FOCUS GROUP - BULLETIN 2
(published with permission)
Dear Breeders, Exhibitors and Working Discipline Enthusiasts
The introductory mail from the Focus Group elicited an overwhelming response. Many people expressed their appreciation for the initiative and wished the Focus Group well in its endeavours to disseminate information about our relationship with the FCI and to pursue possible solutions pertaining to our affiliation. Many of us require greater flexibility in the relationship with the FCI in order to accommodate the aspirations and visions of all the dog folk in South Africa, not only a select few. We believe that all the supporters of the dog fancy, in all its manifestations, are entitled to equal consideration by the South African governing body.
A number of concerns have been expressed by those involved in the Working Disciplines about the implications of KUSA's possible reversion to Associate Membership of the FCI. We are currently collating all the questions sent to the Focus Group in response to its first mailing and shall deal with them in the next Bulletin. If there are other questions or concerns from Working Disciplines enthusiasts, please don't hesitate to send them to the Focus Group. We don't profess to have all the answers, but we'll do our best to obtain relevant and accurate information. Philip Kleijnhans, Convener of the National Agility Sub-Committee is part of the Focus Group and he is committed to ensuring that the interests of the Working people are protected.
KUSA, as most people are aware, has a club-driven pyramid structure. All breeds, group, sub-group and specialist clubs have representation on the Councils of their “provinces” and each of the Provincial Councils (Provcos) has one representative on KUSA's Federal Council (Fedco), except the District of Gauteng and Surrounds Provincial Council (DOGSPC), which has two. For any matter to be discussed at Federal Council level, it has to be put forward by a club and pass through its Provincial Council. Most matters are obviously resolved at Provco level and only those considered to be of national importance are granted a safe passage to Fedco.
Since KUSA is the custodian of the breed standards applied by our judges, clubs and individuals are at liberty to make a direct appeal to KUSA on breed standard-related matters. KUSA's recent commissioning of comparisons between its remaining Kennel Club standards and their FCI counterparts, perceived by many to be the first step towards KUSA's fulfilling its obligations to the FCI by achieving full parity with its standards, is a case in point. When clubs were alerted to the undertaking, a number of them reacted by sending letters of protest to KUSA.
Four clubs have given the Focus Group permission to share their letters with the distribution list in order to assist those faced with a similar situation in future:
The Schnauzer Club of Gauteng:
Dear Sir,
Re: F.C.I. Breed Standard – Min. Schnauzers
We have been advised that the Min. Schnauzer breed standard is one of those being scrutinized by a group of people appointed by yourself and/or KUSA, to establish the differences between the FCI standard, and the KUSA standard currently in place.
We are given to understand that this exercise is being undertaken for the purpose of determining reasons why the KUSA breed standards for various breeds including ours, which are not FCI standards, should not be changed to the FCI standard.
The suggestion that the FCI standard for the Min. Schnauzer may be adopted has always been anathema to our club and our members and we hereby lodge our strongest objection to KUSA considering this prospect. Our reasons are as follows.
1. We would first like to know who is scrutinizing the Min. Schnauzer breed standard.
· Have the people concerned any first-hand breed knowledge?
· Are they breeders of Min. Schnauzers?
· If not, do they have first-hand knowledge of the nuances of the breed?
We would like to place on record that at no time was the club approached for input on this matter, nor asked to nominate breeders with expert knowledge of the Min. Schnauzer to give informed opinion in this respect.
2. There are significant differences in the wording and construction of the two breed standards. One obvious difference is the acceptance of the white colour in the FCI standard. White is an aberrant colour in this breed and there is sufficient information in the literature to justify this opinion. The fact that FCI have accepted white as a colour in the Min. Schnauzer does not make it acceptable to breeders, nor justification for changing the colour requirements of the KUSA breed standard.
3. Many areas of the FCI breed standard have differences in the requirements for those sections, as compared with the KUSA standards. These differences can be substantiated if required.
4. As breeders a considerable amount of time and money has been invested in the development of the Miniature Schnauzer in South Africa, based on the KUSA breed standard. This exercise has been very successful and today the breed is very strong.
5. Breeders will not accept that all their efforts and financial input is to be discarded by the demands of an organization which is not South African, and to which as a club, we never wished to belong.
6. In our opinion, KUSA should be protecting its members, its clubs and its breed standards from any demands or requirements of foreign organizations which have absolutely no jurisdiction over us. KUSA should refuse to allow the FCI to demand compliance – this is a foreign organization with no ties to our country or our dogs and the reasons for belonging to the FCI are inexplicable.
If being a member of FCI requires that we should sacrifice our independence, our breed standards and the ability of KUSA to make its own decisions, it is our opinion that membership of the FCI should be cancelled and abandoned with immediate effect.
We intend to take whatever measures are deemed necessary to protect our existing (KUSA) breed standard from any unilateral attempt to change it to the FCI standard.
We reserve the right to add to, or amend our submission in respect of this matter at any future time.
Yours faithfully,
PETER ROBINSON
CHAIRMAN
SCHNAUZER CLUB OF GAUTENG
The South African Dachshund Club:
Dear Sir,
DACHSHUND BREED STANDARD
It is with great concern that we learn that your organization is undertaking a comparison between the official breed standards as laid out by KUSA at present, and the FCI, which would infer that KUSA would entertain the possibility of changing the existing standard.
Our Club has, over the past nearly 70 years been striving to maintain the Breed Standard of the Kennel Club in the United Kingdom. We consider it would be very detrimental to the Dachshund breed to convert to the standard laid down by the FCI, which is based on the German standard.
The majority of our serious breeders have staked years and capital in an effort to maintain and enhance the breed as they see it, and the Club annually invites reputable overseas judges to officiate at our Championship Show so that our breeders can be assured of a proper assessment of their breeding programme. Possibly more than any other breed, Dachshunds in South Africa would be severely affected by adopting the FCI standard. It is critically different to the KUSA standard in several areas, and to adopt that standard could spell the death knell of the breed as we know it today.
I am sure that with careful consideration, your organization will appreciate and condone our Club's point of view.
Yours faithfully,
P Sonnenschein
Secretary
The Golden City Poodle Club:
Dear Mr. Eva,
I have been instructed by my committee to request you to provide clarification to the club regarding the matter of your tasking various people to compare current KUSA breed standards with those in force with the FCI, i.e Country of Origin standards.
The club is alarmed by this, especially in view of the fact that no-one from either the Club, or any Poodle breeder, has been asked for their opinion or has been asked by you to supply you with any information in this regard. You can be assured that the Club and the breeders are in possession of an incredible amount of research regarding the different breed standards applicable to Poodles the world over and it would have been a very simple task to supply this to KUSA.
However, we need to ask you why this is being done, as the purpose of this is not very clear. Is this because the FCI wishes to ensure that all member countries adhere to the standards as adopted by them? And if so, what exactly is the position of the Kennel Union in this regard? (We refer you to your letter dated July 3 2003, ref GRE/BD/562)
We understand that neither Exco nor Fedco has requested this comparison and, as you may appreciate, when KUSA first became members of the FCI, we were guaranteed that our breed standard would never be in jeopardy of being changed and we must again state that the position adopted by our breeders 15 years ago has not altered.
Your urgent reply to this is appreciated.
Francesca Cristina
Chairman
Cc Chairman DOGSPC
The Dalmatian Club:
Dear Greg
Like a number of other clubs, the Committee of The Dalmatian Club has noted KUSA's commissioning of comparisons between its non-FCI standards and the FCI ones with grave concern. Although this has since been proclaimed to be a purely routine administrative exercise to enable the KUSA office to deal with enquiries, we nevertheless wish to place on record our objection to any attempt, real or perceived, to replace our current standard with the FCI one. Our members will vigorously oppose any move in that direction.
Also, for the record, The Dalmatian Club wishes to point out that we dispute the breed's county of origin as cited in the FCI breed standard. Our contestation of the Croatian Republic (Dalmatia) as the country of origin naturally impacts on the credibility of the entire standard.
Yours sincerely,
Carol Immelman
Chairlady
The Dalmatian Club
These clubs have presumably all been given the same assurance by KUSA, i.e. that the commissioned breed standards comparison was routine administrative exercise on the part of the KUSA office and that it was in no way intended to lead to any changes in the existing standards. Hopefully the clubs in question took comfort from that assurance, but let us also hope that our governing body will take something away from this experience, i.e. 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 . In corporate speak it's probably what's called transparency.
We obviously also invite breed-related questions pertaining to our membership of the FCI to be sent to the Focus Group. It's our intention to deal with any such questions, or concerns, in the next Bulletin.
Yours sincerely,
Focus Group
