|
|
20-09-2011, 21:41
|
#1 | |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Posts: 132
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2011, 09:37
|
#2 | |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vidin
Posts: 391
|
Quote:
I agree that differentiation is needed, but not sure that the addition of ''(possibly) a wolfdog'' is entirely necessary at this stage - it would be enough to say that the dog comes from a non-FCI kennel and should not be used for breeding. It doesn't affect me directly, I can just see why some people are a little upset. Interestingly, a dog owned by one of these 'breeders' (who doesn't even list all his puppies on here) is classed as suitable for breeding yet has NO health data at all, yet dogs who have all the necessary results are still listed as NOT suitable as ADMIN has not updated the results yet. Mixed messages? |
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2011, 11:49
|
#3 | |
|
rookie
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: london
Posts: 320
 |
Quote:
Last edited by tupacs2legs; 21-09-2011 at 12:14. Reason: sp |
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2011, 19:33
|
#4 | |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Posts: 132
|
Quote:
In such a case I did wrongly understood it as "possibly CSV from not-FCI registred kennel"  still CSV but from not FCI registred kennel
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2011, 19:35
|
#5 | |
|
rookie
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: london
Posts: 320
|
Quote:
 'lost in translation' maybe? 
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
