FOCUS GROUP - BULLETIN 9
(published with permission)
Dear Breeders, Exhibitors and Working Discipline Enthusiasts,
Acting on resolutions adopted at the FCI's General Assembly in Acapulco , Mexico , in May last year, KUSA sent the following notice to the Provincial Councils on 25 October 2007:
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 .
The FCI worded its decision in this regard rather more bluntly in a notice which appeared in the 3/2007 edition of the FCI Magazine :
The South African Kennel Club (KUSA) (sic) is not permitted to accept any dogs born in other African States into its pedigree book .
The only logical explanation for the FCI's stern directive is that it's presumably intended as some form of punishment for national canine organisations in Africa which have resisted membership of the FCI, either as a matter of principle, or due to a lack of financial means. It was, after all, the FCI's Mr Hindse who, at the Acapulco General Assembly, made it clear that “ The FCI is a world organisation with a wish for expansion” and this might be one of the ways to counter resistance.
Probably to lend greater credibility to the African Sector (of which KUSA is currently the sole representative; Morocco having ostensibly been declared un-African and assigned to the European Sector by the FCI), the Zimbabwe Kennel Club's (ZKC's) re-joining the FCI as a member has obviously been a particularly important issue for KUSA. So important that, at some stage, KUSA even offered to pay the ZKC's subscription to the FCI, an offer which was apparently turned down. There were also rumours of a European country's having been prepared to assist the ZKC financially, but that offer was similarly declined.
Since speculation about Zimbabwe 's re-joining the FCI has been rife in several fora and meetings, the Focus Group thought it prudent to seek clarity on its position from the ZKC directly. The Focus Group's enquiry prompted the ZKC to issue the following Official Statement:
Not mentioned in KUSA's notice of 25 October 2007, is Namibia . KUSA has historically acted as a registry for Namibian-born dogs during the years the former South West Africa was administered as a de facto ‘fifth province' of South Africa , and this situation continued after Namibian independence in 1990. This poses the following dilemma: The dog fraternity in Namibia is obviously too small to set up and manage their own kennel club and registry, yet KUSA's acting as Namibia's registry is in clear conflict with the FCI's directive that it is not permitted to accept any dogs born in other African States into its pedigree book . If KUSA were to comply with the FCI's directive, it would presumably no longer be able to accept dogs born in Namibia into its registry and a nyone relocating from Windhoek to South Africa would be likely to find their dogs (conceivably mostly from South African breeding) in this so-called “appendix” to the main register which KUSA has stated they will “now be bringing into being”. This would result in the absurd situation of the sire and dam being in the main register, and progeny (born in Namibia ), in the “appendix”. (One is, of course, tempted to ask whether the FCI is even aware that KUSA has been acting as Namibia 's registry for all these years.)
It is difficult to conceive of the purpose and nature of this “appendix” , since no formal proposal has been put to either Fedco, or Exco, for its establishment. However, when questioned about the “appendix” at an informal gathering in Port Elizabeth on 5 April 2008, the President suggested that dogs registered in the appendix would be able to compete at KUSA events, win CCs, and earn their South African Championship titles. They would, however, not be eligible for registration in FCI countries. This will similarly apply to three generations of their progeny; only the fourth generation will be allowed back into KUSA's main register.
While this might not seem like a serious issue, consider the South African breeder who exported top quality breeding stock to Zimbabwe in an effort to establish a particular breed in that country. Having exported valuable lines, the breeder, in turn, decides to import a puppy bred in Zimbabwe from the two exported dogs. Despite the fact that every single dog in the puppy's pedigree appears in KUSA's main register, the puppy will only be allowed a downgraded “appendix” registration. Moreover, according to KUSA's statement, the puppy will even have to be “examined by a judge approved for the breed in question” prior to such appendix registration.
Since the KUSA notice further states that “The same applies to dogs without any pedigree” , it follows that the parentage of the puppy in question would be downgraded to the same level as dogs without any pedigree. Its downgraded registration would mean that any descendants of the puppy would not be suitable for registration in any FCI country. In all likelihood they would not be eligible for an export pedigree at all, since it's unlikely that KUSA's reciprocal agreements with non-FCI countries like the USA and the UK allow for recognition of any dogs other than those in its main register.
To further illustrate the absurdity of the situation, consider the following scenario: The Zimbabwean-born puppy is exported to the UK where it will receive full registration. It is then later re-exported to an FCI country (including South Africa ) from the UK where it will similarly be accorded full registration. However, if exported directly to South Africa from Zimbabwe , it will incur the penalty of a downgraded “appendix” registration.
KUSA will doubtlessly be faced with a similar situation where its members reside in neighbouring African states like Swaziland , Lesotho , Botswana and Mozambique . As the Kennel Union of Southern Africa, it has clearly always been KUSA's intention to act as a registry for these smaller African countries, which obviously makes good sense on every level. However, given the FCI's latest directive, KUSA might now be precluded from fulfilling this function for any independent African country unless, of course, it refused outright to comply with the directive.
It is understood that KUSA's agreement of mutual recognition with the ZKC is a verbal one, whereas its agreement with the Kennel Association of Zambia (KAZ) is in writing (identical to the one the KAZ had signed with The Kennel Club, UK ). The Focus Group has not been able to establish what governs KUSA's relationship with the East African Kennel Club and KUSA might be able to shed some light on this.
What is important for the KUSA membership is for the above situation to be assessed in the light of the President's Letter from Bree Street in the February 2004 issue of Dogs in Africa in which the following guarantee is given on behalf of Fedco:
“The Federal Council also guarantees its members that it will not allow any interference in KUSA affairs by an outside body.”
Does an instruction from the FCI to KUSA to renounce the studbooks of other African countries constitute “interference in KUSA affairs by an outside body”? If deemed, or found, to be so, and if the FCI's instruction were to be carried out, KUSA would effectively be reneging on a guarantee given to its membership by Fedco – its supreme legislative and decision-making body. Surely this could have serious implications for KUSA, not only in terms of the credibility of its governance, but also in its capacity to defend a legal challenge.
Yours sincerely,
Focus Group
