FOCUS GROUP - BULLETIN 11
(published with permission)
This Bulletin provides another perspective on “Country of Origin” breed standards and features a passionate appeal to the Dog Athletics fraternity.
Dear Breeders, Exhibitors and Working Discipline Enthusiasts,
It is well documented that the Focus Group was formed on 16 February 2008 at in informal meeting in G au teng in response to KUSA's having commissioned comparisons of FCI vs KC (and other) breed standards from certain people in the dog world. Although denied by KUSA, this exercise was perceived by many to signal the start of the process to comply with KUSA's obligations as a Federated FCI Member, including the adoption of FCI breed standards for all recognised breeds. The moratorium on full conversion granted by the FCI to KUSA had, after all, already been in force for fifteen years.
The FCI standards are so-called “Country of Origin” standards or, where the origin of a breed is uncertain, “Country of Development or Patronage” standards. This may all sound peachy, but the result of accepting standards from a veritable Babel of tongues, traditions, levels of socio-economic development and cynological predisposition presents its own problems. Contrived to fit the FCI's so-called “ Jerusalem format”, these standards often end up as pedantic, verbose and overly-prescriptive descriptions, obsessed with heights, weights and proportions. Translated into English, sections of text frequently emerge as what might, at best, be called unintelligible and, at worst, gibberish.
Although FCI member countries are obliged to adopt the FCI's “Country of Origin” standards, these frequently ungainly and turgid documents are certainly not revered by all breeders and judges in FCI countries. For instance, it is no secret that the Latin American countries merely pay lip-service to FCI standards while exhibiting, and winning with, dogs predominantly conforming to American standards. Even in dyed-in-the-wool FCI countries there are dissident voices when it comes to FCI standards and one such is the voice of Finland 's Kirsti Lummelampi.
Kirsti has been an FCI judge since 1985 and is currently approved to judge FCI Groups 3, 4, 6 (except Finnish Hounds, as the breed club requires conformation judges to be approved to judge Hunting Trials as well, which she is not), 9 and 10, and several breeds in FCI Groups 1, 2 and 5. She is the President of the Finnish Toy Dog Association (FTDA), the largest breed club affiliated to the Finnish Kennel Club in terms of registrations. The FTDA's registrations account for almost 7% of the Finnish Kennel Club's annual registrations (in the region of 50 000 dogs last year) and represents 23 traditional Toy and Utility breeds. Kirsti is also a member of the Finnish Kennel Club's Board of Directors.
In granting the Focus Group permission to reproduce and disseminate an article she had written in 2005, Kirsti requested that it be pointed out to the readers that the opinions expressed in the article are her personal opinions and that they do not represent the Finnish Kennel Club's official position.
FCI Breed Standards:
The Stranglehold of the "Country of Origin"
The President's Column 1/2005
by
Kirsti Lummelampi
Sometimes FCI breed standards change more often than people change the models of their cars. Why?
Since Finland is a member of the International Cynological Federation or the FCI, it has to follow the FCI breed standard even if these standards may not have much to do with the breed's historical development -- or even if they do not always make much sense.
The problem stems from one of the FCI's basic principles: that the breed's country of origin determines the breed standard. Under this principle, outsiders have preciously little to say on which country is adopted as the country of origin. This, in turn, has led to situations where the breed's population may be much larger and its quality higher elsewhere than in its official country of origin.
As the FCI is a motley collection of countries with wide differences in their traditions of pure-bred dogs, the skill and knowledge in drawing up breed standards that can stand the test of time and avoid addressing passing fashions and fads, is equally variable. Besides, all too often local politics seem to carry too much weight when amendments to breed standards are drafted.
An good illustration of the “political” influence on breed standards is the FCI standard for the Pomeranian, which is included in the German Spitz standard as adopted by Germany for all “German Spitz” breeds from the Keeshond to the Pomeranian. This in spite of the fact that the breed was developed in England in the Victorian era and first introduced into Germany as late as 1974.
Germany 's influence is explained by its strong historical position within the FCI as one of the few continental European founding members. As a result, the rest of us have to follow the German standard, and our Poms have been lumped with the other Spitz breeds into the Spitz group rather than the Toy group. Over the years, few serious breeders have been contemplating importing breeding stock in Pomeranians from the FCI-designated “country of origin”, and, Ironically enough, Germans have been importing Poms from the English-speaking world in recent years to ensure that their dogs are competitive as the toy dogs known elsewhere as Pomeranians.
In the so-called “superpowers” in the dog world (Britain, the United States, Australia), breed standards were written to stand the test of time for decades to come, and the objective of breeding pure-bred dogs was to seek perfection as described in the breed standard. In many FCI countries, on the other hand, breed standards seem to change more often than people change the model of their cars as breeds standards are moulded to fit the dogs that have been produced rather than vice versa.
You don't have to look far for examples, especially as the last few years have seen a spate of new breed standards. In the just two decades, several breed standards have been changed 3-4 times. Here are a few examples:
• The Chihuahuas have now their third breed standard as Mexico has used its prerogative as the country of origin to determine what the valid standard should be at any given time. The first of these three standards described dogs that we have come to know as typical in Finland as well as in Britain , where Chihuahuas have traditionally been a strong breed. By the time the second version was published, Mexicans had concluded that Chihuahuas should be shorter, leggier dogs as often seen in the United States . With this change, ruby eyes and flat tails were omitted, although the flat tail has been reintroduced in the latest standard. Meanwhile, health experts question whether a Chihuahua weighing 0.5 kilos, as allowed by the standard, ever could be a sound representative of the breed or a freak of a dog.
• In Germany , the 1974 German Spitz standard covering the Pomeranian did not recognize black and tan Pomeranians, which are not allowed in Britain . In the next version published in 1990, this color combination was accepted, but an old but rare color, blue, was dropped. The next version of the breed standard was published in 1998.
• The Lowchen standard, too, has been stretched and reshaped several times by the French. In the 1990's, brown (explained as chocolate or liver) and its derivatives were disallowed, only to be reintroduced in the new standard published last year. As a novelty, the new standard contains a long list of “eliminating faults” ranging from small or almond-shaped eyes to a missing incisive or ears that are not long enough or do not have a fringe! If a poor judge were to follow this standard to the letter, he or she might not have any dogs left to give awards to! And poor breeders would not have many award-winning dogs to use in their breeding programs in a breed that is numerically small worldwide.
To top it all, the breed's proportions has been changed and are now described in the same terms as those of the Fox Terrier (“height at withers equals the distance from the point of shoulder to the point of buttock”). Perhaps it would be appropriate to ask how breeders can keep up with the changes (although the FCI nowadays sends the amended breed standards to the national kennel clubs a few months before they take effect rather than after they have already come into force.) Does anyone seriously believe that breeders can change a breed overnight to accommodate the whims of the latest breed standard?
• A lot of arm twisting has also been going on in the case of the Schipperke , with the country of origin, Belgium, insisting that the Schipperke's undocked tail should be carried like the Belgian Shepherd's. The Nordic countries, where tail-docking has been banned for several years, argued that undocked tails on dogs produced out of Nordic, French, British, South African or Australian dogs are spitz-type tails, set high and carried neatly over the back. They tried to show that producing Belgian Shepherd-type tails is impossible – unless you produce shy dogs carrying their tails tucked between their legs! Since then, a small concession has been made and spitz-type tails are now tolerated but not desired.
• The FCI Havanese standard is in a class of its own. For years, solid black or any black color in the coat was a disqualifying f au lt. According to the Chairman of the FCI Breed Standards Commission at the time, black color in the Havanese meant that the dogs were not genetically pure-bred Havanese. It took only a few determined German breeders to embark on a campaign to change the breed standard, and lo and behold, black Havanese suddenly became pure-bred and acceptable under the FCI standard.
If you look at the process of drafting and approving breed standards in countries such as Britain and the United States on the one hand and the FCI on the other, the only conclusion one can draw is that while those two “superpowers” in the pure-bred dog world write their breed standards with due deliberation to describe the ideal dog in its breed, in the FCI, the writing and approval of breed standards is suffering from a strangle hold of the breed's “country of origin” which leaves breeders around the world at the mercy of sometimes small but powerful cliques.
Today's sport of pure-bred dogs is highly international. Elsewhere, borders separating nations and political blocks are fast disappearing. One would expect the same development would apply to the dog world and to breed standards.
A few feeble attempts toward universally acceptable breed standards have been made – with very little progress. The English Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club and the FCI agreed at their meeting as far back as in 1996 that a manual listing the differences in the breed standards by the three organizations would be produced. This manual was then to be translated into the official FCI languages (ie. English, German, French and Spanish) and distributed to the members. So far, there has been no sign of such a manual!
And one should not expect universal breed standards as long as the FCI remains as weak and inefficient an organization and as exposed to the whims of its individual member countries as it is today.
Copyright © The Finnish Toy Dog Association & Kirsti Lummelampi 2005
It seems that the Focus Group's Bulletin No. 9, which examined the implications of the alleged invitation to South Africa to host the 2012 Agility World Championships, and the responses featured in Bulletin No. 10, especially that from Sue Melvin, stirred up a proverbial hornets' nest. It resulted in totally unfounded accusations from some Agility enthusiasts in private e-mails that the discipline was under threat of being marginalised by breed people. All the Focus Group did was to challenge false statements made in the Western Cape Provincial Council and, having seen some of the ridiculous claims in the e-mails flying around, one is tempted to ask what part of KUSA DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A FULL MEMBER OF THE FCI TO HOST THE AWC do Agility enthusiasts fail to understand. As for Sue Melvin's response, from a KUSA member's perspective, might it be fair comment under the circumstances? If you're a keen golfer, you can pay your green fees and have a round on the course of any golf club in the country. However, that doesn't make you eligible to vote at that club's' AGM.
Joy McFarlane of Fleetwind Saluki fame, Western Cape Provincial Council Member, and owner of the Showdogs website, had obviously also read some of the correspondence and submitted this eloquent and passionate appeal to our Dog Athletics Enthusiasts:
Dear Dog Athletics Enthusiasts
I've read and heard a couple of concerns expressed by enthusiasts of Dog Athletics and feel the need to throw a few opinions into the pot.
While dissensions over various FCI restrictions have c au sed emotions to flare up several times in the past, followed by their suppression each time, the latest issues have reawakened certain fears of FCI prescriptive intervention into practices steeped in years and years of research, experience and considerable amounts of money. While this issue may seem trivial to those not so particularly involved, the potential consequences are enormous to all those currently trying to find a solution.
Please take special note of the last three words in the previous sentence - that's what we're trying to do: find a solution . This does not imply sweeping everything under the mat again in the hopes that it will mysteriously disappear, nor does it mean that any particular interest group needs to be compromised. It does mean that every KUSA member and Dog Athletics enthusiast has the right to give input and offer suggestions to help create a fully equitable solution. One possible solution is to revert to Associate Membership, a possibility that has been thoroughly researched by dedicated KUSA Members such as Gerard Robinson, and his findings have been made available through Focus Group bulletins, which are freely available - either sent by email to a very extensive email list or on both websites ( www.showdogs.co.za and www.dogworld.co.za ).
Standing in the way of the above-mentioned solution, have been several "red herrings" such as the one that holds that Associated Member countries may not host the Agility World Championships. Through careful and thorough investigation, Gerard was able to establish, via official FCI and KUSA sources, that, in fact, there is no such restriction . This implies that, even if it is found that reverting to Associate Membership is a viable solution that holds benefit for all roleplayers in this country, it is still completely possible for South Africa to host a Agility World Championships. While there has been a lot of correspondence around the logistical constraints involved in planning such a world event, those are entirely different issues and should not form part of or influence this particular discussion.
It is a fact that few Dog Athletics enthusiasts are also members of KUSA. I also understand that there's currently very little point in being a member. Ironically, many Breed Show exhibitors are also not members... so what! While the Focus Group has been working hard to find solutions on behalf of KUSA members, I don't think they will ever turn away sound reasoning and input from dedicated enthusiasts who are not KUSA members. As members of KUSA-affiliated clubs, Dog Athletics enthusiasts should have access to problem-solving and decision-making structures that work via Provincial Councils to Fedco, which is fine - keep up your hard work! And yes, even if there were only one KUSA member amongst all the Dog Athletics folk - that voice will be heard.... just speak up!
The bottom line: there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever to feel repugnance or fear of an "us-and-them" situation where Dog Athletics supporters are seen as non-stakeholders. No such disparity exists , nor should it be encouraged. There is no attempt to waiver anyone's rights and no-one is making any demands. There is no hint of disrespect and certainly no attempt to marginalise any sector.
It's quite normal to be suspicious of groups outside of one's regular level of experience and it's human nature to build barriers when a threat is perceived. When one starts to chip through those barriers, one discovers that f au lty perceptions mask essentially identical motivation - a common goal to find a better way to enjoy and protect our sport. At this time, everyone involved in dog sport - the athletic dog sports as well as breed conformation events - need to start pulling together to find an equitable solution that maintains most if not all of the privileges to which we have grown accustomed, yet preserves our right to forge ahead without external interference.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - it is every individual's responsibility to arm themselves with factual information and not allow themselves to be carried away on the wings of emotional rumour.
Just my honest opinion and an appeal for us all to work together for a common goal.
Joy McFarlane
Western Cape Provincial Council Representative
----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.)
