The lending of a stud dog between kennels is a routine and, in itself, legitimate practice in canine breeding. The problem arises when such a loan is used strategically—or fictitiously—to enable a dog to breed in a country where it would otherwise fail to meet the requirements for breeding approval.

The Qaiser van’t Stokerybos Case Continues

Following the publication of our blog post, “Qaiser van’t Stokerybos – A Case of Huge Stud Dog Fraud?” a subtle but consequential change appeared on the official website of the Balihara Ranch kennel.

The kennel’s owner updated the profile of Qaiser van’t Stokerybos, adding language intended to explain his role in her breeding program. Paradoxically, this update does not refute our findings. On the contrary, it confirms the central point we raised: that Qaiser was physically present at Balihara Ranch and was used to breed females there, despite never having obtained breeding approval in Slovakia—the country in which Balihara Ranch operates and whose breeding regulations it is obligated to follow.

This is not a matter of interpretation. These are statements published directly on the Balihara Ranch website.

What Exactly Appeared on the Balihara Ranch Website

In the updated profile, Qaiser van’t Stokerybos is described as “OUR GUEST,” with the following assertions:

• the dog was physically present at the kennel,
• he was used “for breeding of some of our females,”
• “extra health testing” was conducted on him there, and
• the breeder expresses gratitude for the opportunity “to have him here to breed our females.”

These formulations matter. They do not describe a one-off show visit, artificial insemination using frozen semen, or a symbolic collaboration. They describe the real, physical presence of the dog at Balihara Ranch and his active use as a stud dog.

Why This Matters

According to publicly available records, Qaiser van’t Stokerybos was registered in the Slovak studbook in 2017 and subsequently recorded as an export to Estonia in January 2019, where he has since been listed under an Estonian registration number.

At the same time:

• he has multiple litters registered in the Slovak studbook,
• he was used to breed females at Balihara Ranch after that export, and
• the kennel owner herself now publicly confirms that the dog was physically present at her facility and was used to breed her females.

These three layers—the dog’s registration in the Slovak studbook, his subsequent registration in Estonia, and his documented physical presence at Balihara Ranch—create a contradiction that cannot be reconciled without raising serious questions.

When the “Explanation” Confirms the Problem

The apparent purpose of the website update was to respond to public criticism and present Qaiser van’t Stokerybos’s involvement as a legitimate stud loan. Yet the published text confirms that the dog was physically present at Balihara Ranch and actively used as a stud dog to breed the kennel’s females.

The issue is not the loan of a stud dog itself, which is standard practice in the breeding world. The issue is how that status was used—as a mechanism for long-term, repeated breeding activity within a Slovak breeding operation, without subjecting the dog to the Slovak approval processes that would normally apply to a dog permanently used in breeding there.

At this point, the “guest” designation ceases to resemble a standard form of cooperation between breeders and instead begins to look like a purpose-built construct that enabled the circumvention of breeding regulations through the dog’s formal classification as foreign-based.

In this light, the Qaiser van’t Stokerybos case moves beyond an individual dispute and into the realm of systemic abuse of the rules designed to regulate breeding practices.

And that is no longer just about one dog.

This context becomes even more consequential given that the owner of Balihara Ranch has long served as an international FCI judge and, in the recent past, also held the position of breed advisor for Swiss Mountain Dogs in Slovakia.

These roles carry not only technical expertise but also responsibility for rule compliance and transparency in breeding operations. For that very reason, the discrepancies between official registrations and the dog’s actual use raise questions that extend far beyond a single kennel.