FOCUS GROUP - BULLETIN 3
(published with permission)
Dear Breeders, Exhibitors and Working Discipline Enthusiasts,
There seems to be concern in the ranks of the Working Disciplines that their activities might be adversely affected if KUSA were to revert to Associate Membership of the FCI. From the Focus Group's understanding, the answers to the vast majority of the twenty-one questions posed by KUSA to the FCI in 2003, and set out in KUSA's Circular 808 of 25 August 2003, still hold firm. The answers were provided by the FCI's Executive Director and the following three should be of particular interest to the Working Disciplines:
Can we continue to use FCI Regulations for such things as IPO?
Not only that you can, but you have to. One of the conditions under which ALL members (associate or federated) are accepted is the observance of ALL FCI rules and regulations in events held under the aegis of the FCI.
Can we participate in FCI International Events and send individuals and teams to represent KUSA?
Yes, there is no objection to it. FCI Events and Competitions are open to all the FCI members, whether associate or federated, and to contract partners too.
Will the FCI continue to recognize us as the only dog organisation in South Africa, or do we leave ourselves open to having the FCI recognize another organisation?
KUSA will remain the only organisation enjoying membership in South Africa .
In view of the above, it is not clear how the benefits enjoyed by the Working Disciplines under Full Membership differ from those enjoyed under Associate Membership. Is there anybody from the Working fraternity who can shed further light on this? Any additional information, confirmatory or contradictory, will gladly be sent out to all on the distribution list.
Questions of Concerns addressed to the Focus Group:
The Focus Group's first Bulletin elicited a flood of responses, most from well-wishers praising the initiative. The Group also received a few questions which we'll attempt to answer to the best of our knowledge, and based on the most recent information at our disposal.
From Philip Kleijnhans:
I view Agility's risks to be considerable as the situation stands now; I am still not quite sure whether the FCI breed standards may be enforced, even to associate members and there are obviously no guarantees that an acceptable Memorandum of Understanding can be negotiated with FCI. If so, disaffiliation again becomes a strong possibility.
There is, of course, always the possibility that FCI might not be prepared to negotiate on the adoption of FCI breed standards by an Associate Member, but that's thought to be unlikely. Australia and New Zealand have been Associate Members for years and neither country has ever been forced to adopt FCI standards. Despite provisions to the contrary in its Statutes, the FCI appears to have a hands-off approach to Associates. The latter are seemingly left to their own devices and there's minimum interference in the way they conduct their business.
According to Ms Marie Merchant, Chair of three of the Australian National Kennel Council's (ANKC's) standing committees – the National Breed Standards Committee, the National Show Judges' Training Committee and the National Breed Councils Liaison Committee - two sets of “Terms of Agreement”, one supplied by the FCI to the ANKC, and another supplied by the ANKC to the FCI, form the basis for the “agreement” between the ANKC and the FCI. She goes on to say, “ The original agreement between the ANKC and the FCI when the ANKC was a Full Member of the FCI was extremely loose, basically allowing the ANKC to do what it wanted. ”
According to Mr Hugh Gent, President of the ANKC, “We are at present negotiating with the FCI for a new agreement. ” Ms Merchant mentions that the ANKC's old Full Membership agreement will form the basis for the current negotiation.
In view of the above, one would assume that, in its negotiations with the FCI, KUSA would be able to insist, at the very least, on the terms no less favourable that those extended to the ANKC. It would be difficult for the FCI to deny one associate the same terms as extended to another and one would presumably be able to successfully challenge any partisanship under Belgian law.
From Neil Kriel:
We carry out IPO trials with a view of going to the FCI World Championship. So do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As I can only see breed people on the Focus Group, do not forget other people are also involved with the FCI.
We refer Neil to the questions and answers in Circular 808 quoted above. According to Circular 808, there appears to be nothing preventing an IPO team going to the World Championship if we were to revert to Associate Membership.
Focus Group member, Philip Kleijnhans, is not a breed person, but an Agility enthusiast. Neil can rest assured that the Focus Group is mindful of the interests of the entire dog fraternity and sensitive to the needs and aspirations of all the disciplines.
From Scotty Stewart:
With assistance from Derick Martin I was, while Chairman of the South African Rhodesian Ridgeback Club (SARRC), able to complete the acceptance of the South African Breed Standard by FCI via KUSA. We had no matter of disagreement with FCI, and this could be regarded as surprising as it was not only South African interests that we represented - there were also those of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. South Africa (KUSA) were in favour of FCI but Zimbabwe (ZKC) very definitely were not.
So, as I read the position, we will remain satisfied with the Breed Standard position, which is your current interest. However, I have taken up with SARRC the matter of Ridgebacks from Zimbabwe not being registerable with KUSA. This is quite ridiculous; the country to the north is accepted as part of the "Country of Origin", and doesn't the name count for something?
I get the impression that the feeling of your Group mirrors the ZKC attitude, and I would be interested to know if the matter of dogs from the north not being registerable here is of interest to you.
It is not clear what Scotty means by the Focus Group “mirroring” the ZKC attitude, as it's not the intention to mirror any attitude, but rather just to pass on accurate and relevant information.
On 25 October 2007, the following notice was circulated to Gauteng Clubs by KUSA:
NON-FCI MEMBERS
The situation with this has now changed in view of the new FCI Standing Orders agreed to in Mexico and the cl au se now reads as follows:
In the case of dogs coming from countries which have no FCI member or contract partner or with which no agreement exists for the recognition of pedigrees, the members and contract partners as well as the breed clubs commissioned by them can, notwithstanding the above provision 2, register a dog with a non-recognized pedigree in an appendix to the studbook once this dog has been examined by a judge approved for the breed in question; its breeding, from the fourth generation, can be entered in the studbook. The same applies to dogs without any pedigree.
We therefore interpret this to mean that dogs exported from Zimbabwe , Zambia and East Africa to South Africa will not be allowed to go directly into our breed registry, but into an appendix that we will now be bringing into being.
However, under Official Announcements in the 3/2007 edition of the FCI Magazine the following notice appeared:
"The South African Kennel Club (KUSA) is not permitted to accept any dogs born in other African States into its pedigree book".
The disrespect to KUSA in the bungling of its name aside, on the face of it KUSA's interpretation of the rule seems to be somewhat “wider” than that of the FCI. Whichever interpretation one chooses to attach to this provision, dogs from Zimbabwe are evidently no longer welcome in KUSA's breed registry. Where this leaves access to the valuable Rhodesian Ridgeback bloodlines still in Zimbabwe is difficult to say and the sudden refusal of Zimbabwe 's pedigrees at the FCI's behest is obviously a matter for our governing body's conscience.
From Marshall Michau :
Thank you for including me on your mailing list - however please be so kind as to stipulate the hierarchical structure of the focus group.
At present I am addressing correspondence to 6 people (the meeting appointed six people to the Focus Group - Francesca Browning-Cristina, Jackie Browning, Lucienne Ferres, Ron Juckes, Philip Kleijnhans and Gérard Robinson) which I find administratively wrong and constitutionally ill advised.
Who is chairing this focus group? Who initiated the first meeting? Please may I have a name at the bottom of the correspondence. Thank you for your initiatives.
Yours Truly,
Marshall Michau
Lorderon Bullterriers
The people mentioned by Marshall do, indeed, form the Focus Group. The Focus Group is, however, an informal grouping without hierarchical structure, or Chairperson, and, since it's neither formally constituted, nor affiliated, it's bound by neither KUSA's Constitution, nor that of any Provco. The members of the Group are only beholden to the country's Constitution which, in its Bill of Rights (Chapter 2) enshrines certain basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.
Marshall is welcome to address correspondence to the Group or, if that's not acceptable, to any one of its members, at the Focus Group's address.
From Edward Sutcliff:
I find some of the recent communications from KUSA on this matter rather confusing e.g.
In the letter titled "All Clubs FCI" dated 19/02/2008 (ref GRE/ch/284) para 3 states "....obligations for Full and Associate Members are the same in the new Statutes...."
While this is true to a point, Article 5b of the Statutes of the FCI states " The associate members are the national canine organizations recognized by the FCI which have entered into a special agreement that specifies their relations with the FCI ". Surely this allows Associate Members to limit their obligations to the FCI and to preserve their independence - a fundamental difference from being bound by the obligations of Full Membership?
Correct. Associate Members are obliged to enter into an agreement with the FCI which would govern the relationship.
Also the same para states that Associate Members do not have the right to vote, send representatives to the Standing Committees or hold any office etc.
Again this is true, but what is not stated, is that Article 8b of the Statutes clearly states that although they can't vote, Associate Members may take part in the meetings of the non-mandatory commissions and lobby etc.
This is correct.
Further, para 5 (of the same letter) refers to the "Pros and Cons circular" of 2003.
I find this circular very misleading as it seems to imply that one needs to be a Full Member to enjoy the stated advantages and avoid the disadvantages, however I'm sure that Associate Membership would secure all the advantages except points 2 and 3, and avoid all the disadvantages.
These are the very points clubs and Provcos need to debate.
Regarding the adoption of FCI Breed Standards, while KUSA is repeatedly assuring us that there is no pressure to do so, statements such as "...we emphasise that the procedure of modification should start as soon as possible...." (letter from Mr Hans W. Muller to KUSA 24/06/1993) and "A transition period of two years (deadline Dec 31 2009) has been established, in order to enable the FCI member organisations and contract partners to adjust their own national regulations." (Facing page of the Regulations for FCI Dog Shows) leads me to suspect otherwise.
In view of the correspondence quoted by Edward, this is a reasonable assumption. This informal meeting in G au teng was a direct result of the perceived threat to the remaining Kennel Club breed standards.
As far as the working disciplines are concerned what would be the status of Classic Obedience, Carting, Flyball, Aptitude Testing etc under full compliance to FCI regulations - or is this not an issue?
This is indeed a very important issue. From the FCI Statutes, and the answers provided in Circular 808 (25 August 2003) in which Full vs Associate Membership was probed, there appears to be no prejudice to any of the Working Disciplines.
Yours sincerely,
Focus Group
