This post is also available in: Nederlands (Dutch)
On social media, the Foundation ‘Ras en Recht’ received a response from the Dutch Kennel club (RVB) on:
“Dutch Kennel club (RVB) acting in violation of the rules of the FCI” of 17 May 2020.
We will try to explain in understandable language, before the RVB has his meeting with the FCI.
(Normal = text letter Dutch Kennel Club (RVB), bold in italics is reaction foundation ‘Ras en Recht’)
‘FOLLOWS TO FCI RULES by the RVB
The Dutch Kennel Club and the Articles of Statutes and Regulations, standing order of the FCI
In response to the commotion surrounding the Minister’s decision-making on the short-muzzle dogs, numerous reports are circulating via social media. It is not uncommon for statements to be made that are incorrect.
For example, a story circulates that the Dutch Kennel Club is acting in violation of FCI regulations. The Dutch Kennel Club acts fully in line with the rules of the FCI and its own statutes and regulations. We address the main allegations below.
Articles of Association of the FCI
It is said: The statutes of the FCI state: ‘20.13. The pedigrees issued by a Member or a Contract Partner, must be accepted by all the Members and Contract Partners as “documents proving that the pups are born of pedigree parents from the same breed”.
In the ‘statutes of the FCI’ article 20.13 does not appear at all. In article 3.2 under a) sub (i) the objective of the FCI is ‘the mutual recognition of studbooks, appendixes to the studbooks, and of pedigrees, exclusive of any other’ and of course the Board of Governors adheres to this.’
Apologies you are right, by mistake it says ‘Statutes’, should be, ‘Standing Orders of the FCI’. However, the content and legal consequences remain.
‘Standing Orders of the FCI
Reference is also made to Article 20.1 of the FCI standing orders:
Every Member and Contract Partner must keep a studbook for all the breeds recognised on a definitive basis by the FCI.
What one wants to prove with this, remains shrouded in mistery. There is much more in this article 20.1 answering the question in which studbook dogs should be registered (as it is known that the studbook of the country where the owner of the dog is resident). Contrary to what the reader is led to believe, the NHSB is not closed at all for the dogs belonging to the short muzzle breeds. Puppies can still be registered, although the rules set by the government have to be complied with.’
What we want to clarify is the following; the RVB constantly states that no breeds are excluded with the CFR<0.3 requirement. The fact that the government sets this requirement and thus implicitly excludes breeds is bad enough. With the cynological knowledge of the Dutch Kennel Club, denying this is difficult to digest. Everybody knows that breeders of pedigree dogs have to stick to the breed standards of the FCI. Breeding out of the FCI standard, to breed a longer nose (in one generation even) requires cross breeding. The RVB is also aware of this and named the 12 breeds on numerous official documents, including ‘breeding guidance plan’, that was refused by the Minister. This playing with words, is only meant to avoid the FCI rules. Is it not the same as saying, that anyone with a skin colour having a higher light-absorption than 0.5 is not allowed to reproduce? We know that only one ethnic group meets this requirement. It is and it remains racism.
Especially, because several renowned Scientific Institutes, have proven that increasing the length of the nose is not a solution for the BOAS problem.
We like to remind, that the University of Utrecht, with its literary study for the ‘enforcement criteria’ simply wants the breeders to crossbreed. The RVB goes along with this and acts in violation of everything the cynology and the FCI stands for.
I hope this clears up the ‘mistery’.
‘Subsequently, paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the standing orders of the FCI is quoted:
Members and Contract Partners must exclusively and reciprocally recognize each other’s studbooks, including the appendixes as long as the broad(s) concerned are FCI recognised.
An updated list of the initials of the various studbooks and appendixes will be published by the FCI Head Office.
This article concerns the mutual and exclusive recognition of studbooks by the members and contract partners of the FCI. The Board of Directors also complies with this provision’
(See previous and next remarks)
‘Finally, part of Article 20.5 of the FCI standing orders is quoted in support of the claim that the Board of Directors would act in violation of the FCI regulations:
Any Member or Contract Partner can refuse to (re-)register in its studbook, or alternatively can (re-)register with a “limited registration: not to be used for breeding”, a dog suffering from hereditary defects or featuring defects which go against the Article 3 of the Statutes or a dog which does not comply with the rules of selection defined by the Member or Contract Partner in question.
The author ‘forgets’ to remember the last part of this article, which states that FCI members should not automatically include an imported dog in their studbook. Whatever else is relevant is the reference to Article 3 of the FCI Statutes which states under 3.2(a)(iv): ‘the observance of the broad standards as approved by the Association which must be recognised by all the Members and Contract Partners as far as they are not in contradiction with the laws of their respective country;’. Insofar as the breed standard of any breed requires a CFR of below 0.3, this standard is not in accordance with the legislation in the Netherlands.’
The government did not prohibit pedigrees.
With wanting to issue ‘the alternative version of a pedigree’ the RVB demonstrates this. After all, a pedigree is nothing more or less than a certificate of parentage.
‘No breeding ban for breeds
Contrary to what is stated, the Dutch government has not gone so far as to ban brachycephalous breeds; these are dogs that do not meet the criteria formulated by the government. If the parent dogs meet the criteria then there is no breeding ban from the government and the puppies are more than welcome to be admitted to the NHSB. However, other FCI countries have had to mark complete breeds as ‘forbidden’ as a result of their national legislation (Denmark 13 breeds, including a number of FCI breeds, Norway 6 breeds, including a number of FCI breeds).’
Again, attempts are being made to throw dust in the eyes of the reader and puns, quibble are being used here as well. If a dog of the 12 breeds has a CFR>0.3, it no longer meets the breed standard of the FCI and thus becomes a mutt.
The fact that breeds (most of them not FCI breeds) are banned in Denmark and Norway is caused by biting / fighting dogs. The Netherlands had to deal with this a number of years ago. As a result, dogs were judged on appearances. The government stated that Pit bulls were bite dogs and they were allowed to pick them up and put them down, whether the dog was aggressive or not. In the end, the minister’s own advisory committee put a stop to this a number of years ago (2008), because it was about selecting dogs on appearances. The fact that the RVB uses this example is therefore remarkable because the result was that it was prohibited to select on the basis of appearances. The muzzle length is also an appearance.
(An interesting detail is that a recent study from the University of Wageningen shows that twice as many people end up in hospital because of German shepherd dogs than Pit bulls).
‘Appearance prevents NHSB from registering
It is far from new that external features can stand in the way of registration in the NHSB. Since 1989 – long before the government issued such a ban – the Raad van Beheer has had a cutting of the ears. The Kynologisch Reglement (Old Cynological Regulations) says something about this: If at the time of the tattoo one or more pups from the litter in question are docked to the ears, no pup from the litter will be tattooed (and therefore no pup will be registered in the NHSB).
Chapter VIII Breeding and Health of the current Cynological Regulations also contains provisions which, in the event of violation of these regulations, lead to refusal to admit the pups from such combinations to the NHSB.’
Again, this is a very devious statement. This has nothing to do with the prohibition to dock the tail and ears. It is about profiling healthy dogs on appearance, because of the short nose. In the Netherlands this profiling is used to force crossbreeding. The fact that the Dutch Kennel Club tries to manoeuver out of this mess, with word games, is becoming embarrassing.
‘No look-alikes in the NHSB
Finally, there is a misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up. The Raad van Beheer will not include pups resulting from cross-breeding, inbreeding with other breeds and look-alikes in the NHSB.
In doing so, it will follow the procedure described in the KR whereby these pups will be registered but will not be included in the main studbook. Such a decision can only be made after a number of generations.’
In the last sentence lays the stinger. With this last sentence the RVB claims that in time crossbreeding can be included in the NHSB. And this without a plan approved by the FCI? The RVB must be well aware that by doing so they are jeopardising the trust of foreign Kennel Clubs in the Dutch studbook register, and that will apply for all the breeds.
‘Offspring from combinations that do not meet the CFR criteria can be included in the NHSB.
Puppies from combinations that do not meet the CFR criteria will not be included in the NHSB, but – as proposed to the GMS – they will be included in a separate pedigree registration. However, if it turns out that purebred pups from such combinations do have a CFR of more than 0.3 at adulthood (and meet the other requirements and breed points) then inclusion in the NHSB is possible without further ado. This means that in the coming years all dogs included in the NHSB, belonging to the short-short breeds, will be and remain purebred.’
Nobody is interested in a ‘separate registration system’. This is only used against the breeders of pedigree dogs that meet the FCI standards. Meanwhile, the dog is no longer registered as a pedigree dog.
Remarkable, the RVB has constantly the tendency to sell mixed breeds as pedigree dogs, again in the long run. If one wants to go this way, it is necessary to have a good plan that has to be approved by the FCI.
Ir Edwin Meyer Viol
Foundation ‘Ras en Recht