FOCUS GROUP - BULLETIN 7
(published with permission)
Dear Breeders, Exhibitors and Working Discipline Enthusiasts,
In this Bulletin we'll once again deal with some of the questions the Focus Group had received in response to information disseminated in previous Bulletins.
From: Jennifer Smith
We, as members of KUSA, appreciate the time and effort you folk have put into the FCI issue for which I thank you. I notice a lot of talk about Breed Standards, but refer to the comment made by Mrs. J. Ratner regarding Obedience Disciplines. I have been unable to find this on the FCI web site. Am I to understand that, by reverting to Associate Membership, the following (I quote) "Obedience disciplines must be entire and have 'breed recognition' which means they must be pedigreed and registered". will not apply.
To compete for an International Obedience Certificate (CACIOB), it is stated in the FCI's Regulations for Obedience that "The winning dog (with two testicles if a male) is awarded the CACIOB if it earns the first prize, and the second best dog (with similar restriction) is awarded the reserve CACIOB." It further stated that to gain the title of International Obedience Champion "The dog must earn two CACIOBs in two different countries and achieve at least "Very Good" or better at 15 months or older in an FCI dog show . There must be at least one year and one day between the two CACIOBs." The “FCI dog show” requirement obviously refers to an FCI breed (beauty) show , which means the dog must be purebred. FCI Regulations regarding Obedience are on the FCI website, www.fci.be . Click on Regulations (top left hand corner, second row) and scroll down to the Obedience rules.
At present KUSA does not offer International (FCI) titles for any discipline other than breed, and we are aware that the South African Obedience enthusiasts train and compete according to KUSA rules. These allow neutered dogs, cross-breeds and rescued dogs to gain their KUSA Championship and Grand Championship titles. However, when KUSA's current moratorium comes to an end, as a fully-fledged Federated Member of the FCI, it would have no choice but to fall into line with all FCI rules at events where CACIOBs are awarded. That would mean precluding dogs that are not entire, and not on the main breed register, from Obedience competition at so-called “International” events only .
Reverting to Associated Membership might enable KUSA to negotiate an agreement with the FCI whereby it is exempted from offering International (FCI) titles. If such agreement could be reached, the obligation to hold International (CACIOB) events would fall away and “breed recognition", or dogs to being entire, would no longer be considerations.
From Susan Webb:
One point Mrs. Lesley Chalmers makes is that of the cost of the CACIB shows. Has KUSA provided any records about the financial viability of the FCI shows that KUSA has held? How much money do they make for KUSA? How much for FCI? Do we really want our money leaving Africa and enriching Europe ?
According to KUSA, apart from its Federated Membership Fee of €900.00 (currently approximately R11 200,00), the only additional cost of a CACIB show is a levy of €1.25 (currently approximately R15,50) per dog payable to the FCI. The normal KUSA licence fee of R600,00 for an all breeds show, and the KUSA levy of R11,00 per dog, still apply.
There are, however, also other considerations, e.g. the substantial costs associated with the advisability (if not imperative) of offering exhibitors judges from other recognised FCI countries to at least give the event an appropriate international flavour. Moreover, experience has shown that entries at an FCI show are appreciably lower than at a KUSA show over the same weekend, which obviously translates into less income for higher (extra FCI levy and usually a complement of foreign judges) overheads. KUSA's financial figures for its “Classic” weekend unfortunately do not provide a breakdown per show.
Further considerations are that any judge officiating at International (CACIB) shows is permitted to claim all travel expenses - car (including parking), train, bus, taxi, flight (plus flight insurance) - as well as meals during travel to the show, and he/she must be reimbursed on arrival, unless alternative arrangements have been made with the show-holding club. Travel by car is to be reimbursed at a minimum rate of €0.35 (currently approximately R4,30) per kilometre. In addition, a judge at an International show is also entitled to a “daily fee” (for incidental expenses) of €35.00 (currently approximately R430,00) for “each day of judging as well as for each travel day”. (One wonders whether our local judges honoured with appointments at KUSA's FCI show are aware of their financial entitlements.)
Ms Webb's most pertinent question is probably whether we really want our money to leave Africa and enrich Europe . Well, do we?
From Terry Batchelor:
I think that the Focus Group should look at some of the reasons why K.U.S.A. went the full F.C.I. route. I know at the time there had been at a tussle with the then G.S.D. Federation of S.A. with both parties being Associate Members of F.C.I. The F.C.I. at this time said that there could not be “2 guest members“ being represented on the F.C.I and that full membership must be given to one, or the other. They (F.C.I) had given the 2 parties a number of years to sort themselves out and this could not go on any longer.
Will K.U.S.A. be prepared to revert to the past situation? The G.S.D Federation of S.A. has since become associated to K.U.S.A. and I wonder what would happen if F.C.I. were to give the F.C.I. full membership to G.S.D. Federation of S.A.? I believe it is in the F.C.I. constitution that only one member per country is permitted as a full member and that this cannot be split.
I am sending this email on to Mr. John Weatherill who has rejoined K.U.S.A. from the Federation and will be able give you the full story from the Federation's side if you should have any questions.
According to Article 5 of the FCI's Statutes, Full Members and Associate Members are “ the national canine organizations recognized by the FCI ”. The Statutes define “National Canine Organization” as “ An all-breed national canine organization recognized by the FCI .” It is therefore not clear how it would be possible for a single breed federation, like the GSD Federation of SA, to obtain either Full Membership, or Associate Membership, of the FCI.
The Focus Group would obviously be very interested in Mr John Weatherill's views and the “full story from the Federation's side” and we look forward to hearing from him in due course.
From Mike Wadsworth:
Is this group represented by the 'majority' of all KUSA members (not only breeders), or is it mainly one or two groups, i.e. the Toy group, Herding Group, Hounds, Working, etc?
The Focus Group does not represent any canine group of constituency, but is an informal grouping intent on disseminating relevant information which would enable people involved in all spheres of canine activity in South Africa to reach their own conclusions on the way forward.
In 1993, the KUSA became a 'FULL' member of the FCI from 'Associate' member. What was the 'actual' reason for this? (Is this not around the time the GSD Federation was "breaking away"?)
It's not clear what is meant by the GSD Federation “breaking away”, but in subsequent communications KUSA certainly cited the “threat” posed by, inter alia , the GSD Federation as a principal rationale for joining the FCI as a Full Member. This is clear from the following circular sent out by KUSA's President, Mr Greg Eva, some time ago:
Why was a decision taken then OK, and now this arrangement is no longer acceptable?
In whose opinion was the Federal Council's decision for KUSA to join the FCI as a Full Member OK? Many breeders and exhibitors were opposed to Full Membership, but KUSA nevertheless went ahead without a referendum, or consultation of the membership. We should, however, also bear in mind that 1993 was part of an era when very little was disclosed to the membership in advance and only a select few were privy to minutes of meetings.
Later, in say a few years, when another group of people have another 'train of thought', are we going to again apply for full membership once more?
It's difficult to predict the future. As with all other kinds of sport, the dog fancy is also obliged to reinvent itself to attract a new generation of participants and spectators. Future administrators of the sport will be forced to act in accordance with global trends at that time, and comply with the wishes and demands of the breeders, exhibitors and participants then involved.
What concerns me most importantly is (bearing mind I haven't yet fully understood all the aims of this "Focus Group") by changing the FCI membership, will this allow the acceptance of various different breed standards, and permit the ability to modify these should some 'group' find this justified?
Like all living things, dog breeds also evolve and it is sometimes necessary to make adjustments to breed standards. However, in no country are breed standards “modified” willy-nilly. An amendment to a breed standard in any country is normally preceded by a rigorous consultation process, often a referendum and, ultimately, representations to the national canine governing body. Amendments to the FCI's breed standards (and these are by no means static) are similarly subject to a prescribed procedure and thorough investigation by one of the FCI's Mandatory Commissions, the Standards Commission.
As a real canine enthusiast (lover of all dogs) and a bit of a 'purist', as well as an extremely successful breeder, exhibitor judge and working trials competitor, trainer and judge over the past twenty six years or so, I firmly believe that the various 'Breed Standards' for ALL dogs should remain as the country of origin set them, or return thereto. After all, that is why they were bred as such, for a particular purpose with particular abilities and looks (everywhere, not only in that country), ie size, colour, character, coat, temperament and ability. A point in case is the Ridgeback. South Africa assisted in writing that standard, then have the audacity to get upset if another country wants to modify it, albeit for the better, in their opinion of course.
As a self-proclaimed purist, Mr Wadsworth is obviously entitled to his opinion, as are others who believe that breeds developed to their ideal, and achieved their true potential, in countries other than the country of origin. In a number of breeds the founding of specialist clubs in the UK , USA and elsewhere preceded the founding of the parent clubs in the counties of origin by several years.
If one belongs to a kennel club that has set or accepted an 'incorrect' standard (diverse from the country of origin) for any particular breed, then without doing 'proper research' on that breed, one invests years of time and loads money to follow that standard, only to find out that one has actually wasted one's time and money, who is to blame? The individual for not researching his breed fully and correcting the kennel club set standard if necessary? The kennel club for not setting or accepting the 'correct' standard, or allowing their 'incorrect' standard to be 'corrected' by well informed breeders? Or is the person/country that set the original standard wrong for doing so?
Those who subscribe to the FCI's rigid philosophy that the ideal is to be found in the standard of the country of origin, otherwise of development or patronage, will believe that a standard is either “correct”, or “incorrect”. Other people take the more flexible view that breeders and exhibitors in countries should be at liberty to adopt the standard which they believe to describe the ideal and which suit the breed as it had developed in their country as a result of breeding on from imported lines.
Yours sincerely,
Focus Group
