some when Bart Nation and Jerry Wynn owned Spanky, others from the current owner, Dave Dean.
UKC did not "go after" this information. A few owners DNA profiled their dogs and received an "exception" from the lab indicating the sire could not possibly be Spanky. These exceptions were reported to UKC. This caused us to require DNA on the rest of the pups in those same litters. Some were found to be Spanky's off-spring, some were not. As recorders of information, our only option was to "fix" the pedigrees to show true and accurate information. That being that the ancestry, in at least Spanky's portion of the pedigree is "unknown".
There are several different scenarios that could have happened. The breeder may not have been aware another male got to the female. Some very important breeders in all different breeds have been amazed to find exclusions from their dogs. It could be a neighbor's dog that jumped the fence, a gate door left unopened by kennel help, a female who pressed her little rear up to the fence when the owner wasn't aware she was in heat, etc.
Sometimes with the breeder's help we are able to find the right sire. This was not the case here. Some of these dogs are 10-13 years old, before our DNA program was even announced. I believe Cricket falls into that age group.
Just one exclusion can affect hundreds of dogs records. So, the exclusions can appear to be more than they really are.
There is always the possibility that papers were "placed" on the dog somewhere along the line when sold from owner to owner. Certainly the temptation would be great if one's dog died to put Spanky's bloodlines on another dog.
I agree, requiring DNA might be the ticket. It has always been a step UKC has hoped to achieve. We just don't feel it's the right time now with the economy as it is to require an additional expense to the breeder. New owners have the option of DNA profiling their dogs and we recommend it. I would never buy a dog without knowing that the sire and dam are DNA profiled but that's just me.
Certainly we understand your desire to place blame on someone. However, there is no way UKC can say for certain that a breeder that receives an exception did it on purpose or is even at fault.
DNA gives us the truth. Years ago you had no way to know for sure and now you do. The truth can sometimes be unpleasant. Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus.
Thank you for allowing me to explain the situation better.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|