Clarification on WDA members participating in USA events? - Page 15

But it's so much fun when I get to hand a swamp collie it's butt with my Rottie.

Well if the USCA wasn't a bit about money they wouldn't have raised membership by 65%, charge non-members 40.00 to *certify* scorebooks (which are required to enter a USCA trial) and now charge non-members an extra 10.00 to enter a trial. There is plenty of that money grubbing and pimping to go around.

Oh and in case anyone is wondering this is only my opinion and not that of any organization I may be a member of now, in the past or future.  


Keith Jenkins

No one is "pimping" anything, at least not as far as I am concerned. We just would love to have options. And I don't want to hear the BS about "then form your own club... and have your own events.. " We have our own club and are having our own events. There has NEVER been a legitimate reason expressed for these rules. Only lots of smoke and mirrors. This division and these rules serve ZERO purpose in positively influencing our breed or camaraderie among us.

You have engaged in the same rantings and hypocritical plotting fot two years, now. I stand by my statement.

.......and still waiting for some sort of answer as many of us are. Can anyone tell us just what the"courage of conviction" is?

10 bucks says no one can,,,,,,, and if they try,,,,,,, it will not make any sense.

"The solution for those with major issues with USCA is simple. Have the courage of your convictions and the integrity not to "pimp": don't enter USCA trials. Don't use USCA trials for judge apprenticeships and move on."

Mystere,

That's your solution "my club love it or leave it"?
Every USCA member has a voice  in how the organization is run. USCA has the best clubs the best judges and the most trials, BUT that doesn't mean any member has to stand by and be told what other organizations they can belong to. That doesn't mean we stand by while "the management" spends our dues money on
a "Flield of Dreams" that would benefit one region. That doesn't mean we can't say what a waste of time and energy and resources all this GSDCA/USCA nonsense is.
What are you and the rest of the people that think like you going to say IF everyone not satisfied with the
status quo left and your dues go up to $200 or $500/year?
I wonder if Helmut Raiser and RSV2000 is interested in setting up a United States operation?
The idea that USCA is so big and powerful that they don't have to listen to ALL it's members will be its
downfall.

Thomas Barriano

 Doesn't,t one know how they are represented in the USCA when they join? that hasn't changed from inception has it? so when joining you should have a pretty good idea how the representation works.


 Affiliation issue. Whether you like it or not it was passed by the political aperatus set in place by the organization with members voted in by the rank and file thru the political process stated in the bylaws. 

 I do agree the "Field of dreams" is a waste of good capitol and have made my feelings known to the elected members.


 There wasn't a mass exodus of members that so many claimed there would be and there appears to be a movement back as we speak.

Just because "we've always done it this way" (A club of clubs) doesn't mean we need to keep doing it that way.
With the Internet, one member/one vote would be much easier to do and more representative of all USCA members. Now we have major decisions that effect us all dependent on where the National is held, and how
many small clubs can afford to send a delegate. Even if a delegate gets there, they have to worry about
their practice time (if they are also a competitor) being scheduled when an important vote is being taken.
When you have a GBM at the Nationals and you can't get a quorum, something is broken.

Thomas Barriano

and even when they do pitch in and send delegates, there are those that are too busy partying, training, or being lazy to actually show up at the meeting, so no quorum, no meeting. 

Actually the membership conditions changed dramatically. Heard of the Loyalty agreement? That wasn't a part of the deal when I joined. USA didn't take it upon themselves to dictate what clubs I could/could not be a member of until years after I joined. USA didn't limit my ability as a member to sue the organization and limit recovery to the membership fee until years after I joined. Things did change and they changed dramatically.

Mass exodus....What would you consider a mass exodus? Look at the numbers published by USA. Despite the small exodus the office claims, their annual budget said otherwise.

Here's a math problem. If an organization raises membership dues a percentage and the total annual budget remains the same from the previous year. Is the increase in dues proportunately;

 a) less than, b) equal to, c) greater than the difference in membership from the previous year?

Mystere, I have never made hypocritical statements here regarding this. That is just ridiculous. Please find them and post them for me. And once again, you dodge the actual question with a weak and useless attempt to badger, insult, and instigate. You still are not adding anything positive to the situation as usual, and certainly are not representing your beloved club in a positive light either. Theresa