the dog site for show people, the show site for dog people

Open Forum

Before submitting a contribution, please read the General Introduction


2 January 2011
In reply to Pants on Fire!

As you know only Algoa Hound Club in the Eastern Cape had the guts to stand up for democracy. The liars of three other clubs in the EC made faithfull promises that we now know they had no intention of keeping. The one sommer commited a double sin and lied on behalf of TWO all breed clubs. It seems that even sleepy little university towns have their fair share of weirdo's. As for the other liar......its good to know that children still obey their parents.

In the Free State only the two Sasolburg clubs - Sasolburg and the late Kitty Pieterse's Klun Frenchie club protested. The Bloemfontein lot that we all know hold regular meetings and Kusa always gets fin. statements and judges contracts are signed and sealed a year in advance were all too scared to be pounced upon (and that is truely scary!) by the FS ruler. As we all know, these clubs are nothing but a "one man show", but in Kusas eyes their "standing" is so good that if gets any better they will be molded into statues!

Among the "Northern Lights" only the "Ladies", the Mini Dachshound Club and Pretoria North German Shepherds objected. We now know that Jubilee Toys renaged when the jack boot was put in and timid Nico folded. Ag shame.

One of the other sly old liars belongs to the Western Cape where most clubs objected - thank you very much. This cunning old operator also runs two clubs and aparently promised by all that is holy to send in objections. But those who did the canvasing should have known that it was all just a smoke screen and that there was not a strawberry's chance in hell that the objections will go in.

Pants on Fire! forgot that there was one more category of clubs.....THE RENAGERS. Four of them. Bless their pathetic little cotton socks.

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit a dictatorship.


4 January 2010
Could someone perhaps give some light as to the reasons why the people of KZN will be blessed with the FEDCO delegation at their next Provincial Council Meeting?

Provco Secretary has advised council as follows:-

"Also please note that a delegation of Fedco members consisting of the President Mr Greg Eva, Clr Doreen Powell Vice Chairman, Fedco and Clr Case Van Hattem NAPC will be in attendance to answer questions put forward. Visitors are welcome."

The Council have not asked for this visit, is this some form of bully tactic? Have they planned a road show for all provinces? Do they feel we are so unenlightened that we need other Provincial Councillors to answer our questions? That definitely says a lot about Fedco's confidence in our present esteemed Chairman.



5 January 2011
Word out on the docks is that at least one of the renagers was threatened with the closure of her club – one that she has served well for many a long year. If its true, how awful to threaten an old lady and make her so unhappy, but then I suppose desperate times all for desperate measures. Now we also have our man from the far north to come and help put the jackboot in. It must be true! The FCI is looming!!!!

The proof is in the pudding


5 January 2011
Agree with NOT HAPPY …

Prey tell, KZN … we are so truly special. Makes us wonder Are we the "Last Out Post" of the 'regte oue' REGIME, that we are to be bestowed with blessings from This decrepit bunch of the "Powers that Bee" … buzzing around our Provinces and landing on our East Coast Shores . Please enlighten us to why we are so honoured 'all of a sardine' … Could Clr David Thompson of DOGSPC kindly advise, why he is not joining this delegation or obviously has not been invited to join??? well, too, clearly they don't need to drag out the Clr from the Vrystaat … now do they!!!

Believe me, there will be no red carpet opened on our sandy shores, not even a beaker of water on offer to wet your lips while gagging on with your 'lies'. No budget at KZNPC for refreshments, ever!!! If you really believe you need to hold our "Esteemed Chairman's hand to answer questions" and what questions are we supposed to be asking, in any case. Nothing would change as even our Esteemed Chairmen can't keep his promises and again has gone against the majority wishes *** Distortion prevails and we can simply do nothing at present to change this, other than throwing our hands up in despair!!!

"My apologies noted, for KZNPC"


5 January 2011
I am gob-smacked! I have just received Di Hansen's notice from our club secretary and cannot believe that Mr Eva will actually drag two of his lieutenants to a KZNPC meeting at KUSA's (read "our") expense. We had the propaganda last August and now have to sit through it again in triplicate.

My personal view is that all those who support Lois Wilson and what she stands for should boycott this farce on the 11th. Leave it to the those who sold out our province by not objecting and the three renegers to entertain the president and his retinue. They obviously have a need to choke on a further dose of democracy KUSA style.

Let them get on with it.


5 January 2011
I think that all the postings that have been put up speculating about the reasons for this very important "housekeeping" exercise of the president and his merry noddy dolls is spot on! They seem to be desperate, if the heavies are going to descend on poor old KZN.
Good luck mates!


6 January 2011
I have to agree with all the writers who are protesting the Fedco decision, especially the position of the "renegers" being taken into account when their letters were clearly out of time. As this item was sneaked into the May Fedco meeting under "matters from the President" it was NEVER an Agenda item. This means that before the May Fedco meeting no club or Provincial Council could have discussed it.

How many clubs didn't discuss it either after the May minutes came out? I'm willing to bet quite a few committees had no idea that the item existed, especially if their Chairman and/or Secretary didn't care enough to make it an issue, or hadn't bothered to read the minutes. I wonder, if those clubs suddenly woke up and wrote that they had not been properly informed IN TIME, and now wished to record their objections if the decision could again be reversed?

Its scandalous that the President has gotten away will this really underhanded maneuver, and that the "noddy's" have allowed him to. They should remember that it is always bad policy to change rules to suit the people currently in power, without regard to the future.



6 January 2011
I was also shocked to get the email from Di Hansen saying that the president and his henchmen are going to visit us!

I don't understand - we haven't asked for any "explanations" and we certainly don't have any questions for them. We can work it out for ourselves where this is heading. Talk about Big Brother is watching you!

Don't we have enough trouble with a chairman who ignores what the majority of his province really wants?


6 January 2011
As an explanation was requested in an earlier posting as to why I am not joining the delegation of Fedco members attending the KZNPC meeting - I can say that I was not even aware that it was taking place. If a delegation of Fedco members was deemed to be necessary, I would have thought all Fedco members should have been consulted before the expense was incurred and that all Fedco members should have been included in this "visitation". I was certainly not canvassed, so I do not know why I was excluded, nor even why the trip is necessary, but I can speculate.
David Thompson


6 January 2011
So, the president flanked by two of his staunchest supporters are about to invade us. Seemingly without an invitation unless our highly esteemed chairman became a tad nervous about ignoring the wishes of his province once again. He obviously is incapable of explaining himself and now needs help. Judging by past performances, he does seem to have a great deal of trouble comprehending the bigger picture.

Why bother to attend the meeting? Even the next generation of spin won't convince me! I'm staying away, and I should hope that every right thinking club will do the same.
Not wasting my time.


6 January 2011
I would like to share this with the readers to see if it rings any bells - it was written by Lewis Carroll in his wonderful book Alice in Wonderland and it seems to be, in the words of Alice herself, that matters surrounding KUSA are getting 'Curiouser and Curiouser"

" If I had a world of my own everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrarywise, what is, wouldn't be and what it wouldn't be, it would, you see?"

In KUSA's topsy turvy world it seems that all the speculation surrounding the "housekeeping" articles is very much correct, to the extent that KUSA believes that KZN is ripe for the plucking and is in dire need of having matters "explained" to them in words of one syllable or in the words of the Crown Prince from the far distant NAPC.
Why, one has to ask, does a province the size of KZN need to have such a visitation? do the honourbale councillors from Fedco think that KZN is made up of a bunch of moronic idiots who need to be told by the headmaster what they must do.
Why is DOGS PC not so honoured? is it because the president and his Clown Prince know that they will be laughed out the door? and sent away with their tails firmly clamped between their legs?
What has the chairman of NAPC got to do with this Presidential roadshow? If the president and the Vice President see fit to waste KUSA's (our) money in coming down from the mountain to rally the wayward children, what business is it of another Province?
certainly if I was part of KZN PC I would make my voice heard very forcefully and request that the clown prince be requested to NOT attend because he has NO business in interfering in the affairs of another province.
Of course it isnt a secret that the chairman of NAPC has an opinion on everything and sounds off ad nauseum when ever he has a captive audience
I certainly hope that the councillors of KZN have the back bone to see him off at the pass and send him back where he belongs-
Perhaps the President needs to have a body guard to protect him??? from what? or perhaps the President feels that 3 heads are better than one? What is SO important that needs to be explained ?
As Alice said
Curioser and Curioser


6 January 2011
I must agree with other writers to this forum that the only honorable thing to do is to stay away from the upcoming KZNPC meeting en masse. We do not need Councillors Powell and Van Hattem to come and tell us how to run our affairs in this province and to come and lecture us and I think it's the height of arrogance that they should show their faces at a KZNPC meeting. I can still swallow an invitation to Mr Eva as he is the President of KUSA after all, but the other two NO, NO, NO.

Whose bright idea was this? It could only have been Edwards's. If he is too weak a leader to answer to us himself, he must resign. Inviting the Chairmen of two other councils to come and pacify us is the biggest insult this province has ever had to suffer from a Chairman. It is time for him to go.

Insulted and disgusted.


7 January 2011
I read David Thompson's post with interest and was amazed to learn that he had not been told that a Fedco delegation would be visiting KZN early in the new year. Such visits have substantial cost implications for KUSA in terms of travel and accommodation and one would have thought that, not only should such expenses be cleared by Fedco, but that Fedco should also be appraised of the reasons for a high-level visit to a provincial council which does not appear to be in any kind of crisis. Some KZNers like Mark Anderson might argue that the leadership of the province is ineffectual, but it's not as though there is an imminent danger of the province's falling apart.

There are an abundance of sensible people in KZN who will ensure the smooth functioning of the province despite its leadership. The motive for the Fedco delegation's visit to a routine KZNPC meeting is therefore curious, to say the least. What questions could the clubs possibly have for the triumvirate other than the obvious one – why did you choose to overrule the KUSA constitution? The good folk of KZN are perfectly capable of reading and understanding Article 40.3. I'm sure they are not interested in listening to a disingenuous explanation of why an Article that was perfectly clear suddenly needed "interpretation" by six of the nine Fedco sages. As the esteemed councillor of KZN was one of those who gave "interpretation" the "nod" (sorry, I couldn't resist!), he should be quite capable of explaining his actions to his constituents. Or would that be expecting too much?

Gérard Robinson


7 January 2011
If those 4 clubs withdrew, I know of at least another 6 who would also vote against this 66% rubbish. If they can accept 4 withdrawals, then why can't they accept 6 late votes? Ah but that would then mean that The Plan would all go pear-shaped…

Not so secret agenda


7 January 2011
What is it that we all seem to be in a panic over? I for one, have never met both of the esteemed? councillors and only know them by the usual derogatory remarks made by others on this website and their actions at FEDCO. Maybe instead of threatening boycotts and getting so riled up we should welcome them and get an explanation of the conduct deemed inappropriate. Alas I fear that they will not be heard!
Wait and See.


7 January 2011
I am very proud of the correct way in which Exco, lead by our very own Lois handled the voting procedure of the latest Fedco debacle. Quite correctly they noted that the majority of clubs had voted against the latest Fedco lunacy, but predictably enough time has been wasted to enable 4 clubs to withdraw the objections. The phone lines must have been very busy!

More than time for all the six noddys to resign.

Get thee gone! Go!


7 January 2011
Hear! Hear! Insulted and Disgusted. This is the worst insult to our clubs and their representatives ever. To be treated like school children and summonsed to appear before a disciplinary tribunal from head office.

So yes, find something else to do on the night and leave it to Edwards, Childs, Camp and Diederichs and the dutifull Di Hansen (whose club I see also didn't object) to entertain the president and his gate crashers on the 11th. People who respect Lois and democracy have no business there.

No quorum required


7 January 2011
I am totally incensed! How dare these people invade our province? We are all aware that the president flys around the country quite happily spending OUR money on business class flights which is a bitter enough pill to swallow, but the other two? What business is it of theirs what or how our province is run?

To a man my committee voted for us to boycott that meeting. I hope they all enjoy it. Preaching to the converted is what they do best after all.

Boycotts are not only for cricket


7 January 2011
Well maybe the 3 Natal clubs that changed their minds on the objection...
The Natal German Shepherd Dog Club, Chairman, (Colin Camp)
Pinetown German Shepherd Dog and All Breeds Training Club, Secretary, (Norma Childs)
The Natal Boxer Club, Secretary, (Gail Diedericks)...
can bring to the Federal Councillors KZN PC meeting, their paid up KUSA membership letters as the first two on the list are GSD Federation Breed Clubs and only tolerate & use KUSA for the other disciplines.

It will be interesting to hear if these signatories are in fact KUSA members or do we have the GSD Federation wagging the tail [KUSA].

Time will tell


8 January 2011
Dear Wait and See I had the displeasure of sitting on the DOGS PC council with one of the delegation to the unfortunate KZN before the NAPC was formed. I would like to put on record that: 1 - His opinion was the only opinion. 2 – He continually tried shouting down anyone who dared disagree with him. 3 – He thinks he knows everything and doesn't hesitate to painfully impart that so-called knowledge.

I, and many others were extremely grateful for the formation of the NAPC, because that meant that we would be spared the company of that esteemed councillor and his misguided followers. What a relief to be able to discuss dog matters in a reasonable way without his vast (?) knowledge of dog matters being thrust down our throats.

So you see, we have waited and we have seen, and we don't wish to repeat the experience.

Been there, done that


8 January 2011
Beware fellow KZNers! The spin has started on the "News and Views" of the KUSA website! I thought it wouldn't take long in view of the unpopularity of the president and his minions!

Now it is claimed that this visit from the president & co has absolutely nothing to do with their illegal decisions when voting goes against them but comes from a decision taken at the Fedco "FIMM" last January!

What the hell is a "FIMM"?! And what took them so long? Why now? Oh please give us a break! We can see right through this nonsense! I think the President needs a better spin doctor than the one he has, but then I suppose he has to use whatever poor tools are available! Its sorrowful when you think of the supporting cast!!!!

Was this "FIMM" (whatever it is) attended by all Fedco members or only like-minded folk?? Were any minutes or records taken or distributed? I don't recall anything being circulated from the "FIMM" Why do they waste our money like that? All this to get on the FCI Standards commission?

The president is really leaving himself open to ridicule in this pathetic attempt to pull the wool over our eyes!

No sheep in KZN!


9 January 2011
In this pathetic attempt on the part of the author of the latest 'News and Views' on the KUSA website, which is (as always) poorly written and obscurely constructed, there is obvious confusion between the concepts transparency and propaganda.

- Transparency implies openness, communication, and accountability.
- Transparency is a management method where arguments for and against a proposal, as well as the decision-making process are made publicly available, which means being able to read ALL the minutes of the FEDCO meetings, including the way our "representatives" (LOL!!!) express their mandate - not just the bits that have been censored out.

- Propaganda inspires the Architect of Obfuscation* to perform behind-the-scene canvassing to further his private agendas.
- Propaganda organises entourages to bombard the community with the aim of influencing opinion.
- Propaganda couches its nefarious activities under claims of transparency - such as in the News and View item.
- Propaganda relies on selective presentation of facts - lying by omission - to strengthen the support of the weak-minded.
The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. (Wikipedia)

(*Obfuscation: darkness, obscurity, confusion)

KUSA members - beware! Start seeing the red lights! Please read this extract from the May 2010 Fedco minutes:

"For the benefit of Clr Robinson, Councillors were reminded that although they were here as elected members of their Provincial Councils, that they were also here for their knowledge of dogdom. Although they have been instructed to vote in line with their Council's wishes, they did have the right to vote otherwise. This may be considered appropriate after a matter has been discussed. He also reminded Councillors that decisions of the Federal Council are held in abeyance until the Minutes have been confirmed. Questions are to be directed through the Chair and Councillors are given plenty of opportunity to air their views.

Before commencing with the business of the agenda Clr van Hattem asked if he may raise an issue which was a matter of concern to a number of Federal Councillors. This related to comments made by Clr Robinson on Dogworld website where he has characterised the President and Fedco in a manner which is considered to be insulting and untrue, the comments being, inter alia, that the Fedco does what the President says it must do, and not what their Council's require. Clr Robinson replied that he was sorry that the Fedco had taken it that way. Clr van Hattem asked if this could be taken to mean that Clr Robinson was retracting his opinion on the Fedco and that his apology could be recorded as such.

Clr Robinson responded that he would reserve judgement on that. In closing the discussion on this topic the Chairman noted that there appeared to be a challenge and hoped that by the end of this meeting, Clr Robinson's perception of how the Fedco operates may have changed."

If you can ignore the massacred English, can you read between the lines how Clr Robinson was obviously severely berated for his freedom of speech by one of the most ardent puppets of the GREat and Powerful Architect of Obfuscation? Can you observe the biased reportage of the minutes? Can you see the propaganda?

And my worst hobby-horse: since when does a council of representatives have the right to cross the floor while the membership expects them to carry out their mandate? Can the membership not see that this is exactly why we have the usual voting percentage = because the weak-willed (also read weak-minded) have been given carte blanche to swiftly avert their mandate to accommodate the Charismatic One and his Bouncer! This is nothing short of ludicrous and fits nowhere into the grounds of democracy, the interpretation of which the President seems so 'bent' on imposing in our constitution ('bent' - please use this word in its double meaning).

It's time we, as KUSA members, put a stop to this ridiculous farce................ or give up the notion of Provcos and simply allow the noddy dolls to run our sport on their own. We need to insist that Fedco Councillors do NOT "have the right to vote otherwise". If it means that a decision has to be deferred so that the Councillor can take back new information to Provco level for further discussion and a new vote, then sobeit. If it delays the process of implementing new proposals, then sobeit. Logistical issues are easy to work around. Additional Fedco meetings are easy to organise - destroying democracy is just plain unforgivable.

THIS is the true nature of transparency and democracy - not the compost we are continually fed. Unless we put a stop to it now, we must be content to allow the current situation to become a total autocracy.
Windows 2011


10 January 2011
WAKE UP and smell the Roses -- the milk is boiling over !!

The visitation to KZN by the President and his Noddy Dolls, as the little birdie rumours is written in the latest FEDCO Minutes:-

Our President (Mr.Eva) has been promised a seat on FCI Standards Commission, so long as he hands over KUSA to FULL FCI control/rule? -- All, all breed club shows by the year 2012 to be run in terms of FCI show rules. (no longer 7 groups as now). Some will say "so what!" -- We the showing members of KUSA will then have to pay FCI Levies 'over and above' KUSA levies to keep Cape Town office going. Whilst the FCI Levies go to boost the masters coffers in Belgium.

BUT the Real Truth for the visit is:--
The President wishes to ensure that when he gets his 'goal' of getting on to the FCI, that everything will go as planned in KUSA and can not be scuttled after his scheming years in office. Therefore he is bringing his noddy doll, who in this CASE is HIS man:- "THE PRESIDENT in WAITING" who will do as his master so commands. Only in this way, will he be sure of KZN support for HIS man in the next Presidential Elections.

Only the start to the end of KUSA.


10 January 2010
I could have sworn that I was told that these "informal" meetings wished upon us by our rulers was intended to be open meetings, not only restricted to Provcos. I could, of course be mistaken, but I don't think so. Easy enough to veer a little off the beaten track when a province is up in arms and preparing to wheel out the guillotine…

Madame Defarge


10 January 2010
You obviously don't know me because if you did you would know that:-

1) I am not dutiful – my friends are laughing their heads off at the notion!!

2) I don't have a club – I am secretary of 2 hound group clubs and the KZNPC and as such responsible for doing the administrative work required by these 3 organisations as requested by the committees of the said clubs or by KUSA and/or the executive of the Provincial Council.

Please check you facts before you use my name on any dog site.

Kind regards
Di Hansen


10 January 2010
Isn't it too funny? The spin on the visit to KZN has been taken off the web! Obviously that little bit of spin has stopped turning. Now perhaps the ineffectual chairman of KZN PC can stop rallying the troops to the little soiree on Tuesday. I shudder to think what the telephone bill must be like!
At least Telkom loves him


12 January 2011
Thanks to all those who gave their support at last night's KZNPC Meeting, its thanks to you we hopefully got our message home. The majority message is clear:- we no longer respect or support our Chair!

Our Chair left us with no choice as he could not give satisfactory answers required by the Council.

We therefore called for a No Confidence once again…. Once again it was a majority vote…. Our Chairman still will not budge!

He actually left the majority with no choice other than to leave the Meeting, how could we remain ??

We are a strong Province with intelligent and loyal people…. Who have supported far too long a Chairman who holds little respect or support for the majority Clubs in KZN.

Unity is Strength


12 January 2011
I read the article in my new All About Dogs by Neil Kay with great amusement. The puppy he is referring to while defending his 'lack' of face judging was not the beautiful Myles. That particular March Mrs Pedan was showing a lhasa bitch which never saw the ring after the dog's arrival. Now how do we take this article and its writer seriously?

It's the same as the letters regarding certain SALKA members - obviously it was desperate to win at that open show - just don't know why the remainder of the committee allowed it.

Hoping that 2011 brings me much mirth and the best to those in the dogworld.



13 January 2011
The letter of Anon had us rolling in the isles!!

There you have this smug article by Mr Neil S. Kay of "look what a good judge I am" and "I can recognize greatness when I see it a mile off" and its not even the same dog!! What a farce this all is. How can we ever take this "judge" seriously again?!

Need something to cover the red face?
13 January 2011
One would have thought that a vote of no confidence, properly framed would be sufficient for a Chairman to do the honorable thing and stand down. However, such a vote taken on the spur of the moment, that is, without it being a properly framed and presented in the agenda for the meeting giving the reasons for such a vote, would not be considered as valid by the incumbent. As far as I am aware there is no provision in the Provincial Councils' constitution for such a vote. (was that 50%+1 or 66%.?)

Therefore it would seem that only when the legally elected Chairman is offered for re-election would the mob (intelligent and loyal as they are depicted) have a chance to unseat him. Lynching is definitely illegal.

Possession is 9 tenths of the law it seems.
John Smith


13 January 2011
Apparently after the big walk out on Tuesday night at KZN there was hardly a soul left from the breed clubs to hear the presentations by the KUSA officials. So they had to preach the propaganda to the working dissiplines, the Chairman that nobody wants and of course the Dutiful one who takes the minutes.

Preaching to the converted
13 January 2011
Thanks must go to the KZN for standing up for what is right. Good on you guys! However, I think that your puppet chairman should not be the only one to receive a Vote of No Confidence. There should also be a Vote of No Confidence in the President who's resignation should also be requested.

Get rid of the lot of them!


13 January 2011
According to Fran Cristina, the date of 7 December 2010, when KUSA's notorious "Newsflash" was issued, will live in infamy. If that were so, then the date of 11 January 2011 will surely live in righteousness.

It was on the evening of 11 January when the good folk of KZN decided that they had had enough and eighteen representatives walked out of a Provco meeting. Having expressed their disenchantment with the KZNPC Chairman, Mr Nigel Edwards, in a vote of no confidence for a second time, and he refused to step down, they had no option but to excuse themselves from the rest of the proceedings which were set to continue under the chairmanship of a person who had lost their confidence and respect.

This scenario played itself out in the presence of three invited Fedco members who were attending the Provco meeting in KZN, ostensibly as part of KUSA's stated aim to promote "interaction between KUSA and its members". This vision was set out in the following communiqué, dated 7 January 2011, which appeared on the KUSA website, only to mysteriously disappear a few days later:

Email: 07 January 2011

It has for some time been apparent that there is a need to promote openness between members of FEDCO and the PROVCO'S as was fully discussed at the FEDCO "FIMM" last January. This is in line with KUSA's present direction shown by the emphasis of the new website which is aimed at such interaction between KUSA and its members as possible but now needs to be further extended.

The FEDCO needs to be accessible to the members and the visit to KZN is intended to promote this direction. It was never intended that FEDCO operates from an Ivory Tower situation and closer understanding between it and the members is a positive development. It is planned that the Chair and Vice Chair of FEDCO will whenever possible be involved with close interaction with the members at PROVCO. Other members of the FEDCO will also be involved from time to time and the make up of the visiting FEDCO members may well be different from one PROVCO meeting to another.

This section of the meeting will be and open one for both representatives and members of FEDCO present.

Greg Eva

Maybe the reason for the above communiqué's sudden disappearance from the KUSA website was because the KUSA delegation had realised that they were not merely going to indulge in the innocuous activity of promoting "interaction with members" in KZN. Although the projector behaved badly on the night (the gods of technology had clearly joined the eighteen councillors!), it became apparent to the few who had stayed behind to hear and view the presentation that the motive for the visit was rather more sinister.

Hopefully the President and his two sidekicks would have learnt on the night that people are no longer prepared to have the wool pulled over their eyes. They also clearly disapprove of Federal Councillors breaching the KUSA constitution and then trying to come and justify their nefarious conduct afterwards.

One of the club representatives described the events on Tuesday evening as a "sad day for KZN dogdom". I disagree. This was a day in which the will of fair-minded people prevailed and rectitude triumphed. The spirited folk of KZN set a stellar example for all of us and I tip my hat to people like Chris Griffith, Richard Dempsey, Mark Anderson, Lois Wilson, Karen Furk, Felicity von Ottigen and, of course, the indefatigable Edith Hogg.

Gérard Robinson

13 January 2011
In view of the need for transparency and accountability of the KUSA management, I have requested that my letter to Mr.Y De Clercq, the General Secretary of the FCI, be published on the Dogworld website, pointing out that he had been misinformed by the president of KUSA quite some time ago.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lionel Noik []
Sent: 11 January 2011 16:51
Subject: Kusa and FCI

Dear Sir

At the outset I wish to stress that I am no longer a member of the Kennel Union of Southern Africa (Kusa), although I do presently, and have in the past, owned dogs that are/were registered with that organization.

I am sure you recall that in 2003/2004 I submitted a legal complaint with the Competitions Board in Belgium pertaining to the activities of Kusa and its President MR G R Eva, the contents of which included a breach of the Constitution Act of the Republic of South Africa , Act 108 of 1996.

Section 18 of the Bill of Rights as embodied in the Constitution of South Africa prevented any person/s or organizations from depriving freedom of association amongst individuals.

As the event was not being held under the auspices of the KUSA, the President of Kusa, MR GR Eva, with the assistance of the FCI, prevented an international judge and international competitors (who emanated from countries within the confines of FCI "territory") from participating in an "unrecognized" agility competition, of which I was the prime organizer, to be held in Cape Town , South Africa . He furthermore, under the threat of banning or other unacceptable means, also attempted to prevent local competitors and judges from participation therein.

As a result of this, I, with the assistance of a leading firm of constitutional attorneys, prepared a statement of complaint for the perusal and consideration of the Competitions Board in Belgium .

In terms of correspondence which has recently been brought to my attention, addressed by yourself to the Kusa dated 22nd April 2008, (reference YD4951) followed by response of Kusa thereto dated 29th April 2008, (Reference GRE/ch/08639), Mr Eva stated and I quote: "(3) The South African Agility Club has, as far as we know, instituted a court ruling against yourselves, but certainly not against us and we ask that this be corrected".

I wish to unequivocally state that legal action was taken by the Gauteng Agility Club, (of which the writer was chairman) against both the KUSA and the FCI for its collusive participation in the matter under consideration, and that Mr Eva was fully aware of this fact.

The laws of South Africa , with particular reference to its Constitution and Bill of Rights were being flagrantly ignored by Mr Eva, including the fact that the Constitution of South Africa and its Bill of Rights overrides any private constitution, rules and regulations which are in conflict with the Constitution Act.

Resulting from impending legal action and investigations by the Human Rights Commission of South Africa into the affairs of Kusa, restrictive articles (Article 23 and its sub-sections) embodied in the Kusa constitution were promptly removed from its statute book.

More than five years after the proceedings had commenced, I notified the regrettable reasons for terminating legal action against both parties to the Competitions Board on 13th February 2009. The reasons are outlined hereunder:

Dear Madam

I refer to your current mail regarding the under mentioned matter.

As a period of approximately five years has elapsed since my complaint having been lodged, it becomes superfluous and rather without purpose that the matter be raised after such an unreasonable period of time.

The accompanying questions, five years previously were then fresh in one's mind and could have been promptly responded to. However after such an unreasonable period of time having elapsed, the entire intention and purpose of the complaint becomes utterly meaningless.


L Noik

In conclusion, the purpose and intention of the accompanying letter is to advise the FCI as to the true state of affairs that existed at the time, including the prevention of half truths and innuendos embodied in Mr. Eva's response as detailed above. The decision to terminate legal action certainly did not imply that the original complaint had no merit or substance.

In view of its importance that the truth be upheld, I intend in due course to publish the above on an international canine website, for the benefit of interested parties.

Yours faithfully
Lionel Noik
South Africa 2192


14 January 2011
Dear Lionel Noik
I was very interested to read your post and I'm sure that M De Clercq of the FCI will find it curious to say the least. I must say that although I have always found the KUSA staff to be helpful and courteous, I do agree with you that there is a great need for transparency and accountability from the Federal Council.

You may be unaware that Mr Eva has announced that he has been invited to a seat on the FCI Breed Standards Commission, and that he intends accepting this invitation. It may be of interest to you to know that there is an obvious conflict of interest inherent in his acceptance, and a great deal of dissatisfaction is felt by a large percentage of the KUSA membership.

His acceptance of this position would also disqualify Mr Eva from membership of the Kennel Union's Federal Council in terms of Article 15.2 of the KUSA constitution that reads as follows:


No person shall be eligible for membership or nomination to the Federal Council and if elected or nominated shall be disqualified from membership thereof if he:

15.2 elected to the committee of any organisation concerned with canine affairs with the exception of animal welfare societies, local or central government organisations which are not affiliated to the Kennel Union;"

To overcome this, Mr Eva and some members of KUSA's Federal Council "interpreted" this particular Article to only refer to South Africa. I have been given to understand that legal advice is being sought in this regard, as well as the overturning of Article 40.3 at a recent Federal Council meeting.

I regret that the Belgian Competitions Board took so long to investigate your complaint, but in any event, I think that long overdue thanks must go to you for your efforts with the South African Human Rights Commission, forcing the removal of Article 23 from our statute books.

Lucienne Ferres


14 January 2011
When I heard about the KZN Provco meeting and the brave and forthright behaviour of the councillors, I couldn't keep the smile from my face (in fact I might have danced a little jig). Not as you might suppose because of their actions- that was partly why- but because I couldn't help but picture the chagrin and humiliation and rage which must have been the overwhelming feeling on the part of the DELEGATION.

Congratulations to Chris Griffiths and all the councillors who staged the walk out, you are gentlemen and ladies of honour. As for the Chairman of the KZN province, you should hang your head in shame! Have you no pride? Are you so happy to just be in the spotlight of the president's presence? Do you CARE NOTHING about your province?

The President is in for an even nastier experience when he and the ENTIRE FEDCO councillors jump on a plane at our expense and come to Johannesburg to honour the poor peasants of DOGSPC with their illustrious presence. As the saying goes "You aint seen nothing yet!"

I would advise them to wear their kevlar vests because they are going to need them. Knowing the DOGSPC councillors, they are not quite so gentlemanly as our colleagues in Natal. It will be a night to remember I am sure.



14 January 2011
In reply to John Smith (ha-ha-ha!)

We can probably put together a properly framed vote of no confidence for the next KZNPC meeting and give it to our Dutiful Di to put on the agenda. But I can assure you the result will be the same. The KZN Chairman and "honourable thing" do not belong in the same sentence,

Lynching is very tempting, but as you say its illegal. Damn!!

Peter Smith (John's brother)
14 January 2011
Oh dear John Smith (if that is indeed your name. Your style is very familiar) you have as usual, made some pretty sweeping statements.

Any Chairman receiving such an overwhelming vote of no confidence, and for the second time no less, should do the honorable (sic) thing and resign immediately, but not this boykie. Oh no. He had to "take it under advisement" probably from the Man At The Top and his bouncer, who were there ready to guide and advise him. What do you seriously think their guidance and advice would be? Would they want to lose a certain vote? I don't think so.

Obviously this particular Chairman has no notion of honour (or honor) if you prefer.

This was also not a spur of the moment thing. The truly honourable (or honorable) folk of KZN have been seething since the December Fedco meeting and I would be very surprised indeed if this were a spur of the moment decision. Probably that is why the protective troops were called in. Bad move. Very bad move. However all is not lost. The triumvirate were left in absolutely no doubt what the truly honourable people think of them and their machinations.

Time, I think, for all of them to resign. Particularly Mr Popularity himself who, having failed miserably with his Powerpoint propaganda (how embarrassing, how deserved), apparently played to the very small audience left by spewing out his normal vitriol against DOGS PC.

About possession and the law…

Don't gloat too soon


14 January 2011
It seems we have our own personal Laurent Gbagbo residing in KZN.

What kind of chairman continues to remain in his seat after suffering not one but TWO votes of No Confidence.?
One can only suppose that the chairman of KZN is either very thick skinned or very arrogant or so assured of protection, that he doesn't feel the neccessity to resign.

This clinging to power is not uniquely African in nature, it has happened in other parts of the world, but what is apparently uniquely African is that despite the overwhelming evidence that a person is NOT wanted in a position- either as the President of a country or simply a chairman of a province, they insist on clinging to power no matter what.

Instead of being civilised and doing the correct thing, people like this have to take it to the end where the people finally get totally fed up and remove the incumbent, by force, if neccessary.

I feel extremely sad but also very angry that our organisation is being used and abused by certain people with secret and not so secret agendas, not for the betterment of our sport and our members but to feed their over weaning ambition.
They remind me forceably of Marie Antoinette and her "let them eat cake" attitude.
I believe that DOGSPC is also going to be force fed a lot of claptrap about why the 66 2/3% majority is good for us/doesnt change anything/is only housekeeping.
The news is DOGSPC is going to be visited by the ENTIRE FEDCO.
I for one cannot wait to hear the spin that is going to put on this in the Presentation- (hopefully the projector works.)

This farce has gone on long enough and it's time for the President to reveal the REAL REASON why we are being rail roaded.

Lets lay all the cards on the table - it is time for us to know what is the END GAME. There has been enough speculation and obfuscation- we are really not ALL MORONS.
So if we are to receive a Fedco visit, this visit would be the perfect opportunity for the President and Fedco to once and for all tell us the TRUTH.

Jackie Browning


14 January 2011
Oh how I wish everyone could have seen the look on Clr van Hattem's face when he realised he was not allowed to speak during the formal meeting of the KZN PC. It was priceless! It was obviously a severe penance for him, as we all know that he cannot keep his mouth shut.

Rolling on the floor laughing


14 January 2011

We have been informed by our esteemed President that the FCI had decreed the as from 1 January the "GERMAN SHIPHERD DOG" (does KUSA not have a spell-check??) has been split into two varieties ? the "Stockhaar" and the "Langstockhaar" and that this will become effective immediately at FCI shows IN South Africa.

Once again the President has taken the law into his own hands. He should know that all changes to Breed Standards have to be placed on the FEDCO Agenda to give clubs and members a chance to accept, reject or, as in the case with the Bulldogs, have a three year moratorium on changes to the Breed Standard.

It is not his decision alone, but now that he is going to be placed on the FCI's Breed Standards Commission, I suppose he no longer cares showing his true FCI colours!

FCI Rules!


16 January 2011
On Monday night is the meeting of the Western Cape Provco and I wonder whether they will also be honoured with a visit form a Fedco delegation like we were. Well one of the KZN three some will be there, because she is the Chairman, and maybe the President because its his stomping ground. But will the Clown Prince appear in a puff of smoke to teach our friends in the Cape how to suck eggs?

I don't know if Doreen voted against the wishes of the Provco like our noddy doll did. If so I hope some tough questions will be asked. Maybe Doreen is an institution in the Cape, but she is still responsible to her Provco.

Another walk out? Hopefully.

The times they are a-changing


16 January 2011
Oh dearie me! What an embarrassment when you're trying to tell people what a great judge you and then get the whole thing screwed up!!

I was also at the "dull and wet weekend in the Cape" where Mr Kay discovered Ch Jalus High Flyer's double. We were all rather surprised when the unruly Lhasa puppy "won by the proverbial mile", to use Mr Kay's words. I was even more surprised to read in the January/February All About Dogs that the very same puppy eventually blossomed into the stunning Myles. Now all is explained.

I rather suspect that what Mr Kay "discovered" on that "dull and wet weekend in the Cape" was the handler, although he denies it in advance: "However some exhibitors would say that I gave High Flyer his win because Jean is a "face" known to all judges, when in fact they should study her methods and look and learn, instead of blaming atrocious judging for their lack of success".

If not "atrocious judging", does Mr Kay have any suggestions what exhibitors should be blaming in this case?

All that glitters…


16 January 2011
I don't know if its true, but when KUSA goes over to the FCI Carting will have to stop because the FCI apparently does not recognize this discipline.

Carting is the only part of the dog sport that has been growing steadily in the Eastern Cape where we have a very enthusiastic carting community. When the FCI comes in there will be no more awards so we will be carting for fun only. If this is not what we want, then the time to speak up is now before its too late. Hopefully Mrs Barrow will explain to us what's going to happen after FCI.

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but from what I hear the writing is on the wall for carters.

Not too late to act


17 October 2011
Dear Editor

I have never written to your website, but tonight I am so angry and incensed that I have to vent my spleen.

Following its Open Show, Jubilee Toy Dog Club held its AGM this afternoon (Sunday). People will know that this is the club whose Acting Chairman, Nico Meyer, inexplicably withdrew its objection to the changes in KUSA's constitution which will ultimately result in all our standards being converted to FCI.

Before the AGM got under way, we noticed some people arriving who were non-Toy people. I noticed Mrs Jenny Hubbard and Mrs Carol Larkin and then a gentleman I and those I asked didn't recognize. I thought they were merely observers until someone mentioned that they had completed membership application forms and paid subs.

The AGM got underway in the small Glass House at Goldfields. All the people could not fit into the small space and some peered through the doorway between the two glass houses and others were on the steps outside. For a time the strange gentleman was in the big Glass House with Mrs Hubbard feeding him information. The next thing he was in the meeting space and started interfering most aggressively in the proceedings. He contradicted the points genuine members were trying to make, even experienced committee people like Dr Heidi Rolfes.

Eventually Dr Rolfes asked him who he was and he replied he was A COUNCILLOR AND THAT HE KNEW EVERYTHING. Visibly irritated she asked him again to reveal his identity and he eventually said I AM CASE VAN HATTEM. As the majority of the people there only knew this man by reputation and have never seen him near a Toy ring (or any other ring for that matter), they looked at him as though he was from Mars.

It was then when it dawned on all of us that this was a premeditated and orchestrated assault on a poor Toy club to make sure that the "right" Chairman was elected - seemingly one who was prepared to toe the party line. That party is the Northern Areas Council and you don't need a crystal ball to work out who the candidate was. After the AGM the committee met and elected the officials and hallelujah the Northern Areas puppet got neither Chairman, nor Vice-Chairman, nor Secretary, nor Treasurer! Their whole sordid scheme blew up in their faces!!

Even the choice of auditor did not work out for them. They proposed Mrs Colleen Patience whom the Secretary opposed because of previous problems with getting the financial statements out of her on time. Somebody then proposed Mr David Thompson who was enthusiastically supported, except by Mrs Larkin who almost fainted and gasped BUT HE'S FROM DOGS PC!!!!!

What a sad bunch of bullies these people are. Hopefully they have now seen that Toy people like their clubs to be run by Toy people and that Toy people are not a bunch of air heads and that they will not stand for this kind of intimidation.

Proud Toy exhibitor and Toy club supporter


17 January 2011
I agree whole heartedly with Proud Toy exhibitor and Toy club supporter. I was waiting for the "Chairman" to at least report to us why he withdrew our clubs objection without consulting any body. But nothing. Zilch. All we got was this garbage:

Chairman's Report

No wonder he wasn't re elected!

Also highly irritated


17 January 2011
This whole dog world has gone totally mad. This story of the heavies making a move on a vulnerable little club that is struggling to survive is totally sick. Who would ever have thought that Mrs Hubbard and Mrs Larkin would allow themselves to be part of something so seedy. It just goes to show......

I take my hat off to Jubilee for standing up against such intimidation. Remember, bullies bank on it that you won't stand up and fight back.

You showed great courage and I wish the new committee (who got elected?) and the members well.

Your friend in Toys


17 January 2011
It is worth noting that most club constitutions require that applications for membership from new members must be approved at a committee meeting before their membership is accepted. If the posting is correct and the constitution includes the usual membership clause and further, that the applications for membership were completed and the subs paid at the door, then the new members were not members at all. They should not have been allowed to participate in the meeting, speak at the meeting, nor vote. It is important that clubs follow the rules laid down in their constitutions.

Stick to the rules


17 January 2011
I wonder if KZN PC's dutifull secretary managed to produce the minutes of the disasterous meeting within 24 hours as commanded by the President. I really felt quite sorry for her as it seemed like a matter of

Do or Di


17 January 2011
Not too late to act
This will not only effect Carting, but also Classic Working Trials, Flyball, Obedience, Dog Jumping and even Agility - sorry no cross-breeds welcomed by FCI !!

And what about Field Trials could they also find themselves in the same boat.

The Staffies, Bullies, Bulldogs, Frenchies, that do A.I. or assisted matings, sorry you are out as well.

FCI effects us all


17 January 2011
May I say well done for keeping out the rot at your meeting and off your committee. Jenny Hubbert should be ashamed of herself for allowing Mr Case Van Hatten any where near your committee room. I was once an ardent Rottweiler Breeder and Exhibitor and have bred many Champions in fact I bred 5 Rottweiler Champions in one litter. I enjoyed the Rottweiler as a breed until the breed council interfered, spearheaded by Mr Case Van Hatten. To-day I do not breed or show Rotties any more. Never sell out to the Noddy man or his boss, who if one is to guess does not own, show or breed toy dogs. Well done Heidi Rolfes for standing up to this man and demanding to know who he is. If he knows everything then I am a dutchman (no pun intended).
Anita Bodenstein


17 January 2011

Am I the only one who saw the threatening notice on KUSA News and Views? It was there last night, this morning it has gone!

Apparently, malicious persons are spreading a completely untrue rumour that KUSA will convert to FCI rules after 2012, and that Carting will disappear. Those persons engaging in such activity can expect severe repercussions!

Unfortunately I was unable to copy the notice, so I may have the wording wrong, but I am sure of the intent: our Dear Leader is annoyed and out looking for you!

Watch out!


18 January 2011
Dear Alice, no you are not delusional, so you can put away your looking glass. I also saw the notice on "News and Views", I think on Friday, and was quite amazed to learn from a friend this morning that it too had been removed. Seems like a swift on and off is becoming habitual.

I wasn't aware that there was a rumour circulating that we would all be FCI-yi-yi-ers by the end of 2012, and that Carting would then be toast. Possibly the denial is true. Maybe that's because it could be in 2011! Or even 2013 to coincide with the Agility World Cup.

Lucienne Ferres


18 January 2011
With a view to what we have been witnessing I think we should all have "Right of Admission Reserved" in our Constitutions. We must all pull out our Constitutions and make sure we are covered regarding AGM's. We must make special note of new membership acceptance procedures as well as Committee nominations prior to AGM Meetings.

Be very AWARE


18 January 2011
I'm not easily lost for words, but the more I think back about what we witnessed on Sunday, the more stunned I am. I cannot believe I was actually part of it. Can you believe that members of the executive of the NAPC council would descend on a small Toy Club's AGM in this manner. It is unprecedented and I would never want to be part of such a council.

Imagine them all quickly joining the club, when they have never before showed any interest in being a member of any of the 3 Toy clubs in Gauteng.

When Ronnie Ryrie didn't know who the strange gentleman was (I asked him), I assumed that he was some Staffie exhibitor because the Terrier Show was on next door. Sorry Staffie people.

Let me just say that I have been showing dogs for 25 years. I am a panelled Working judge, a Club Chairman and an All Breeds Club Secretary. I read every dog publication I can lay my hands on from cover to cover. I can honestly say that I have NEVER seen this man; he has never shown under me, I have never seen a photo of his dogs anywhere, of his winning anything, or of his judging anywhere. I only know his name from the Dogworld web site.

I have no words. All I can say to Mr Case van Hattem and Mr Greg Eva is: Toy people do NOT want FCI shows or FCI breed standards. In the FCI the Toy Group doesn't even exist. Ask any Toy person, we shall fight the introduction of FCI breed standards and FCI groups to the death. Should you manage to change our standards despite our vehement opposition, we'll change them right back when you are gone.

Heidi Rolfes


18 January 2011
Last night the WCPC held a very lively meeting where it was announced by the Chairman, Mrs Doreen Powell, that our province is the next target of the "KUSA Roadshow" and that at our next meeting we will be honoured with a visitation from Mrs Joan Barrow and Mr Alwyn Dippenaar.

Suffice it to say that the meeting exploded - not only with indignation, but also with laughter. There was not even a shred of support for this outrageous plan and Mrs Powell was told in no uncertain terms by all present (and there was a bumper attendance) that these two people were not welcome at any of our meetings. It was minuted as such and Mrs Powell was instructed to inform KUSA and the two councillors of the WCPC's decision.

Done and dusted!


18 January 2011
Mr van Hattem (aka the councillor who knows everything), seems to have made his 2011 New Year's Resolution to be to make sweeping visits to meetings and AGMs that have nothing to do with him. Luckily for those so imposed upon, nobody thus far have partaken of his "wisdom". I congratulate Anita Bodenstein on saying what we've all been thinking. The Rottweiler breed council and Mr van Hattem have succeeded in chasing away many a Rottie breeder. I am one of them.

Ex Rottie breeder


18 January 2011
I think that all three "hi profile northern area types" that gatecrashed the Jubilee Toy Dog AGM showed their true colours on Sunday. Mr van Hattem – he who knows EVERYTHING – proved he just cannot keep his mouth shut by barging into the main part of the meeting when Mrs Hubbard could no longer feed him information quickly enough. I found their behaviour to be totally obnoxious. Well done to Dr Rolfes for standing up to him and his crew! Thank goodness their attempt to get the previous chairman reelected failed!

Toy clubs for Toy people


18 January 2011
The Chairman's Report of the Jubilee Toy Dog club certainly made for fascinating reading – definitely on a par with the "statue" of KUSA and our house is in "dismay".

I have taken the liberty of including the infamous "withdrawal" email. I would be interested to know if you think they both could be written by the same person.

Bewitched, bothered and bewildered


18 January 2011
The attempted hijacking of an AGM of a small club by members of a provincial council to meet their own political ends is deplorable and about as low as anyone in the dog world can go. This is a shameful abuse of power, to be held in the utmost contempt by all of us who value the rights to freedom of association and freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution.

There are persistent rumours of NAPC clubs wanting to defect to DOGSPC as they no longer wish to serve on a council where diverse opinions and dissenting voices are apparently not tolerated. KUSA, however, has shut the gate and clubs are no longer permitted to migrate from one provincial council to another.

In implementing such a ban, I believe KUSA is skating on extremely thin ice. The members of clubs that wish to relocate to DOGSPC should be able to rely on section 18 of the Constitution which provides that "Everyone has the right to freedom of Association." If clubs are serious about migrating, it might well be worth their members' while to challenge KUSA's ruling on Constitutional grounds.

Gérard Robinson


18 January 2011
I saw the KUSA list of clubs that objected to Fedco's decision to no longer allow a simple majority of clubs to object to changes to the constitution. As a Hound person, I checked out the Hound clubs and was more than surprised to see that none of the Hound clubs in KZN objected. I wonder why? As we now know that the real reason for this Fedco decision to change the constitution is to go full on FCI, I would have thought the Hounds would be the first to mount a protest because they have the most to lose. There are a great many differences in the Hound standards and going FCI will also mean the total destruction of the Hound group as we know it.

The people who run the Hound group club in the Cape informed us in detail of the ramifications of the Fedco decision. Did the same not happen in KZN? Why are the Hounds not standing together? Even the Algoa Hound Club in PE objected – the one and only club in the EC that had thhe guts to stand up to the woman who has them all trembling in their boots – even as far as Grahamstown.

Can this perhaps have something to do with with the secterary of the KZN Hound clubs also being secretary of the province?

Hopefully not a Case of double standards


18 January 2011
Dear Double Standards

1 A National Title.
2 A trip to the USA.
3 A fully paid weekend in Cape Town.

Three for Three (votes) ?
18 January 2011
Lucienne Ferres's post on the President's being invited to take a seat on the FCI's Breed Standards Commission poses to interesting scenario.

As I see it, the President cannot accept such an invitation as long as Article 15.2 of the KUSA Constitution prevails, despite Fedco's presumption that it is at liberty to "interpret" language that even an elementary school child can understand. Should the President elect to take up his pledged FCI seat with this article unchanged, then I'm afraid he'll have to relinquish his seat on Fedco and, by implication, also the office of President. There is obviously little chance that this will happen voluntarily, but a declaratory judgement obtained from the High Court should conceivably sort that out.

My advice to the President is to defer acceptance of the seat until Article 15.2 has been changed, if Fedco so desires.

Gérard Robinson


18 January 2011
As a fervent breeder, exhibitor and supporter of all three Gauteng-based Toy clubs for the past fifteen years, I was horrified to see the support for the outgoing chairman of the Jubilee Club from the terrible trio of the NAPC. As they didn't get their way. Obviously it was no good

Bending for Case and country


19 January 2011
I see that the President of the South African Cricket Association has resigned and is stepping down.

He no longer has the support of his board, and has a vote of "No Confidence"against him.
He says that "if the board does not want him, HE WILL GO.
Wish there were some simlar thinking PC Chairman in the Fedco.

Only wishing


20 January 2011
Dear Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered – I agree with you –if that Chairman's Report and the withdrawal letter was written by the same person, then I'm a Dutchman! (to quote somebody else on this forum).

It amazes me that with all the medical advances they've never managed to find a cure for stupidity.

Sad, but true


20 January 2011
Dear Only Wishing I just wish there was some similar thinking president in the Fedco.

Also Wishing


20 January 2011
I've given the thing of Mrs Barrow and Mr Dippenaar visiting the WCPC council some thought and decided that this is the biggest insult and slap in the face our council has ever had to suffer from KUSA. What on earth does the President think these two people can contribute to our province's activities.

The meetings in KZN and the WC prove that KUSA is seriously out of touch with the people on the ground. I may be controversial, but we need new blood on Fedco. We can only benefit from a major cleanout.

Do the honourable thing and resign


20 January 2011
I see that the contentious Articles have been changed on the KUSA website with alacrity and 66%s litter the joint. A little premature don't you think in view of the looming legal action?

Oh well, it's only KUSA money.


21 January 2011
In reply to "Oh well, it's only KUSA Money."

I object, "IT IS NOT" KUSA money.

The President and his noddy dolls could not give a dam -- the monies they are using, is yours and mine - the ordinary KUSA Paid up members -- against the wishes of their own members who can see reality.
Take the Jones case, which cost us KUSA members well in excess of R120,000 when KUSA lost the case a few years ago.

The President and his noddy dolls are so hell bent on getting the 66% through,-- as they loose nothing out of their own pockets and have no conscience of wasting other peoples monies.

Time is nigh to start another Organisation?


22 January 2011
I don't entirely agree with Time is nigh to start another Organisation?

There are some very good and competent people on the KUSA staff. The problem lies only one place – at the very top.

KUSA is our organisation, which we have unfortunately allowed to be wrested from our grip by ambitious and duplicitous men and women who act out of self-interest and not in representation of the membership. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that it is now known that not one of the three largest provinces supported the amendments to the constitution, yet two of these provincial representatives voted for the amendments.

The time has come to reclaim the organisation for the people and to put in place the kind of governance that we, the members, would like to see. In essence that means people who will have respect for the constitution, people who will serve us, and not themselves, and people who will command the respect of the membership.

The time to act is now. Can we do it? To borrow the rallying cry of the Obama supporters: Yes, we can!
Gérard Robinson


22 January 2011
Dear Three for Three (votes)?

Yes, isn't it amazing how cheaply you can sell your soul and principles.

Faustian Bargain


24 January 2011
At the Supa 7's the other evening friends from Cape Town mentioned that Doreen Powell gave a report to her council on the visit to KZN that she was part of and she was apparently extremely critical of the people who had stood up and walked out of the meeting. She called them disrespectful and all sorts.

My question is, is it appropriate for a provincial councillor to rubbish the members of another provincial council at an open meeting? The people who walked out of the KZN meeting in disgust are some of the most respected people in dogs and if Mrs Powell thought their behaviour was unacceptable, surely she should wait for a Fedco meeting to make her point. This is not the kind of linen you wash in public.

By all means tell your council that the visit to KZN was a monumental disaster and a total waste of money, but leave the negative sentiment out of it. Rather try to understand the frustration of the KZN people who have done all they can to get rid of Mr Bostik, but to no avail.

Appropriate behaviour called for


24 January 2011
How and when would this reclaiming of KUSA from its unpopular leader and his nodding men begin and how? Who out of the breeders and member support such an act.

Is there going to be a big meeting by the KUSA members and breeders? So many questions to be answered. Who would take over leadership and run KUSA the way it should be run?

Concerned breeder and member.


27 January 2011
In answer to Mrs. Powell's alleged criticism of KZNPC's Council meeting on the 11th Jan, I would like to ask her if the upper management of KUSA have any idea how it feels to be a victim of a historically good system being torn to shreds by a minority who have no care for what is Democratically correct or forging a majority support forward to focus on a betterment for our sport?

Does Mrs. Powell and those in power think we enjoy attending meetings where we are told what to do, where our votes mean nothing within a power driven FEDCO Office, where selling your soul is what it's all about?

The votes of the people mean absolutely zip, what we feel should be the best for our sport means nothing… we are here to feed people on the FEDCO to get their dangerous, manipulative ambitions in place.

Does Mrs. Powell accept the Neanderthal action of the FEDCO Councilor at a recent AGM in Gauteng?

According to KUSA, a Chairman of any Province is voted in by the people to represent the Province, to table that Province's needs and support that Province's vote on any points raised. The slap in the face is that the Chairman may change that vote at his/her discretion. WHAT IS THAT? Our Chairman does this without even discussion with his vice… The FEDCO continuously holds on decision making on certain issues, if unsure and need further investigation, why does our Chair never come back to his Council and discuss if he feels he needs to turn the vote made?

Majority Members of the Council of KZN did not respect the decision made regarding the 66% voting and refused to move past this point on the agenda until we had a satisfactory answer. We did not get that answer, we as a Council feel insulted with the lies and deception weaved around this point. We have a Democratic Right to vote out a lost confidence as we can no longer operate as a leaderless Council.

Mr. Eva attended the meeting, what part of a majority non-support cannot be understood? If the FEDCO is looking after the good of the people, why is there no response? As usual we are left under the carpet, thrown into the unwanted garbage without our voices heard.

We are tired of this attitude and want change, we want to move forward, therefore Mrs. Powell, we have every right to our decisions made, we will no longer stand for autocratic decision making. Remember the bottom line is ethical support supports ethical support, the circle goes round and grows in respect, the opposite ends in destruction.

I agree with Gerard Robinson, KUSA in itself is not the problem, we do not realize the depths of where this will all end if we all do not act in forward planning as Councils, people who want change must stop attending meetings like a bunch of sheep, read the minutes of FEDCO and EXCO, get your facts straight before Provincial Council Meetings, discuss with your Club Committees, talk across Provincial Borders, act like teams, grow in trust and confidence within one another. FEDCO decisions thrive on "DIVIDED WE FALL"!

Mark Anderson


29 January 2011
It is now common knowledge that at the meeting of the of the WC Provco held on 17 January 2011, the Chairman, Mrs Doreen Powell, was lambasted for having acted contrary to the view of the majority of clubs when she supported the Fedco resolution to overrule the Exco decision on the 66% issue. I received a copy of the draft minutes of the meeting from a friend, a document which had gone out to all the WC provincial councillors and therefore not privileged. In the draft minutes the proceedings are recorded in rather genteel fashion, as is customary practice when meetings are volatile. Nevertheless, the draft minutes reflect the Provco's wish, consented to by Mrs Powell, for a "statement" to be sent to the President of KUSA by the Chairman to inform him of the council's view that the voting on the Exco decision "was flawed". Ms Joy McFarlane was tasked with drawing up a suitable statement for the Chairman's signature.

This following letter, dated 20 January 2011, was duly sent to the President of KUSA and, since it had similarly been circulated to all WC councillors, is quoted here as a document of public record:

Letter to the President

For the benefit of Mark Anderson and others, the draft minutes of the WCPC also reflect that Mrs Powell deplored the "lack of respect shown" and the "shameful display of canine political tactics" by the KZN councillors. What I find difficult to understand is that, since Mrs Powell has done a few more laps than most of us, she should know that in life respect is something earned. I do not believe for one minute that the KZN councillors meant to be disrespectful to either the President, or to the two visiting Fedco members, but since the KZNPC Chairman does not have the confidence of the majority of his councillors, they are certainly not obliged to show him any particular deference. That includes excusing themselves from a meeting they felt he was no longer desired, or welcome, to chair.

It is unfortunate that the walkout occurred on the night the circus came to town. It was pure chance that the Fedco visit coincided with the meeting where the KZN councillors were going to hold their Chairman to account for having acted contrary to the Provco's mandate, so that was hardly a "shameful display of canine political tactics", but rather ordinary council business.

Despite the fact that Mrs Powell misrepresented the majority view of her constituents at Fedco, she nevertheless received a resounding vote of confidence at the close of the WCPC meeting. This most generous gesture proves that reasonable people are normally rather forgiving of error and invariably prepared to bury the past and start afresh. I believe that the good folk of KZN are no less magnanimous, so the fact that their Chairman's behaviour had necessitated two votes of no confidence should be an indication to Mrs Powell of the level of frustration the people of KZN have been suffering.

On a different note: The person rejoicing in the pseudonym Done and Dusted! must have been dreaming at the WCPC meeting, because the two Fedco members scheduled to visit the WCPC are curiously not identified in the minutes. The two councillors mentioned in the post in question must therefore have been figments of somebody's fertile imagination, so there is always something to be grateful for.

Gérard Robinson


31 January 2011
In his post Mark Anderson asks if Mrs Powell has any idea of how it feels to be a victim of a historically good system being torn to shreds by a minority who have no care for what is democratically correct.

Obviously not.

All the president's puppets have proved time and again that they either don't know, or else don't care to know, how a democracy actually works, as long as they can bathe in their perceived golden glow of the president's approval.

I congratulate the KZNners for the courage of their convictions in walking out of a meeting chaired by someone who has refused to resign after enduring not one, but two, Votes of No Confidence.

Reporting back to her council on the abortive KZN propaganda meeting (otherwise known as "getting to know you roadshow"), Mrs Powell then has the chutzpah to lament the "lack of respect" shown, and additionally makes a comment on the "shameful display of canine political tactics" employed by very upstanding members of the KZN dog fancy.

This from a Fedco councillor who not only voted in favour of the ludicrous removal of four votes, but who also quite happily lent her support to an eventual PowerPoint presentation given by the NAPC chairman trashing DOGS PC's dual representation. Doesn't that rather smack of a lack of respect and shameful display of canine political tactics?

What I fail to understand, is that the Western Cape PC, after quite rightly "lambasting" Mrs Powell on ignoring the wishes of the greater majority of her council, (also on more than one occasion), nevertheless gives her a Vote of Confidence. How's that for an oxymoron?!

Lucienne Ferres


1 February 2011
Case 2-10 - Wits / vd Nest R24,890
I find it unbelievable that KUSA in its wisdom could have spent so much money on such a matter. The guilty party wanted the matter to be settled and was very apologetic for what happened.

I am of the opinion that no one in Cape Town even cares that R24,890 was wasted and that, with a simple phone call a lot of money could have been spared.

Andrew Wright


6 February 2011
In his most recent communication dated 4 February 2010, the President admits, having "sought legal advice", that Fedco had "exceeded its powers by accepting the retraction letters and holding that a simple majority had not been obtained". I find it rather disingenuous of the President to hide behind the collective "Fedco" when all of those who had attended the Fedco meeting in December were alerted by certain members of the council to the fact that overriding the Exco decision would be ultra vires the KUSA Constitution. Nevertheless, the President, joined by Councillors Barrow, Dippenaar, Edwards, Powell and Van Hattem, chose to disregard their fiduciary responsibilities as Federal Councillors and proceeded to breach the Constitution. The lone voices to oppose the flagrant abuse of power were those of Councillors De Taranto (standing in), Thompson and Wilson.

Hopefully the councils of the Eastern Cape, Free State and Northern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape and Northern Areas took note of the fact that their representatives had knowingly, intentionally and in spite of having been forewarned, elected to go ahead with the contravention. Councillors Edwards and Powell have already been held to account by their provinces and one wonders what the chances are that club representatives in any of the other three provinces will stand up and be counted. Judging by their unblemished record of blind subservience, my guess, sadly, is nil.

You might wonder what prompted the President to hotfoot it over to the ever-receiving and eternally obliging Webber Wentzel. In my view the motivation was twofold. At its meeting of 18 January 2011, Exco objected to Fedco's action to overrule its decision and voted for the matter to go onto the May Fedco agenda with a view to Fedco's retraction. The more compelling motivation, however, I believe to be a letter sent to the President by Mr David Thompson, informing him of his intention to institute legal proceedings against KUSA and the perpetrators of the constitutional breach in their personal capacities.

Instead of putting this matter to bed in a spirit of acquiescence and conciliation, in his letter of 4 February the President cannot resist threatening the insubordinates once more. His caveat is framed as follows: "It should be noted that Exco reached its decision in accordance with Article 40. For future purposes and for due guidance, Fedco shall give a ruling in terms of Article 43 on the way in which Article 40 shall be followed." What does this tell us? Simply that Fedco is once more going to use its powers to "interpret" the constitution, this time in order to curtail Exco's discretionary powers.

Gazing into my crystal ball, I'd like to hazard a guess at the identity of this intended "interpretation". I believe it might be called "in good standing". Before its premature amendment, Article 40.3 required a simple majority of "affiliated clubs" to object to a constitutional change. What Fedco would in all likelihood be called upon to "rule" would be for Exco to take this Article to mean "affiliated clubs in good standing". This would be neatly in line with an earlier opinion the President had obtained from the ubiquitous Webber Wenzel when he first delayed Exco's taking a decision on the poll result.

What we need to understand is that if a club were not in good standing, then KUSA has the right - nay, the obligation, to disaffiliate it. That means that all clubs not disaffiliated at any given time, must be deemed to be clubs in good standing. Should the "in good standing" interpretation indeed prove to be the President's next move, then it must be resisted at all costs. Once he has got this through Fedco, KUSA will stop at nothing in challenging Exco's decisions on clubs that object on the basis of their not being "in good standing". On the flimsiest of pretexts (a late show schedule, Chairman's report, financial statements, payment, AGM, etc.) clubs will be denied a voice.

Gérard Robinson


6 February 2011
I recently received a circular from DOGSPC on the money KUSA had spent on getting "legal advice" over the past two years. This disclosure left me speechless and those who know me will attest that that's pretty hard to achieve.

There was apparently no money when Johannesburg was faced with Draconian anti-dog legislation and we desperately needed legal advice. We were told to raise our own funds to fight various city councils, while it now appears that KUSA could find almost half a million rand to waste on a bunch of spurious cases!

The ongoing Van Niekerk case has cost KUSA R70 000 so far, with no end in sight, and then there was Mr Van Hattem vs the NJSC which cost a whopping R20 000 in legal fees! (HUH!!!!). The biggest waste of money – R51 000!!!! – must be on the case where awards were taken away from exhibitors by the Show Manager of the FCI show in direct violation of KUSA show rules which state that only Exco may take away awards. The affected parties would have been satisfied with letters of reprimand being sent to the Show Manager and the Judge and letters of apology being sent to them for the public humiliation and embarrassment they had suffered. But no, KUSA had to run off to Webber Wentzel to seek advice (what advice?!!!) to the tune of R51 000!!!

I must remind everyone who cares that this is your money KUSA has spent on frivolous legal pursuits – all R457 493 of it! I imagine that in these tough economic times KUSA must rate as an excellent client for Webber Wentzel.

I take a great interest in history and 120 years is a very important milestone in the life of any organisation. This year 2011 marks 120 years since the founding of KUSA. Have we seen a commemorative logo, or any commemorative items like a badges or key rings? Not a damn thing, because KUSA has no money. Why? Because it had wasted half a million of your and my money on greedy lawyers!

Fran Browning Cristina


6 February 2011
So we have received an "intention to retract" letter from KUSA albeit very tongue in cheek with a rider that things will have to be sorted at the next meeting. Legal advise has ONCE AGAIN been taken. What happened to the good old days when internal matters were sorted "in office"? They have been told that they have "exceeded" their powers but they still intend to take it further? Why? What is this going to cost at the end of it all?

I received a copy of the past two financial years legal expenses from KUSA! Five days later my mouth is still hanging open! What was the extent of the error, made by a Club Secretary at a Show, that was worth spending R51,060.00 on? Who has not made a mistake somewhere along the line? All that happened was that an award was erroneously removed! Sorry, mistakes are made. Correct the error, apologise. Move on! Don't take R51,060.00 worth of legal advise on it! Someone intentionally/unintentionally messed with a club account! They admitted it. R24,000.00 spent! What for? Send a letter. Don't do it again or else! Move on!

Then the main rider in MY life! Tail docking, Animal Protection Act and a bit of GSDF thrown in for good luck ~~~ the sum total of R6,538.00 spent! Whoopi twang! At last something that I and quite a few others feel money should be spent on! What about the Municipal regulations restricting residential dog numbers that is affecting us all? Where is the money that has been spent on that or does KUSA think it was not important enough to warrant legal advise? Get your priorities right!

Time KUSA used their website to tell us mere mortals what is happening in Bree Street! Do that, rather than post/withdraw threats! Let us know why our Membership money is being spent on individuals. Give us the reason why money was request and not granted for legal advise on important matters that affect us all. Maybe if that was done the R15,275.00 spent on a "chat room defamation case" would still be in KUSA's coffers and not blown!



6 February 2011
I recently spotted an amusing caricature penned by cartoonist and satirist Zapiro.

I naturally claim no credit for his brilliance, which in my opinion epitomizes that which can occur when dictators or leaders rule for unreasonable periods of time.

I am sure all readers would agree that his examples of Ben Ali, (Tunisia) Mubarak (Egypt) and Gaddafi (Libya) emphasize the point succinctly. They all appear to be threatened by the Domino factor....... all potentially falling like a pack of cards (or Dominoes).

Perhaps an appropriate title for leaders of this calibre could be The Dictator Dominoes.

23 years, 29 years and 42 years of governance can certainly lead to discontent and uprising by disgruntled citizens who consequently find themselves being ruled by tyrants under undemocratic conditions. Mad Bob, 25 years (Zimbabwe) likewise falls into this category.

There is someone else that comes to mind, who has, by his own admission on Facebook, ruled for no less than 43 years, (1968 to date).WOW!.

For the benefit and amusement of those readers who have a keen sense of humour and wit, as well as an intellectual head on their shoulders, I have taken the liberty of including Zapiro's cartoon.

I have also added one of my own. I do however apologise for the quality of the sketch, as I do not claim to have any artistic abilities.

Lionel Noik


6 February 2011
Does anybody know if there are insurance companies that sell life insurance for dogs?

Caroline van Deventer


7 February 2011
Dear Lionel Noik, thanks for starting Monday morning off with such a good laugh! To quote one of Councillor Dippenaar's more memorable annual Chairman's Reports, the "statue" of KUSA indeed seems to be toppling, and their house certainly is in "dismay"!

Lucienne Ferres


7 February 2011
I read Gerhard Robinson's letter with great interest.

Who paid for this crazy "in good standing" advice from WW? I hope the President paid for this nonsense out of his own pocket because EXCO didn't ask for this. And who paid for the advice that the Fedco bunch "exceeded their powers"? I could have told the President that for free!!!

Once again a shameful waste of your and my money. Who is going to stop them running off to the lawyers at a drop of a hat?? Is the half a million KUSA has already wasted not enough??



8 February 2011
I too have a crystal ball Gérard! Having gazed into it, my prediction for the May Fedco meeting is that "voting six to three", Article 15.2 will be changed in order to allow the president to play on the FCI Breed Standards Commission.

After having spent all our money at WW, why would a little thing like being ultra vires the KUSA constitution stop the faithful from granting their president his dearest wish?

I urge the councils of KZN, Gauteng and the Western Cape (the other three are best ignored) to take note, and instruct their councillors that under no circumstances are they to vote against the wishes of their councils.

Lucienne Ferres


8 February 2011
I am gobsmacked at the amount of members money that has been wasted on lawyers fees. In my experience, people who spend their time running to lawyers are merely looking for loopholes and ways out of doing the right thing.

Particularly unnecessary was the 26 817.00 spent on the Exco election. Was this money just spent to keep the 2nd representative of DOGS PC off Exco? Then there was the 20 080.00 spent because Mr van Hattem had allegedly failed his Working reports, but most shocking of all was the 51 060.00 thrown away because a simple apology was just too much to make.

Judi's right. We were told to go and raise our own money to fight the Jhb council and nothing was spent on SAVA and the tail docking saga.

Jackie Selebe cost the country about 51 million, and now he has to reimburse the taxpayer. Any chance of our president refunding the members money, or should we just demand his resignation?

Incensed member


8 February 2011
After a litany of debacles from the Staffie breeding registration saga, bending the constitution for purely personal gain, bullying Provincial Councils, unnecessary wastage of funds on legal advice and all the other judgeing problems has the time not arrived for the ground level members of KUSA to make a stand? Can we not hold a vote of confidence/no confidence in our Fedco on the basis of one member one vote instead of the current unreliable voting structure? We are the owners of KUSA and it is being ruined by a bunch of people to saisfy their own inflated egos and the interests of dogdom are taking a back seat.

Very Concerned Member


8 February 2011
After reading Lionel Noik's very amusing contribution I had to go and check Mr Eva's Facebook profile for myself because I couldn't believe that he has been President of KUSA since 1968. KUSA didn't even have a President in 1968, but sure enough 1968 is what it says on Facebook!

I asked around a bit and one of the old hands told me that Mr Eva became President in 1987. I don't know if that date is accurate, but it was certainly many years later than 1968.

As you are the only one who can set up your own Facebook profile, why should the President find it necessary to tell porkies?

Just asking


8 February 2011
R70,000-00 for the ongoing Van Niekerk case? Why did KUSA not ban these people with the FIRST case represented by Mrs Griet Coetzer with so many facts & details of people who were taken for a ride by the Van Niekerks? There would not have been any more monies spent on these people. However, KUSA gave them (husband and wife) a life ban, SUSPENDED for 10 years. As I remember correctly the van Niekerk's did not even appeal against their sentence. I wonder why? This clean slate given to them by KUSA was quickly tarnished when Mrs van Niekerk was banned for live, after again, not complying with the KUSA rules, but it still leaves Mr van Niekerk with a suspended sentence. All eyes are on him as he brings his KUSA banned wife to the shows and allows her to handle and groom his dogs at the side of the ring. How is that for respecting the rules and regulations of KUSA? Further, more stories from people that have been bitten by these disrespectful breeders are still to this day, coming out of the woodwork!! WHAT WILL IT TAKE AND WHEN WILL KUSA PUT A STOP TO THEIR ANTICS ONCE AND FOR ALL – AND AT WHAT COST.



9 February 2011
In answer to the phone calls asking how much of the R20,080 as published by KUSA, the National Judges Sub Committee received to defend itself in the case NJSC versus Case Van Hattem.

The NJSC received nothing, nor was any defence costs offered. No legal costs were incurred in defending ourselves. The possible reason for Case Van Hattem seeking advice on a matter the NJSC considered should be settled 'in house' was as a result of a letter from Greg Eva, who understood that Case Van Hattem had instigated legal action against the NJSC. This was subsequently found to be either untrue or Case Van Hattem withdrew his action without informing the NJSC or the president, so why the expense of R20,080?

If Case Van Hattem instigated his action against the NJSC or to be correct had KUSA made enquiry to Webber Wentzel regarding the validity of legal action against the NJSC, paid for on his behalf by KUSA, shouldn't he now be held responsible for the sum of R20,080 incurred on his behalf.

Alternatively one wonders who incurred this sum of R20,080 on his behalf? Fedco? Exco? KUSA staff member? Someone should pay, but not the rank and file members.

The fact remains that Case Van Hattem asked for treatment regarding his report which was not available to other aspirant judges.
For refusing, the NJSC was effectively destroyed, and R20,080 was apparently indirectly spent in so doing.
This raises the question, is Case Van Hattem now allowed to have his friends scrutinize his reports? I don't think so, though my opinion may well be in the minority.
I intend on behalf of myself and former colleagues on the NJSC, to motivate this matter through club and provincial levels, this will ensure complete transparency.
We, the former members of the NJSC didn't receive one cent of the R20,080 spent on the Case Van Hattem case. We ask that KUSA approach our query by being themselves completely transparent, in short who benefited from the advice costing R20,080 and who authorised this expense? Why was this unprecedented action taken against a National Sub Committee of KUSA doing no more than its duty towards all aspirant judges.

Neil S.Kay


9 February 2011
In provinces where clubs are still ruled in strict accordance with the mushroom principle and where they evidently thrive on the mind-numbing brown stuff, the breakdown of KUSA's legal expenses for 2008/09 and 2009/10 might not have been circulated. Although it is unlikely that these clubs would be interested in how they had fed KUSA's Webber Wentzel (WW) habit, I'm nevertheless happy to provide the breakdown:

Legal costs Sep 2009 to Aug 2010
Case -08 K Smith 38,720
Case 3-09 L van Niekerk/appeal etc 47,695
Case 4-09 - du Toit / Mattheys 4,800
Case 5-09 FCI show complaint 51,060
Case 6-09 - NJSC/van Hattem 20,080
Case 01-10 Engel/Kock 6,880
Case 2-10 - Wits / vd Nest 24,890
Case 3-10 - SARRC / Coole 11,290
Case 4-10 (not held yet) 11,215
Breakdown of other:
Delegation of authority 11,600
Ownership of dogs/kennel names 11,680
GSDF 11,575
Reg/Transfer 10,610
Naidoo/Racism 12,205
Schedule 1 9,255
Prof Kirberger (x-rays: AC Fischer) 4,424
Printing/Copying/Courier 4,229
Legal costs Sep 2008 to Aug 2009
DSC complaints
Thompson 15,800
Muller-Smith 17,130
van Niekerk 31,133
GSDF 35,780
chatroom defamation/Dogworld 15,275
Income Tax Act - amendments 14,580
tail docking, animal prot act, GSDF 6,538
Election of Exco 26,817
Cameraland - audio to cd 351
printing/copying 1,870

A number of people have already expressed outrage on this Forum at some of the more obvious line items to which, of course, I add my voice. What is so ironical is that the bungled Exco election back in 2008 cost KUSA R27 000 in legal fees and in the end it didn't even follow the advice given by WW. What's the point of asking lawyers for advice at vast expense when you know you're going to breach the constitution anyway?

Another fascinating item dating back to 2008 is "Chatroom Defamation – Dogworld". One wonders which post on Dogworld riled the powers that be so as to send them scuttling off to WW? Hopefully, for its R15 000, KUSA got the sound advice that, in suing for defamation, the court would need to weigh up the alleged defamatory remarks against, inter alia, truth and public benefit (remarks made in the public interest) and fair comment (part of the right to free speech to express a genuine opinion on a matter of public interest). Since I haven't heard of any case being brought on the grounds of defamation, presumably KUSA has decided, wisely in my view, not to go there.

Up to a point in 2009, Mr David Thompson assisted the KUSA Secretary, Mrs Sheila Thornberry, in advising which complaints should go forward under KUSA's Disciplinary Rules (Schedule I). Around the time of the notorious "FCI Complaint", which implicated one of the President's most loyal and devout followers, Mr Thompson was suddenly and unceremoniously relieved of his advisory duties and WW was appointed to assist Mrs Thornberry in future. At the time rumours of lawyers' letters and threats of legal action abounded and it therefore came as no surprise when the FCI Complaint didn't go forward. One can only speculate about Mr Thompson's recommendations with regard to disciplinary action, but they must have been sufficiently unpopular for him to be made the fall guy.

As is evident from the breakdown, WW's counsel on disciplinary issues comes at a considerable price. With a perfectly capable lawyer occupying a seat on Exco, one wonders why KUSA would not avail itself of his benevolence instead of continuing to indulge in this senseless waste of money.

Gérard Robinson


9 February 2011
When is Mr Eva gonna stop threatening us with FEDCO. Although they probably think so, these people are not our masters and we will not stand for their threats. We are not there to be punished by them.

Kusa is there to work for us, the members. We pay the salary of Mr Eva and the Kusa staff. Don't forget that. We put the people on FEDCO and we can get rid of them. Most of them don't deserve to be here anyway.

Fed-up with bullies.


9 February 2011
What a 1st class function for a 1st class company ! Many thanks to Royal Canin for organising the seminar which was extremely informative. It is nice when a company "gives back" to their customers that support them.

Thanks to Audrey & Jacqui, I had a wonderful evening.

White Knight Greetings
9 February 2011
In reply to Seething:

KUSA paid for the "In good standing" opinion, of course. KUSA didn't like the result of the objections and, in consequence, ran off to the lawyers to plant the "in good standing" seed in the hope that WW would be able to squeeze something out of existing case law to justify this bizarre interpretation of Article 40.3. When has KUSA ever shied away from the billable hours of a high-end law firm?

As I've said before, clubs that are not in good standing need to be disaffiliated. Any affiliated clubs not in good standing means that KUSA hasn't done its job to disaffiliate them. That is nobody's fault, but KUSA's. Therefore, clubs affiliated to KUSA at any given time must be assumed to be clubs in good standing and eligible to participate in any constitutionally sanctioned process. This was obviously also how our founding fathers saw things working when they adopted the Constitution.

As I haven't seen WW's "in good standing" opinion, I don't know what's in it and can't comment on it.

Gérard Robinson


9 January 2011
I am pleased that Lucienne Ferres and "just asking" enjoyed my contribution on a Monday morning. I am sure that they and others will understand that although a tinge of humour early in the week is good for the soul, my message was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Zapiro has cleverly over the years coupled his humourous sketches with messages which are of a far more serious nature. He was even being sued for something like R7 000 000.00 by none other than our illustrious President Zuma, who couldn't or wouldn't take kindly to Zapiro's justified criticism.

Makes Mr Eva's expenditure on legal expenses appear puny by comparison!!

On a far more serious note what becomes mindboggling is the fact that a leader of a voluntary organization can permit costs of close to R500 000.00 (or thereabouts) in legal expenses to be incurred over a period of two years, literally facilitating the use of funds that do not belong to him, but rather to the members of Kusa. As I am not privy to the financial statements of Kusa, I cannot make a fair assessment of legal expenses expressed as a percentage of gross revenue. At a guess I would venture roughly 10 per cent.

Is there any reader of this column who could provide the actual percentage?

In Kusa's mission statement (it's aims), the following extract appears:

"The Kennel Union of Southern Africa aims to serve both its members and South African society, as a whole………."

As a member of "South African society" I ask….How so? By squandering nearly a half a million Rand on matters that could have been easily resolved without resorting to unrestrained legal opinion! Can or will Mr. Eva offer valid justification for such decisions/expenditure?

Members who have in the past been critical of "happenings" within the Department of Administration, otherwise referred to as "The Office", need to become far more critical and vigilant of what is presently occurring at number 68 Bree Street. Members who truly have the interests of its co- members rights at heart, need to make a concerted effort to stop the rot in its tracks.

There are numerous astute leaders out there, I believe in all provinces, (perhaps with the exclusion of the NAPC enclave) who should finally realize that talking amongst one another or writing articles on this website is simply not sufficient. A concerted joint membership drive to have the present senior administration removed and replaced by those who have the desire to see Kusa run on fair and democratic principles, should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

The alternative is that Kusa will eventually collapse. Who knows what remnants will remain for the picking.

I believe Mr. David Thompson has made the first move in this regard. I wish him the best of luck. If I can offer a word of advice (from one who has been once bitten), for what it is worth,…….. Do not give up on yourself or the course that you have decided to follow. Don't allow yourself to be hoodwinked by crisis or fires being extinguished by the Kusa management, simply to appease the present delicate situation in which Kusa currently finds itself, only to be replaced by the present administration fanning of new series of fires at a later stage.

Contraventions of the Kusa articles or an attempt to amend the Constitution simply to tailor make an organization's policy document for the benefit of the minority should be vehemently resisted by members. I am certain Dave Thompson, (perhaps in jest Dave Thompson could be referred to as the Gauteng watchdog), with the contribution and assistance of others, possibly from all provinces, can achieve what is necessary for the welfare and betterment of canine affairs in South Africa.

Lionel Noik


10 February 2011
A huge thank you to Royal Canin and especially Audrey & Jacqui for a wonderful and informative seminar. I certainly appreciate the expense, time and effort that is put into the organization of these seminars.

Once again well done Royal Canin for giving back to your breeders club.
Liz Norval


10 February 2011
Thinking about the raid on the AGM of Jubilee Toys and now reading Mr Kay's letter, the Northern Areas must be very proud of their Chairman. I can honestly say that I've never met the man and pray it stays that way.
Peace and Quiet


10 February 2011
I can fully understand and appreciate that KUSA needs to engage lawyers when it is being threatened with legal action, or being sued.

There is, however, no justification for briefing lawyers when complaints are received from KUSA members in terms of the Disciplinary Rules. Complaints are often based on frivolous disagreements and petty bickering and these should never be advanced. Those with merit are normally easily identified.

It doesn't require a lawyer to adjudicate on complaints. Mrs Sheila Thornberry and Mr David Thompson did an admirable job until Mr Thompson was "fired" for reasons which had nothing to do with his competence as an assessor of complaints, but everything to do with KUSA's giving in to external pressures.

Then, trotting off to the lawyers for a legal opinion on this, that and every damn thing seems to have become KUSA's favourite pastime. There is no need for this. Just read the constitution and stick to it.

Is Fedco going to put a stop to these ongoing wasteful practices? We can but hope...
Gérard Robinson
10 February 2011
Since reading Mr Eva's letter I am deeply ashamed of our province. In the EC we are ruled by the "mushroom principle" and if we want to know what's going on in dogdom we have to go and read the Dogworld website.

The clubs in PE were intimidated into not signing letters of protest and "Aunty Pearl" in EL problably didn't even know about the campaign (not that she would have sent in letters). The least said about the Grahamstown lot the better - jelly fish have more back bone.

The only club that stood up to the intimidation was Algoa Hound and for their trouble they were ostrisised and almost hounded out of town (if you pardon the pun). What do they say now that Algoa Hound has been vindicated? A letter of apology? You must be joking.

We now know that our leader was one of those who broke the constitution. But the clubs that listened to her and blindly followed her instructions; that's all of them except Algoa; are all guilty of the same thing. That especially goes for those who blatently lied and told their friends in Gauteng they sent in letters, but meanwhile back at the ranch... You know who you are.

This may not mean much, but on behalf of the clubs of Port Elizabeth I apologise to those who fought and won this battle for the lack of support. The behavior of our clubs was disgusting and shameful to say the least,

I unfortunately can't put my name to this because I've seen what happened to dissidents once the "Grumpys" get hold of them.

Deeply ashamed


10 February 2011
If they have to apply the "in good standing" rule in KUSA then surely there will be no more clubs in the Free State. What will Mr Dippenaar then be? Councillor without portfolio?

Ha ha!


10 February 2011
As an aspirant judge, I think its an absolute disgrace to hear that Case Van Hattem and the President cost the Kusa members 20K in legal fees just because Mr van Hattem failed his Working reports!!!!! What I understand from Mr Kay's post was that Van Hattem tried using his position on fedco to get his reports passed and when the NJSC refused, he then tried using a big stick on the members of the NJSC by threatening to sue the NJSC for not passing him!!! He was obviously aided and abetted by the President, because after their refusal to help Mr van Hattem out, the President disbanded the entire NJSC!!!!

This is the man who thinks so little of breed people that he pitches up for only an hour at his own provinces Top Dog event dressed in jeans and a tattie T Shirt and coudnt wait to leave!!! When are we going to get rid of these people? I think that both the President and Van Hattem should be asked to resign. I just bet that if it were one man one vote, only three people would be reelected!



10 February 2011
Mr Neil Kay's post is really interesting and also very worrying.

The R20080 question is - did Case Van Hattem really sue KUSA and its NJSC or was it all just scare tactics? It would be interesting to know exactly what the R20080 was spent on.

This is a truly ridiculous Case. The report of an aspirant judge is failed who then sues or threatens to sue KUSA and forces KUSA to spend R20000 of our money. What will happen if all aspirant judges do the same? KUSA will be bankrupt within a year.

But I suppose that won't happen because there are rules for Federal Councilors and rules for the rest of us.

I agree with Mr Kay that we must demand complete transparency through our Provco's and if necessary demand that the money be refunded.

Something stinks to high heaven

10 February 2011
For our sins, and to add to the misery of our extortionately expensive (and unnecessary) KUSA legal fees, for your information, the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) is due to be introduced in June 2011. Follow the link below and see how much it will cost you to go to work, and even more importantly – to Goldfields!

Lucienne Ferres


10 February 2011
Who is K Smith and why has he/she cost us almost 40K? Is he/she the same Smith joined to Muller in the previous year which cost 17K?

Can anybody throw some light on this please? This is an obscene amount of money!!!



11 February 2011
Disciplinary charges were brought by KUSA against K Smith on 8 November 2008. Smith was represented at the disciplinary hearing by Senior Council. Smith was found gulty on two charges and given a warning. During May the following year Smith was unsuccessful with an appeal before the KUSA appeals committee. Smith subsequently took the matter on review to the High Court in Cape Town and this matter is still pending, KUSA in the process once again making use of Webber Wentzel attorneys. It subsequently transpired during 2009 that KUSA had so far back as 2005 delegated its disciplinary functions in Gauteng to the District of Gauteng and Surrounds Provincial Council and that KUSA was not entitled to arrange a disciplinary hearing iro Smith. The attorneys for Smith subsequently wrote to Webber Wentzel suggesting the settlement of the matter by dropping the charges against Smith etc. Smith's attorneys have over a year not heard from Webber Wentzel. This matter is bound to cost KUSA many more tens of thousands of Rands as Smith's attorneys intend pressing ahead with the matter. It is clear that in this matter KUSA did not know their own constitution and had clearly forgotten that they had delegated away their disciplinary powers. On this basis alone KUSA have brought many charges which they were not entitled to do and many of these proceedings are capable of being set aside by courts of law. It is clear that in the Smith matter costs have been wasted by KUSA.



11 February 2011
It must be noted that the chairperson of Smith's disciplinary hearing on 8 November 2008 was a certain Mr. Harrison. It was this very same Mr Harrison who had proposed the delegation of the KUSA disciplinary powers pertaining to Gauteng and Surrounds during 2005. How is it possible that Mr Harrison forgot about his proposal in 2005 when he chaired Smith's disciplinary meeting on 8 November 2008 and was together with members of a disciplinary committee responsible for finding Smith guilty on two charges and giving Smith a warning. Those interested in this matter should have a look at the FEDCO and EXCO minutes pertaining to KUSA for 2005.


11 February 2011

Thank you for the explanation. I can't say I understand it all, but it doesn't sound too good for KUSA.

What you didn't explain to us is what K Smith is supposed to have done?

Still Curious


11 February 2011
I read the post from Legalegal with fascination. Does this mean that the van Niekerks also have KUSA by the short and curlies?
Fascinated with incompetence.


11 February 2011
Oh my goodness!!!! What Smith's lawyers discovered must be sweet music to the ears of the Van Niekerks!!!

I think KUSA must apply for overdraft facilities.



11 February 2011
It's raining writs, Hallelujah!

More money for WW!


12 February 2011
I don't serve on any committees and am definitely not interested in dog politics, but I think I agree with Deeply ashamed.

When you don't speak out about injustice it means you agree with it. The clubs in the Eastern Cape (except the one mentioned) must therefor accept responsibility together with all the clubs elsewhere in the country who didn't protest for violating the constitution of Kusa. The can't say they didn't know. They and their representatives committed what is truly a shameful act after they have been warned and with their eyes wide open.

I hope all the clubs in the Eastern Cape and especially Mrs Barrow will have the decency to write a letter of apology to Algoa Hound - or will you be like the Nats who never had the guts to apologize to Mrs Helen Suzman?

Hold your head high Algoa Hound


14 February 2011
What Keith Smith did was the following: during 2008 he emailed a member of the Northern Transvaal Bulldog Club. In this email K Smith spoke his mind about the member in question. This email was also circulated to various chairmen of bulldog clubs. Basically it was simply two adults having a spat. The recipient then laid charges with KUSA and KUSA through its disciplinary organs decided to get involved and press charges. The matter was a storm in a tea cup. The persons conducting the KUSA appeal were equally shortsighted and it later occurred that the appeal process of KUSA was also not in accordance with the KUSA constitution. In short KUSA had no jurisdiction to put K Smith on trial and the subsequent appeal process was procedurally flawed.

Legalegal knows nothing about the Van Niekerk matter and has made no effort to follow it. The same technicalities may however apply in respect of the Van Niekerk matter. Technically speaking all Gauteng disciplinary hearings since late 2005 and held by KUSA are not wroth anything and are capable of being set aside. In certain other provinces KUSA has also delegated away its disciplinary authority and accordingly the technical difficulties may apply iro these provinces as well. What makes matters more precarious is that Gauteng has no disciplinary procedure of its own of which Legalegal is aware.



14 February 2011
Deeply ashamed makes a very good point about clubs guilt.

I hope Nico Meyer, Colin Camp, Norma Childs and Gail Diedericks feel very proud adding their clubs names to the sad bunch of constitution breakers. Pity it didnt work, but at least you guys listened nicely to your superiors and tried very hard.

Better luck next time


14 February 2011
With the the new tolls from the gantries coming into effect soon I hope the show going folks in Gauteng are doing their sums. R30 for Open and R85 for championship is going to be small change with what it will cost to travel from Pretoria to Goldfields and back for example.

Use the back roads by all means but pad in double time and frustration. Oh dear.



15 February 2011
From KZN the welcome news that Mr Nigel Edwards has taken a cue from former President Hosni Mubarak and stepped down as Chairman of KZNPC. Like Mubarak he must have decided, wisely in the view of many, that there was no point in clinging to power when you have lost the confidence and support of your constituents.

I'm sure that all those who hold democracy, transparency and accountability dear will join me in congratulating the new Chairman, Mrs Gael Morison, and wishing her well. Mrs Morison is not only a committed and dedicated dog person, but also a respected and knowledgeable breed judge. All who know her will agree that she is smart, charismatic and fair-minded. Blessed with a delightful sense of humour, she's bound to be a breath of much needed fresh air on Fedco.

Gérard Robinson


17 February 2011
Dear Editor,

I feel sure that the majority of your readers support the informed and well thought out comments of your contributors, Lionel Noik and Gerard Robinson, in regard to the goings on and operation under primitive dictatorship of KUSA. In particular to the Mubarak stance of the Chairman, and the careless spending of the finances of the organisation. In regard to the expenditure, may I remind you the Chairman has reserved to himself the sole right to expend KUSA funds almost at will, and he is protected under the KUSA constitution from any shared responsibility he might otherwise have had for any indebtedness he causes. This was very quickly put in place after KUSA had to pay R21000.00 to Mr Barrie Jones, which sum the Chairman concealed in the annual accounts by dividing the amount between two financial years. That was soon after he had fallen down on another action brought against KUSA and for which a substantial award for damages had been awarded to the offended party. Behind this case lurked the Chairman's personal dislike of the individual concerned. (This case is on record with KUSA). I suggest that Messrs Noik and Robinson busy themselves with certain fundamentals. KUSA functions at the will of one despotic individual over a totally disenfranchised membership. Not one KUSA member has any individual voting right, but there is a meaningless fancy dress election by the provincial debating groups, I hesitate to name them as anything else, because these groups (Provincial Councils) are in fact toothless. Remember that you are obliged to be KUSA members under dire threats of total exclusion to the sport of dog breeding and showing, but as a KUSA member you have no say whatsoever in the day to day functioning of the organisation to which you are bound to make ample financial contributions, to be used more or less at the pleasure of the chairman. The present position of Chairman is only matched by the hermaphrodite existence and sexual habits of the snail, which self spawns itself and slithers its way round the world. The Chairman's annual farce of his appointment is proof of this. I suggest the two gentlemen I have named together with other like minded individuals form themselves into a Steering Committee for the express purpose of completely redrafting the KUSA constitution is line with the Constitution of the country of South Africa. The legal professor who played a major role in the drafting of the SA Constitution is a very charming person, and I feel sure will be only too willing to assist and guide. I am able to put you in direct contact with this person who happens to be a friend of mine. I suggest that you go back to the root cause of the trouble. Start with lack of voting rights for all paid up members which is fundamental even to the most humble dog club, and build from there. How you rid yourselves of the existing setup will not be beyond your legal skills, but be prepared to uncover many traitors en route. You have the right men with the right minded reasons.

Michael Hughes-Halls


17 March 2011
The Middle East and North Africa certainly seem to be adopting the Domino principle. First Tunisia, then Egypt . Now, according to The New York Times, it is being reported that Bahrain, Algeria, Iran and in the second largest city in Libya , Benghazi, the four decade rule of Muammar el- Qaddafi is being tested by frustrated citizens, who yearn for freedom and democracy.

Perhaps Zapiro, apart from his qualities and talent as a satirist and cartoonist has additional qualities, that of a soothsayer or fortune teller.

Further down south one hears that KZN PC leader has relinquished his position as chairman. One wonders whether the impetus will spill over into the Kingdom of Kusa. How long will it take before sensible and like minded people realize that they are being conned, and do have the power to change the present status of Kusa.

One can only wait patiently with bated breath, whilst the realization comes home to roost that no one is indispensable Not even Mr G Eva.
Lionel Noik


18 February 2011
Having barely recovered from the shock of the (unnecessary) amount of R457 000.00 spent in treading that well-worn path to WW, another and just as interesting thought struck me. There must be more to come! After September 1st, new bills would surely have been rung up, and I think the membership should be advised of these costs as well.

Now for my next thought. How much of the members' money has been spent on unnecessary travel and accommodation?

Reports of Business Class travel have been circulating for years. Could these be true? And if they are, what could possibly justify such expenditure?

Then we have the ill-fated Voyage of the Damned to KZN. How much was spent on Mr Eva's, Mr Van Hattem's and Mrs Powell's travel, meals and accommodation? And to what end?

I think it's more than time that full disclosure of all accommodation and travel costs were made. There may be more shocks ahead for the members.
Lucienne Ferres


18 February 2011
The breakdown of KUSA's legal costs remains a hot topic of conversation when dog people get together. The amount spent with WW Attorneys is appalling, but even more alarming is on what it was spent.

Some of the more obvious and perplexing items have been highlighted by other correspondents, but I'm quite fascinated by the legal fees attributed to the German Shepherd Dog Federation. I thought KUSA had an agreement with the GSDF and that there was an uneasy truce, despite the few GSDF renegades who fled into KUSA's welcoming arms and found a home in the Northern Areas.

Has anybody got an idea why the GSDF cost us almost R50 000 in legal fees over the past two years?

Carol Immelman


18 February 2011
Michael Hughes-Halls
HEAR HEAR I agree totally.
KUSA Member


18 February 2011
I remember Michael Hughes-Halls as a straight talker and clearly the years spent in England have not mellowed him.

Although I'm the first to concede that KUSA's constitution and the structure it enables are by no means ideal, this was how our founding fathers envisaged things working way back when the world was a less complicated place. Whether one agreed with the esteemed ladies and gentlemen who held the reins of power back then, or not, you at least knew you could count on them for upholding the constitution.

In recent years, as more powers were usurped by the President to further entrench his position, we saw that ethic change. The constitution is no longer the supreme governing force of the Kennel Union, the President is. When he doesn't get his way, he simply rips into the constitution, aided and abetted by his adulating claque. Suddenly language which a pre-schooler can understand becomes subject to"interpretation" by the servile sages. It was only the stand taken by Exco and the threat of legal action by one of the councillors that prevented the President and his followers from further disenfranchising the membership. Then the admission: Fedco (read the six apostles) had exceeded its powers!

Dogdom's favourite show-girl was overheard telling someone that the President was very "magnaminous" in sending out the retraction letter. Once she has consulted her dictionary and learned that the correct word is "magnanimous", I hope she will go and read her President's retraction letter again and focus on the words "exceeded its powers". Hopefully someone will explain to her what those words mean.

If the President has been following the news on the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, he would have realised that people are no longer prepared to accept autocratic rule and be excluded from the decision-making process. In KUSA there are many thinking people (we'll excuse the good folk from the Eastern Cape, Northern Areas and Free State if they have difficulty in understanding the concept) who wish to see KUSA infused with fresh energy and a new vision, and who long to take pride in an organisation they can trust and don't need to watch like a hawk.

I believe the President still sees himself ensconced in the corner office till at least KUSA's 125th anniversary in five years' time. That means he envisages a further four-year term in office after his current term runs out. Having assumed the highest office in KUSA in 1978 (I see his Facebook profile had been amended) the President already finds himself in the company of a few paragons of democracy who managed to hang in there for 30 plus years - President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (30 years), Colonel Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gadaffi of Libya (43 years) and President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen (31 years).

What a marvellous legacy.

Gérard Robinson


19 February 2011
I have read all the previous posts on Dogworld about the 'running' of KUSA, the monies spent on legal advice and the question of whether decisions are made constitutional or unconstitutional.

I get the impression that there is a leadership crisis on hand and that, slowly but surely the rules and regulations set up by the founders of KUSA are either misinterpreted or purely ignored. Is this because our "leaders" are merely trying to please everyone? We are now in 2011 and if the constitution, rules and regulations no longer work for the twentieth century then by all means get legal advice to alter them to work correctly. Most importantly KUSA then needs to enforce these rules and regulations. This means that the Schedules and Articles need to be simplified and streamlined.

If indeed there are unconstitutional practices followed by KUSA on disciplinary matters and those accused go free. Will KUSA, with the evidence on hand, have the power to reopen these cases and then do it properly to rid our sport of unscrupulous breeders, exhibitors etc. and in so doing, protect and look after the members that do abide by the rules and regulations and enjoy the sport.

KUSA should be campaigning to get new members. With the van Niekerk saga there were numerous persons who turned to KUSA for help, to obtain registration papers of puppies they had bought. These people were sent away with "you will have to speak to the breeder". KUSA registered breeders are NOT supposed to sell unregistered puppies (as per the Code of Ethics – and one of the first schedules you have to abide by when you become a member).

Now after THREE cases against her, Mrs van Niekerk was finally banned for life. KUSA lost ONE membership fee (not mentioning the legal fees paid). However what about all those potential new dog owners that now sit with dogs that they can do nothing with, due to no papers. They cannot show (sorry clubs) they can however breed, and put more unregistered dogs on the street.

I have come across the Secretary's Handbook. A good example is on page 59 – re 'Double Handling'. Nowhere in the Articles or Schedules have I come across this rule. There should be rules (point by point) exhibited on posters at each championship show held. And instead of re-writing the disciplinary rules and increasing the monies to lodge a complaint give the KUSA representative the power to give spot fines and warnings when people disobey the RULES. (I am not talking about the personal attacks between exhibitors) As I see it, at the moment the re-writing of the KUSA disciplinary rules and increasing of the monies to lodge a complaint, is merely making it more difficult for honest members to get unscrupulous exhibitor/breeder out of the system. Something that KUSA has no power to do themself. I suggest that only members of KUSA should be allowed to show dogs at Championship shows.

Members should complete and sign a KUSA membership renewal form YEARLY. KUSA should have a database of written complaints against a breeder/exhibitor. If there are any unsolved issues KUSA must enforce point 5 of the membership application (5. I/We understand and agree that having voluntarily submitted this application, the KUSA is under no obligation to arbitrarily approve it).

An example is - If entry monies for shows have not been paid, then sorry you will be denied membership of KUSA and the right to show, until it has been paid. If you have sold a puppy to a person and that person has not received his papers from the breeder, then again this will go against your profile and you as breeder need to resolve this issue before being allowed to become a member again.
Joké Vermeulen


21 February 2011
Dear Madam,

Ms Carol Immelman's reference to the legal cost of KUSA attributed to the GSDF needs some clarification:

The costs can only refer to that infamous incident when KUSA tried to terminate the agreement with us in order to "legally" accommodate the persons we had expelled for inter alia fraud and theft.

In this event the corresponding costs of the GSDF was R11,615.71, or 24,5% of the costs of KUSA; for the same number of correspondence that flew back and forth.

It may amuse your readers to know that our legal people described the standard of legal representation of KUSA as "Amateurish, pathetic and incompetent". Your readers may remember that KUSA eventually ignominiously "withdrew" their "cancelation" of the agreement and "reinstated" it; after which they continued to ignore the provisions of the agreement to recognise and uphold our disciplinary verdicts against the people they had so disgracefully assimilated.

In this one infamous event KUSA therefore unnecessarily cost our sport/hobby a total of R58,971; with absolutely nothing gained except a stalemate and bad blood. And if our costs had been as absurd as theirs, it could have been more.

Yours Sincerely,
Frikkie van Kraayenburg
German Shepherd Dog Federation of South Africa.


21 February 2011
I refer to the Fedco minutes of the meeting on 4th December, which minutes I received yesterday in my copy of Dogs in Africa. The particular item is 5.8.1 and deals with the report of the National IPO Sub Committee (read Case van Hattem). This is designed to place Case Van Hattem as National IPO Convenor in sole charge of the future of IPO in South Africa. That is a daunting prospect in light of the dismal personal performance – in the case of Van Hattem, his judging is pathetic as is his tutoring and assessing of helpers for the sport. God help South Africa if the standards we are achieving through Mr Van Hattem's efforts were ever to be proved in an International Arena. This latest suggestion of change is a slap in the face for the fine helpers (not all, but many of them are world class, as SA has proved in the GSD World Championships in Germany and elsewhere on numerous occasions). Face book has proved to be an excellent arena for boasting of achievements which carry a worthless title in many cases. To suggest to a world class helper or Judge from the GSD Federation that he will have to submit a written theory report and proof of his license to Mr van Hattem to peruse and decide if this should be sent to KUSA to issue a license is comparable to a monkey lecturing to a class of Professors! There is no greater insult, and I doubt if even Mr Van Hattem could conceive of one!

I sincerely hope that those members of KUSA Fedco who pass laws without consultation with the concerned people will think of the consequences if this stupid regulation were to be adopted. Look at the GSD Federation's long list of Schutzhund (read IPO) trials they help at and judge each year and answer for yourself.



22 February 2011
In response to The Intrepid Leader of the G(7)SDFSA, AKA Frikkie van Kraayenburg, some comments.

Mr Robinson, I respectfully borrow your pen…

The constitution is no longer the supreme governing force of the Kennel Union (read GSDFSA), the President is. When he doesn't get his way, he simply rips into the constitution, aided and abetted by his adulating claque…

Van Kraayenburg to a T although some of his "adulating claque" appear to be wolves in sheep's clothing, biding their time…

Although intolerant of presidents who are past their "sell by" dates (another KUSA/GSDFSA parallel?) one must note in KUSA's favour:

KUSA has a proper business address – 68 Bree Street, Cape Town.

The GSDFSA also has a business address – Frikkie's Pedi-sheep-breeding-farm-located-somewhere-in-the hills-of-wherever-somewhere-north-west-or-wherever-of-Pretoria.

Mr Eva does not share a bed with a high-ranking KUSA official in a position of power.

Mr van Kraayenburg shares a bed with the GSDFSA's National Administrator, his wife.

KUSA members are afforded audited financials.

Are GSDFSA members afforded audited financials?

A healthy state of affairs for GSDFSA members? Methinks not.

It may amuse your readers to know that our legal people described the standard of legal representation of KUSA as "Amateurish, pathetic and incompetent"…

In his usual distasteful, ignorant and arrogant manner Mr van Kraayenburg sees fit to make public an unprofessional comment from his "legal people" and cast a slight on the collective character/mentality of this forum's readership in that readers might find such comment amusing. Such comments by one member of the legal fraternity towards another is improper and unprofessional (hope your "legal people" gave you permission to quote them publicly Frikkie?) Obviously van Kraayenburg found it amusing. What's that old saying about small things amusing small minds and paying peanuts gets you monkeys?

In this one infamous event KUSA therefore unnecessarily cost our (???) sport/hobby a total of R58,971; with absolutely nothing gained except a stalemate and bad blood. And if our costs had been as absurd as theirs, it could have been more.

Only van Kraayenburg knows what he is trying to say here but try as I might, I don't.

As for the Swartz/Combrinck matter - Suck it up Frikkie and move on. Put aside your personal vendetta. Stop using the monies of the ever-dwindling GSDFSA membership to wage YOUR war. You banned Swartz and Combrink – done and dusted, who cares if they joined KUSA? Apparently you do, very much so. Is it personal in nature, your ego having suffered a few dents? Frothing at the mouth can only be detrimental to your health. Let it be and move on. In fact you should move on to the degree that you contact Swartz with a view to training with him and learning from him. I venture to say he has forgotten what you have yet to learn when it comes to working dogs. He doesn't buy (buy?) imported dogs with titles, he trains them from scratch – very successfully. Or even better still, forgive and invite him back into the fold, as you did with Weatherill.

Always remember, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones…

The Old Dog


23 February 2011
Frikkie van Kraayenburg just confirms what many of us have been suspecting; KUSA uses the most expensive lawyers in town. The GSD Fed paid a quarter of what KUSA splashed out.

I heard that the people who laid a complaint about the incompetence of the show manager and the judge at the FCI show spent something like 2 or 3 k on their lawyer. Compare this to KUSA's cost of 51 k all to defend a judge that didn't know what she was doing and a ring steward that didn't have a clue of the rules either. Because of the people involved (SLH who I think is also the favorite "show girl") there was never any hearing. This just confirms how selective the dissiplinary hearings are in KUSA. If you want to break KUSA rules and not be dissiplined it seems all you got to do is worship at the feet of the master.

On a lighter note, I've seen a few shows at Sun City and if Kusa's favorite "show girl" is who I think she is then she has some work to do. A job in the box office maybe, but definitely not bejeweled and feathered on stage.

Nipple Caps and G-strings


23 February 2011
Frikkie van Kraayenburg's letter makes for interesting reading.

It would be interesting to know what in total the Federation has spent on lawyers to settle its ongoing dispute with Kusa. Its probably less than Kusa spent on a single part of it only.

Counting the cost
23 February 2011
1. Since ridding the GSDF of the individuals "The Old Dog" referrers to three years ago (they were also our biggest trouble-makers), total paid-up GSDF membership has increased from 881 to 1,103; a mammoth 25.2%

In tandem the number of members belonging to clubs increased by an astronomical 42.3% while the rate of new Kennel Name registrations have increased by 50%. Show entries and litter registrations follow similar trends.

These figures make the GSDF the fastest growing specialist German Shepherd Dog organisation in the world, and just in case your contributor wishes to cast suspicion on these figures, I invite any person who is not under sanction of the GSDF to our offices to verify same for themselves.

2. Mr Weatherill was accepted back into the GSDF as his expulsion was not "for life" and did not entail dishonesty as was the case with some of the others now merrily participating in the KUSA.

3. The GSDF is a democratic and transparent organisation and representation occurs on many levels. All clubs with 25 or more members have voting rights. As can be seen below, It is simply impossible for a single individual to dominate the organisation against the wishes of the majority of the membership.

The following points in summary illustrate this:
a) It is constitutionally entranced that a "Vote of No Confidence" can be brought at any time against an individual by the same electorate that elected him/her and he/she has to abide by it.

b) It is constitutionally entrenched that any chairman of a club may inspect the books and finances of the GSDSF if he or she so wished. He may bring a professional with him if he so chooses. Our financial reporting is simple so that everybody can understand. We do not believe in wasting money on unnecessary complicated financial reporting and over-expensive lawyers.

c) The Executive Committee of the GSDF is elected as follows: the President and Vice President is elected by the chairmen of all the clubs with voting rights; the National Training Supervisor by the Training Representatives of the clubs with voting rights and the National Breed Supervisor by the Breed Representatives of the clubs with voting rights. A term of office is for a period of two years only, but the number of consecutive terms is not limited.

d) To change the Federation Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of the voting clubs in the Council together with the four members of the Executive Committee. The Council consists of the Chairmen of all the clubs (including those without voting rights) together with the four members of the Executive Committee.

e) To change the Constitution and the Rules and Regulations related to breeding requires a two-thirds majority of the voting clubs in the National Breed Committee together with the chairman of the Breed Judges Committee and the National Breed Supervisor. It requires a two-thirds majority of the Council to reverse a change proposed from this source.

f) To change the Constitution and the Rules and Regulations related to training and training qualifications requires a two-thirds majority of the voting clubs in the National Training Committee together with the chairman of the Training Judges Committee and the National Training Supervisor. All Club Training Representatives are represented. It requires a two-thirds majority of the Council to reverse a change proposed from this source.

g) The competitive aspects of Schutzhund (same as IPO) is regulated by the National Schutzhund Sport Committee which consists of four members that has represented the Federation internationally.

h) Various other special committees with significant decision making powers that function independently of the President also exist.

Yours Sincerely,
Frikkie van Kraayenburg
President, German Shepherd Dog Federation of South Africa.


23 February 2011
I agree with Gérard Robinson about Gael Morison being a breath of fresh air on FEDCO. She's bound to feel like beautiful Dinah Doll when she meets the remaining five Noddy dolls at 68 Bree Street, Toy Town.

Being so charismatic herself I wonder whether she'll have much sympathy with Noddy North that's had a charisma bypass.

Clockwork Mouse


23 February 2011
Hymie Balfour Leibman,

If it wasn't that you signed it yourself, l would have taken your tirade as coming from some geriatric bovine (old cow), as happens much too often on Dogworld SA.

You REALLY are blatantly insulting, and this gets you NO respect. Case van Hattem is the only one at KUSA who shuttles between Johannesburg and Cape Town to run these courses, and he does so together with people like John Rautenbach, Rob Ingham and others. He provides a service, and a good one at that. So what if KUSA requires that GSDSV Helpers pass KUSA Tests too? You are by no means a judge of his proficiency at judging or otherwise. Your sole contribution to all this is the drivel you clearly enjoy to spout forth.

Hey man, I've always liked to chat with you whenever we met, and I've tattooed literally hundreds of your puppies for you. Always had a soft spot for you. Lately, I think the more old age creeps up on you, the more your interpersonal skills are going to hell! I don't know where your dislike of the man stems from, but the main difference between yourself and Case van Hattem (besides IQ) is the fact that he serves more than his own Club and kennel.

So, why don't you just go find yourself a nice old age home in Rosebank or wherever, and go blast off at people right there on the stoop!

Does this hurt enough? Then take some time off and think of what you've been doing to another decent man.

Chris Pretorius

24 February 2011
Mr Pretorius:

When I read this web site I'm not so sure that its Mr Liebman's "interpersonal skills that's going to hell", but rather that of the man who gatecrashes little toy clubs AGM's and tries to scare people, including elderly ladies with his overbearing presence and rudeness. I'll never forget the specticle he and his two female cohorts made of themselves.

I don't know Mr Liebman, but your disparaging remarks about his age and mental state is in the worst possible taste. So are you also one of the bullies of the dog world? It seems that birds of a feather DO flock together.

Pick on someone your own age


25 February 2011
Just to remind Nipple Caps - the biggest culprit at that fiasco at the FCI Show was not the Judge and the Ring Steward, but the so-called Show Manager. She was the one that started taking peoples awards away and reducing them to tears when she had no right to do any of that. So rather don't ask how the R51000 was spent at the lawyers. I think a large part of it was on advice on how to wiggle out of having a disciplinary hearing for the one who "worships at the feet of the master".

In the end no disciplinary hearing so you see it pays to be a loyal follower - or just "magnaminous" one!

Next stop Bloemfontein


25 February 2011
I say Chris, old chap are you not being a bit rough on old Hymie. For heavens sake dear fellow just now you find yourself sitting next to him in the Rosebank Old Age Home.!
And after all, as you must recall (there is nothing wrong with your memory is there?), an awful lot has already been discussed on this web site with Mr v Hattem in mind which places your present remarks in a questionable category. Shall we say out of place, dear chap.
And please Sir, leave the bovines out it. They are actually very kind and gentle creatures.

Best Regards


25 February 2011
Just a short note to say a very special thank you to all the breeders & exhibitors that supported our Quick Fun Puppy Update seminar.

Last night in Cape Town. Mr. Greg Eva we much appreciated your support on the evening as well. We hope you enjoyed the evening with us as much as we enjoyed having you there.

Pat de Coning


Previous Comments

January - April 2010

May - June 2010

July - September 2010

October - November 2010

December 2010

January - February 2011

March - April 2011