A problem that doesn’t begin with the breeder — but with the system
Public debates about large kennels often fixate on a single name or location.
Yet the reality is far broader.
Behind every high-volume breeding operation lies a system of rules, oversight, and boundaries that is supposed to protect both dogs and buyers. And when that system fails — not quietly, but openly, repeatedly, and for years — it creates a vacuum in which kennels producing dozens of litters annually, thousands of puppies, and statistics that would raise red flags in many other countries are allowed to thrive.
The case of the Balihara Ranch kennel illustrates exactly where long-term systemic gaps can lead. And the Slovak Club of Swiss Mountain Dogs’ (SKŠSP) recent decision to assign two breeding advisors to this kennel’s owner simultaneously is just another piece of a larger pattern showing that the issue isn’t individual — it’s systemic. Related article: When One Breeder Needs Two Breeding Advisors: An Unusual Decision of the Slovak Club of Swiss Mountain Dogs That Reveals More Than It First Appears
Blind Spot No. 1: No limits on the number of litters or breeding dogs
Neither the Slovak Kennel Club (SKJ) nor the Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) sets any upper limit on:
- how many litters a single kennel may produce in a year,
- how many litters a single dam may whelp in her lifetime,
- how many breeds one person may manage at the same time.
In many countries, there are at least recommended caps or formal limits on the number of litters a breeder may raise. The SKŠSP introduced its own limit (a maximum of five litters per dam) only recently — but for years beforehand, the environment operated without any regulation at all. It was precisely this long, unregulated period that allowed such an extreme disparity to emerge between the scale of Balihara Ranch’s breeding and the rest of the community.
In practice, it means one thing:
If a breeder wants to produce 1, 10, or even 100 litters a year, nothing prevents it — as long as the minimum paperwork requirements are met.
For comparison:
- ethical kennels typically breed 1–3 litters a year,
- Balihara Ranch has, according to publicly available records, produces 20-25 litters a year, that is more than 446 litters and more than 2,500 puppies over the monitored period (see: All bred puppies).
This is not merely an individual failure.
This is a gap the system itself left wide open.
Blind Spot No. 2: Inspections Exist — but They’re Announced and Check Only the Bare Minimum
Under the animal welfare laws of the country where the owner of Balihara Ranch keeps her dogs, veterinary authorities are empowered to inspect breeding operations.
And yes — these inspections do exist.
The problem is that:
- inspections are announced in advance, giving the breeder time to prepare, clean up, and “adjust reality” to meet the minimum paper requirements.
- inspectors verify only the legal minimum, not the conditions required for ethical, welfare-focused breeding.
Yet the legal minimum represents the lowest threshold of survival — not quality of life. It covers only:
- minimum kennel size,
- basic hygiene,
- access to water,
- mandatory recordkeeping.
None of this reflects the needs of breeds that require:
- comprehensive socialization,
- individualized interaction,
- sufficient space,
- structured rest and recovery for dams,
- controlled numbers of litters,
- a stable developmental environment for puppies.
Meeting the legal minimum does not mean meeting ethical standards.
And failing to meet even that minimum is no longer “poor breeding” — it is a condition equivalent to animal neglect or abuse.
The result?
A kennel with dozens of dogs and an extremely high output of litters can appear “legally compliant” on paper —
even though its operating model is nowhere near what experts consider healthy or ethical breeding.
This blind spot allows massive discrepancies between:
- breeding that simply meets legal minimums,
- ethical breeding that goes far beyond those minimums,
- and high-volume practices that remain technically legal on paper but fall far below ethical welfare expectations.
Ethical breeders routinely exceed the law by a wide margin — offering dogs a full, enriched life, adequate space, mental stimulation, and strictly limited numbers of litters. The law does not address any of these factors. As a result, two facilities may look “the same” on paper, while in reality their approach to dogs is entirely different.
Blind Spot No. 3: Export Loopholes and “Invisible” Puppies
The FCI system does not track the fate of puppies — neither those sold within the country nor those exported abroad. Once a puppy is handed over to a new owner, there is no mechanism to determine where the dog ends up, what conditions it lives in, or whether it was ever registered anywhere.
This model works for small, family-run kennels that produce only a few litters a year and maintain personal contact with their buyers.
But at extreme production volumes, this gap creates far more visible and serious consequences.
That is why large-scale kennels often show patterns such as:
- puppies sold without a clear final destination,
- multiple puppies exported at once.
According to testimonies from several buyers who contacted us through our website, the purchase of dogs from the Balihara Ranch kennel involved situations marked by inconsistencies or dissatisfaction. Yet the system does not track any of these cases.
This is not the fault of a single kennel.
This is a flaw embedded in the FCI model itself — a framework designed for small-scale breeding, not for industrial-level production of puppies.
And this is only the beginning.
In this first part, we examined the blind spots that emerge directly in day-to-day practice — in litter limits, inspections, and exports.
In the second part, we will look at something even more fundamental:
how conflicts of interest, club-level exemptions, and the passivity of oversight bodies create an environment where extreme operations don’t just appear — they persist, undisturbed, for years.