Treatise on FCI standard

                        December 25, 2007

By Eric T. Omura

FCI initially adopted Standard Nr.309 on 25^th January 1994 (hereafter referred to as Nr.309/1994) based on recommendation from the Hong Kong Kennel Club.  In this original standard, it clearly stated that Shar-pei has its origin in China and its “Patronage- Hong Kong”.  This standard clearly reflects a traditional type Chinese Shar-pei, commonly referred to as the “bone-mouth” in the Chinese canine world[i].

For reason and process of decision not clearly understood, FCI changed this original standard (Nr.309/1994) to another version on August 9, 1999 (hereafter referred to as Nr.309/1999) which is basically similar to the American Kennel Club standard[ii] for Shar-pei.  This is the standard for Western “meat-mouth” type Shar-pei.

It is a widely known fact in Hong Kong that the recommendation presented to FCI by Hong Kong Kennel Club was the result of consensus reached after numerous meetings organized by the Sharpei Club Hong Kong[iii].  Members to this club in those early days included many prominent breeders of traditional type Chinese Shar-pei in Hong Kong.  Therefore, for reason self-apparent, the Nr.309/1994 standard is the closest representation of a traditional type Shar-pei.

Before going into the particulars of the FCI standard for Shar-pei, we should first examine a few basic issues as follows:

1.          Nr.309/1994 clearly stated that Hong Kong is the country of patronage. 

What was the reason that caused the change to Nr.309/1999 standard?

If the Hong Kong Kennel Club (HKKC) representing the place of origin did not initiate any revision of the Nr.309/1994 standard, under what circumstances did FCI unilaterally change the standard without first opening a dialogue with HKKC?

2.          The Nr.309/1999 standard stated that FCI is the patronage.

FCI is an international organization and not a country.  Can FCI take its member’s place and surrogate as “country of patronage” when a member clearly representing the place of origin (HKKC) is present?

3.          If the Nr.309/1999 standard stated that the valid original standard was first published on April 14, 1999, then where did this original “valid original standard” of Nr.309/1994 disappeared.  The Nr.309/1994 standard stated that the “valid original standard” was concurrent with the date of issue of FCI standard which was January 25, 1994.  An official document can not just disappear without explanation.

4.          If the Nr.309/1999 standard was meant to be a separate and independent standard from Nr.309/1994, then shouldn’t it be filed under a different number instead of occupying the same Nr.309? 

5.          If Nr.309/1999 standard stands for a different breed standard overriding the previous “wrong” standard, then what is the reason for this error?  How can a Shar-pei standard be based on American and not the place of origin?

6.          If Nr.309/1994 was filed in 1994 when Hong Kong was still under British rule, then on July 1, 1997 when sovereignty of Hong Kong reverted back to the People’s Republic of China and became a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, HKKC became a qualified organization representing the country of patronage.  How could have the Nr.309/1999 standard issued two years after 1997 without any HKKC involvement?

7.          HKKC wrote an official letter to FCI two years ago (2006) enquired about this matter.   In short: “What happened to the Nr.309/1994 standard?” So far as at this date (December 2, 2007) Chairman of the Hong Kong Kennel Club, Mr. Nelson Lam said that FCI did not give any reply to this enquiry so far.

8.          FCI may be waiting for People’s Republic of China to join FCI but this future issue should not complicate the current issue.  For many Chinese breeds, Hong Kong has no geographical connection, but for Shar-pei, it is right within the geographical place of origin.

9.          Recently in its General Assembly held in Acapulco on May 22^nd, 2007, FCI reconfirmed its organizational principle[iv].  Article 7, item 4 of Standing Orders adopted by the FCI clearly stated that “New breed standards shall be based on the standard from the country of origin or country of patronage.”  This is the latest official reconfirmation of FCI long standing organizational principle.

FCI Nr.309/1999 standard is basically a standard for Western type Shar-pei which the breeders here in China and Hong Kong refer to as the “meat-mouth”.  On Jan. 12, 1998, AKC approved second edition of Chinese Shar-pei standard, and the FCI issued the Nr.309/1999 standard one year later.  This Nr.309/1999 standard is actually quite similar to the American AKC standard. 

The fact of life is that the Western type Shar-pei (meat-mouth) are already well accepted by many breeders around the world.  Any attempt to replace it with a separate traditional Chinese Shar-pei standard is not practical and do no justice to the already existing type of dog.  For FCI, the case of Shar-pei is intrinsically the same as the case for Akita.  To solve this issue, one option is to let Nr.309/1999 remains as a standard for Western type Shar-pei and FCI Nr.309/1994 revived as the standard for the original traditional type Chinese Shar-pei.

This is written even in the Nr.309/1999 Western type meat-mouth Shar-pei standard but this is not strictly enforced.  For the traditional type breeders here in China and Hong Kong, they refer to the different types of tail by object names such as spear, sickle, hook, and coin.  Except for the coin which means a double coiled tail, all the other descriptions are sharp pointed objects.  Western judges will not hesitate to select a Champion even the hair on the tail is quite long.  “Tapering to a fine point” is not upheld at all for Western type Shar-pei, but this is of utmost importance when referring to a traditional Shar-pei.