FOCUS GROUP - BULLETIN 10
(published with permission)
This Bulletin provides a brief recap of previous Bulletins and, where appropriate, highlights results. It further focuses on responses to, and developments subsequent to, Bulletin Nos. 8 and 9
BULLETIN NO. 1
This Bulletin reported on the informal meeting held on 16 February 2008 in Gauteng in the wake of KUSA's controversial decision to commission comparisons of KUSA vs FCI breed standards. This exercise was perceived by many to signal the end of KUSA's moratorium on FCI breed standard adoption and the start of the process to achieve “full parity” with all things FCI. The informal meeting was attended by approximately sixty people and those present declared themselves overwhelmingly in favour of KUSA's reverting to Associate Membership of the FCI.
KUSA has resolutely stuck to its guns that the breed standard comparisons had not been commissioned with any other motive than to assist the KUSA staff, or the President (depending on who's telling the story), to deal with questions from the public/to supplement KUSA's internal records (again, depending on who's defending the action, and for what purpose). Whatever the case, Mr Eva has since admitted – in Cape Town , Durban and Port Elizabeth – that the commissioning of the comparisons had been “a mistake”. At these gatherings he also apologised for the confusion and distress this undertaking has caused.
Perhaps the people who are really owed an apology are those who had been charged with the comparisons, for having spent endless hours on a potentially futile pursuit. What will forever remain an unexplained mystery is why, in commissioning the comparisons, they were not requested from the Breed/Group clubs, or from the more prominent breeders concerned.
When asked in Port Elizabeth whether we would be able to see the results of this exercise, the President indicated that he was prepared to make the comparisons public. Although one might have a morbid fascination with examining the results, one wonders whether publishing them would not compound an already embarrassing blunder. We nevertheless await their publication with interest.
BULLETIN NO. 2
This Bulletin featured some of the letters sent to KUSA by clubs concerned about the breed standard comparison exercise. All these clubs were assured that it was merely an administrative exercise, but the Bulletin made the important point that committed breeders and exhibitors like to be kept in the loop when it comes to initiatives involving their breed standards, whether of an administrative nature, or not .
BULLETIN NO. 3
This Bulletin dealt with certain sections of the notorious Circular 808 in which the FCI provides answers to several questions relating to Full vs Associate Membership of the Federation. From Circular 808 it is evident that Associate Members are entitled to substantially the same benefits as Full Members (essentially with the exclusion of a vote in General Assembly) and the answers provided by the FCI unequivocally dispel the popular myth that, if KUSA were to revert to Associate Membership, another organisation might “get in”. Circular 808 also makes it abundantly clear that, as an Associate, KUSA would remain the only organisation enjoying FCI membership with all the benefits and privileges of membership intact.
A number of questions directed at the Focus Group were answered in the Bulletin, including one on the controversial African situation following KUSA's announcement that, given the FCI's new Standing Orders, dogs exported from Zimbabwe, Zambia and East Africa were no longer welcome in KUSA's studbook, but would be going into an “appendix” which KUSA stated it would be “bringing into being”.
The jury is still out on whether the FCI's ruling on dogs imported from other African countries constitutes interference in KUSA's internal affairs, in the same way the jury is out on whether KUSA's being forbidden to add an owner's kennel name as a suffix to the name of an imported dog is interference in its domestic operation.
BULLETIN NO. 4
This Bulletin was devoted to the possible workable compromise of KUSA's reverting to Associate Membership as proposed by Gérard Robinson and set out in a document compiled by him. In Gérard's view, if the process were managed properly, Associated Membership might well enable a negotiated settlement on the adoption of FCI breed standards, and on interference in KUSA's internal affairs, without c au sing prejudice to the activities of any discipline, nationally or internationally.
BULLETIN NO. 5
This Bulletin shared the views of Mrs Lesley Chalmers, former President of the New Zealand Kennel Club on FCI Membership. She makes the comment that “Full Membership is as useless to us as it is to you” and concludes her assessment of the situation with the following: “ Honestly, I think the burning question you guys have to ask is "what benefits does full membership give to us". The simple answer is b........ all!”
BULLETIN NO. 6
Attached to this Bulletin was a commentary on an outdated 2003 KUSA Circular, re-sent to clubs under cover of the President's letter of 19 February 2008, setting out the alleged pros and cons (the “cons” unsurprisingly shining in their absence!) of belonging to the FCI. Some of the dubious claims made in this document were either refuted, or put into proper perspective.
BULLETIN NO. 7
Further questions directed to the Focus Group were answered in Bulletin No. 7, including comment on an earlier KUSA communication, justifying its decision to become a Full Member of the FCI with the argument that the German Shepherd Dog Federation of South Africa (GSDFSA), or the Federation of Boxer Clubs of Southern Africa (FBCSA), or the South African Dog Breeders' Association (SADBA) might be recognised by the FCI.
As clearly articulated in Circular 808, the FCI will not recognise another National Canine Organisation (NCO) in a country where there is an existing NCO already holding Associate Membership, which effectively rules out the SADBA and, since only all-breed NCOs are recognised by the FCI for purposes of membership, it's not clear what threat the GSDFSA, or the FBCSA, could possibly pose. As said before, another myth busted.
BULLETIN NO. 8
At the Western Cape Provincial Council (WCPC) meeting in Cape Town on April 2008, Mr L au rence van der Merwe announced that South Africa had been invited to host the 2012 Agility World Championships (AWC) and, in consequence, we had to remain Full Members of the FCI to host the event. The Minutes of that Meeting reflect the exact statement:
L van der Merwe tabled the information that South Africa has been invited to host the WORLD AGILITY EVENT FOR 2012. This was a great honour and it would be essential for the Kennel Union to be Full Members of the FCI to hold this event as only Full Members could host an FCI International Event . South Africa has won the World Competition on two previous occasions.
In view of this announcement, the Focus Group essentially probed the following two questions in its Bulletin No. 8:
a) Whether Full Membership of a National Canine Organisation (NCO) was indeed a prerequisite for hosting the AWC; and
b) Given South Africa 's and other countries' health (quarantine) regulations, and factors such as cost of equipment, venues, accommodation, crime, etc., whether it was indeed feasible and/or practicable for South Africa to host the AWC.
When the Focus Group was unable to trace any Full Membership requirement for hosting the AWC in the FCI's Statutes, its Standing Orders or its Agility Regulations, an enquiry was lodged with KUSA. KUSA was also unable to point to such a requirement and, in turn, undertook to check with the FCI in Belgium . The FCI responded, merely quoting its own Regulation:
“C. FCI WORLD AGILITY CHAMPIONSHIPS
1 Organisation
The World Agility Championships are organised annually. The winners will gain the title ‘World Agility Champion(s)'
Any NCO wanting to organise the ‘World Agility Championships' must apply five years in advance. Applications must be sent to the chairman of the FCI Agility Committee. As a rule, the date for the World Championship, is the first weekend of October. The FCI Agility Committee must approve any deviation from this date. Applications should include the following details:
- Name of the NCO including n ame and address of the official running the event
- Place where the event is planned
- Description and plan of the facilities
- Confirmation that everything will be carried out according to the Specifications for the World Championships
Description of the facilities and ring chosen for the event as well as the available resources, which must meet the ‘Specifications for the World Agility Championships' attached to these regulations.
The World Agility Championship is an event in which the top handlers of FCI member countries take part. The organising country should give this event the prestige befitting the ‘World Championships'.”
From the above it should be clear that there is no Full Membership requirement at all and, in fact, that any National Canine Organisation can apply for, and be awarded, the hosting of the AWC. Those who attended the meeting in Cape Town were therefore misled by Mr Van der Merwe, apparently resulting in the stalling of a democratic voting process in the council.
Moreover, despite the Focus Group's open appeal to Mr Van der Merwe to provide proof that South Africa had indeed been invited to host the AWC in 2012, nothing has been forthcoming from either him, or from KUSA. In accordance with the FCI's regulations (see above), KUSA, as the NCO, should have applied to host the AWC five years in advance , in other words, some time during 2007.
The Focus Group therefore calls upon KUSA to confirm that it had made such written application in the course of 2007, and on Mr Van der Merwe (or KUSA) to provide proof that this has resulted in an invitation being extended to South Africa to host the 2012 AWC as alleged at the WCPC meeting.
The Focus Group received a number of responses to its Bulletin No. 8:
From Philip Kleijnhans, Convenor for the National Agility Sub-Committee and Chairman of DOGSPC Sub-Committee for Agility, Dog Jumping and Flyball :
Due to the fact that I was part of the team that competed at the AWC in Basel , Switzerland in 2006, I attended the traditional FCI Conference, on behalf of KUSA, after the competition.
It was I who registered our interest to host the 2012 AWC. It was also I that witnessed the enthusiasm from all the countries present when I originated our desire to host the event.
I acknowledge all the obstacles you record in your bulletin.
I had no doubt that a professional events organizing company will have to be appointed to arrange this event, supported by the agility fraternity with advice and guidance regarding the technical aspects. I also realized that major sponsorship for an event like that would be required.
I specifically selected a post 2010 year, which is going to be the acid test for this country to host an event of considerably more magnitude and complexity - and we would hopefully have learnt a lot from the experience.
The idea of hosting the AWC is full of challenges in varying degrees of difficulty. The most challenging, undoubtedly, would be the veterinary restrictions (which we have three years to attempt to mitigate and try and resolve).
I admit that I am somewhat of an idealist and I often find myself in situations where "fools rush in where angels fear to tread", but looking back, my stats shows that I have succeeded more times than failing – so I am hoping that the hosting of 2012 can still be possible.
After reading the bulletin, I realize once again how difficult it will be – but not impossible. Do I have any support out there…?
Although some of the impediments to hosting an event such as the AWC in South Africa were highlighted in Bulletin No. 8, this was not the communication's primary focus. The crucial question interrogated in the Bulletin was whether KUSA needed to be a Full Member of the FCI in order to host the AWC . As it turned out, Full Membership is not a requirement, so yet another myth bites the dust.
Needless to say, if South Africa were to be awarded the 2012 AWC despite the quarantine and other considerations, I'm sure Philip will find the entire dog fraternity united behind our Agility team.
From Sue Melvin (Melhaven Saluki):
I would just like to ask a question: Whilst this whole FCI issue seems to be quite concerned with the Agility aspect, how many of the Agility exhibitors are members of KUSA. To my knowledge the majority of Working disciplines are not members, therefore why are they having say in the whole issue of FCI?
Sue's question was put to KUSA and the Focus Group received the following response from Mr Eva:
Your message of 21 st April 208 concerning an enquiry from Sue Melvin refers.
We, unfortunately, are unable to supply the statistics you require as we do not keep that particular record. We roughly think that it is a fairly low percentage, although this particular area has a potential for rapid growth.
Judges certainly would have to be KUSA members as are all other judges. In line with the present Constitution, participants do not necessarily have to belong to KUSA .
In the President's own estimation, a fairly low percentage of Agility enthusiasts are KUSA members, in other words, pay subs to KUSA and avail themselves of KUSA's remunerable services. While the voices of the “low percentage” of KUSA members involved exclusively in the Working disciplines obviously have every right to be heard, one is inclined to question to what extent the opinion of people whose commitment to KUSA is limited to, at best, belonging to a KUSA-affiliated club should guide the status of the organisation's international affiliations.
What is so perplexing is that some Agility enthusiasts are convinced that KUSA's reversion to Associate Membership would somehow change something for them when, in fact, nothing will change – and certainly not South Africa 's eligibility to host the AWC.
From Rob Hewitt:
We would appreciate knowing who are the au thor/s and members of the Focus Group Bulletins.
At the moment we consider them anonymous and therefore no credibility can be attached to any of these bulletins, nor will we forward to any other parties – notwithstanding that the bulletins may be of interest.
The names of the Focus Group members were fully disclosed in the first Bulletin and, as from Bulletin No. 9, form part of the standard sign-off. Mr Hewitt is obviously welcome not to attach credibility to the Bulletins, and not to forward them to other parties. If in doubt about the veracity of the content of the Bulletins, all Mr Hewitt needs to do is to exercise the UNSUBSCRIBE option.
BULLETIN NO. 9
The vexed “African question” came under scrutiny in this Bulletin in view of the FCI's instruction that KUSA were not to accept dogs born in other African countries into its registry . The acceptability of such a paternalistic and, frankly, meddlesome instruction was questioned in the Bulletin in view of the Federal Council's guarantee to the membership: “The Federal Council also guarantees its members that it will not allow any interference in KUSA affairs by an outside body.”
Also featured in this Bulletin was an Official Statement from the Zimbabwe Kennel Club (ZKC), making it clear that the ZKC had no intention of re-joining the FCI as member of any description . KUSA's dilemma in terms of dogs born in Zimbabwe therefore remains, as does its predicament regarding Zambian imports. Whereas KUSA's relationship with the ZKC is based on years of cooperation given its historical ties with the former Rhodesia , there is written agreement of mutual recognition in place between KUSA and the Kennel Association of Zambia (KAZ). The ball is therefore in KUSA's court: Does it honour its historical and contractual relationships with its Northern neighbours, or heed the instruction of a Belgian-based federation which clearly has no concept of the sacrifice and hardship of Zimbabweans and Zambians trying to preserve what is left of pure-bred dogs against overwhelming odds?
The Namibian problem also came under the spotlight in Bulletin No. 9. Unlike with Zimbabwe and Zambia , KUSA has been acting as the registry for Namibian-born dogs. If the FCI's instruction were to be obeyed, KUSA would obviously no longer be able to fulfil that registration function on behalf of another sovereign African state.
Soon after Bulletin No. 9 had been disseminated, Mr Eva sent the following Notice to the members of Fedco and Exco:
TO ALL MEMBERS OF
THE FEDERAL COUNCIL
AND
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NAMIBIA
This is to advise that the General Committee of the FCI, at its recent meeting held in Madrid and based on correspondence submitted by this office, have agreed the following:
The Kennel Union of Southern Africa will continue to register dogs living in Namibia until such time as that country is able to form its own national kennel club. The status quo thus remains in place with regard to our present relationship with that country.
Greg Eva
G R EVA
PRESIDENT
KENNEL UNION OF SA
Although this development is to be appl au ded, it's sadly yet another moratorium. We'll nevertheless keep an eye open for the official announcement of this concession in the FCI Magazine.
So when will Namibia form its own national kennel club? Well…?
Namibia temporarily settled, where does this leave KUSA members resident in Swaziland , Botswana , Lesotho and Mozambique ? The Focus Group has already received an enquiry from Clinton Clark of the Von Nickli Long-haired Dachshunds, who lives in Swaziland , as to the registration of puppies born in Swaziland . Being literate, Clinton obviously fully understands the meaning of “ The South African Kennel Club (KUSA) (sic) is not permitted to accept any dogs born in other African States into its pedigree book .”
Clinton was advised to direct his enquiry to KUSA and we might be able to report on the fate of KUSA members resident in other independent African states in a future Bulletin.
----oooOooo----
This e-mail is sent to you in order to promote a better understanding of the issues which concern a large number of breeders, exhibitors and Working discipline enthusiasts.
If you do not wish to receive follow-up communications from the Focus Group, please reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line . Simply also use the “reply” function for all communications to the Focus Group.
Yours sincerely,
Focus Group
(The Focus Group was formed at an informal meeting in G au teng on 16 February 2008 with a mandate to provide KUSA members and others on its distribution list with relevant information to help raise awareness and promote a better understanding of the issues which influence the administration of governance of dogdom in South Africa . Those charged with the research and dissemination of information by the meeting are Francesca Browning-Cristina, Jackie Browning, Lucienne Ferres, Ron Juckes, Philip Kleijnhans and Gérard Robinson. Comments and/or questions to the Focus Group are welcome.)
