Pages

▼

Tuesday, 1 September 2015

Cavalier campaigner blasts the KC

It's Puppy Awareness Week (1st-8th September) in the UK and the Kennel Club is already in full flood urging people to take care how they buy puppies.

This included a mail-out last week asking for help "putting bad breeders out of business".



The mail-out has incensed Cavalier campaigner Charlotte Mackanass who today has sent a swingeing open letter to the Kennel Club demanding it puts its own house in order.

Mrs Mackanass accuses the KC of making inadequate demands of breeders, even those on the KC's elite Assured Breeder Scheme. She also alleges that the Kennel Club itself registers puppies bred by puppy farmers, highlighting one breeder that registered 11 litters of Cavalier puppies in just three months.

Mrs Mackanass writes:
"This is a wonderful idea. Puppy farmers need to be stopped. As a dog lover, I would love to help put the bad breeders out of business and ensure that puppies are bred by those who truly care about their welfare. I would also gladly help give potential puppy owners vital information about the most responsible way to find and buy a puppy. 
"This is a subject close to my heart as, having sought advice from the Kennel Club on where to find a responsibly-bred Cavalier puppy and then buying from a “top” breeder on the recommendation of a breed club Puppy Advisor, my little dog was diagnosed with severe Syringomyelia (SM) aged two. In hindsight, she started showing symptoms as early as six months. It transpired that the Kennel Club registered parents of my puppy had no recorded health tests and, to this day, the breeder has been unable to provide evidence that any of the required or recommended health tests were done despite the well-documented inherited health problems in the breed.
"It took me 18 months to find my next puppy from genuinely responsible breeders. Why so long? Because most Cavalier breeders, despite what they claim, do not test their breeding dogs or follow the breeding recommendations designed to reduce the incidence of the two most severe and painful health conditions.  
"These experiences have meant that I cannot, in all conscience, spread the word about buying from a Kennel Club Assured Breeder. I know only too well that the Scheme requires very limited testing, which in no way addresses the serious inherited health issues and the non-compliance of breeding protocols by the majority of Cavalier breeders. 
"I’m afraid that the Kennel Club itself first needs to put in place stringent steps to prevent the KC registration of litters from Puppy Farmers. Caroline Kisko, the Secretary of the Kennel Club, has recently said “We want to stress to people they should never pay money to someone they suspect of being a Puppy Farmer”. Your own KC website defines Puppy Farmers as “high volume breeders who breed puppies with little or no regard for the health and welfare of the puppies or their parents”. It must therefore be of concern to all who support the PAW campaign that one such high-volume breeder is shown as registering 11 Cavalier litters in three months in your latest Breed Record Supplement. The 11 mothers and four stud dogs have no health tests whatsoever shown on your website. 
Mrs Mackanass is backing a petition asking the Kennel Club to only register Cavalier puppies from parents that have screened for syringomyelia and heart disease.  Currently, the KC registers thousands of Cavalier puppies ever year bred from untested stock.

The KC does demand more of Cavaliers bred under their Assured Breeder Scheme. But these represent only a small percentage of Cavalier puppies the KC registers and, astonishingly, only eye-testing is mandatory - screening for SM and heart disease is only a recommendation. (See here).

Writes Mrs Mackanass:
"I would like to draw the Kennel Club General Committee’s attention to a petition that has already gathered over 16,500 signatures. It promotes an idea that would identify responsible Cavalier breeders and so remove Puppy Farm dogs from KC registration: https://www.change.org/p/the-kennel-club-stop-registerin-g-cavalier-king-charles-spaniel-puppies-unless-their-parents-are-mri-scanned-and-heart-tested   "By implementing the suggestion that only litters from health-tested Cavalier parents are accepted for registration the KC would ensure that irresponsible breeders, who will not pay for health tests, are unable to register their poorly-bred litters. Buyers could then be confidently directed to the Kennel Club as truly being the place to find responsibly bred puppies. As a really significant bonus, the information on health testing would go to researchers so better testing and breeding methods can be devised?
 Yours faithfully Charlotte Mackaness

The KC's standard response to such demands is that if you ask too much of breeders, they will "go elsewhere".  It also argues that not enough is known about syringomyelia and that screening, which is expensive, does not guarantee an SM-free puppy. This is true enough - and it is also the case that estimates vary wildly about how many Cavaliers are affected. One recent paper put the incidence at only around 2 per cent while others have suggested that the brains of 70 per cent of older Cavaliers are abnormal.

However, what is in no doubt is that while some Cavaliers show no or only few symptoms, for others  this can be an extremely distressing condition - agonising for the dogs and expensive for their owners and not even the Kennel Club would argue otherwise.

There is also evidence that mandatory screening in Sweden has helped reduce the incidence of SM.

Says Charlotte: "Beebee started showing symptoms around six months. The most obvious was yelping when picked up. From the start, she’d always been a quiet puppy and not particularly boisterous. She didn’t jump on furniture, always trotted by my heels on walks rather than running off. For a long time, we just assumed it was her personality. As time went by the yelping became more frequent, she’d always roll on her tummy when greeting people (she wanted fuss but not her head touched) and she became extremely withdrawn. An MRI revealed severe CM/SM. Beebee is now on a high dose of neuropathic painkillers that cost well over £100 a month. She rarely yelps and is generally much more active and outgoing than she was. However, if you met her you’d probably think she was much older than three. She behaves like a rather delicate old lady."

Beebee - an "old lady" at 3 due to SM
There is also is still no official screening scheme for the Cavalier's most prevalent health issue: mitral valve disease - despite a KC commitment to the development of one more than nine years ago.

Please sign the petition here.  Seventeen thousand people - including celebrities - already have. Sooner or later, the KC is going to have to give in and do more for this blighted little breed.

More info and discussion to be found on the Cavaliers are Special Facebook page.


at

37 comments:

  1. Unknown1 September 2015 at 14:31

    Attention all Kennel Clubs: do something positive for these dogs - don't you all say that you're 'there for dogs'? It is passed time for the KC's to act for the sake of these dogs -

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1 September 2015 at 15:07

    Please do something positive for this breed, my 2 year 11 month old CKCS was given his wings in May this year because we could control his painful symptoms. We are still heartbroken that he wasn't given the best chance of a healthy life as his parents were NOT health tested. In his short little life health costs were in excess of £12,000. Anyone purchasing this breed please get adequate insurance cover!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown1 September 2015 at 16:11

    Hard to believe this scandal is still going on. Sort it out KC and breeders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1 September 2015 at 16:24

    The heart of the problem lies with puppy purchasers, who go "shopping" usually online via one of the websites, such as gumtree, KC registered puppies are just a fraction of what's available. They don't do any research regarding health problems in their given breed, don't ask for any health certificates, think they are "rescuing" puppies from sick and filthy conditions, rather than realise they are just condemning others to a similar fate and then blame the anyone other themselves for their mistakes. Quit complaining and buy responsibly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Margaret Carter1 September 2015 at 23:54

      But the Kennel Club tells people that purchasing a Kennel Club registered Cavalier puppy from an Assured Breeder is buying responsibly, even though the scheme leads buyers to believe that breeders only need to test for eye problems. How would a buyer know that eye problems are probably the least of Cavaliers health problems and that they need to research outside of the KC website to get a true idea of Cavalier health? .

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3 September 2015 at 01:49

      "The heart of the problem lies with puppy purchasers "

      LOL. Funny.

      Its the K.Cs who claim expertise.
      Its the K.Cs who claim dog breeding has no place out side of their membership.

      And Its the K.Cs who promote the ideal that responsible means K.C membership. That "responsible"can only be applied after that certification.
      So teaching the value of good/better breeding practices by the experts can only take place using their personaly developed science of breeding with ever narrowing lines.

      Any other ideal is not permitted credence or legitimacy so that trying to find healthy bred dogs for out crossing purposes is near impossible. After all, no "ethical" breeder would allow such a thing to occur!

      These diseases and faults did not become fixed in lines because of people who breed outside of K.C membership. The poor quality dogs they sell outside of their own membership though, likely has a lot to do with it when the buyers are taught pedigree is the best you can do and ensure there is no avenue to show case any better.

      If the" Experts"won't take any responsibility for the environment that supports them, what good are they? What purpose do they serve?


      Give me reliability over predictability any day.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous1 September 2015 at 16:28

    I've been looking for a Frenchie and went to the 'respectable' KC site to view their list of assured breeders. I found a breeder openly advertising blue Frenchies! I emailed her and the KC but have had no response from either. This does nothing to inspire confidence that you're getting a healthy dog, especially important with Frenchies who are prone to so many ailments. Sue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown2 September 2015 at 10:19

      So why would you want to get a dog known to have so many problems anyway? I don't understand the reference to blue Frenchies, perhaps you could explain?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous2 September 2015 at 11:58

      Why do you want a deformed and diseased dog - deliberately bred that way? This doesn't make sense! What do you expect?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2 September 2015 at 16:55

      Oh dear! In my defence perhaps you should understand that many Frenchies are perfectly healthy. The blue colour is not allowed by the Kennel Club as it doesn't conform to the breed standard and dogs with blue in them often have quite bad skin problems. So, it seemed more than a little odd that a breeder advertising something forbidden by the KC should be allowed on its website.
      I agree that the way Frenchies have been bred recently has resulted in myriad problems but this is precisely WHY it is essential to find a good breeder whose puppies are self-whelping, don't have the thick neck and overly flattened nose that has become fashionable. That Frenchies are brachycephalic makes them no different to boxers, pugs, bulldogs, cavaliers, etc. Are you both suggesting people stop breeding all these dogs?
      The original Frenchie (as this blog has highlighted in the past) had a longer muzzle. It is still possible to find dogs like this in the UK as responsible breeders are attempting to bring the bred back to a healthy standard. The Frenchie isn't some new fangled designer dog, its been around a long time and has a wonderful temperament. As I said, if you don't want Frenchies then you would rule out lots of other breeds too. Surely the way forward is for breeders to move back to the original Frenchie shape and this is exactly what I was hoping to find from the KC site. Sue

      Delete
    4. Anonymous3 September 2015 at 09:58

      How is a dog selectively bred to have disabling disfigurements 'healthy'? No breeds of dog should be selected to have deformed spines, tails and brachycephalia. You don't need to breed dogs like that just because a breed standard declares it. Is a breed standard another example of a religious text that should be devoutly followed without question, ethics, morals or the application of science? Breed standards were designed by man to allow the function and form of dogs to be stereotyped to enable some degree of predictability. The fact blue dogs are rejected is just another example of stupidity, culling genetic diversity in the process. They can be changed and if anyone was rational in the dog world they would review and amend these standards and progressively improve the animals based on evidence where required.

      Dogs should be selectively bred for health and function of which form then follows. People's attachments to breeds that have known health problems to do with human appeasement for aesthetics - selecting for deformity, dwarfism, disabling features and disease and poor welfare all round - is just baffling. It's another example of a disease.....albeit psychological.

      The way forward is for breeders to review the health of the Frenchie all round and decide if it is a dog that really should continue to be bred at all. Brachycephalic features in dogs are not normal. They are abnormal and disabling.

      http://thehappypuppysite.com/britain-says-yes-to-brachycephaly-a-puppy-health-concern/

      Delete
    5. Anonymous3 September 2015 at 14:33

      I'm not sure why you think the blue is rejected unfairly when it is widely accepted that the colour results in a variety of health problems!! My comments were exactly the same as yours; I want breeders to go back to the healthy longer muzzled Frenchie. There are such healthy dogs already in the UK, not ALL Frenchies are crippled messes. But my point s seemed to be missed in the rush to condemn someone for wanting to find a particular breed. Surely responsible buyers are part of the equation which is exactly WHY I was looking on the KC site as I thought it would be the best place to find a healthy Frenchie. As the point of the blog above was to cast doubt on the KC's commitment to health I thought I would share my surprise at finding blue puppies there. I AGREE that breed standards diminish genetic variance and are a problem and perhaps other colours should be accepted but the blue is KNOWN to have problems so no responsible breeder should be producing them until their innate weaknesses are resolved. The issue of breeding that results in genetic flaws and poor health is one that I do care about; I would hardly be subscribing to this site otherwise, but this is a problem for many breeds not just brachycephalic ones. I abhor 'trends' in designer dogs. Not everyone who owns a Frenchie is a moron you know. Sue.

      Delete
  6. Cavalier Campaign1 September 2015 at 16:38

    All kinds of excuses have been given by the Kennel Club for not making the CMSM Scheme mandatory for CKCS breeders. Most recently we hear, 'it's complex' and the CMSM scheme is 'not perfect.' We know that CMSM is complex and so is hip dysplasia and many other genetic disorders suffered by dogs. However, this is not a reason for not using the scheme. No-one is saying that breeders should not use the HD scheme because the condition is complex. Breeders should use the scheme in order to provide phenotypic data to the KC for future estimated breeding values. The CMSM scheme isn't prefect. Again that isn't a reason not to use it. The HD scheme isn't perfect either. If there is a need to improve the CMSM scheme, then breeders and the KC should be supporting and encouraging this work. Regarding the Heart scheme which was promised in 2008, I have stopped asking. I doubt whether the KC or British Veterinary Association really care about getting such a scheme underway. It's 'complex' of course. To address the Cavaliers' two major health issues, compulsory schemes should be implemented for both CMSM and Mitral Valve Disease (MVD). Data from both schemes should then be provided to calculate estimated breeding values incorporating both of these devastatingly cruel diseases. Perhaps we are long past the stage when the Cavalier breed can be 'saved' within its existing gene pool. Speaking personally, I cannot condone the breeding of these dogs, in the current climate, at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. blackkim1 September 2015 at 18:31

    My sister has had two of these beautiful dogs, both of which died way too early of heart disease. Grief means she will never have another. The method for saving a breed is to make sure this doesn't happen to others. KC please note.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ann Cardon1 September 2015 at 21:13

    Well done Mrs. Charlotte Mackaness. Your letter exposes the utter hypocrisy of the KC. They should stand in shame for their ongoing attempts to sugar coat their role in the world of pure bred dogs whilst the reality of suffering for these dear little dogs continues, perpetuated by those whose interest is not for the dogs, but themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike2 September 2015 at 13:25

    Help stop puppy farming - boycott the kennel club. By so doing, you will be depriving them of the income from puppy registrations, stud registrations, show entry fees etc. If enough people do this, they will be forced by simple economics to impose guidelines to compel their breeder body to adopt standards which are humane and ethical to the dogs.

    Certainly, the current charade cannot be termed "responsible breeding" as it ignores the single most important aspect - the health of the animal. And how can breeding unhealthy dogs be termed "responsible"?

    Yes - we know breeders enjoy the limelight and the income from a successful show career. Yes - up to now the registries have paid lip service to the concept of ethics. The status-quo works for them. No - they will not make changes themselves - they have to be brought kicking and screaming to the table - as do all those wonderful "ethical" breeders who are affiliated to the registries.

    No - they will not go elsewhere - they are too beholden unto the registry to convey on them its stamp of approval. Besides - the lucrative export market would be closed to them if they cannot get a registry to issue pedigree papers. Money talks.

    Remind me again - what (exactly) IS a backyard breeder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jennifer3 September 2015 at 13:22

      Mike. I'd say this would be throwing out the baby with the bath. Many many responsible breeders work with the KC, the ACK, the ANKC . .. or whatever the national club is.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3 September 2015 at 15:09

      Jennifer - which ones please? How can we identify them from the ones that are not responsible?

      Delete
    3. PipedreamFarm3 September 2015 at 15:22

      You identify responsible breeders by educating yourself on the issues in your breed of interest, talking to the breeders, visiting their facilities, and meeting their dogs. You can't do it by looking at websites.

      Delete
  10. humph2 September 2015 at 15:35

    I do understand the KC's point though -- there's no real 'better' to breed to. The standard which mandates the short muzzle and the apple domed head strongly predispose the dogs to the neurological defect (but breed a more normal dog head and you're a bad breeder) and the heart problems are pretty much fixed within the breed. Without being able to outcross... The KC may register puppy millers' dogs, but the fundamental problems are far deeper -- the KC salutes cheap nylon ribbons first and dogs second and when a breed is as narrow and ill-constructed as this one, there's no hope.

    Best solution: Do not buy a cavalier king charles spaniel. Especially not from the KC. It's not worth it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown2 September 2015 at 19:46

      I'm afraid I'd have to disagree very strongly that "the heart problems are pretty much fixed within the breed." Speak to any vet or read the comments left on the Cavalier petition and they will tell you MVD continues to kill Cavaliers in horrifying numbers and often at young ages. I believe that the domed head and very brachy muzzle isn't in the breed standard. Perhaps if this had been kept to more closely, we wouldn't be in such a mess?

      Delete
    2. Jemima Harrison2 September 2015 at 23:45

      "Fixed" in this sense does not mean "mended". It means immutable/ubiquitous.

      Delete
  11. Unknown2 September 2015 at 17:14

    I've cared for five Cavaliers. Three of them have or had CM/SM. Three have or had heart problems. Three required multiple surgeries to correct knee problems (patella). When will the KC, and breeders who will not health test their dogs, do the right thing? They must have no conscience to put profit over the health of these precious dogs. Another problem is that many Cavalier owners have decided that the feelings (and profits) of their breeder friends outweighs the suffering of these precious dogs. They'll defend them even as their own dogs suffer. That's very sad. Many thanks, though, to the thousands of people who have signed the petition to the KC to do the right thing for Cavaliers!

    ReplyDelete
  12. PipedreamFarm2 September 2015 at 18:31

    Unfortunately, boycotting the (A)KC will not stop "puppy farming"; they will simply change (or create a new) registry. Puppy farming will stop when buyers stop buying from puppy farmers.

    My wife and I like CKCS but cannot in good conscious get a breed with such a high rate of serious health issues (for which breeders in the USA charge outrageous prices).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous3 September 2015 at 07:43

    Because it all comes to money. How about triple the registration fees of puppies with parents not tested. (And no registration with worst results). With tested parents cheaper the registration. If you want to make money with registered puppies it will become more profitable to test. But if you don't care about testing pay more and KC gets more money. -JS

    ReplyDelete
  14. PipedreamFarm3 September 2015 at 12:02

    A registry is not able stop puppy farming; all the registry can do is to choose not to facilitate puppy farming. I know of examples in the US where a registry banned some puppy farmers; they simply started their own registry and continued on with business as usual. The (A)KC should choose not to facilitate puppy farming; but be realistic, this move would not stop puppy farming. Educating buyers is the only way to stop puppy farming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3 September 2015 at 12:21

      It's not the ONLY way to stop puppy farming!

      You can 'educate' buyers till the cow comes home (and how do you measure that effectiveness?) but you are not going to prevent someone who still wants to buy a dog, doesn't really care about animal welfare, wants to buy one as cheaply as possible and can't be bothered to educate themselves in the process.

      You have to tackle it from all sides, including regulating breeders, ownership, ancillary professions (dog training etc.) and make the all processes for people to participate in a legal requirement. People are much more reluctant to participate in illegal activity. Then you have to enforce it while you continue to educate with appropriate consequences..

      Also, the people we should be educating about this is kids i.e.grass root level education so that it becomes 'normal and expected' behaviour when they are adults and are making choices. Teach the kids and let them educate the parents. This is what conservation groups practice with endangered species with some encouraging results.

      You can't make an adult learn anything they don't want to learn about. Education and information in canine welfare is available everywhere in the age of information...

      Delete
    2. Jennifer3 September 2015 at 13:47

      Registries CAN do more! Look at Finland!
      Explore http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi/frmTerveystilastot.aspx?R=101&Lang=en
      Transparency could do a lot.

      Delete
  15. PipedreamFarm3 September 2015 at 14:00

    Do you really think a government agency will every be capable and knowledgeable enough to draft and enforce breed appropriate regulations (what testing, which animals should be bred, who can be a breeder, what are appropriate crosses, etc) for all breeds?

    Is reducing the number of litters produced (most frequently proposed regulation for breeders) really the best outcome genetically for breeds (what happens to breeds when the population goes down)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4 September 2015 at 10:22

      Why are you so focused on breeds and not dogs as a species?
      Any sensible person who outcrosses doesn't need to worry about genetic diversity as much as someone who breeds in a bottleneck. Also, who is going to want all these dogs when the USA executes 1.2 million healthy dogs per annum because nobody wants them. So, fewer dogs and more responsible breeders who focus on type and not breed.

      Delete
    2. PipedreamFarm4 September 2015 at 11:37

      Because I am interested in more than just a pet; I need working dogs bred for a particular function (i.e. a breed). Any old dog will not be able to perform the function I need.

      Breeding specifically for a pet makes no sense to me since any dog can be a pet.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4 September 2015 at 13:40

      I guess you live on a farm? BCs? They do tend to be bred with function and health as a priority and form therefore follows. Nothing wrong with that…..but you are in a minority. I am thinking about society and not what you require on your farm…

      What you require from a dog is different to what the general public require. You are in a minority. I think anyone who really understands the science and ethology of dogs and their breed related tendencies would disagree with you in that 'any dog can be a pet'. A BC dog bred, born and raised on a farm along with its ancestors before that is going to struggle massively moving to a town or city at 6 weeks old with a novice dog owner – herding traffic and kids instead of sheep. Likewise, a Golden Doodle born and raised in a family home in a town will probably adapt quite well when it moves to a similar environment aged 6 weeks, even with a novice owner. Genetics….

      So if you seriously claim that any dog can be a pet, why are 1.2 million dogs killed every year in the USA? What is the problem?

      Speak to the progressive scientists, behaviourists and ethologists researching and working on the coal face with people and their dogs and understand that your statement is not sensible. Environment, genetics and epigenetics, socialisation and behavioural understanding, breed, breeding, owner knowledge, breeder knowledge and an understanding or awareness of how dogs learn (operant and classical conditioning) will greatly influence any dog’s chances of being successful as a pet. SA is a real welfare issue – dogs in the 21st century are not genetically prepared to be left alone. Your society generally has zero expectations from people about their education about canine ethology and health so what chance have dogs for success when they are being bred without any regulation? And killing 1.2 million dogs seems to me that they are viewed as a throwaway item.

      Delete
    4. PipedreamFarm4 September 2015 at 15:17

      Working bred BCs do make good pets despite what so many people think; they just are not for the average pet owners who want a couch potato. The other issue with so many people who talk about pet BCs is they seem to accept "herding behaviors" towards things other than livestock as something that cannot be controlled. They do not understand that BCs have been bred for decades to be biddable (wanting to please and trying to figure out what we want). Training is how we mold the expression of their instincts for our work and training is how pet owners can mold the expression of their instincts for life as a pet.

      The problem with so many breeds is they are no longer bred for the function for which they were developed. As such, the total package (all of the instincts in the right mix) is no longer being produced. It is these instinctually and temperamentally unbalanced dogs that do not make good pets.

      Taking a group of functional instincts and not assessing breeding stock for these instincts when producing pets means that breeding for pets one is blind to the blend of functional instincts being produced in the pups. For example, breeding two dogs from protection breeds without assessing aggression in the adults means you have no idea what aggression traits are being passed on to the pups. You could be producing very human aggressive pets and not know it. It is the exactly same thing as assessing the sire and dam for genetically linked diseases.

      Having worked with instincts in dogs (genetics) for so many years, it is obvious to me that genetics plays a much bigger part (much more than 50%) in how a dog behaves than most in society are willing to accept.

      The reason 1.2 million dogs are killed every year in the US is due to a lack of long term responsibility in so many people. I wonder how many people who give up dogs turn around a get new pups within a few months?

      Delete
    5. PipedreamFarm4 September 2015 at 15:29

      Since behaviors, health, and appearance are all genetically linked and specific to the genetics carried by the sire and dam; do you really think the government is intelligent enough to write regulations (flexible and enforceable) that can control the appropriate mating of two genetic packages in order to produce the right mix of genetics in pups?

      Delete
  16. PipedreamFarm3 September 2015 at 14:47

    Is Finland like Canada (only one registry per breed) or like the USA (no restrictions on the number of registries for each breed)?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Unknown3 September 2015 at 17:27

    Bottom line is: Take responsibility for the care of the animals.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous7 September 2015 at 15:57

    Finland has only one registry.

    ReplyDelete