How Should We Handle Fake Pedigrees Here?

I have been asked why I don't officially change Poncho's (Hammer's) pedigree here, and this brings up seriously important questions for us all:

How can we reasonably handle the "fake pedigrees" (of various historically-important dogs) here on this database?
Why have I officially changed "some" pedigrees, but not others?
What is the criteria?
Who am I to pick and choose?

I will attempt to explain the difference.

Let us take, for example, STP's Gr Ch Buck.
Here, on this database, I changed Buck's original pedigree from Golden Boy x Red Lady (a Maloney dog) to Little Tater x Red Lady (now a Bolio dog).
What gives me the right to do this?
Well, the answer is breeder admission :idea:

Pat Patrick called up John B of STP and told him directly of the bad papers, which John B. published in the original SDJ.
Pat Patrick also directly told me of the bad papers (and I have this on tape).
Therefore, in this database, I have actually changed the Little Tater x Red (Bolio) breeding reflected in Buck's pedigree, because Pat Patrick directly admitted to it.

Another example would be Wichita's Ch Blaze. Pat Patrick was caught on tape directly admitting his pedigree was likewise falsified, so here too we reflect the amended pedigree on this database.

But what about other dogs where "different breedings" are suspected (sometimes justifiably so)?
We have to understand the difference between "suspected" (or he-said, she-said "whispers") and actually admitted to (or a breeder being caught on tape).

For example, I have a mountain of evidence in support of my THEORY on Ch Hammer. I believe Hammer is likewise bred differently (Reuben x Blitz) from how his papers show (BBB x Blitz).
Yet, on this database, I still show Ch Hammer as being off of BBB x Blitz, despite my beliefs and the mountain of facts/expert opinions to support them.
The reason I don't change the pedigree here is I have never busted Patrick admitting the truth on Hammer :idea:

You see, there is a big difference between catching someone admitting a truth you suspect ... or having him confide in you ... and just having a hunch or belief :idea:

Therefore, unless there is tangible evidence from the breeder himself, all pedigrees will stand as the paperwork says.

How many people support this distinction I have made?
How many people think only the original pedigrees should be here?
How many people think we should be able to change any pedigree we want to, even if only based on a "hunch" or "whisper" somewhere?

Where does the truth begin and where does it end?

Cast your vote and state your thoughts ...

Jack

I don't know how exactly to vote, but my thoughts are very similar to yours. However, I could make a strong argument that we should stick with official pedigrees b/c they are official. If a breeder is "caught" or "comes clean" those are both, potentially, unreliable sources of info. We don't know if that person was lying intentionally or unintentionally and both can happen. There are those who "come clean" for gain after knowing there is a gain. If a person is "caught" then they are liar and I can't believe ANYTHING they say, so how can I comfortably take their "caught in the act" words as truth when I know they are a known liar.

I think I would go with official pedigrees and then those of use who understand "type" or "mountain of facts and hard evidence" can believe what we want and use that as our guide in what we do with our own dogs. Those who don't know or understand these things can either learn the hard way, go their own way, or simply make up their own mind the way they want.

This is a good topic here. Did you get this idea from Don Mayfield?..............I'm just kidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

I don't know how exactly to vote, but my thoughts are very similar to yours. However, I could make a strong argument that we should stick with official pedigrees b/c they are official. If a breeder is "caught" or "comes clean" those are both, potentially, unreliable sources of info.

---

True.

The key is the ability to check the motives ... as well as the circumstantial evidence ... and, in the case of Gr Ch Buck and Ch Blaze, it all points to listing the amended pedigree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

We don't know if that person was lying intentionally or unintentionally and both can happen. There are those who "come clean" for gain after knowing there is a gain. If a person is "caught" then they are liar and I can't believe ANYTHING they say, so how can I comfortably take their "caught in the act" words as truth when I know they are a known liar.

---

I agree 100%, so ultimately it becomes a matter of "what we choose to believe," as there is no direct knowledge, precisely because we weren't there to directly see.

Thus, here again, it boils down to motive and other surrounding evidence :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

I think I would go with official pedigrees and then those of use who understand "type" or "mountain of facts and hard evidence" can believe what we want and use that as our guide in what we do with our own dogs. Those who don't know or understand these things can either learn the hard way, go their own way, or simply make up their own mind the way they want.
This is a good topic here. Did you get this idea from Don Mayfield?..............I'm just kidding.

---

LOL, actually, yes, I got the idea from the last (closed) thread ... but, most especially, I got it from trying to marry the true intent of this database (which is genetic searches / credit to truly great producing dogs / breeders) with the fact some papers are falsified and therefore the statistics are skewed a bit.

In short, I raise this question in search of The Truth ... and how best to find it in a world of lies (or potential lies) on true lineage.

What good is seeing Bull Boy Bob on the ROM list, if Reuben is the one who really deserves credit for producing Ch Hammer?
How can pulling a set of statistical data be meaningful to us, as dogmen, if the data is false?

And yet the flipside consideration is guarding against changing EVERY pedigree where some old man mumbles something about "false papers" under a tree :lol:

As a former investigator, I always want to know The Truth ... and I understand that NO cases are perfect ... unless and until there is an admission of guilt ... or enough evidence can be piled up to remove all reasonable doubt (criminal) ... or to create a preponderance of evidence (civil).

At this point, as the owner of this Resource, "I" am judge and jury ... but, by opening this dialogue, I am inviting all of us to participate in the decision-making process ... because, ultimately, this is a Community Resource, and I want as many people as possible to be onboard and in agreement as is possible :mrgreen:

Jack

If there is undisputed proof or an owner's admission I do not see an issue with changing a pedigree. My debate would be when the proof was found or when the admission was made.

My only issue with changing would be the "when' the information came forth (undisputable proof/owner admission). If I owned Buck in current time it would be greatly beneficial to know his actual parents as that may very well explain some things and better yet may help guide me in my breeding program with Buck. On the other hand if the information comes forward when Buck is mostly found in the fourth, fifth and sixth generation of my pedigrees it would be of little to no concern for me (if that makes sense).

I also think there will be a lot of apathy to the issue because it only affects a small percentage of pedigrees. Meaning, if I did not have Buck dogs, nor would I even choose to own Buck dogs, I could care less how Buck was bred.

On the grander scale, I think it is very important that truth and accuracy prevail, so for my one vote, it would be to show things in their most accurate setting. EWO