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

Open Forum

Before submitting a contribution, please read the General Introduction


2 May 2011
Perusing the Agenda for the upcoming Fedco meeting, it was interesting to note that KUSA's Legal Expenses imbroglio, which had sparked so much outrage on these forums and elsewhere, resulted in two proposals, both put forward by DOGSPC:

The first:

Given Webber Wentzel's Attorneys' substantial charges to assess and advise KUSA on the merits of complaints brought under Schedule I, it is proposed by DOGSPC that KUSA reverts to the previous system of in-house vetting of complaints by the Secretary, assisted by a person appointed by FEDCO for this purpose (Disciplinary Sub-Committee of Inquiry) and that the counsel of WW should only be sought as a last resort where the Disciplinary Sub-Committee of Inquiry is unable to reach a conclusion on the merits of a complaint.

The second:

To control and contain legal expenses, it is proposed by DOGSPC that approval be sought from EXCO prior to KUSA briefing Webber Wentzel in any legal matter, or to seek any legal opinion, with the exception of cases referred to WW for assessment by the Disciplinary Sub-Committee of Inquiry where the Committee is unable to decide whether a complaint should progress to the Disciplinary Sub-Committee.

These both seem like sensible proposals to me and if KUSA is serious about the implementation of a "more stringent control of variable expenses" (Exco Minutes of 15.02.11) to counter the "financial pressures [which] continued into February" (Exco Minutes of 15.03.11), then dispensing with the unnecessary vetting by Webber Wentzel of no-brainer Schedule I complaints might be a good start. I have in a previous post suggested that Mrs Thornberry might seek the counsel of the lawyer on Exco (obviously Brig. Gen. Nico du Preez), but if his position as a member of Exco constitutionally precludes him from acting as the second member of the Sub-Committee of Inquiry, then another option instantly springs to mind. Regular readers of these forums might agree that Mr Ken Hull has a thorough knowledge of not only KUSA's constitution, but also of its disciplinary rules and procedures and, should he be willing, I believe he and Mrs Thornberry could make an excellent team.

DOGSPC's second proposal is perhaps a little more contentious in that it curtails the KUSA office's discretionary powers to some extent but, on the other hand, in any business it is only proper and sound governance to consult your Executive team before incurring major expenses. It spreads responsibility and risk and, since there are a number of sensible people on Exco, some of them might even propose viable solutions which might not have occurred to the people in the KUSA office. Running off to lawyers should be a last resort, but certainly one which Exco should recommend in the absence of an alternative. For instance, if KUSA were legally or otherwise threatened, I do not believe that a single person on Exco would have the slightest hesitation in recommending the engagement of the services of KUSA's attorneys to protect and defend the organisation.

Apart from DOGSPC, one might assume that the above-mentioned two proposals would be discussed in the WCPC, KZNPC and NAPC. I'm not sure about the other two councils, but am prepared to give at least one of them the benefit of the doubt.

Of interest to many of us is to see is how those representatives will vote who, regardless of merit, oppose anything proposed by DOGSPC. What in not in doubt is that those who vote against the two proposals will convey a clear message from their clubs that

1. It is okay for KUSA to continue wasting members' money by engaging lawyers to decide whether a no-brainer Schedule I complaint should go forward; and that

2. it is not necessary for the KUSA office to consult Exco before blowing thousands on legal opinions and the like, despite the universally accepted rules of sound corporate governance and risk management.

As a result of the above, the Noddy doll representatives are likely to find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. The obvious burning question is whether they'll continue to put their petty squabbles and loyalty to the President above the interests of KUSA and its members. We'll watch with interest.

Gérard Robinson


6 May 2011
I was recently sent a copy of what appears to be an official letter, dated the 18 February 2011, from the "KUSA Administration". Entitled "Response to questions raised re microchip implantation", I have been given to understand that this communiqué (for lack of a better word) is included with new registration certificates sent to breeders by the KUSA office and has also subsequently been posted in the News & Views section of the KUSA website.


I would also like to put on record that, while I support the microchipping of KUSA-registered puppies and that all my puppies are microchipped between the ages of six to seven weeks as this is a requirement of the BAER hearing tests, I deem the process which led to KUSA's introduction of mandatory microchipping to have been fundamentally flawed, ill-conceived and badly executed. In order for me to fully brief not only the committee, but also the members of our club, I would like to know the following:

  • Have these changes to mandatory microchipping (which became effective 01 September 2010) been put through the official channels of the various Provincial Councils, Exco or Fedco? If so, when did this happen?
  • If these changes were not put through the aforementioned official channels, who authorised these changes, and why was no one else consulted?

Having read through this rather curious document, I see that we would now have incomplete litter registrations as "if a puppy in a litter falls ill, or are late developers and it is not possible for those puppies to be micro chipped at the same time as their healthy litter mates and the breeder wants to ensure that the new owners of the healthy puppies get their registration as soon as possible after handover and not delay registration of the entire litter until the ill puppies are healthy enough to be micro chipped. It then gives instructions for the steps to be followed in the case of late microchipping, and we learn that such registration certificates will be endorsed INVALID or INCOMPLETE, as the case may be. It goes on to state "Thus the non-micro chipped puppies' details will be on record on the data base but those puppies will not be officially registered".

I only hope that constitutional protocol has not been breached yet again. Since when can the "KUSA Administration" overrule or modify Fedco decisions willy-nilly? Because it appears that insufficient thought has gone into these changes, I'm afraid I can see huge potential for fraud. Do we really want to compromise the already suspect KUSA registry even further by inviting more dishonesty?

Lucienne Ferres


7 May 2011
Re: KUSA Breeders – Legalities related to the Sale/Purchase of Pups

We, like many other KUSA members, were shocked by the legal expenditure incurred by KUSA last year which was of no benefit, to the membership as a whole. It was therefore, refreshing to read Gerard Robinson's posting indicating the two proposals placed on the May 2011 Federal Council Agenda by DOGSPC to curb such expenditure.

While both proposals are initially directed at Disciplinary Hearings, we do feel the broader context of the second proposal i.e. Attorney may be consulted on 'any legal matter' is preferable.

Our reason for supporting this proposal rests in concerns regarding the legal implications that the newly introduced Consumer Laws will have on the sale, by the breeder, and purchase, by the Buyer, of a pup AND the proposed Exco Guidelines for the Sale/Purchase Agreement as outlined in the newly drafted Accredited Breeders Scheme. Further we confirm that we have submitted our response to KUSA dated 17th April 2011 regarding this matter (required by 3l.05.11).

It is our opinion that KUSA should be offering its breeders, particularly its Accredited Breeders assurance and protection that the contents of ITS recommended Sale/Purchase Agreement guidelines are legal and do not contravene either the laws of the land or KUSA Constitution, Schedules, etc. It would be ludicrous to suggest that each breeder seek legal advice in these circumstances, thus KUSA should consult its Attorneys in this matter. Breeders should not be expected to accept such statements as 'Purchase and sale agreements between individuals are a civil matter over which the Kennel Union has no jurisdiction', yet propose to give Exco the powers to discipline Accredited Breeders. Bridget &

Mark Simpson


7 May 2011
Re: KUSA – Consequential Repercussions

In response to Lucienne Ferres' posting of 6th May 2011, we support your statement that 'the process which led to KUSA's introduction of mandatory micro chipping' was 'fundamentally flawed, ill-conceived and badly executed.' and draw your attention to the various opinions expressed in the Forum in April/May 2010. At the conclusion of this discussion, just prior to May 2010 Federal Council Meeting, we summarized the salient points on which respondents agreed, then alerted every Federal Councillor to the discussion that had taken place. Was any cognizance taken of the concerns expressed by contributors? Sadly little if any, thus we face the following repercussions:

Since the 1st September 2010 there has been a marked decline in Applications for KUSA Litter Registration, particularly evident during the first quarter of 2011 – thus a reduction in KUSA income. Comments from those in positions of authority include "we expected a drop in income from Registrations due to compulsory micro chipping" to "the current fiscal constraints of the country's economy" etc.

In an effort to salvage the downward spiral and encourage KUSA members to Register their Litters it appears from the KUSA communiqu? 'Response to questions raised re microchip implantation', that KUSA will allow partial litters of micro chipped pups to be registered, while siblings not microchipped will be recorded on the (KUSA) data base but 'will not be officially registered'. Who approved this – we have no idea!

The above is especially confusing in view of the recently distributed Accredited Breeders Scheme proposals by Exco which clearly states in the 'Pledge to be signed and adhered to by Accredited Breeders' that all puppies will be 'microchipped before they go to their new homes' and that 'All puppies (entire litters) will be registered with the KUSA and NO APPLICATION FOR LATE REGISTRATION WILL BE SUBMITTED'

Given that May is traditionally when Federal Council discusses the budget for the ensuing year one can only hope that KUSA members will NOT be penalized as a consequence of Federal Council decisions with increased membership, registration and other fees. If it follows this route it may well kill the "geese that lay the golden eggs".

Bridget & Mark Simpson
Oakdale Irish Setters


10 May 2011

The micro-chipping controversy is made to seem bigger (and more complicated) than it really is. Compulsory Identification (ear tattoo's or microchips) has been with Rottweilers (probably because we had the sense to form a Breed Council in 1989) since 1992, and since about seven years ago, all show dogs at Rottweilers Specialist Shows had to be fitted with microchips, or they just couldn't be shown! Believe me, it is just a passing anxiety for all those who suddenly have to do so to have their puppy litters registered with KUSA. For the Rottweiler world, it has long since become a routine thing, so just get used to it!

All the accusations about 'why weren't people alerted more timeously, why weren't more discussions held about it and /or who weren't consulted' amounts to nothing - it is a sensible thing to do and the cost factor is negligble for all those who nowadays flog puppies for R5,000 and more. Just build it into your sales price, and the breeder won't even have to pay for it. And, if you're not too squeemish, you can even insert these things yourself (at a fraction of the price!)

In the meantime, us Rottie people (like the Dobe and GSD people) will just sit back and enjoy the panic and confusion, until all of that go away too!

Chris Pretorius

12 May 2011
Dear Chris, I disagree with you. A 9 week old Rottie is flipping huge compared to a 9 week old mini dachshund or Maltese. My vet will not micro-chip any of the small breeds at 9 weeks. He has found that it causes abscesses and other problems. How do you sell a puppy when you can not micro-chip it? Pity the smaller breeds please. Tracy Martins


12 May 2011
In answer to Chris Pretorius' posting, you seem to have misinterpreted the point both we and Lucienne Ferris were making which, in essence, highlighted aspects of concern arising from mandatory micro chipping in relation to KUSA Litter Registrations and largely prompted by a confusing circular being distributed from KUSA office which appears to be in conflict with Exco's newly drafted Accredited Breeders Scheme rules and KUSA's own schedules.

While Rottweiler enthusiasts may feel they can stand on the 'moral high ground' in this regard we would like to express a few sobering opinions thus:

  1. We point out that the cost factor is not 'negligible' for all. We purchased 11 microchips from Identipet for our last litter at a cost of R1147.00 including VAT and postage. Our veterinarian fees for visit to ONLY microchip pups amounted to R2211.85 including VAT. This amount included the free loan of a Microchip Reader for a period of 2 weeks, but did not include any administration, save signing the Identipet certificates, as we completed all other details. Total cost R 3358. 85. which works out to just over R300.00 per puppy.
  2. Rottweilers, being in demand by the public, are the ninth on the list of KUSA popular breeds for the last couple of years, therefore breeders are in a position to 'flog puppies for R5,000 and more' and just build it into the 'sale price'. The greater majority of breeders are not in that position, nor would wish to be, thus irrespective of the awards and health of the parentage there is a limit to what can be charged as a purchase price, especially in the current financial climate.
  3. One wonders how many of the 859 KUSA Registered Rottweilers last year are still in their breeder's name on both the Identipet and KUSA Registers? Some of our colleagues, who have micro-chipped litters before the current regulations came into force, have noticed that these pups/grown dogs are still in their names on Identipet data base as transfer of ownership has not been effected by the new owner. While such dogs maybe traced back to the breeder, they may not know the whereabouts of the owner who could have moved, emigrated etc.
  4. 'All show dogs at Rottweiler specialist shows' have to be 'fitted with microchips'. In this Forum of discussion in 2010 this was one of the points on which the majority agreed i.e. that all showdogs and all breeding stock should be microchipped.
  5. Given that Rottweilers are so popular, we were surprised to see that only NINE KUSA members are Accredited Breeders surely this is a matter about which your Breed Council should be concerned?

So perhaps 'Rottie people' should not be quite so insular and refrain for 'just sitting back' to 'enjoy the panic and confusion'.

Bridget & Mark Simpson


12 May 2011
Lucienne Ferres and Bridget & Mark Simpson make useful and valid contributions to the microchipping debate. As usual, Chris Pretorius misses the point entirely.

Everybody supports microchipping in principle, but sensible people have a problem with the implementation of the scheme and the confusion created by KUSA's latest communiqué. As the Simpsons say, it conflicts with the proposals contained in the blueprint for that other KUSA white elephant – the Accredited Breeders Scheme. More importantly it also conflicts with Schedule 2 of the Constitution which only allows two types of endorsement on a registration certificate – N/P (progeny not for registration) and N/E (not eligible for an export pedigree). There is nothing in Schedule 2 that allows for an "Invalid" or "Incomplete" endorsement. As I see it the instructions in KUSA's communiqué is unconstitutional.

As usual KUSA is not following process. Not only is the KUSA office making conflicting rules without consulting the provinces, but they are also forgetting to go and check the constitution.

It seems KUSA is a law unto itself.

Think before you make stupid statements


12 May 2011
I have just returned from judging the Croatian Agility Championships in Zagreb. And to put shows cost in perspective, Croatian food costs are similar to ours. With fuel being about 30% higher and their salaries lower.

To enter an Agility show it is €15 for both rounds and the second dog entry is €10. BUT the club (by law) is run as a business losing 30% of entry to tax etc

Breed entries FCI
Local entry 200.00 Kuna equivalent to R264.00 per dog
Foreign entry (Early bird) €40
Foreign entry €45 for a week later and €50 there after bsp;
R85-00 an entry would seem to be a gift?

Andrew Wright


12 May 2011
Now we have full of himself Chris Pretorius singing the praises of the Rottweiler Breed Council!

I have news for Pretorius. In all the years that I've been judging Working breeds, I have never seen Rottweilers in a worse state as they are right now. Apart from the fact that the numbers have dwindled to nothing, the quality is so poor that its embarassing. We had great Rotties in the past, but no longer. What I see around are weedy and untypical. All I can think is that your Breed Council must have chased all the people with the good dogs away.

If the dogs that come to general shows are anything to go by, then I really feel sorry for the judges of your specialist shows. I have thankfully been spared the agony, but talking to other experienced Working judges, its apparently so sad that you can weep.

If this is what a Breed Council does to a breed then I can only thank the Good Lord that the people of my breed have never established one.

RIP Rotties


12 May 2011
Take it easy, guys and girls - the point I made was; just tolerate the transition, it's gonna be OK! Us Rottie people (like the GSD and Dobermann people) all had to go through it years ago, and it worked.

As that TV license advert used to say; - it's the right thing to do.

I respect the likes of Tracey Martins, Mark and Bridget Simpson and Lucienne Ferris for their statements, and especially for the fact that they do so under their real names. I just think they'll need to adjust to this new ID fad. Yes, the owners of smaller breeds do seem to have a concern. Let me tell you that I've chipped a multitude of breeds, from Boerboels right down to Yorkies. No seven week old puppy is too small to chip; I don't care whose Vet says what. And oh yes; I've even chipped a Koi fish or two!

I'm not sucking these things out of my head - I've been a Council identifier since 1992 and I've ID'd 2,857 pups and adults, of which IDENTIPET will tell you that I've microchipped 696. I'm talking of a great many breeds. What I'm trying to say is that it's MUCH more humane to chip than to tattoo, and to chip is as simple as falling off a bus. I'm surprised to learn that it can cost up to R300 per puppy to fit a chip to it; that's probably when you go to a Vet who charges R280 for a chip, plus a consultation fee. I charge R150 (no consultation fee) and I've been doing this for years. If you do it yourself, it need not cost you more than R115 per puppy. If it seems to be too expensive for a R3,000, R4,000 or R5,000 puppy, then your motive is a blatantly commercial one.

To the yokel masquerading as 'Think before you make stupid statements' - you seem like some unknown nin-com-poop who is ashamed of your real name; hence your stupid response. To 'RIP Rotties'; you also don't count, for exactly the same reason. All-breed shows don't really represent Rottweilers; you might see a dozen or so there. At Rottweiler Specialist shows you'll see in excess of a hundred at a time, but the likes of you wouldn't know that. You don't state your own breed, but by your own testimony it is not backed up by any breed council, so it probably does not even have to have mandatory CHD screening. The Rottweiler is alive and well, in good hands and overseas Specialists rate them highly when they judge here. It's easy to sense that 'RIP Rotties' is no judge.

I don't really enjoy being this rude - I reserve it for those who hide their stupidity behind a pseudonym.

Chris Pretorius


13 May 2011

I would like to thank the President (Frikkie) of the GSD Federation for inviting me to be his guest at their Odyssey National Breed Show 2011, with full judges privileges - (entering the ring at the end of each class for a judges discussion before the class is presented to the public and being able to ask questions of the German SV Judges who actually judged the classes.)

The show attracted 263 exhibits. This single Specialist Breed show for one breed only (GSD's) was judged as per the FCI breed Standard to which the GSD Federation subscribes to. Excellent numbers, especially in "these current fiscal constraints of the country and economy etc.", whilst the KUSA/FCI show in 2009 in 'Good Times' only boasted an entry of 268 All Breeds of dogs. (of which there were only a total of 17 GSD's.)

Whilst the exhibits were of a very high standard and I had the pleasure of witnessing some outstanding dogs, even to seeing the first adult dog male dog with a German VA grading, recently imported into South Africa, having received his "VA" grading in the German Sieger Show before being imported into SA.

It was also very pleasing and gratifying to see whole families getting involved in showing their GSD's, plus the support and presentation to 20 Junior handlers at the prize giving -- the youngest handler was only 6 years old. This pleasing sight bodes well for the future, by keeping youngsters out of the malls, drugs etc. - in a healthy outdoor active interest with their dogs, thus bodes well for the Federation as this younger generation will be there to keep the GSD Federation going for many a year to come. Good young blood.

The Prize Giving was another sight to behold -- slick, well run and straight after the show -- with trophies and other prizes right down to the 6th placed exhibitor in every class. I would guess that there where well over 300 people attending the Prize giving -- so many that in order to accommodate all, the sides of the large marquee had to be raised for people to even sit outside. The applause for each and every prize-winner was great to witness.

A NATIONAL show well worth attending to see some great South African GSD's and thanks to KUSA's impulse letter dated 15th September 2008 to the GSD Federation, and their actions thereafter, KUSA breeders have lost the opportunity to use these dogs at stud and have only a very small/limited breeding stock to breed from.

I, being one breeder who has lost out!

Phil Reaney.


14 May 2011
Mr. Pretorius, your response of 12 May to previous postings really does not offer readers clarity and you failed to comprehend point No.1 of our posting 12 May 2011. If you read this again you will see that WE paid for the microchips direct from Identipet, the Veterinarian ONLY inserted the chips thus it was not a case of 'when you go to a Vet who charges R280 for a chip, plus a consultation fee', although we are quite sure there are breeders who have had this experience.

If we understand correctly you charge R150.00 to inject an Identipet being approx R100.00. but, presumably, you only cover areas in and around Somerset West, Cape and not all suburbia or country breeders as the 2,857 pups you have microchipped is a very small percentage of the dogs KUSA has registered since 1992.

Do not dismiss those concerned breeders of 'small breeds' with 'no seven week old puppy is too small to chip.' We point out that the KUSA Toy Group Registrations last year amounted to 9439 approx 36% of the total number of Registrations. By contrast the total Working Group KUSA Registrations amounted to 3005, 11.5% of the total Registrations of which Dobermans, GSDs and Rottweilers collectively amounted to 5.26% and Rottweilers represented a mere 3.28% of all KUSA Registrations in the year.

Your statement that 'I don't care whose Vet says what' is very misguided. Breeders usually favour one Vet/ Veterinary Practice over another and are reluctant to switch allegiance. We know from personal experience that Veterinarians in our own area hold differing views on when puppies should be microchipped.

Don't accuse breeders of having 'motives' that are 'blatantly commercial' in connection with micro chipping costs – they are adding to the already spiraling costs of raising a litter and retaining active and "retired" breeding stock.

Dedicated enthusiasts do not necessarily need a Breed Council to serve and protect their breed regarding health issues. This is evident in many breeds, where clinical (HD & ED X-raying and scoring, etc ) as well as where DNA testing is available for certain inherited conditions are the norm before breeding, thus the introduction of the KUSA Health Screening Annexure to the Registration Certificates. Is the Rottweiler Breed Council encouraging its enthusiasts to apply for their Health Screening Certificates?

PLEASE, if you continue to contribute to this Forum, exercise some diplomacy.

In closing we support TV's Late Nite News – LET'S NATIONALISE COMMON SENSE

Mark & Bridget Simpson


15 May 2011
Hey Mark,

I touched a nerve there, did I?

Fond regards


15 May 2011
Breeders of Toy and other small breeds can now relax. They needn't concern themselves with their own vet's advice and recommendations any longer. Dr Chris Pretorius has it all in hand and the sooner they adopt him as their chipper of choice, the better. As advertised, he offers chipping services at his back yard surgery at a fraction of the price charged by fancy practitioners who frame their degree certificates.

I wonder whether he also offers a docking service. I still prefer my Rottweilers with those unsightly tails docked and the vet's in my area are becoming more and more obstinate.

Sucker for a bargain


16 May 2011
I'm really saddened to see the negative comments re microchipping. People just don't like change, but in all honesty, to say that a dog is too small to be microchipped - is really not the truth. The chip is the size of a rice grain - and they micrcochip small birds, fish, rats, mice etc. Instead of hammering each other on this forum, someone contact the manufacturers of the chips and get their PROFESSIONAL papers on it. I can't wait for dog identification to be compulsory before you enter the ring.



16 May 2011
I would like to say a heartfelt thank you to Chris and Erna Aucamp for their sponsorship of the winner's prize for the Golden Paw today. I have been showing Bouviers for a number of years now and have realised that, however sound the dog, this is a difficult breed with which to "win big" against some of the classy and showy competition in our own group, let alone outside of the group. I was expecting to leave the Golden Paw finalists' ring this evening as another ''also ran'', so to hear my breed and my own dog called out as the winner from a number of quality dogs was something I am still thrilled about some hours on (good news for other ''also rans with unspectacular types of dogs" - never actually give up!). I only opened the prize envelope when I got home and am gob-smacked with its generosity. Thank you very much indeed, it is greatly appreciated.

Elizabeth Hodgson


16 May 2011
'Sucker for a bargain' - I don't do Toys. I do mainly Rottweilers. All those other breeds actually contact me to do their dogs, and not the other way round. This only happens here in the Helderberg basin (which looks very different to your choice of abode.)

You're just another 'No Name Brand' who's ashamed of his/hers/its real name, probably for a VERY good reason, known only to you and your psychologist. You therefore fit the description I gave the other misfits. You have a real nice day now hear!

Chris Pretorius


17 May 2011
Although I have been microchipping my dogs for many years, I do not personally approve of KUSA's rule that all registered dogs should be microchipped. I think it makes more sense to chip those dogs that will be used for showing and/or breeding. Those puppies that are simply going to pet homes will probably never be scanned for any reason, and inserting a chip into pet puppies is simply a waste. The latest communiqu? from KUSA is certainly very confusing and does not address the issues in a coherent and practical manner.

Having said that, I would like to comment on some of the discussions made by previous contributors to this forum.

Firstly, lets give Chris some credit. After all, he has been in dogs for over 30 years and would certainly have learnt some very usefull and practical information. Nobody needs a framed degree to be able to correctly insert a microchip! After having implanted 2857 microchips into puppies/dogs of different breeds he certainly has more experience than most breeders, and also more than many vets. And lets face it, everybody complains about vets overcharging, so why the rush to defend them now. I think that Chris's experience gives his opinion more credibility than some of the other opinions expressed.
How many vets actually breed and raise puppies. Very few, I suspect, as a percentage of the total vets in practice. I believe the average reasonably experienced breeder has more practical knowledge and experience in their own breed than their vet. To make a sweeping statement that inserting microchips into small breed puppies causes abscesses is irresponsible. It may have been the case with some of the puppies that he/she microchipped, but does that mean that it will be the case with all small breed puppies? Perhaps the framed degree should be removed in this particular case!

In addition to the issue of overcharging, many breeders/exhibitors continuously lament the lack of genuine caring vets. I deal with dog and cat owners daily( in my boarding kennel) who complain constantly about the lack of proper care and attention provided when they visit a vet.
Chris's comment "I don't care whose Vet says what" is a very true reflection of the opinion of many breeders and exhibitors. Why are people now taking offence to a comment that most have thought at some stage, and many have said out loud.
I do believe that there are many conscientious, experienced and sensible vets out there, but unfortunately many are not. People shouldn't get upset when somebody states out loud what many are thinking anyway.

I do think that a forum of this type can be conducted without personally insulting other contributors. After all, we are each entitled to our personal opinion and we are also entitled to openly express that opinion. An exchange of ideas, viewpoints, experiences and knowledge is all good and well, but lets leave out the personal insults.

The statistics regarding number of breeds registered in various groups is interesting, but does not seem to have any bearing on the discussion re microchipping small breeds. Or have I missed something? The fact that only 9 Rottweiler breeders belong to the accredited breeder scheme is also of no consequence in this discussion, as only 129 breeders in all breeds belong to the scheme anyway. Rottweiler breeders account for 7%. If we take the 200 odd breeds registered with KUSA, thats a pretty good representation for the Rottweiler council. I understand that more Rottweiler puppies are bred than most breeds, and that there are obviously a large number of Rottweiler breeders, but 7% of the membership of the scheme is still more than than other breeds. I do not belong to the scheme!

What I did not miss was the comment regarding breed councils: I agree that there is no apparent clear motivation for a breed council for each breed, since many breeds have insufficient numbers to justify such a council. I have not been involved in a breed council so cannot comment on the effectiveness of any of the current councils.

Kevin Young


17 May 2011
Kevin Young, thanks for your very rational feedback.

Yes, I cannot but agree with your views about contributors to this forum who offend one another, and I stand corrected (and a bit ashamed.) I'm afraid at times I respond to rudeness like those who respond violently to violence. Insecure beings wearing pseudonyms don't really merit a reply.

I've just chipped 46 more pups since 5 May (6 of which were Golden Retrievers) and I view it as rendering a service.

Chris Pretorius


18 May 2011
For the life of me, I always thought that Micro-chipping had everything to do with the dog and their safety and being able to help in the case of an accident or a loss. Microchipping should have NOTHING to do with KUSA and shows and moneymaking. A pavement special that is loved should be microchipped to help the animal. Looming large in my mind is events like Katrina and the recent Japanese Disasters as to why we should microchip.

In my breed, Staffords get stolen for violent usage and then it becomes important in dealing with the type of people involved in the dog-fighting ring, who have your dog and who will claim it as their own, that you be able to positively and legally identify your dog. You are not dealing with emotions anymore then.

Sadly, the disparity in terms of costs across professional vets is just that........ SAD!! But this is a good thing for us to do and is positive for the right reasons.

With Kind Regards,
Deon Manuel


19 May 2011
Deon Manuel, I don't know you, but thank you.

I rest my case.

Chris Pretorius


19 May 2011
Re: Practical Administration of Microchipping Litters

With this submission to the Forum, we offer some practical guidelines to breeders regarding the administration of documentation covering Identipet and KUSA. Persons and professionals that are inserting the chips may also find it useful.

As KUSA decided that micro-chipping must take place prior to Application for Registration of a Litter this presents problems for the breeder. In order to keep KUSA Registration Certificates, Identipet microchip numbers/codes and details, and the pup physically identified, we devised the following plan for our last litter of 11 pups which worked efficiently:

  1. Placed order and obtained microchips direct from Identipet
  2. Decided to microchip at 6 weeks (age suitable for most medium and large breeds and at about the same time as the first Parvo inoculation)
  3. Liaised with Veterinarian who had previously agreed to inject microchips and to loan Universal Scanner free of charge for two weeks. (Apparently KUSA are now also prepared to loan Scanners – or order same at discounted price for purchase by breeder)
  4. Downloaded KUSA Application for Litter Registration
  5. Chose "Common Names" for each litter pup
  6. Checked that these "Common Names: had not been used previously by logging into KUSA MY PROFILE – Dogs Registered
  7. Telephoned KUSA office – Registration Department to ensure we had not inadvertently used a KUSA member's Kennel Name as a common Name for any of the pups. All Common names cleared – completed KUSA Application for Registration Form with these common names, giving NO alternative common names – section marked Cleared by KUSA office and the date.
  8. At 6 weeks microchips injected – Our kennel name with CLEARED KUSA COMMON NAME inserted for each pup's Identipet documentation indicating microchip number. Balance of Identipet documentation completed by us in our name as breeder/purchaser of chips – Vet's yellow Identipet copy retained by us.
  9. KUSA Application for Litter Registration completed with Identipet Numbers and request for Annex for Health Screening Certificates for each pup.
  10. Correct Identipet Green "Breed Society" copies attached to KUSA Application for Litter Registration and submitted with necessary fees.
  11. Each IDENTIPET microchip has a brochure with a tear off TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP application. With EACH PURCHASER'S SA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER and details, the breeder can immediately TRANSFER OWNERSHIP of the pup to the PURCHASER – thus Identipet renewal notice will be sent to the legal owner of the pup not to the breeder and the Identipet lost/found data base is accurate.
  12. Return all Identipet white copies of their document with their transfer of ownership form for their lost/found data base.

We add that while the Identipet data is accurate concerning ownership of this litter.

KUSA data base is not since despite innumerable reminders and the fact that the first KUSA transfer is free, some purchasers of pups are woefully tardy about completing Section C on the back of the KUSA Registration Certificate, and from past experience many pups are never transferred. We would like to see KUSA adopt a similar policy to Identipet in that once the breeder receives the pup's Registration Certificates, they can effect the FIRST FREE KUSA TRANSFER to the new owner, send the whole litters Registration Certificates back to KUSA to effect transfer.

In closing, we would like to address Mr. Young's query regarding the relevance of KUSA Registration group percentages in that the majority of small breeds fall into the Toy Group where there appears to be the greatest concern regarding "early" micro chipping. As this group amounted to 36% of KUSA Registrations last year, it would be foolish to ignore their views, especially as KUSA accrue a large portion of their income from these breeders.

We hope the above is of assistance to readers.

Mark & Bridget Simpson


23 May 2011
In their various submissions to this forum, Bridget and Mark Simpson contribute a great deal of common sense to the microchipping debate. Like most of us, they are clearly in favour of microchipping, but also not blind to the effect that the sudden implementation of mandatory microchipping might have on KUSA's fortunes. Needless to say, KUSA's financial welfare is every loyal member's responsibility.

As the Simpsons point out, Toy breeds constitute around 36% of KUSA's registrations. Of this, show people contribute a very small percentage. It is no secret that the commercial breeders (I'll be kind) of Toy dogs have become KUSA's bread and butter over the years. If KUSA were to alienate them, it should be prepared to sacrifice a sizable chunk of its income.

A quick whip around the web produces results for three alternative dog registries – South African Canine Breed Registry (SACBR), South African Dog Breeders' Association (SADBA) and National Dog Breeders' Council of South Africa (NDBC). Unsurprisingly, none of them have a microchipping requirement (the SACBR even boasts about that) and all of them seem to charge considerably less than KUSA to register a pup. I was unable to trace exact fees for SADBA, but the SACBR charges R80,00, and the NDBC R60,00, per puppy. In contrast, KUSA's fees are R170,00 a shot.

Toy litters are small, so there is not a great deal of fat built in. In order to give buyers "papers" and still keep the operation profitable, it is quite possible that, given the new microchipping requirement and the costs and paperwork associated with it, some of the commercial operators who traditionally registered with KUSA might defect. What is a given is that they will definitely not undertake the arduous procedure followed by the Simpsons in registering their microchipped litter. As we all know, for the unsuspecting puppy buyer any certificate will do, as long as they have something to wave around as proof that they have taken possession of a "pedigree" dog.

It will be a while before we can fully assess the financial fallout for KUSA. Concerns expressed about the finances in recent Exco minutes are worrying, exacerbated by the knee-jerk communiqué which appears to be in conflict with constitution. What we and KUSA have to come to terms with is that any negative trend will be irreversible; once breeders have defected to another registry, it's unlikely that KUSA will ever get them back.

Gérard Robinson


23 May 2011
I have been microchipping all my Corgi puppies for the past 20 years or so, not because it is a requirement of any registering authority, but so that, if the puppy/adult dog, God forbid, gets off its property or is somehow or other lost, there is a good chance it can be returned to its owner and prevent a lot of heartache. I don't give my buyers the option of taking a puppy without a microchip. Surely this should be the very basic reason for microchipping by a breeder or an owner who gets an unchipped dog/puppy. Anyone getting a dog from the SPCA, buys it with a microchip - no discussion.

Anne Thompson


23 May 2011
Dear Editor

I have microchipped all my puppies since the microchips first became available in this country (Identipet). Even without KUSA's insistence I would have continued to do so. I have only bred Dalmatians, they are microchipped at six weeks at the time they get their first vaccination.

I have on occasion had a problem, but after all we ARE dealing with living beings who, just like us humans, don't all react in the same way. A couple of them have developed a lump at the site of the insertion, but I would certainly not call it an abcess which implies some sort of infection - the chips are supplied each inside their own sterilised needle, so I don't believe bacteria are present. I am inclined to believe that these lumps are composed of an excess serum build-up under the skin, particularly as I have successfully treated them with a homeopathic remedy prescribed for exactly that problem.

I personally believe the benefits of chipping outweigh any perceived negative aspects. True, most pet owners don't bother to get the owner and address details changed, just as they don't get around to changing registered ownership with KUSA - but they DO have the copy of the certificate which is unlikely to have gone missing or been stolen along with the dog concerned and this is a form of "proof of lawful ownership".

I have on a number of occasions been contacted by Vets and SPCA's to tell me "We have your Dalmatian 'Miss Monkey' here (my pups only have nicknames at the time of chipping). I have always been able to contact the dog's owner to tell them where their dog is - on one occasion they had not even arrived home from work and didn't know the dog was "missing". That's when I get VERY forceful about them changing their details with Identipet, as well as letting thme know if they move house.

One Cape Town purchaser had not heard of chipping, but on learning my opinion of the benefits decided to chip his 'pavement special' as well. On an outing to Sea Point this little dog went missing. Four days later he got a call to let him know that the dog was in Saldanha, to which it had probably 'hitched a ride'. Happy outcome for dog and owner.

Of course, all outcomes are not going to be happy, but I'm sure the percentages are higher. I do have to mention that the first time my Cavalier went missing the SPCA claimed to have only had one dog in that weekend (a Pug-cross-Border Collie), I asked if they had scanned him - NO! I demanded they did so and guess what - my Tri Cavvy. A year later he was stolen from his secure place in my back garden, he has never turned up because he has probably never been scanned. But just because of that I certainly won't condemn microchipping.

And it does not bring any extra income to KUSA, so nobody should be using that argument even as a passing hint. Rather than extra income, it brings peace of mind. Just think about people who use a different dog to cover a bitch than the one they agreed on. Scanning would be all the proof necessary that the required dog was being used.

So let's look at this requirement positively and see just where it can benefit us.

Oh yes, and I said I've only chipped Dallies as six week old pups, but I have also chipped a very small Cavalier when he arrived and no problem whatsoever. A chap down the road told me he has is Koi fish chipped and when he gets them they're barely bigger than fingerlings!

Dorothy Berry


24 May 2011
In response to Phil Reaney's posting of 13 May - GSDFSA National Show 2011.

Why the gnashing of teeth and tormented cry that you, and other KUSA GSD breeders (whoever they might be, the Weatherills are now safely back in Frikkie's Fold) have lost out on using GSDFSA studs?

All you had to do was join the Fed and you too would have had access to these "great South African GSD's", provided of course that your brood bitches had acceptable hip scores and met all the other requirements needed to breed a GSD bitch under the Fed banner.

The Old Dog


24 May 2011
Over the years the unconstitutionality of the Free State & Northern Cape Provincial Council has been raised repeatedly with KUSA, but KUSA has consistently failed to take any action, or impose any sanctions, against this province. As recently as at the Exco meeting of 29 April 2011, the matter was raised again and the following was minuted:

"FREE STATE AND NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCIAL COUNCIL No minutes of any meeting received since those of a meeting held on 29.4.2010. After a brief discussion it was noted that this was a matter for concern and would have to be dealt with by Fedco."

Apart from the unconstitutionality of this Provco, and the failure of its Chairman, Alwyn Dippenaar, to respect the provincial constitution and, by extension, the constitution of the Kennel Union of SA, another extremely serious matter has come to light.

Although there have been rumours about Alwyn Dippenaar's dogs having been confiscated by the SPCA in 2010, verification of this fact has only now been obtained from the Bloemfontein SPCA in the form of an Inspector's Report. In June 2010, the SPCA had reacted to a complaint of cruelty laid against Dippenaar by a member of the public, presumably a neighbour. The SPCA report and the subsequent veterinary report are attached.


For those whose Afrikaans is a little shaky, when the SPCA raided the premises, they found Dippenaar's four Bulldogs in an emaciated state. The dogs stank as a result of the filthy cages littered with dog excrement. The dogs' condition was such that the SPCA had no choice but to remove them from the premises.

After a veterinary examination the following day, the dogs were at, Dippenaar's insistence, released back into his care, presumably with a stern warning from the SPCA that he cleaned up his act and take better care of his animals. However, from the documentation supplied by the SPCA it would appear that two further complaints had been laid against Dippenaar this year. One must therefore assume that the situation has not improved.

The dilemma associated with this sorry saga is that Alwyn Dippenaar occupies a seat on Fedco, the highest decision-making body of the Kennel Union. As such, he is involved in making decisions on the conduct and behaviour of the entire KUSA membership, while also co-presiding over Schedule 9 – the Code of Ethics - by which every member of KUSA is bound, including Dippenaar. The scenario encountered by the SPCA violates several provisions of the KUSA Code of Ethics, yet Alwyn Dippenaar sits in a position of oversight and judgment when it comes to the way in which we, the members, keep our dogs.

We were able to bring this serious matter to the attention of a limited number of KUSA members over this past weekend and several of those responded to our request to join a list of KUSA members calling for Dippenaar's immediate resignation or, failing which, for the necessary constitutional steps to be taken to remove him from the Federal Council and, by implication, from the Chairmanship of the FS & NC PC. The following KUSA members, who include exhibitors, breeders and judges, have indicated that they are not prepared to submit to the authority of a body of which Dippenaar is part and demand his immediate resignation or, alternatively, his removal from Fedco without delay:

Lynn Acheler /  Isla Ameels / Gerla Anderson / Mark Anderson / Gail Archer / Eileen Ashton / Chris Aucamp / Erna Aucamp / Maurice Baker / Cheryl Battey / Donna Beltzig / Dorothy Berry / John Berry / Margaret Berry / Jeremy Birkett / Shirley Bloomfield / Anita Bodenstein / Beverley Brown / Pam Brown / Francesca Browning Cristina / Jackie Browning / Astrid Buhmann / Francois Burger / Rolan Burnard / Sylvia Burnard / Kerry Chipp / Sandra Claassen / Simone Clark / Maryke Coetzee-Pidgen / Sean Coetzee-Pidgen / Margaret Cole / Janet Cosser / Vernon Cosser / Jan Davies / Dian Darroll / Brenda Degenhardt / Heather de Haaff / Nick de Haaff / Karen de Klerk / Sylvia De Klerk / Johnny De Souza / Este Dessels / Margo Dessels / Glenda de Taranto / Shuna de Villiers / Tom Dowson / Wilma du Pisani / Rochelle Ehrlich / Rosemary Elliott / Debbie Erasmus / Ashleigh Feeny / Lucienne Ferres / Betty Fick / Rob Forsythe / Cherry Foss / René Fourie / Mariana Frederik / Karen Furk / Caroline Gilmour / Tammy Gilmour / Ricky Gouws / Crystal Graham / Seona Grobbelaar / Pat Guild / Carolyn Halhead / Di Hanson / Ruth Hanworth / Antoinette Harpestad / David Harrison / Vic Haskins / Lorraine Havemann / Jan Heggie / Maria Heneke / Ronnie Herselman / Sheila Hodkin / Mel Hotz / Bronwynne A. Hudson / Heather Hynd / Carol Immelman / Sue Impey / Jacki Jackson / Cheryl Jacobs / Michele Jankelow / Rod Jarman / Tina Jarvis / Ron Juckes / Venessa Juckes / Kassie Kasselman / Lori Kasselman / Janet Kay / Neil Kay / Charles Kerfoot / Mary Kerfoot / Jane Kiefer / Charron Knight / Neil Kriel / Daniel Kritzinger / Louis Kruger / Louise Kruger / Willem Kruger / Hans Kuilman / Magda Labuschagne / Janet Lainis / Carol Larkin / Rosemary Leaver / Hyman Balfour Leibman / Lise Liversedge / Donna Mackenzie / Jackie Mackenzie / Johnny Marques / Tracy Martins / Merle Melvill / Buster Melvin / Sue Melvin / Renée Minny / Charmaine Miscia / Pixie Mitchley / Denise Moore / Yvonne Murgatroyd / Judith Musto / Dionne Neto / Vanessa Nicolau / Natalie Nissen / Liz Norval / Adrienne Olivier / George Patey / Margot Pienaar / John Ramsbottom / Phillip Reaney / Duane Riley / Gérard Robinson / Heidi Rolfes / Belinda Rorke-Tarr / Nesta Rossouw / Lynne Ruddle / Ronnie Ryrie / Arnel Sauer / Gerhard Schultz / Kerrie Schultz / Henry Schwulst / Julia Scott Lawson / Shirley Seef / Adrian Sheasby / Delene Sheasby / Bridget Simpson / Mark Simpson / Denise Smith / Greg Smith / Keith Smith / Neil Smith / Rosemary Smith / Tommy Smith / Jane Spowart / Carol Staugthon / Gwen Staughton / Liz Stephenson / Scotty Stewart / Ria Steyn / Ellen Straiton / Errol Sundelowitz / Betty Swift / Yvonne Taentzer / Hugh Tarr / Jaeson Tarr / Jo-Dee Tarr / Veronica Tarr / C J Theunissen / Anne Thompson / Sylvia Tutchener / Willem van den Berg / Clair van den Bergh / Jeannie van den Heever / Sue van de Pijpekamp / Heather van de Vyver / Steve van Rensburg / Engela van Tonder / Michele van Vuuren / Alison van Zyl / Fred J. Veldman / Daelene Venter / Elmarie Venter / Johan Venter / Joke Vermeulen / Michael Vorster / Tazma Wearne / Daryl Weilbach / Angela Whitehead / Gill Whittal / Joan Whittingham / Pat Wilhelm / Leigh Williams / Ina Wride / Andrew Wright / Martine Wright / Kevin Young / Ralph Zeeman / Lorna Zetler / Hazel Zorab / Nigel Zorab / (Updated 31 May 2011)

Other members who also wish to object to Alwyn Dippenaar's presence on Fedco (Fedco meets this coming weekend), or to express a different opinion on the matter, are advised to either respond to this forum, or to send an email to the President of KUSA at

KUSA Members for Proper Governance and Against Animal Abuse


25 May 2011
Subsequent to the publication of the list of names protesting against Mr Dippenaar's presence on Fedco, DogWorld SA has received several further requests for names to be added.

Instead of starting a new list, we have decided to simply add to the list above by slotting the additional names in. The list will therefore be updated daily until the requests dry up.

DogWorld Editor


25 May 2011
KUSA Members for Proper Governance and Against Animal Abuse

Please will you add my name CHERYL BATTEY to this list as I am in agreement that Mr Dippenaar should immediatly resign. We all fall under the KUSA code of ethics and Mr Dippenaar is not excluded from this because of the position he currently holds on FEDCO. In fact I think any KUSA member should also face disciplinary action with KUSA for obvious neglect and/or cruelty of his/her animals, and they should be denied future KUSA membership, let alone hold a poition of office within KUSA.

Respectfully submitted by
Cheryl Battey


26 May 2011
Well said Ann. I have been inserting micro chips into my Rotties and my Aussies for about 15 years now, my vet always gives a little bit of antibiotic at the same time he inserts the micro chip. The extra forms to be filled out are quite easy to do. I will never let a puppy go off my property with out a micro chip. I do not understand what all the fuss is about. Insert them at the same time they have their first vaccines. I think it's about time that BREEDERS cover their puppy's future with a simple little thing like inserting a micro chip. I must however say that I sold an Aussie to someone and he got out of the gate and was never found, perhaps his new owner did not fill in the change of address for the micro chip company. I use Identipet micro chips and feel that they should now let the initial cost stay with the change of ownership and not have to renewed every year. Identipet forms are easy to fill in with one copy to be sent per puppy to KUSA on initial registration forms. Come on breeders help your puppy buyers its does not cost an arm and a leg to cover your puppy.

Anita Bodenstien


26 May 2011
I think like many of you, I sat glued to my pc screen, scrolling down the list of names and studying them, to see whose names were NOT on the list... VERY interesting indeed!

Heidi Rolfes


26 May 2011
What is so interesting about the names on the petition against Dippenaar is not really who is there but rather who is NOT there. We had some doggy friends over last night and after supper played a little game. One person threw a name out there that was not on the list and then we all had to guess why he or she was not there. We were eventually rolling about because some of the reasons were just so spot on if you know the personalities!!! Isn't it weird that even on an important issue like this the whimps of the dog world cannot stick their necks out and stand up for something. They are quite happy for other people to fight their battles for them while they remain invisible. We will of course always wonder whether they think its OK for one of our governors to miss manage his province and to ill treat his dogs.

On the list


26 May 2011
Please add my name ANITA BODENSTEIN to your list concerning MR DIPPENAAR. FEDCO and KUSA should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this person to still serve in office.

Anita Bodenstein


26 May 2011
Mr Dippenaar should actually not be requested to resign, but he should be subjected to a disciplinary hearing and if the numerous accusations against him prove to be true, his membership should be terminated on a permanent basis.

In view of his inability to perform his duties over a long period, it should have happened long ago.

Daniel Kritzinger


27 May 2011
The complete lack of names of FEDCO members on the list condemning the alleged action of one of their number, speaks volumes.

This leaves the rank and file membership to surmise that cosy politics, conducted under a closely knit old pals act, is more important than the welfare of dogs, for which they should have a concern.

Defending the indefendable does not become them.

Sad But True


27 May 2011
Please add our names Roland and Sylvia Burnard to the list concerning MR DIPPENAAR removal from his position.

We agree also with an earlier post … In fact I think any KUSA member should also face disciplinary action with KUSA for obvious neglect and/or cruelty of his/her animals, and they should be denied future KUSA membership, let alone hold a position of office within KUSA.

Roland & Sylvia Burnard


27 May 2011
Damn right! Of significance are the names that do NOT appear on the list. These are the people who took a moment to think through the pointlessness of a petition - the folks who applied their minds before rushing in emotionally to tag themselves - the individuals who recognised the moral folly of public condemnation. Those already on the list are apparently beyond reproach themselves and they have, by signing up, indicated their eagerness to act as self-proclaimed examples to society.

But while these paragons of virtue make themselves comfortable on their soap boxes, the rest of us will think, plan, and use the means and structures available to us to bring about the censure of this councillor's inexcusable behaviour. When the workers have achieved what needs to be done, the empty kettles are welcome to jump around and celebrate their victory.

Mister Manage (not related to "miss manage", above)


27 May 2011
Tomorrow Fedco meets, ostensibly inclusive of Mr Dippenaar. If the Exco minutes are to be believed, the defaults of the FS & NC PC will be discussed and Mr Dippenaar will have the opportunity to once again dip into his seemingly inexhaustible repertoire of excuses which in the past, for expediency's sake, have rung authentic in a number of willing ears.

It will be interesting to see how the dice fall this time. Will support from the usual quarters again be forthcoming? The SPCA thing is a bit of a bummer though. With so many respected KUSA members having expressed their views on this and the rest of the Dippenaar package, I suppose the burning question is which councillors will be prepared to defy many of their constituents' opinion and continue to prop Mr Dippenaar up.

We await the result with interest.

Gérard Robinson


27 May 2011
Please add my name to the list to remove Mr Dippenaar from FEDCO.

In addition, I am concerned about the comments made by a number of people regarding the names that are NOT on the list. The statement made by KUSA Members for Proper Governance and Against Animal Abuse stated " We were able to bring this serious matter to the attention of a limited number of KUSA members over this past weekend"- I am not sure what show or function the people were approached at, but I certainly wasn't approached for my opinion at the last Championship shows in JHB and as a non-Gauteng resident, I do not attend every possible dog-related show and function. Other than the Dogworld entries, there has not been an opportunity to add one's name to the list, so before you start pointing fingers, consider the consequences.

Lynne Ruddle


27 May 2011
If all of this is true, I'll happily go along with Danie Kritzinger's views.

To the 'no-name brands' and others who want to 'make or break' - FEDCO and KUSA is not responsible for Dippenaar being on this body; he's Free State PC's nomination. But, this all has to follow a process; you cannot even fire a thieving labourer (or a thieving cabinet Minister) nowadays without due process.

All the same, it appears to be a stink that won't wash off soon . .

Chris Pretorius


27 May 2011
No, no Mister Manage, you're wrong – at least about me.

I abhor petitions of any kind and certainly did not "rush in emotionally". I gave serious consideration to the issue before adding my name to the list.

I added my name in desperation because, for years, different people have tried to use "the means and structures available to us to bring about the censure of this councillor's inexcusable behaviour", to absolutely no avail.

The sentiments you expressed are very noble, but naïve. Where would democracy in South Africa be today if the disenfranchised majority had used the means and structures available to them to bring about change?

Carol Immelman


27 May 2011
I'm afraid I disagree with Mister Manage (and yes, "Miss Manage" almost finished me off as well!)

It is not the petition that is pointless, but rather the revered "structures available to us". Aggrieved members of the FS & NC PC have been complaining for years about the way the council is run and quite a while ago Mr Ron Juckes took the trouble of personally visiting the President to present a body of evidence of maladministration. Along with so many other things, it was relegated to the lumpy carpet of No. 68.

I can assure Mister Manage that if the "empty kettles" didn't put this in the public domain, the "workers" won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything.

Gérard Robinson


27 May 2011
To "Mister Manage"
Those of us "standing comfortably on our soap boxes", are the ones who, RESPECT, the KUSA Code of Ethics that each and every member has agreed to uphold and are the ones who have made every attempt to uphold keeping dogs in this country, an honest and reputable passion/sport.

Kerrie Schultz


27 May 2011
I wish to be associated with your complaints about a member of the Federal Council being reported to and having his dogs removed by the SPCA in Bloemfontein. The last person I can remember having this disgrace was a lady in Gordons Bay and she was asked to resign her membership. She at least had some excuse as she was unable to support financially the many dogs concerned and was afraid that they would taken away if she reported the problem. They were.

The disgrace is even worse when a member of the Federal Council is reported. I hope that the Council will insist on this person resigning immediately .

Jeremy Birkett


27 May 2011
In the UK much has been, and is, being made of the fact that a head of children's services was summarily sacked because of some terrible events that occurred on her watch (a child died). It now transpires that she will, subject to appeal, be entitled to a massive cash award because there was no due process. I know nothing about the case or events attributed to the said Federal Councillor. But, whatever the story, there must be due process. Fine for Gerard Robinson (who should know better), to call for a "hanging" and for the crowd to follow on assuming that Robinson is correct and that there are no mitigating circumstances. As far as I can see, the SPCA did not bring criminal charges for the alleged offence and whatever we may feel, he has not been found guilty of any criminal offence. Daniel Kritzinger is correct, someone (and I suggest it be Robinson himself as he claims to have all the facts) must investigate the situation further , assemble the facts and lay a charge with a DSC or FEDCO and that charge and evidence should be properly heard.

Lest you think that I condone any sort of animal cruelty I will stand on my years of credentials of Rottie Rescue in which I have seen and dealt with some appalling cases.

The issue of failure to hold proper Provincial Council meetings and or submit appropriate minutes is a separate matter and has been the subject of concern at FEDCO. Let them deal with it.

Whilst I applaud efforts to bring issues that need airing into the light of day, why did Robinson not address the issue through his Council? (Just wondered!)

Mike Dannatt


27 May 2011
In reply to Mr Manager

Peaceful process can work, pre 1994 passive burning of passes in South Africa, and the recent mainly peaceful demonstrations in Egypt give the lie to his reasoning, so to validate his own contention why not put a name to a proposal to be tabled through normal channels.

However I take exception to the suposition that those KUSA members who put their names on the list were wrong to do so.

My wife and I put our names forward not because of any allegations of bad administration in the Free State, we did so as the matter of alleged animal abuse is the important issue here.

We beleive that Alwyn Dippenaar should be subject to due process, just as KUSA would subject an ordinary member too. Importantly Alwyn must be given the opportunity to disprove the allegations made against him in the report compiled by the SPCA.

On reading the e-mail containing the SPCA report, I wrote to the president and a Federal Councillor expressing my concern, and suggested possible action.

My reasoning being that Alwyn must stand alone, because in no way must KUSA and its members be possibly besmirched by this sad state of affairs.

So far my letters have not merited an acknowledgement.

Neil S. Kay


28 May 2011
Dear Mister Manage.
I suggest you try and find out just how many complaints regarding the mismanagement of the FS&NC Provco have been through the "structures" available to KUSA members only to be ignored; maybe then you would become as disillusioned as many others are, and would then remove yourself from your seemingly high moral stance perched on the lumpy carpet of Bree Street.

As far as the complaint of neglect goes, I think that we're all aware that no SPCA goes to the extreme of removing dogs from their owners without very good cause. I consider that the mere fact of the SPCA having removed Mr Dippenaar's dogs (no matter for how short a time) together with a stamped veterinary report on their condition, is enough for me to expect his removal from KUSA's list of members. If our ruling body wishes to retain a modicum of respect, from not only the membership, but also internationally, I really think that this time they will have to act decisively.

Naturally, once removed as a member of KUSA, it follows that he cannot be an executive of any club, nor can he then remain as a member of Fedco.

It will be interesting to see what creative excuses (if any), and fast and fancy footwork will be employed (this time) to keep him in those positions.

Lucienne Ferres


28 May 2011
In reply to Mike Dannatt's, 27th Posting.

Mr Robinson did not address this issue through his Council, as if you read Past FEDCO minutes the Voting is usually 7 - 2 or 6 - 3 against any matter proposed/suggested/ or discussed by DOGS PC representatives at FEDCO. (The FEDCO agenda's are fully discussed at a Provincial Council meeting and impute from the quorum of council members is conveyed to our delegates prior to them going to Cape Town, as they are conveying the feelings of Clubs within DOGS Provincial Council.) As there have been NO Minutes of Free State Council meetings, since early last year, how has their Federal Councillor been allowed to vote on matters, unless he is just doing his masters command -- not his Provincial Councils instructions?

Over the past 12-18 months, items passed by FEDCO, have had to be over turned on a couple of occasions by Clubs, having to use Article 40.3, when the FEDCO voting was decided by the 7-2 or 6-3 votes. Does this not tell you something?

Also Article 15.2, the President and his followers claimed it did not refer to them despite the DOGS PC FEDCO representatives bringing this Article to their attention!

When Clubs do not submit their AGM minutes and required documentation, they are pulled over the coal, and even dis-affiliated -- Why not the Free State Provincial Council? as in terms of EXCO's minutes no minutes have been presented for over 12 months, and I am sure that an AGM and Financial Balance Sheet should have been presented to KUSA/FEDCO, like all other Provincial Councils have had to do during this period?

KUSA practice :- RULES are MADE for SOME and NOT for Others !!!

Sometimes one feels why bother, BUT "If good honest people do nothing -- Evil will prosper."

I also fully agree with Daniel Kritzinger (posting dd 26th.) -- it should have happened long ago.

Also in reply to "The OLD DOG" (posting of 24th.) -- I would give names if you had given your own name but I do not reply to a faceless Mr. Nobody.

Phil Reaney


28 May 2011
To Phil Reaney.
I specifically did not want to get into the issues of voting at FEDCO. You will find that by far the majority of issues at FEDCO are unanimous decisions. The 7-2 or 6-3 votes are usually issues revolving around the voting rights of dogspc (or associated issues) . Please let us not get into this again.

On the issue of alleged cruelty or neglect of dogs.

The issue I wanted to address is that of due process. No objection is made to Robinson publicising whatever issues he wishes, and if the good folk of the dog world wish to sign a petition, that is their right. Chris and Ken have it right, there must be due process. No one, least of all the President of KUSA can carpet someone for alleged offences and just get rid of them! Every one has a right to be heard. (ask Robinson). Therefore you must have due process. If you don't have due process then someone will end up with egg-on-the-face. Read the UK child death story.

Further, if you disregard the rule of law then you end up with lawlessness. If you feel the law is wrong then act to change it in a lawful manner. Those of us who are crazy about our dogs absolutely abhor and will castigate mistreatment and cruelty. But as I said before, have someone like Robinson get the facts, get the evidence, and lay a charge. The Federal Councillor has not been found guily or even charged with a criminal offence. What happened to innocent untill proven otherwise?

Mike Dannatt


29 May 2011
Please add my name to the list of those supporting the removal/disciplinary of Mr Alwyn Dippenaar.

It is a pity that people point fingers about who is not on the list—not everyone has time to surf the internet on an hourly let alone weekly basis.



30 May 2011
I would like to add my name to the ever increasing list of those requesting that Alwyn Dippenaar either resign as Chairman or is removed from his position. FEDCO members should be setting an example to the rest of the dog community.

Seona Grobbelaar


31 May 2011
Please add my name, LIZ NORVAL to the list demanding action be taken against Mr. Dippenaar for the appalling treatment of his dogs.

Liz Norval


31 May 2011
Good morning I wish to add my name to the list for Alywn Dippenaar to resign or be removed from his position at Fedco and any other position he holds. He should also be banned from being a Kusa member.

Kind regards
Betty Fick


31 May 2011
Maybe we need to send President Zuma with his delegation to represent all fair thinking S Africans to the Oval Office in Cape Town to meet with President Eva and to debate the issue of a Democracy! After all he has done it all over Africa and must know what democracy is and how it should run!! He could be as convincing as he has been elsewhere! Maybe President Eva will realise what is happening elsewhere when too much resistance to the wishes of his people is placed in their path? Let him gaze upon the list and wonder??

Hyman Balfour Leibman


31 May 2011
Well, I'm amazed. Today, KUSA truly exceeded my expectations and I have to give credit where it is due. Yesterday, at 2.20pm I emailed a championship application for one of my Dalmatians to Marisha at KUSA. Today at 1.15pm, less than 24 hours later, I received a reply with the confirmation of his championship title attached.

Now that's what I call outstanding service! Thank you Marisha and anyone else who was involved.

Carol Immelman


31 May 2011
Mike my friend, I think we're wasting our breath. I don't know the man from a bar of soap, but it seems his dogs were returned to him, with an apology. I'd still like to see his response to all this. If he's sufficiently at fault, there's the court in which to thrash all of this out. So far, no court - but plenty of kangeroo's (a whole listing of them!)

So what if the Free State PC is in a mess; that's their business, no? Especially if they choose to tolerate it. None of mine (or yours, or anyone else's) for sure. Now, we have some kangeroo's even hunting those who aren't listed, for heaven's sakes! I'm starting to like this forum a lot; one gets to know people one has known for years, just a bit better!

Thank you, Dogworld SA!
Chris Pretorius


31 May 2011
I would like to add my name to those who support that discipline action be brought against Alwyn Dippenaar,through KUSA Discipline Regulations on two cases:

  1. mistreatment of his dogs, under Schedule 9 2] and
  2. bad practice of running the OFS PC, under Schedule 2

Rod Jarman


1 June 2011
I would like to support Carol Immelman on outstanding service from kusa. The ladies there really know what they are doing.They need to get more credit .

Robsean Bedlingtons


2 June 2011
Please add my name to the list supporting Mr Dippenaar's removal from Fedco. Furthermore -if found guilty of maltreatment of animals by contravening any of the provisions of the animal cruelty act, he should be banned from membership of KUSA.

Rochelle Ehrlich


4 June 2011
I thought this was amusing and so true and wanted to share it.

Sylvia De Klerk

Why Own A Dog?

Why own a dog? There's a danger you know,
You can't own just one, for the craving will grow.
There's no doubt they're addictive, wherein lies the danger.
While living with lots, you'll grow poorer and stranger.

One dog is no trouble, and two are so funny.
The third one is easy, the fourth one's a honey.
The fifth one's delightful, the sixth one's a breeze,
You find you can live with a houseful of ease.

So how 'bout another? Would you really dare?
They're really quite easy but, oh, Lord the hair!
With dogs on the sofa and dogs on the bed,
And crates in the kitchen, it's no bother, you've said.

They're really no trouble, their manners are great.
What's one more dog and just one more crate?
The sofa is hairy, the windows are crusty,
The floor is all footprints, the furniture dusty.

The housekeeping suffers, but what do you care?
Who minds a few noseprints and a little more hair?
So let's keep a puppy, you can always find room,
And a little more time for the dust cloth and broom.

There's hardly a limit to the dogs you can add,
The thought of a cutback sure makes you sad.
Each one is so special, so useful, so funny.
The vet and food bills grows larger, you owe BIG money.

Your folks never visit, few friends come to stay,
Except other "dog folks" who live the same way.
Your lawn has now died, and your shrubs are dead too,
But your weekends are busy, you're off with your crew.

There's dog food and vitamins, training and shots.
And entries and travel and motels which cost lots.
Is it worth it you wonder? Are you caught in a trap?
Then that favorite one comes and climbs in your lap.

His look says you're special and you know that you will
Keep all of the critters in spite of the bill.
Some just for showing and some just to breed.
And some just for loving, they all fill a need.

God, winter's a hassle, the dogs hate it too.
But they must have their walks though they're numb and your blue.
Late evening is awful, you scream and you shout
At the dogs on the sofa who refuse to go out.

The dogs and the dog shows, the travel, the thrills,
The work and the worry, the pressure, the bills.
The whole thing seems worth it, the dogs are your life.
They're charming and funny and offset the strife.

Your life-style has changed. Things won't be the same.
Yes, those dogs are addictive and so is the dog game.

Unknown Poet


6 June 2011
from a report I received from an onlooker (not my words!) on Saturday  4th June at the Tracking - first of the three legs in the Meridian IPO/BWT Trials(KUSA) - Under Mary Charity.  

"What a TOTAL lot of………..

It was the most disgusting judging of any trial that I have ever seen.  "XXX" (well known GSD Fed judge for generosity) is an “A” grade judge compared to this circus.

I have always wondered if I was doing something wrong as I have never got more than 86 for obedience and or protection and there were people scoring 98+. On the track I have had 1 x 91. So "xxx" and I went to watch.

After watching  2 x BWT (of which I know nothing) (one at a distance and one close up) I realised that this was “bad”. After 5  restarts a score of 83 was given.

So on to the wunderkind.

Start OK apart from messing around with the lead and eventually getting it right.  1st leg (of the track) – numerous deviations, some up to 5m either side of the track.

A sudden halt at the corner with the handler holding back the dog (correcting) on at least 5 occasions before steering the dog around the corner to the article placed 10 metres from the corner.   A total score of 10 would have been recorded anywhere else and a “follow your dog” command with a blow off should have been the result. A score of 93 graded Very Good was recorded. TOTAL TOTAL Horse "xxx".

Anywhere else in the world where people are serious about IPO this circus would be blown out of the water.

So it is correct to say that any one receiving a “Charitable” score for IPO will get a reamed reality check under any normal judge."

End of quote

I am unfortunately the scapegoat who reports what is happening. But owning  a dog with an IPO Title, I believe that I and numerous others who have slaved so many hours training our dogs to trial seriously,  have been left with a meaningless title when it is given away so Charitably by the Case cohorts and those that he "Trained and Passed" as judges!

H.B. Leibman


8 June 2011
Hi There All

As a part-time show goer and breeder, the dog show world has become increasingly insipid and at that, well for me at least, the key contributing fact being the high costs of entry. In my breed - Staffordshire Bull Terriers, there are NO free rides. Traveling along comfortably with one dog to a far away show is all about an internal finacial fight. Is is worth it. So if you are gonna go, you want to take at least two dogs and enter a show weekend with at least 2 shows and for us Capetonians, the road is long in every other direction. So per dog its R160 per weekend, x 2 plus accomodation for two nights + a R1/km. So our cheapest weekend for that elusive away point is the Oudtshoorn shows which will set you back by almost R2000 AT LEAST.  So the more you calculate the less sense dog showing makes for normal people like me where passion driven deep coffers in my pocket do not exist. ONLY Breede River gave us an away point option without us packing up for the weekend. Now for some breeds this is enough, but NOT for Staffords and other large entry breeds.

SO I FOR ONE am enthralled that beside Breede River now, we will (shortly) have two new Championship shows in the Western Cape with titles outside of the municipality but resident in the "region" for us to travel to without traveling too far. Like our friends in Gauteng who can practically show all over the north in one place. Where a show weekend for away points still has you at home everynight. No Wimpy and Steers dinners. That's what we have been missing out on.

To the brains trust behind these new clubs. I thank you. Looking forward to enter your next open shows. This was the breath of fresh air that I for one was looking for and this past-time gets a new lease on life in my family budget planning.

With Kind Regards,

Deon Manuel


8 June 2011
I'm having a glass of good dry red tonight, for Roger Shore.

With much sadness,
Chris Pretorius


9 June 2011
Me too Chris, a gentle man and a Gentleman.

Mike Dannatt


9 June 2011
Many thanks to Sylvia de Klerk for sharing the Poem "Why Own a Dog?" with us – when I showed it to my family they all agreed that it was written about me and my "doggy" friends!

Kind regards,
Dog Addict


23 June 2011

A selection of our readers comments...

I love your new website!! Well done.

Just need to tell you that I like the new Website. Just need to figure out where everything is but well done.
With Kind Regards,
Deon Manuel

Love the new look - stunning.

Congrats on a FABULOUS new look for your website!!! May the website go from strength to strength.
Kind regards
Ruth Truebody

Congratulations on the new look of your website. It is always great to see progress. All the best with the business for the future.
An impressed web developer!

Like the NEW look!
Melanie de Klerk

Congratulations on a super new look!
Angela Whitehead & the Cape Welsh Corgi Club

Donne Lucas

The new website looks great.
Lois Wilson

Congratulations on your websites new look!!! It really looks fabulous. Thank you very much for what you do for our dog people and our SBT Breed.
Stella Muller

Wow I really like the new look, easy to use and very eye catchy. Congrats it really does look good.
Giselle Brits

Crystal Graham
Togra Boston Terriers

Wonderful Joan, and long overdue. I'm thrilled about the new venture.
Liz Hiscock

Smashing new website! I really do think it has lots of class. I can use it really easily and I am not that great on the computer. Well done.
DiChris Pretorius    linebreak