Clarification on WDA members participating in USA events? - Page 8

Out of curiosity, if there is anyone who thinks these organizations working together is a bad idea, I'd be honestly interested in hearing why you think so. What are the non political pros of the JA, past actions of the GSDCA nonwithstanding. For practical purposes and intents, why should these organizations not honor one another's members?

This is not a rhetorical question. I've seen this argument dozens of times since the bylaws passed , and have never really heard why anyone thinks it was a good idea or explain in clear terms how this has or will positively impact the breed and the sport in US. Instead of finger-pointing WDA supporters, tell me why the JA helps make UScA the stronger club.

I may have a big mouth, but I have good working ears, too. (Or eyes, as the case may be) I invite you, with no sarcasm intended, to help me see the light.

Bob: What you may be missing is the different mindset and goals if the "show camp" as opposed to the "working camp." Every show -oriented person I know. (and many of my friends are show folks) says the same thing about the "requirement" that everything be under SV judges. It is erroneous and would only really matter for that handful showing and ezporting to Germany. MANY send bitches over to be bred to the latest "show flavor of the month "

"Another fine mess you've gotten us into."

Life in the world of the shepherd dog in the U.S. was uncomplicated before certain individuals in the hierarchy of USCA and WDA pursued a merger.  We had survived the shepherd dog civil war of the 1980's and eased into an atmosphere of detente.  But the bad blood between USCA and GSDCA continued.  WDA pretended to be part of GSDCA who actually needed the WDA to maintain credibility with the SV. But AKC, who rules dog politics, threatened GSDCA with expulsion if they didn't rid themselves of a sport which involved "biting". Then in the game of "Mom loves me best", USCA and GSDCA vied for SV approval.  Anyone with any comprehension of dog politics could predict with 100% certainty, there would never be a merger.  It seems as though USCA leadership was grossly naive in pursuing the merger.  When the merger imploded, USCA leadership over-reacted.  Membership numbers became a contentious issue in order to show the SV which American organization was the strongest.  USCA leadership complained that GSDCA membership numbers were bloated.  Hence, JA was conceived to purge its rolls of dual members in hope that members would choose USCA over WDA.  JA was hatched by USCA's executive board.  No one outside EB can ascertain the level of debate involved before the by-law change was placed on the ballot.  While adoption of JA would eliminate dual membership, there is no record of deliberation on the unintended consequences, i.e., membership flight.  In some of the ballot information on JA, there is a reference alluding to concerns over the legality (read compliance with the U.S. Constitutiion).
Some of the posts on this issue "put on a happy face" about any membership or fiscal damage JA has caused. However, it is difficult conclude that the membership is content when 44+% of member clubs voted to rescind JA at the Carson City meeting. That doesn't sound like a mandate for JA.

Clarification: The vote in Carson City was not to rescind JA. The proposal voted upon was to amend JA so that it applied only to those in decison-making positions.

Dog1 wrote: "If USA received 50.00 (or any amount for that matter) for a scorebook from a GSDCA member. Who benefits? A club gets an entry USA gets half a membership fee for a book. Looks win/win to me. Where's the shortcoming?

I see, it's one of those USA arguments that doesn't make sense......"


  I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. To me it makes perfect sense. maybe I didn't make myself clear when I wrote this before

"My point was UScA membership fees pay for the judges programs and all the other services that UScA "MEMBERS" get. Why should they give those services to non-members. If you could just buy a scorebook for $50 then why would anyone join? Then you would only have to pay $50 for a scorebook every 5 years or so...."

 So let me try again...... The "shortcoming" is that if someone wants to "play" in UScA's arena, they should join UScA. If we sold scorebooks to anyone for $50 and they could enter UScA events. Why would ANYONE join? When they could buy a scorebook for $50 and it is good for 5-6 years, why would they pay membership fees.

 I'm sorry if you can't see that this would be bad financially for the organization, but to me it makes perfect sense......


VonIsengard said:

"Out of curiosity, if there is anyone who thinks these organizations working together is a bad idea, I'd be honestly interested in hearing why you think so. What are the non political pros of the JA, past actions of the GSDCA nonwithstanding. For practical purposes and intents, why should these organizations not honor one another's members?"

 Both of these organization DO honor each others members. They are both WUSV members and allow entry into each others events with each others scorebooks. The problem arrises when people want to use WDA membership and scorebooks to enter a UScA event, when WDA is NOT a WUSV member. If GSDCA issued scorebooks then a GSDCA member with a GSDCA issued scorebook would be able to enter every WUSV member Orgs events. UScA recognizes ALL WUSV member orgs and FCI member orgs. The problem is WDA is NOT a member of either.

Your posts, and points, are perfectly clear, Unknown. It's common-sensical. It simply does not fit well with the whining.

What about the people that were happily paying dues to the WDA and USA and trialing and doing helper work for both.  Living life, having a good time, making lots of friends, training with lots of good people and just having fun.  What about those people?  Drop some of your common sense on me and tell me how this benefits us.  Those that really do care about the dogs and keep this sport alive.   Tell me how dividing a large group of people that just had fun doing what they were doing was good for the sport or the dogs?

Unknown, I apologize, I worded it wrong. When I wrote "honor" each other's members, I guess I meant to ask why disallowing a person to be members both organizations would be a positive thing. I was referring to the WDA, but when I said "past actions of the GSDCA nonwithstanding" I referred to the GSDCA-ruined-the-breed stance people often take when speaking out against the WDA. I should have been more clear.

I can understand UScA only wanting to accept WUSV-accepted scorebooks- that makes sense.

You also mentioned if a person could pay for a UScA scorebook, they wouldn't bother to pay UScA dues. I think you sell a lot of folks short with that one. There a LOT of breed/sport enthusiasts (myself included) that would happily pay UScA dues just to support an organization that supports the sport/breed they love. I would proudly be a member of both if I could, and the day that changes (if it ever does) I will send my dues asap.

If you have a strong UScA club you've trained with for years, love your decoy, love your club members, have plenty of UScA trials near you to utilize, or can easily afford to travel to any UScA trial you want, I can see how WDA members could be seen as "whiners", if you don't put yourself in their shoes. Please understand not everyone is in such a position.

Mystere: "The vote in Carson City was not to rescind JA. The proposal voted upon was to amend JA so that it applied only to those in decison-making positions."  I thought this was very fair and made the JA make so much more sense. I hope it will be considered again.



Last year, I needed to breed survey a dog. The club hosting did not know if they could have their survey at all, were in the process of trying to find a new location because the town they were going to host it in banned all bitework/protection type training. I guarantee we will all see this trend spread in the coming decades and if anyone expects the sport to survive it a unfied front is a necessity.

I respectfully ask again, how does the JA positively impact the breed and the sport, and why does it make UScA the stronger club?

VinIsengard said

"If you have a strong UScA club you've trained with for years, love your decoy, love your club members, have plenty of UScA trials near you to utilize, or can easily afford to travel to any UScA trial you want, I can see how WDA members could be seen as "whiners", if you don't put yourself in their shoes. Please understand not everyone is in such a position."


  First, I didn't call anyone "whiners"... People have a choice and they should choose which ever orgs works best for them. Like I said before, for me, the answer is easy. There is only 2 WDA clubs in my region and they don't put on many trials, so the choice to join UScA is easy for me. Plus I can enter the WDA local club trials as well if I wanted to. so for me, if you can enter both orgs events (except Championships) by being a UScA member, then why would you join WDA over UScA? To me it is a no brainer....

 In a perfect world both orgs would work together for bettering the Breed and sport. But that has not happened in 20 years and probably won't happen now either...because of BOTH orgs.

    One of the things I haven't seen consider here is that the sport side is now moving more towards FCI and away from the SV. The new rules that go into effect Jan 1, 2012 are now in control of FCI and the SchH title goes away, everything becomes IPO titles. WDA is not affiliated in any way with the FCI. "WDA only" judges titles are NOT recognized by the FCI. UScA is affiliated with the FCI through their membership in AWDF and UScA judges titles are recognized by FCI. As the sport side moves more with the FCI, how this will effect the local orgs. Will it drive them together or further apart, I have no idea......

I didn't say YOU called anyone a whiner, but plenty of others have.

"In a perfect world both orgs would work together for bettering the Breed and sport. But that has not happened in 20 years and probably won't happen now either...because of BOTH orgs."

What a sad and true statement, but there is a first time for everything. With our economic climate and the growing movement against protection sports, changes MUST be made or all clubs and all members will feel the impact in coming years.

If I am not mistaken, the AKC is the only breed registry in the US that is FCI recognized (cringe-worthy, I know), so yes, the coming FCI related changes will be interesting. Maybe it will force a one oragnization system here. Sure would make everything easier, but I understand the fear of the AKC gaining control over the sport. It would be a nightmare.