Designating a dog as a “guest” is a standard form of cooperation among breeders. It loses its legitimate character, however, when an administrative classification is used to evade the rules of the country where the dog is physically present and routinely used for breeding. As detailed in Part I, the case raises fundamental questions about how breeding oversight functions in practice.

Why the Qaiser van’t Stokerybos Case Is Not an Exception, but a Symptom

The update to the Balihara Ranch website regarding Qaiser van’t Stokerybos, a Bernese Mountain Dog, does not merely expose an inconsistency within a single breeding operation. It reveals a mechanism that exists within the dog breeding system—and one that remains largely unchecked.

That mechanism can be summarized simply:
the dog moves on paper, not in reality.

Paper Exports Versus Physical Reality

In canine breeding practice, exporting a dog to another country has a clear meaning. It entails a change of jurisdiction, a change in oversight, and a change in the rules governing how that dog may be used in breeding.

The Qaiser case shows that, in practice, these layers do not have to align. A dog may be administratively recorded in a foreign registry while being physically present in a Slovak breeding operation and routinely used to breed females there. The resulting litters are then entered into the Slovak studbook because they were born on Slovak territory—without any of the relevant authorities systematically verifying whether the dog’s administrative registration corresponds to the reality of its breeding use.

In practical terms, breeding activity is governed by the place where the dog is physically located and used for breeding, while its administrative affiliation may be recorded elsewhere—without any obligation to reconcile these two realities or to verify their consistency.

Why This Is a Problem

If it is possible to:

• bypass national breeding rules through a simple “paper transfer” of a dog,
• retain full control over the dog regardless of its official registry, and
• produce litters without meaningful oversight,

then the entire system of studbooks ceases to serve a protective function.
It becomes an administrative backdrop – a façade.

What This Case Says About the System

The Qaiser van’t Stokerybos case demonstrates that:

• there is no effective control over the physical presence of stud dogs,
• there is no mechanism to verify where a dog is actually being used for breeding, and
• there is no feedback loop between national registries.

This creates an ideal environment for breeding operations that seek to:

• maximize the use of a single dog,
• circumvent restrictions, and
• simultaneously present themselves as formally “compliant with the rules.”

Why This Matters to Everyday Buyers

For buyers, an “FCI dog” is synonymous with oversight, quality, and trust. The Qaiser van’t Stokerybos case shows, however, that the FCI designation alone does not guarantee that rules were followed in practice—only that paperwork was completed.

That is a fundamental difference.

This Is Not About One Dog

This article is not an attack on a particular dog, nor is it an emotionally driven accusation. It is a warning about a systemic reality:

If a system allows paperwork to be used as a substitute for reality, it fails in its oversight role. It does not create protection—it creates only the illusion of control.

The Qaiser van’t Stokerybos case is just one of the few that have come to light.
Not because it is exceptional.
But because someone began asking questions and connecting the dots.