Before submitting a contribution, please read the General Introduction
2 March 2011
I'll gladly stand corrected with regard to those 'bovines', but I'm not to my descriptions of dear old Hymie. He transgressed by unjustifiably calling a fellow dog sport enthusiast's judging, tutoring and assessment of helpers for the sport 'pathetic'. I've seen Van Hattem judge and tutor (by way of comparison) alongside other very efficient judges and tutors over the last quarter century and that is simply not true. To compare someone to a 'monkey lecturing to a class of professors', adding 'God help South Africa', is to cross the boundries of decency. That is just not done, and by doing so I'm afraid dear old Hymie unfortunately discarded the respect habitually afforded to people of his age. Someone who has neither been a tutor judge / tutor assistant himself, just don't go and shout such banalities from the rooftops of as public a forum as this, especially when it amounts to blatant lies. Sorry Hymie, but you asked for it.
2 March 2011
I don't plan to spend too much time answering your Blah! Blah! Complaints. As you are obviously his disciple I will not try to convert you to reality as far as the damage being done to both KUSA and mainly the sport by the gentleman in question is concerned. But I do need to advise you that I am as far from the Rosebank Old Age home that you are obviously familiar with, & I am sure you will require their services long before me. I thank those responsible for both my health and sanity, that my brain and my body are absolutely perfect, even at almost 82 and I can challenge you to a mental competition at any time. Nevertheless thank you for the advice with which you were more than generous, and also the compliments that may have been few but were nevertheless apparent when closely scanning your words.
P.S. I have a bitch that achieved her IPO 1 two years ago, and am planning to trial my very large and strong male in March and hopefully he will also achieve his IPO qualification.
(Those wonderful Dobermann pups you tattooed for which I thank you.)
3 March 2011
I notice with interest when looking at the NAPC agenda that a number of new clubs have been proposed, among them a new Rottweiler club! What a surprise! It seems very easy to just keep adding clubs to the pot when the pot clearly has not grown…
8 March 2011
Well 'Curious' the new Rottweiler club has been formed to offer a service to new Rottweiler owners in Pretoria as the previous Rottweiler clubs have not for about two years operated within the Pretoria area. Maybe you are one of those people who moan at the fact that this person or that person owns an unruly Rottie. This club has been formed out of a need to shut people like you up. It is a family club and will I know it will provide a much needed service for a breed that can get out of hand in the hands of an untrained person. I for one welcome such a club and it certainly has my backing. I have known the chairperson and a few of the committee members for a few years already and would trust them with the task that lays ahead of them and congratulate them for taking on the task of opening a much needed training club.
8 March 2011
Responds to the article of: HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN
Who is HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN - is he currently active as an IPO handler, trainer, helper or judge? Has he QUALIFIED a dog in IPO/SchH or are you "also boasting of achievements which carry a worthless title in many cases".
Who should represent IPO as convener and do you attend any meeting regarding IPO in Gauteng.
The best judges are always sitting next to the field.
You are refering to the international arena as if you have any experience as you cannot comply with the SA standards.
It seems that you are a GSD owner and federation member and should be concerned with its affairs.
If the GSD federation has any world class helper or judge why are they not judging internationally?
The only professor in the GSD federation is David Harris in whose training sessions' you are not welcome, this makes me wonder who your class of Professors are in the federation.
When I did some enquiries about your history regarding IPO it came to my attention that you are the person why the sport has been stagnant for the past 20 years.
That you HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN are to blame that the IPO group at the Doberman Club has dwindled and that IPO sub committees made no proposals to FEDCO.
You HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN cannot even control your dogs during basic obedience, in public or pass a special organised trail with your dogs.
It's you HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN that should not respond to articles/items that you have no experience in.
You HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN with your personal assistant Frikkie van Kraayenburg have exploited people like John Swartz who on a yearly basis train and developed numerous helpers, handlers and dogs and are still continuing doing so for the benefit of our dogs and now you are criticizing helpers that he develop I hope your generilisation includes those federation helpers as well.
You HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN are part of the minority group that will never be able to demoralise us IPO trainers who are qualifying under Mr van Hattemor any other judge who it may be.
You had the opportunity to enter an IPO last year under a German judge, and if responding will only make excuses as to why you did not enter.
Yes you HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN as the saying goes "empty vessels makes the most noise" the PROOF is in qualifications, hiding behind the federation will never make you a DOG handler.
Look at the IPO/SchH trials, judges, upcoming judges, helpers and seminars and answer for yourself.
Jack van Tonder
8 March 2011
Uncle Hymie, you got it all wrong. Your mental capacities were never in question and I'm sure you'll outlive a lot of people (who knows; maybe me too.)
I was referring to you being rude and malicious. Van Hattem may be a lot of things, but he has never treated you that way. But then, he's what they call 'decent'.
No, I'm no 'disciple' of his; I call him 'friend'. Disciples are those who breathe through the posterior orifice of people whom they think can do things for them, and Van Hattem can do nothing for me. Why l responded like l did? Probably because so many seem to enjoy ganging up on the man (especially the cowards who hide behind their anonimity, with which Dogworld S.A seems to be overrun) and I tend to favour the victim. At least you autograph your insults when you write.
Hymie, I'd gladly call you 'friend' (like l used to), but you fouled it up. Nobody attacked you, and if all this makes you bitter, you can thank yourself for it.
You have a nice day now, hear!
9 March 2011
I read Mr Pretorius's original vituperative and extremely unkind letter addressed to Hymie Leibman, an elderly gentleman. I left the matter alone because I felt that it was the rant of a very unhinged person against a man very much his senior. However, it seems that Mr Pretorius feels the need to keep ranting and raving. I was brought up to believe that even if you thought your elders were not your betters, you should at least respect them.
It seems that Mr Pretorius is definitely feeling the need for a reason known only to himself to protect Mr Van Hattem. I have NEVER found Mr van Hattem to be a shrinking violet in any public forum, so I am totally bemused and wonder why his "friend" feels the desperate need to launch into a correspondence on IPO and Mr Van Hattem's absolute pre-eminence in this very minor activity of the dogworld. I know from personal experience Mr Van Hattem's ability to rage against people he feels do not have his "superior" grasp of this "sport"!
Oh and now we have one Jack van Tonder rushing to Mr Van Hattem's defence. There is a wonderful line spoken by Gertrude in Shakespeare's Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Food for thought, methinks, Mr Van Tonder!
Will the bullies now please lay off Hymie Leibman. I would love to have his faculties and enthusiasm for dog-showing and training when I'm his age. Oh, and by the way Mr Pretorius, I'm definitely one of the bovines you felt you must preface your original letter with. Ask anyone!
Yours in dogs,
9 March 2011
Can somebody please put a plug in Chris Pretorius. I've never read such patronizing drivel in my life! We have no problem with the Rottie yahoos uniting and giving each other a good old slap on the back (water will finds its own level after all), but do we really have to suffer through it. Can't they find a tree house somewhere and smoke a joint and mix blood or something and stop boring us to death?
10 March 2011
I agree with Fran Cristina entirely. One can have their own opinions, freely expressing them. However to be rude, hurtful and obnoxious in order to make a point merely emphasises the calibre of those person/s responding to Hymie Leibman's remarks.
To be fair, Mr Leibman's remarks concerning Mr Van Hattem's abilities could have been framed in a far more subtle and polite manner. Therefore he is likewise not entirely blameless.
What bemuses me as well is why Mr Van Hattem is comfortable in allowing spokesmen, friends, or whatever relationships these two gentlemen have with him to defend him. Based upon his previous and numerous retorts presented in his own name and pseudonym on this website, as well as in long past Provincial Council meetings, one must certainly acknowledge his gift of verbosity. He certainly possesses an array of words, some good, some bad in order to emphasise his views and opinions. So why the deafening silence?
Perhaps,( and I say perhaps) he has been advised by Mr Big, situated in the corner office in Cape Town to resist from responding to criticism emanating from any quarter or source. After all, any potential individual (also importantly so being referred to as a "Councillor') wishing to possibly assume the future role of El Presidente, should follow his example of silence, ignoring criticism, particularly emanating from this website. All contentious issues get shoved under the carpet at 68 Bree Street anyway, conveniently being forgotten with the passing of time.
I am however pleased to see that the Big man took cognisance of, and tacitly responded to the fact that he had incorrectly stated in his Facebook profile that he had in fact only ruled Kusa as chairman/ president from 1978 to present (sic). (33 years instead of 43 years). Again I say WOW!
Gaddafi therefore still leads the pack in that accomplishment.
Pleased that I was able to set the record straight.
11 March 2011
I fully agree with Geriatric Bovine. And once these blood brothers are bonding in the tree house, can somebody please lock the door and throw away the key so that we don't have to see or hear from them ever again. I think they will even celebrate in the far North and maybe even FEDCO will also return to sanity.
Another Geriatric Bovine
17 March 2011
Just to set Mr Jack van Tonder's knowledge base onto the correct perspective so that he takes off his rose coloured spectacles and says: "Wow! Is that the real world!"
Yes Mr Van Tonder I have put IPO onto my dogs and plan to do so again in the next 10 days. And no mr Van Tonder, I do NOT have a GSD! And no Mr Van Tonder, I am not a member of the GSD Federation. I am an ordinary 82 year old man training 2 dogs 6 days a week to track (properly); to do Protection work without falling off the sleeve and to be under proper control: and to do really good obedience and retrieves and the A Frame and solid jump. I hope you will be able to do the same at my age. Most of the guys who were at school with me (and I remember them all, so no Altzheimers!) are all long under the ground in the shade of the old Apple Tree.
HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN
24 March 2011
I have a problem with KUSA and was wondering if anybody on this forum could help in some way.
Last year a breeder used my male as stud for her two bitches. She has a male of the same breed that lives with her but he has been tested sterile. She later told me that both her bitches didn't take and so I left it at that. Later last year I had a litter and was contacted by a potential buyer who sent me her current puppy's pedigree to see if it was compatible with my pups. Lo and behold, this breeder did have puppies from my male but had used her sterile male's pedigree to register the litters with KUSA. I immediately confronted her with this and reported the matter to KUSA.
She was told to have the puppies and parents DNA tested and of course it was found through the testing that my male was indeed the sire. To rectify this problem she now had with her clients, she promptly mated her bitches to another male and replaced the puppies. She then cancelled the previous litter registration, all except one lady who insisted on her money back who then contacted me to try and get her puppy registered. I contacted KUSA and despite having the DNA tests refuse to register this puppy on the following grounds: 1) my male was not microchipped at the time of DNA testing and 2) they now insist that the breeder register the entire litter in order to get this puppy registered, which the breeder is obviously not going to do. In essence this breeder deliberately committed a fraudulent act and KUSA is 1) doing nothing about it and 2) allowing her to continue registering puppies despite her record. I have on record KUSA's reply in which they state that DNA testing is not a prerequisite for registration and yet a puppy that has been positively DNA tested is being denied registration.
Does anybody who has more knowledge than me please advise me of what to do to rectify this problem? I have advised KUSA that I am not happy with things as they stand and would like to appeal their decision, but have not heard anything from them.
24 March 2011
In reply to Please Help! I have a feeling you will unfortunately not be able to do anything. I think most Kennel Clubs/Unions/Councils around the world implement the same basic rules (maybe so that dogs can be transferred between one and the other when exported/imported). Many years ago my mum was showing a beautiful yellow Labrador in England. OK, he wasn't a top winner, but he was nice. He had come from (as we understood) the very first litter bred by a lady who didn't actually show. Out of the blue from the Kennel Club came a letter saying that they were very sorry, they were de-registering him. It appeared that a complaint had been laid because the breeder had used the sire at stud in Aberdeen (far north of Scotland) on the very same day he'd been used in Kent (south-east England) and back then internal air travel was just not heard of, and no way could anybody in Britain's green and pleasant land cover the distance in the same day. KC said that looking at photos (it was long before DNA) they had no doubt whatsoever that Jason WAS that dog's son, but in view of the lady's dishonesty they had no option but to de-register every single dog (including bitch) that she had ever bred and withdraw all prizes earned by any of them.
Sadly I think that even if you laid your (non-refundable) money down for a formal complaint you would be banging your head against a brick wall, but if you decide to go for that, bully on ya mate. Oh, and by the way, Mum and Dad never showed a dog again, tho' Mum did go in for Obedience many years later. Do still wonder, though, how so frequently litters of "1 puppy whelped" seem to get dispensation for registration months, or even years down the line at FEDCO and EXCO meetings. Are there really SO many litters of just ONE puppy that happened not to have been registered when they shoud have been. Maybe go to the president direct. He could and just maybe would over-rule stick-by-the-perceived-regulations office staff? Perhaps speak to the head of your local PC first and see if she/he will back you?
24 March 2011
Dear Please help!
This is just wrong on so many levels and certainly deserves to be taken further. Obviously your claims need to be accurate and provable.
Of all disciplinary matters, KUSA has traditionally regarded deliberate fraud where the breed register is concerned as the "unforgivable sin". KUSA is primarily a registry and this register needs to be trusted. KUSA has to rely on the honesty of breeders and on the declarations they sign on their registration forms and to emphasize this, proven cases of fraud carry the maximum penalties.
If you have dated, written evidence to support your claims I would happy to look at it on your behalf.
28 March 2011
I fully agree Ken Hull. Fraud is the mother of Schedule 1 offences and, as custodian of the breed register, there is no way that KUSA can disregard any allegation of fraudulent conduct which may compromise the veracity of its studbook.
If I were Please help!, I would take Mr Hull up on his generous offer of assistance.
28 March 2011
I notice that Dogworld SA is advertising a "fundraiser" by The Mother City Poodle Club, offering for sale copies (as many as required) of DVDs of the BBC's coverage of Crufts 2011. Presumably The Mother City Poodle Club has acquired the multiple copies it is offering for sale from BBC Enterprises together with a licence to make the legitimately purchased copies available for re-sale.
It is, of course, unthinkable that The Mother City Poodle Club would be making unauthorised copies of a home or other recording of the BBC's programmes on demand and trading in such counterfeit goods. The Mother City Poodle Club would obviously know that this is a criminal offence, both in terms of the Copyright Act (No.98 of 1978, as amended) and the Counterfeit Goods Act (No. 37 of 1997). In the unlikely event that The Mother City Poodle Club should be contemplating the theft of the BBC's intellectual property and the unauthorised trade therein, then it is most irresponsible of Dogworld SA to be seen promoting such criminal activity.
- Dogworld Editor
30 March 2011
FOR THE ATTENTION OF KUSA MEMBERS, KUSA AFFILIATED CLUBS & PROVINCIAL COUNCILS
Invitation to comment on proposed new amendments to the Accredited Breeders Scheme
Accredited Breeder Scheme Schedule11 Draft
1 April 2011
Dear Please Help
Go to the Police. As posted by Gerard Robinson, FRAUD is a CRIMINAL offence, of which there is too much happening today.
By the way, did you get paid for the "stud"service. ? Maybe there is a touch of THEFT in there as well.
John D Colborne
10 April 2011
On good authority it appears the name Jack van Tonder is non existent in any annals or records of people of note in the world of the Working Dogs in SA. "Jack" you are therefore obviously frightened to reveal yourself in the harsh light of the day. Nom de plumes are the convenient holes for cowards. I at least have the courage to be open. Talk is that you could be one of the known characters, none of them known owing to their great ability or reputation, which of course is borne out by your writings and hiding.
Now we have Case van Hattem making an attempt to take total control over the International sport of IPO. I have had numerous letters from differing areas in SA advising of their departure from the sport (and from KUSA) if the amendments to the KUSA IPO Judge qualification scheme goes through in May, together with the changes to the Schedules. This is nothing but disgraceful and a slap in the face for all the Judges and Helpers from the GSD Federation who have been kind enough to assist us in the struggle for "good" judges & helpers, which will end with the implementation of this new harebrained idea of Case van Hattem. That basically means a German or Foreign judge has to be subjected to writing a report for Case van Hattem??
To end off (before there is no KUSA left to be critical of), let me congratulate some of the writers who have contributed to some fun and commonsense in my older years, and hopefully of the demise of the current dictatorship in Bree St:
1 Lionel Noik
2 Lucienne Ferris
3 Jackie Browning
4 "Toy Exhibitor"
5 Anita Bodenstein
6 Heidi Rolfes
7 "ex Rottie Breeder"
8 Gerard Robinson
9 Fran Browning-Cristina
12 April 2011
I wish to thank and acknowledge the recognition given by Mr Leibman to those who are sufficiently bold in drawing readers' attention to the ongoing shortcomings of the Kusa management.
It should not escape one's attention that there are other brave persons, which include contributors from other provinces such as Kwa-Zulu Natal and the Western Cape who are likewise justifiably outspoken in their views. There might even be a few situated in the Eastern Cape.
The problem however is that the general body of Kusa members appears to be apathetic in their attitudes as to the manner in which Kusa, through its leader conducts itself, or are more likely so, dispossessed of the power necessary in order to bring positive change to a much needed improvement in Kusa conditions.
Perhaps the Kusa membership, in small numbers, could be equated to the "rebels" fighting Dictator Gaddafi, with insufficient armoury at their disposal. I must add however, that I firmly believe that within the list as provided by Mr Leibman,(as well as from other provinces) there are extremely competent people who could assume the responsibilities of administering Kusa in a far more efficient manner.
Others that come to mind are Carol Immelman, Dave Thompson and a few competent breeders, whom I happen to know at least one who I am sure would be willing to act and serve Kusa members' interests..
Talking about Dictatorships, I recall having read some time ago that the leader of Kusa apparently advised his Fedco bunch of merry men and women, that should they have opinions that differed from the mandate given to them by their councils, they had the right to disregard such resolutions of their councils and vote at Fedco meetings according to their own opinions and principles, irrespective of whether those differed from that of the mandate(s) given to them by their respective councils. Does this not wreak of a Dictatorship in session? Or has this farcical behaviour now been removed from the Kusa arsenal of heavy weaponry?
Pseudonyms have always been a favourite topic of mine. Mr Leibman of course is correct in his assertions of cowardice, in conveniently hiding behind a bushel, a tree or a veil. There are however the odd occasion when pseudonyms are admissible or necessary, but certainly not justifiable when criticising Kusa's undemocratic behaviour, constructive criticism of contributors opinions, or using pseudonyms as a tool to instigate abusive language or insulting behaviour towards others. The greater the number of persons signing their true names to their posts simply adds greater credence to their arguments and credibility to the website. Surely this should be the main purpose of a forum!
There are of course the "John Smiths", "John Smith's brother" "Martin Bull ( or Ball"?), "Mountain Goat" and other amusing varieties of pseudonyms whose contributions to this website are worthless and should be taken at face value, with a pinch of salt and ignored. One need not look too far beyond the borders of Johannesburg, so to speak, in order to identify some of the nitwits concerned. I am sure Mr Leibman's imagination, despite his octogenarian status, would without a great deal of effort or difficulty, lead to him directly to at least one of the culprits. I am confident he would find more amusement upon discovery thereof, certainly more mirth than my caricatures provides him with.
Mr Leibman acknowledges the contribution of some fun to satisfy his "older years". If in this context he is in fact referring to my creation of the caricatures mentioned above to emphasize a point, I am pleased to be of service in providing the appropriate amusement.
Kusa in its present dictatorial scenario is indeed a "joke" Not in the literal sense of course, and certainly something which cannot by the stretch of one's imagination, be construed as amusing in any sense other than a satirical one.
It is more like a circus, run strictly by the ringmaster (dictator) who cracks his whip and the circus folk jump to attention. When will those people listed in Mr Leibman's post and others from other provinces take charge of the whip, and use it for the benefit of Kusa members and clubs as a whole? The alternative is Mr Eva's presence for another four years, or perhaps someone far worse………………………. Perish the thought Mr Leibman.
His prediction of Kusa's demise, sad as it might be, could be closer than he thinks.
12 April 2011
As a breeder I continuously hear the buzz word "Reputable Breeder" with regard to puppy enquiries, training, boarding etc.
What the breeders actually require are "Reputable Owners"
Many breeders put enormous effort into breeding and raising good quality healthy puppies, only to have them ruined by owners who do not care for the puppies correctly. Most breeders that I know do some form of checking on potential new owners, but let's face facts: it is relatively simple to provide a less than truthful response to such enquiries.
Many owners do not follow the guidelines provided by the breeders. They change the food, fail to vaccinate on time or ever, never deworm the puppies, and usually do not have any parasite control, house their puppies incorrectly, never follow up on socializing or basic obedience training. There are also many cases of owners dumping their pets at the nearest welfare organization when they go on holiday, and simply buy a new puppy when they return. Other more conscientious owners do use boarding kennels, but may abuse the service by arriving late, demanding access on weekends and public holidays, fail to make full payment, book late for main holidays and expect to be accommodated, as well as many other problem types.
Everybody wants to buy from a "Reputable breeder" but nobody ever talks about "Reputable Owners". Breeder contracts setting out the new owner's responsibilities and requirements are not worth the paper they are written on, as they are basically unenforceable in our legal environment, since the costs involved are simply ludicrous, and the results that can be achieved are of little value to the "damaged" puppy.
I believe we should place more emphasis on developing Reputable Owners and have some national database that breeders can use to check the status of pet owners.
14 April 2011
I'm pleased that some of my contributions to these forums have beguiled Hymie Leibman from time to time, but I think he's being optimistic if he thought that any of my missives might have had an effect on the "current dictatorship in Bree St". Whether temperate or harsh, I'm afraid the "dictatorship in Bree St" is impervious to criticism. Never the diplomat, my late grandmother would probably have called it thick-skinned. I, however, take the more pragmatic view that it's rather a symptom of assumed grandeur incubated by decades of entrenched power that has not only become intolerant of gainsaying, but totally dismissive of it. Those who might have watched the BBC's recent interview with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi would know what I'm talking about.
I agree with the view expressed by Lionel Noik. In a democratic system, the aptly named "representative" is there to represent the views of his/her constituents. Representatives acquire a mandate from their constituents to conduct themselves in a certain way in fora where representatives congregate. In KUSA context, representatives are not supposed to be converted on the road to Cape Town in the way that Saul of Tarsus had a life-changing and name-changing (much as one would sooner be called "Saint Paul" than "the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus"!) experience on the road to Damascus. Even if bedazzled by blazing new information miraculously come to hand in Bree Street, representatives are supposed to return to their constituents to confess their disorientation and bewilderment and request a fresh mandate.
In his fervour to truckle, the representative of the KZN council evidently allowed himself to be overcome by the blinding light at the entrance to 68 Bree Street once too often. This displeased his constituents and his volte-face during meetings ultimately led to his forced resignation. The notorious blinding light apparently also caused the WCPC's representative to lose her way from time to time but, following a stern reprimand from the council, she will in future have to wear a protective visor when entering No. 68.
Provcos have eventually woken up to the realisation that representatives are their voice on Fedco and that any deviation from a mandate means a misrepresentation of the view of the majority of clubs. Representatives of Provcos are not supposed to be mavericks (or "loose cannons" in my grandmother's speak) and the councils of KZN and WC are to be congratulated for having taken a decisive stand on this.
16 April 2011
Dear Gerard, Lionel (and some others),
By now I've absorbed many of your pearls of wisdom and forced myself to read some of your long-winded statements. I've taken note of the rogues gallery listed by Lionel of all those fellow activists he admires and l've also read Gerard and his grandmother's sayings. That's actually all OK by me, believe me. And yes, old Hymie is still my friend (although he makes me so cross at times.) Bree Street and its occupants probably wear flak jackets by now. I accept that they are not the epitomy of perfection, but then - neither am l.
What l do know is, that on a day to day basis, they work their butts off, and it's an ongoing activity. Life (for them) never gets less complicated with the time, given the challenges they have to face as the economy goes for a ball of horse-manure and dog-fanciers find their recources deminishing. But, they continue to do so, in the absence of a better alternative (while the critiscism just continues, although none of it really helps to solve anything.) In a way l accept all of this too.
What l would REALLY like to know though, Lionel and Gerard; is what YOUR own contributions to dogdom are? Which Clubs or Councils do you serve, and in what capacities? You seem to have plenty of the answers to a great many problems, and if you are as effective as the proposals and criticsisms that you preach, l would REALLY be the first to help vote you into those 'hot seats', where you can make that wonderful difference. Or, are you just saying what you would like to see others do? (Those low life forms who do so from the safety of their anonimity need no special mention - for them Dogworld SA is just an opportunity to exhibit the semi-literary stuff their two-figure IQ's are capable of.) I would LOVE to see the day when more people use this forum (as Kevin Young did) to really just talk about dogs, and the challenges that face our sport, rather than use it to flout their elequence or express their (imagined) gripes, or to use it to insult fellow fanciers in the way they used to do on the primary school grounds of their youth, where they aquired their style. Do all who use this forum realise that this website is actually read by people from all over the world? God knows what they must make of it . . .You have a nice day now, hear!
16 April 2011
Re: New Draft Accredited Breeders Scheme - Inspection
We were awarded KUSA Accredited Breeders status in December 2008, for which we were more than qualified with nearly 40 years experience, and signed a pledge to abide by the rules pertaining thereto. No complaint has ever been lodged with KUSA concerning our breeding or other activities in the dog world.
To KUSA Exco's credit they have circulated draft proposals to amend and extend the provisions of the Accredited Breeders Scheme for comment by the 129 KUSA Accredited Breeders (2 of which are Accredited Breeders – none on KUSA Federal Council) by the end of May 2011. In this connection we comment as follows:
A major portion of the Draft covers matters related to the appointment of a KUSA Inspectorate (at least 2 Provincial Council appointees in each area) to inspect the premises and dogs of those applying for Accredited Breeders Status and thereafter 'a minimum of once every (3) years."
While we consider our standards meet and surpass those contained in the draft, we strongly resent the connotation that Accredited Breeders are "the bad apples in the barrel" of KUSA breeders who need regular inspection. Especially as KUSA will continue to Register litters, bred by the greater majority of ordinary members/breeders, some of whom do not adhere to the Code of Ethics!
While the draft indicates that it is not the intention of the Inspector to 'act as policeman' regarding members of the Accredited Breeders Scheme there can be no doubt that this is the intention as initial judgment will be passed by that person and KUSA Exco will discipline Accredited Breeders for any 'serious infringement' with various options including temporary or permanent removal from the Accredited Breeders Scheme. Further Exco seeks changes to KUSA Constitution and Schedule 1 (pending approval of the inspection Criteria) in order to have the power to meter out such punishment. However, will KUSA continue to Register these ex-Accredited Breeders litters?
Despite the above, the Disclaimer Notice at the commencement of the Accredited Breeders Scheme draft indicates that: 'The Kennel Union disclaims any liability relating to the…………. conduct of a member of the Accredited Breeders scheme' – is this not duplicity?
Regarding financial considerations the costs of the Inspector and inspection falls squarely on the Accredited Breeder according to the draft proposals. What consideration has been given to the practicalities and costs related to inspections of Accredited Breeders beyond major centres/cities? Has KUSA mapped the residential position of its current 129 Accredited Breeders to ascertain the distance an inspector appointed by KUSA/Provincial Council in a major centre would be required to travel?
Working on an average 1800cc vehicle and petrol price as indicated by the Automobile Association plus all other fees mentioned in the draft our Accredited Breeder inspection would cost the following:
Based on calculation that Inspector lives in Cape Town Southern Suburbs
Napier…………………….approx …………………………200 km
B Return……………………… approx…………………………..200 km
C Travelling Time…………….. approx…………………………..2 hours each way
D Inspection Time……………. approx…………………………..1 hour
Fuel, etc……….A + B = 400 km x R2.50……………………..R1,000.00
Time……………C + D = 5 hours x R120.00…………… 600.00
In addition the draft "Inspection Fees" table indicates that 'KUSA at some time in the future may introduce a joining fee and annual renewal fee'.
Given the content herein and the SMALL financial benefit from occasional enquiries/sales of pups via KUSA referral we would have to consider whether such a financial outlay is worth the status of being a KUSA Accredited Breeder, despite vague promises of supplier discounts, etc., under the draft Accredited Breeder Scheme Benefits.
If KUSA/ Exco want confirmation of our good breeding practices they need look no further than the new owners of pups from our most recent litter, born in December 2010. We are quite prepared to provide list with full residential, e-mail addresses , cell and landline telephone numbers.
If KUSA permitted, at least. Accredited Breeders, to effect the first free transfer of a pup into the new owner's name, (as we did with the supply of the owner's SA ID No and details for the Identipet register for all 11 pups in our latest litter) KUSA could randomly contact new owners by e-mail or telephone to check that Accredited Breeders were maintaining high standards.
There are various other matters which we wish to address in the new draft document, but we are sure many Accredited Breeders will share our opinions regarding the question of inspections as outlined by KUSA Exco and we trust they will convey their views in writing to KUSA and elsewhere.
OAKDALE IRISH SETTERS
Mr. Mark Simpson & Mrs. Bridget Simpson
Memb No 3209 Memb No 3206
18 April 2011
Using a pseudonym to highlight instances that should be aired, particularly when the writer may be victimized, has its place.
To attack and/or insult another person while writing under a pseudonym is certainly cowardly, if not downright immoral.
To use a fictitious name with the intention of pretending that it is a legitimate name borders on fraud.
To write under a pseudonym to blow one's own trumpet is the epitome of audacity.
The ultimate absurdity: Write under one pseudonym and answer yourself under another.
Perhaps "Jack van Tonder" can supply the names of some of the "numerous (man-work) helpers that he develops and trains each year" (see his posting of 8 March 2011). While at it, he can also explain how John Swartz has been "victimised" by myself and Frikkie van Kraayenburg.
Just as a "by the by", the whole question in this Case has now been taken up by the big guns. They will be revealed to you shortly. But an old soldier never dies, just quietly fades away. So be it for me! I will no longer be at DOGS meetings, have done my share (hope this makes Chris Pretorius happy), have got the ball rolling. As you know only a rolling ball can gather moss!
I have had 35 years at the coal face in Dobes, thanks go to those who had the faith, showed my dogs to their best advantage, entered under me in the breed and the obedience ring, put up with my crappy judging. I have done it all. Cars, motor cycles, horses (won the Rothmans Driving Derby in 1976) broke many bones off motor cycles and horses. But at almost 82 I have lived life and hope you young uns will be able to look back as I can, and say, "To greet my school friends, I have to visit Westpark". Now I spend my time taking or processing many "hopefully great" photos, and many ordinary snapshots, and always hoping someone will buy some of them so that I can live another 20 years to haunt you all!
HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN
18 April 2011
In order to be as brief as possible in responding to Mr Pretorius's recent post, I will enumerate in point form those issues which possibly deserve a reply.
1."Bree Street and its occupants, on a day to day basis work their butts off and do so in the absence of a better alternative"
I presume his reference to Bree Street and its occupants refers to G Eva and the general complement of Kusa staff. Mr Pretorius, what is generally expected of one when employed, is to work their butts off for a minimum of 23 working days in a month. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PAID FOR. Perhaps they are paid a pittance for their services, but as you quite rightly say, the economic climate unfortunately dictates salary levels. As far as the President is concerned, he is employed by the members of Kusa in a fiduciary capacity to serve their interests and not his or those of his Fedco merry men. In return I imagine he receives a pretty handsome remunerative package and whatever perks are gleaned there from.
2. "What YOUR own contributions to dogdom are?".
Mr Pretorius, I certainly would not entertain utilizing this website to justify my past achievements or contributions to the Kusa organization. Should your inquisitiveness overcome you, I suggest you telephone Mr Eva and pose this question to him. Perhaps with luck he will provide you with a truthful and accurate response to your question. However, I would not hold my breath if I was you.
3."You seem to have plenty answers to many problems"
As a matter of fact I do not have any answers to the many problems. The main problem perceived by me is that Kusa is being run as a dictatorship rather than as a democratic body, where members nationally have the right to express their wishes unhindered, free of fear or favour. If and when a new management team is introduced, it is that team that would find it necessary to restyle the structure of Kusa for the benefit of members and clubs as a whole, thereby hopefully eradicating the many problems perceived by you.
4."I would be the first to vote you into these "hot seats""
As I have previously maintained, there are numerous people (or activists as you quaintly refer to them) within Kusa that are adequately equipped to administer the Kusa. Thirty three years in power of one individual is not a healthy situation for an association to find itself in. Perhaps you would eventually come to a realization that casting your vote in an alternative direction would be beneficial for all concerned. Conversely one man's thoughts and actions after thirty three years in power have become stale and outdated Oh, by the way, I did not concoct the "rogues gallery" as maintained by you. That was the contribution of your dear friend Mr Leibman. I merely added two further names thereto.
5. "This forum is read by people from all over the world. God knows what they must make of it".
You are quite correct Mr Pretorius. Indeed what must the world think? You see Mr Pretorius, there is that damned word referred to as Democracy. Where people should be allowed to express themselves, write what needs to be read and say what needs to be said. How inconvenient is that? Dictators thrive on silence and silencing people. That is how they remain in power for forty years and more. Do you read the newspapers or watch television in order to appreciate what eventually occurs when Dictators experience an uprising of angry and frustrated people who had been silenced for too long? THEY REVOLT. Unfortunately the South African Constitution affords people their inalienable rights to freedom of speech and expression. What a luxury. Do you not agree?
In conclusion Mr Pretorius, unfortunately despite what you have maintained in your post, you have not actually absorbed any of my "pearls of wisdom." You have digressed totally from my main emphasis which dealt with the perceived Dictatorial practises within Kusa; I have never raised issues concerning general members of staff; I have never brought my attributes into the conversation regarding dictatorial practises; I have never suggested any exclusive answers to many problems facing Kusa; I certainly have no intention of becoming actively involved in Kusa affairs, nor have I ever insinuated any intention to become so involved; I have simply expressed my candid opinion to the effect that Kusa is not run on democratic lines. No more and no less.
I trust that I have not taken up too much of your valued time. I furthermore hope that you are not forcing yourself to read some of my long-winded statements. The other alternative of course is your choice to ignore my writing and scroll down to the next topic Perhaps you will be fortunate to read something more to your liking. In the meantime................ You have a nice day now hear!
18 April 2011
I submitted a pack of 14 reports at the end of November. Four and a half months later, I am still waiting. This is an urgent request to the chosen three scrutineers to please stop complaining to the Judges' Department that you have a full time job and a life outside dogs, therefore cannot read 14 reports...... and can you please just do your job! We ALL have full-time jobs and, hopefully, lives outside of dogs, yet we managed to write these nonsensical reports. Can you please decide if they're good enough or not, so that we can make progress!
Time is marching
19 April 2011
I can't imagine why Chris Pretorius should "force" himself to read any of my posts, or those of others he finds long-winded and not strictly "about dogs and the challenges that face our sport". One would think he would simply skip over such posts and rather indulge contributions which are more agreeable and in line with what he thinks the forum should be used for. I certainly only read the posts that interest me and disregard the rest. It's really quite easy.
If the occupants of Bree Street feel themselves compelled to wear "flak jackets", it would certainly not be on my account. I can't recall ever having criticised the KUSA Secretary or her staff and I have no doubt that they, at least. put in an honest day's labour. The same presumably goes for the President, although his frequent foreign commitments, the majority being judging assignments, understandably limits the time he is able to spend at his desk and be available for consultation.
Regarding my own contribution to dogdom, it probably pales into in significance compared to Chris's. I doubt whether Chris is really interested, but the KUSA office, or even the President, might be able to help him out with some information about my inglorious career in dogs. I can also put Chris's mind at ease about my occupying any of the "hot seats"; I'm really not interested and suggest that he saves his vote for a worthier candidate. I likewise have no designs on Mr Zuma's job, or that of Mr Mugabe's, but that shouldn't preclude me from speaking out against the ineffectualness of either. Don't you agree, Chris?
As a loyal KUSA supporter, I have given the organisation and its leadership much thought over the years. I am the first to acknowledge KUSA's remarkable progress in certain areas - e.g. its swift and efficient registration process and its great new website. However, despite these advances, I nevertheless contend that the organisation has become stagnant and inert in an area which matters most to members and breeders - the promotion and advancement of purebred dogs.
Moreover, the radical changes which have taken place in our country over the past two decades seem to have gone unnoticed by KUSA. In my view, the organisation has responded poorly to the opportunities presented by the changing demographics and the shift in wealth accumulation. To take it a step further, instead of taking its cue from the country's constitution and sanitising KUSA's founding document of provisions which frustrated the democratic process, we saw exactly the opposite - attempts to push through amendments to further disenfranchise the clubs and their members.
The most glaring example of KUSA's resolve to resolutely cling to its apartheid-style constitution is its refusal to institute a limitation of the term of office of the President. Even the most hardline of communist regimes, that of Cuba, has announced that Cuban Presidents will in future only be permitted to serve two five-year terms. If Raúl Castro, a die-hard red and brother to the mother of all clinging vines, can acknowledge that an elected official should have a limited shelf life and a sell-by date, why can't the President of KUSA see the good sense in capping his and his successors' terms of office?
The global economic crisis was bound to have an impact on KUSA as it did on every other business. However, to blame KUSA's declining fortunes in membership and registrations solely on this phenomenon would be extremely naive. I submit that KUSA's much underplayed financial woes are in no small measure due to the poor counsel the President had allowed himself to receive from certain bumptious elements he had chosen as his allies. As has already become glaringly evident, he chose poorly.
Unlike Chris, I am thrilled that people all over the world read the website. At least they can see that some of us are prepared to stand up for our principles and eschew what we believe to be an abuse of power. What would Chris have us do? Avert our eyes and pretend that all was tickety-boo. At the risk of sensationalising the matter, that's what ordinary citizens did in Nazi Germany.
So, Chris, in case you decided to suffer through this post, a question: Having watched recent events unfold in North Africa and the Middle East, and maybe having savoured a documentary on Fidel's Cuba, please tell us whether you think that thirty-five years in an elected position is healthy for an organisation like KUSA and, if so, why.
20 April 2011
I have always stood in awe of Gerard Robinson's intellect and incisive English however todays posting is a totally brilliant.
He has voiced all those feelings that so many of us have about the management of KUSA, the direction or rather lack of it.
But he has voiced better than any of us could.
Bravo Gerard!! And if one person could give a standing ovation I would!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21 April 2011
A friend sent me a link to Clem Sunter's recent brief opinion piece, When Leaders Become Monsters, on News24. For those who haven't encountered him on the speaker circuit, Clem Sunter is the world-renowned futurist, strategist and visionary, and author of fourteen books, including the best-seller, The Mind of a Fox.
In his opinion piece, Mr Sunter identifies five "delusions" which turn leaders into monsters. He concludes with "Realise that the most crucial clause of South Africa's Constitution is the one that limits a president to two five-year terms. Never ever give that up. Nations can survive delusional leaders providing their term of office is limited by law. As countries in North Africa have shown, leaders who have been in power for too long can become monsters."
Once you have considered the five "delusions" identified by Mr Sunter, are you reminded of anyone suffering from them?
21 April 2011
As secretary of a championship show-holding Club, I really appreciate that exhibitors can now send their entries via either email or fax to enter shows, together with the proof of payment by EFT. This saves secretaries many hours by not having to wait for the entries to arrive by snail-mail, make numerous trips to the postbox and we no longer have to go to banks to deposit cheques etc. all of which which was extremely time consuming.
However, not everyone has grasped how to actually email an entry – some I received recently were distorted and elongated and would not print out properly. This was because the sender had cut and pasted the whole KUSA entry form into the body of the email, instead of attaching the entry form. Cutting and pasting does not work and try as I could, I could not print out the form without about a third of the right side of the form not printing resulting in valuable information being missed out. This resulted in having to telephone or contact the sender and explain how to send the forms to me quickly.
This is not a criticism of exhibitors but would like to offer a few kindly words of advice on how to send an entry form by email which I hope will help.
Download the latest KUSA entry form (which is in Word) from the KUSA website (www.kusa.co.za).
Click on: KUSA Documents, then click on Fees & forms, then Show Entry Form, then Official Show Entry Form (Breed). Then "Save As" this form onto your computer in a convenient folder where you will be able to find it again. You can then fill in the form with your dog's details and each time you enter a show, you can attach the completed form/forms.
When you want to send your entries to a Club's email address, either attach each form for each dog (Word Document) or print out the forms, scan them and then attach the scan to the email. The attach icon is usually a paperclip.
Please do not cut or copy the KUSA form and then paste the data into an email message.
I do realise that some are more computer literate than others and I hope no-one will be offended by the above – I really am only trying to help!
27 April 2011
Your identity has been revealed by numerous folk, who saw through the farce. Question for you my friend: "Are you willing to throw off your cloak which is hiding your indecency, or do you want the general membership to reveal you for the coward you are?" You know it is much like the Police that negotiate a more lenient sentence for someone who is willing to become a state witness by coming clean!
HYMAN BALFOUR LEIBMAN
January - April 2010
May - June 2010
July - September 2010
October - November 2010