In the breeding world, a breeding advisor is one of the most essential figures. They monitor breeding quality, process mating applications, review documentation, and ensure that everything follows established regulations.

That is why it seems unusual when the official website of the Slovak Club of Swiss Mountain Dogs (SKŠSP) publishes an exception rarely seen in common practice: one breeder assigned to two breeding advisors simultaneously.

In a breeding system that normally functions on a simple principle of “one breeder – one advisor,” such a formulation is, quite simply, extraordinary. And once you look closer, this “small detail” on the official club webpage opens up far bigger questions.

Facts That Speak for Themselves

Source: Official website of the Slovak Club of Swiss Mountain Dogs (SKŠSP), article “Territorial Scope of Breeding Advisors” (September 22, 2025)

The published division of responsibilities among the advisors is clear and straightforward:
each advisor has her designated region, clearly defined and fully aligned with standard club practice.

Except for one sentence— and it must be quoted exactly:
“In 2025 and 2026, (Barbora Odstrčilová) together with Terézia Gargušová, also advisory responsibility for breeder Jana Štefancová from the Pezinok district.”

And simultaneously:
“In 2025 and 2026, (Terézia Gargušová) together with Barbora Odstrčilová, also advisory responsibility for breeder Jana Štefancová from the Pezinok district.”

This means:

• a single kennel in the country has two advisors at the same time,
• the exception is explicit, named, and time-bound,
• it applies to no other member of the Slovak Club of Swiss Mountain Dogs,
• it is not a “transition period”; it is a concurrent assignment of two roles.

And even more importantly:

• the newly appointed advisor, Odstrčilová, has no such exception with anyone else,
• no other breeder with a standard number of litters receives double advisory oversight.

This is not a minor footnote.
It is a decision that does not appear in club documentation every year — or even every decade.

What Could Be Behind Such an Exception?

Within the operations of a breeding club, dual assignment of advisors may occur if:

• there is a need to divide an unusually heavy administrative workload,
• an exceptional number of upcoming litters is expected,
• the breeder’s documentation is more complex and requires additional oversight,
• the club needs to ensure continuous capacity support,
• or the kennel’s workload exceeds typical territorial limits.

In other words:
a dual advisory assignment suggests that the club anticipated that handling this breeder’s agenda would exceed the normal workload for a single advisor.

And that is precisely why this lone exception stands out so strikingly.

Why Is This Information Important to the Public?

For the average dog owner, the world of breeding is often romanticized:
puppies, families, photos, beautiful marketing.
But behind the scenes exists a system built on details — and one of those details is the actual workload generated by a single kennel.

And when a breeding club must assign two specialists instead of one to a specific breeder, it paints a picture that is impossible to ignore:

• it is the only such case,
• it is not a coincidence,
• and it is not a minor detail.

It is a symptom of something larger.
What exactly — that is for the reader to consider.

But the facts themselves suggest that this kennel generates a significantly above-average administrative burden, driven by an exceptionally high number of matings and litters.

What Does This Reveal About the System?

In a country where all breeders operate under the straightforward model “one kennel – one advisor,” this case involving the owner of the Balihara Ranch kennel stands out like a beacon, highlighting disparities in workload and organizational structure.

The club is effectively acknowledging that:

• standard rules are insufficient for a certain kennel,
• territorial division sometimes cannot absorb the volume of work,
• and doubling the advisory role becomes the only workable solution.

The fact that this is officially published, black on white, makes it extremely valuable for public discussion.
It is also noteworthy that if this were a kennel with an ordinary number of litters, such dual support would be unnecessary.

The club would not make such a decision without a clear reason — especially not for a single breeder, and certainly not on this scale.
This makes her case genuinely exceptional within the system.

Why This Matters

The officially published document of the Slovak Club of Swiss Mountain Dogs (SKŠSP) revealed a unique detail:
in 2025 and 2026, advisory duties for one breeder — the owner of the Balihara Ranch kennel — will be handled by two breeding advisors simultaneously.

It is the only such case in the entire system.
The fact that the club opted for dual assignment is therefore highly significant.
It signals that the administrative workload connected to Balihara Ranch is extraordinary — so extensive that the club itself determined that a single advisor would not be sufficient.

And that is precisely why this information has the potential to open the eyes of anyone who follows developments in the breeding environment.