|
|
|
|
|
Classified: Top show and working breeding female for sale!
|
Schutzhund USA proposed bylaw Change (137 replies)
|
|
Why is this topic not getting more discussion? Does the pedigree database community not view this proposal by USA as important?
Eric S. Eisenberg |
|
|
|
|
| and which proposal are you referring to? |
|
|
|
|
Que Sara Sara Whatevere wil be will be , The Future's not ours to see.... Que Sara Sara
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Vikram:
Are you channeling Doris Day?
Eric:
The discussion you are several weeks late on? I assume you are speaking of Johannes By law change? If memory does,nt fail me I believe most were against it and hope fully made there feelings known to there rep to the national meeting.
At this point my opinion isn,t that we need to worry about the WDA as much as we need to be concerened with AKC throwing the bone to us.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob, can you explain why we need to be worried about WDA. I am a member of both UScA and WDA, trying to learn all I can about both.
Eric, I can't imagine that the proposal will pass.
The club I am a member of has always been a UScA club. The secretary sent out an e-mail this week asking if the membership was in favor of becoming affiliated with WDA as a dual club. And then going WDA if the proposal were to pass. I am pretty sure that we are not the only ones discussing options should something such as this be shoved down our throats.
Rik |
|
|
|
|
Rik:
It,s not a problem with the WDA as the GSDCA is all but ignoring them (as I have read) My post says It,s not a problem with the WDA. Our concern should be what is the AKC doing?
But I do agree if this gets voted in I believe USA will loss clubs just because the orginization will be over stepping it,s boundries trying to tell the membership who they can belong to and not.
I,m not a supporter of the GSDCA as I don,t believe they have the working dog at it,s best and most important intrest I also feel the same about the S.V. . There is more then 1 orginization in Germany. |
|
|
|
|
Bob, I tend to agree with most of that. I was for several years a member of GSDCA. I never felt that the GSD health or character was a priority with them.
I have only been a member of WDA ( and UScA) for a little over a year.
As I understand events that occured in the WDA before I became a member, the WDA membership pretty much staged a "hostile" take over of the leadership of WDA, voting out the entrenched GSDCA leadership and installing officers who more represent the goals of the membership.
WDA President Dr. Danny Spreitler is a w/l guy who also shows. I know from reading his blog (dspreitler.wordpress.com/) that he has been in a struggle with some (not all) members of the GSDCA board over the direction of WDA.
Apparently the GSDCA leadership is now backing the WDA fully.
If I'm missing something here, I invite correction from anyone better informed.
Rik |
|
|
|
|
Why should we be concerned with what AKC is doing Bob?
Happyday |
|
|
|
|
I wish someone would provide the reasoning behind the proposed amendments. I think this has more to do with the preservation of schutzhund in this country than it does with anything else. I hope someone will come forward with an explanation. I worry that if an explanation is not provided, everyone will only have a knee jerk negative reaction because they don't like being told what they can and cannot do, which may ultimately come to bite us in the ass.
I doubt the AKC GSDCA is backing WDA. This has more to do with running the WUSV event smoothly, than it does WDA. Watch what happens AFTER the event. A leopard does not change it's spots, and AKC GSDCA is always going to support the AKC standard and the overwhelming majority of it's membership who breed and show according to that standard, not the comparitively small group of WDA breeders/exhibitors. I wouldn't be surprised if AKC GSDCA with a straight face will insist or vote to make sure at least half of the WUSV future teams are comprised of Am Line dogs.
UScA and DVG America are first and foremost schutzhund organizations, so those are the organizations I support. I remember when WDA was started, and by whom, and what those very same members did to get the previous WDA president out not long ago. This is why as long as those particular members, or anyone who suports them, has even a toe in the WDA pie, I just can't see relying on or trusting WDA at all when it comes to schutzhund. Bad News. |
|
|
|
|
Sue:
The WDS program is a joke as I have read it so if the AKC does decide to recognize Schutzhund titles on the pedigree,s who do you think will be getting them? W.D.A judges of course or any titles given by S.V. judges there is the quandry for AKC what if a USA member is given a title under a S.V. judge will they recognize that?. I,m trying to put together stuff from articles I,ve read and conversations i,ve been privey to which isn,t always the best way to get information. I agree some one needs to step up and give some clear information so speculation receedes.
I also feel it has lots to do with the GSDCA hosting the 2013 WUSV as some in the USA org. don,t want any from this orginization helping to orgistrate that event. Lots o stuff brewing and the GSD is the one who will loss out to the politics in the long run. |
|
|
|
|
For those of you who may not know. The president of USA has written a response and I must say it is compelling and well thought out. He presented a lot of accusation and they my very well be fact? However, at the end of his response he wrote "We are ASKING you to make a choice" My response to that is, they should ask and not force us to choose. The Berlin wall was not built to keep people out, it was built to keep people in. That's what this by-law change will do. One last question how will this by-law change deal with the Life Time Members?
If we are truly the best then lead by example not by force. Also, USA, GSDCA, GSDCA-WDA, is not a breed registry nor will they ever be recognized as such. People choose to breed according to the FCI standard because the want to. Someone told me once that "What you eat, don't make me shit" How the GSDCA breed their dogs has nothing to do with the way USA conduct their business. The President also said read between the lines, I have, and this is only about the WUSV Team People. Wake Up.
Wallace Payne |
|
|
|
|
Exactly my point, Bob! I don't even care about WDS anymore!!!!!! I see what you are saying in your second paragraph re helping out, hadn't thought of that, but I do see what you are saying.
WALLACE PAYNE: Can you link us to the letter you refer to? Was it sent out to just the delegates? I think all members should be able to see it considering the response the proposal has generated and how it deeply effects us. I looked on the USA site, and the website for my region, but I can't find it. PLEASE don't tell me it's in the magazine - I'll be the last to see it if that's the case. |
|
|
|
|
Wallace:
What if the S.V. says they will only recognize one breed registry in the US and the A.K.C has control of that with a iron glove are you going to start competing with american breed dogs breed to the AKC standard? is the AKC going to conform to the S.V. standard and start judging to there standard?. With the S.V. seemingly associating with the AKC will they only recognize one team thru the GSDCA in fututre events? As I said before it would help for some one to blow away the smoke and step up with a explanation that I and fellow thick heads can undersatnd... In the end it is my place to make sure my dogs are properly trained,breed for the work and if they get titled thru a politcal orginization or not atleast I know that they will represent the working breed to the best of my abality.
|
|
|
|
|
Sue,
Check your email--Lyle's letter was sent to the USA-GSD list this am by the USA Secretary, Sara Wallick. |
|
|
|
|
I for one find everything confusing as it is now. If USA shall pass this proposal then I feel more changes need to be made. We are an all breed schutzhund club and most likely will stay with USA if there has to be a choice made. Yet for myself not everything works out while being a sole member of USA, like if I want my titles recognized by the SV I need to trial with an SV judge, same for breed survey. Why do I care about this? Would like to sell one day a pup back to germany, and the buyer shouldnt have to worry about if the pup can be registered with the SV. And even if there are other organizations now, SV is still globally recognized. Would like to see USA work closer together with the SV and continue to establish a breed registry here that is recognized by both. Then we wouldnt have to kiss AKCs a$$ which as organization becomes more and more a joke.
Those are my two cents, please correct me if I understood anything wrong, as I still trying to understand the dynamics of the organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob,
If you dont mind please tell me the difference in the AKC standard versus SV? SV has more requirements of course but the standard for the breed is the same. My next question for all is this. What will the SV do to hurt us? Stop us from breeding dogs? Stop us from having Schutzhund trials? Stop us from breeding?The SV has no control over here. AKC is the only regonized breed registry currently in the states already. So what will change? The real issue is being told which club you can or can't be a member.
ceddy |
|
|
|
|
| The WDA follows the rules & regulations of GSDCA and the GSDCA are under the rules & Regulations of the AKC. So if the USA Club joins then I beleive they will also have to follows the rules and regulations of the AKC. But I could be wrong . |
|
|
|
|
well than there shouldn't be a problem for anyone. Join whichever organization you choose and let the chips fall where they may! I just don't trust ANYTHING coming out of AKC or WDS! WDA is not even viable is it?
ron |
|
|
|
|
Folks it,s all about politics from the top down... In the end the dogs are the losser unless we work together dispite the heirarchy of the aforementioned orginizations.
|
|
|
|
|
ceddy, not so sure it's the standard as that the SV has certain requirements that must be met before a dog is certified as breed worthy. Both USA and WDA adhere to these requirements, although they can not enforce anything other than the with holding of breed survey since dogs are registered through AKC and in the end do not require either USA or WDA approval.
The AKC/GSDCA have no standards or restrictions related to breeding of dogs.
Dogs need not be H/E certified, no character requirements of any kind, no certification that the dog even matches the standard that they endorse. Anything goes.
Rik |
|
|
|
|
quote:" for one find everything confusing as it is now. If USA shall pass this proposal then I feel more changes need to be made. We are an all breed schutzhund club and most likely will stay with USA if there has to be a choice made. Yet for myself not everything works out while being a sole member of USA, like if I want my titles recognized by the SV I need to trial with an SV judge, same for breed survey. Why do I care about this? Would like to sell one day a pup back to germany, and the buyer shouldnt have to worry about if the pup can be registered with the SV. And even if there are other organizations now, SV is still globally recognized. Would like to see USA work closer together with the SV and continue to establish a breed registry here that is recognized by both. Then we wouldnt have to kiss AKCs a$$ which as organization becomes more and more a joke.
Those are my two cents, please correct me if I understood anything wrong, as I still trying to understand the dynamics of the organizations."
"
The SV has always recognized the titles under USA judges for breed surveys in the US. Also, eleven USA judges just became SV judges (see the USA website. I can also furnish you a copy of the letter from Henke on the matter--it's in German, though  ). So, titles under those judges are the same as the SV titles people sought under SVF judges, such as Sergo, Thibidau (sp?), Vilms, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Johannes and Lyle are trying to say that a conflict of interest occurs because GSDCA does not breed to the SV standard and is, therefore, not interested in preserving the breed. I guess I have some fundamental questions:
Where is the USA code of ethics on breeding?
Why does USA not enforce a code of ethics? (even your most basic AKC breed organization does that!)
Why does USA allow people to advertise dogs for stud in their magazine that DO NOT meet the SV standard for breeding?
The answer: this is not about the breed – it is about who sends a team to the FCI and WUSV and the personal agenda of a few executive board members. It is not what is best for the membership and the organization. Don’t be fooled by the smell.
If they want to preserve the breed, kick out the people who are not breeding to the SV standard. Woops – can’t do that – there wouldn’t be enough members to have an organization!!!!
Rhonda Southern |
|
|
|
|
There are a number of specific discrepencies found in the AKC standard where it does not jive with SV standard and is therefore completely unacceptable. Start with the differences in the disqualifing faults.
AKC disqualifing faults:
Cropped or hanging ears.
Dogs with noses not predominantly black.
Undershot jaw.
Docked tail.
White dogs.
Any dog that attempts to bite the judge.
SV disqualifing faults:
a) Character weakness, nervous biters, and dogs with a weak nervous system;
b) Dogs with documented "severe hip dysplasia";
c) Monorchids and cryptorchids as well as dogs with testicles of visibly uneven size or shrunken testicles;
d) Dogs with disfiguring ears and/or tails;
e) Malformed dogs;
f) Tooth faults as follows:
1. Missing 1 #3 premolar and one additional tooth;
2. Missing 1 canine tooth or
3. Missing 1 #4 premolar, or
4. Missing 1 molar #1 or #2 or
5. Missing a total number of 3 teeth and/or more;
g) Dogs with bite faults: overbite of 2 mm or more, or undershot; level bite;
h) Dogs that measure more than 1 cm over or under regulation size;
i) Albinism;
j) White coat (incl. those with dark eyes and nails);
k) Long stock coat (long, soft loosely fitting outer coat with undercoat, flags on ears and legs, bushy pants and bushy tail with flag on underside);
l) Long coat (long, soft outer coat without undercoat). This coat type frequently is parted along the center line of the back, has flags on ears, legs, and tail.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted with authors permission:
From: jeff govednik <kindevog@yahoo.com>
Subject: its about the dogs and our sport
To: "usa gsd" <usa-gsd@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 1:20 PM
One thing i think that us being forgotten in this discussion is the dogs
For those of you who have dogs that they activity show and train what are peoples reaction when they meet them?
For me people are always surprised when being around dogs with a working temperament. They are surprised by the intelligence, working ability and temperament of our dogs. There is a reason for this it goes back to our breeding programs and working tests. How many people think that shepherds are nervy or is a good dog because it is 120 lbs. ? How many people ask you what breed of dog you have because they have NEVER seen a sable GSD?
I think the public in general has a wrong perception of what a German shepherd is in part because of the lack of breeding standards of the gsdca. In Europe there is a much more correct body of knowledge on what a working dog should be. Why is that?
For $60 dollars.... its a pretty good deal being a member of the USA.
You get the opportunity to participate in the largest number of trials on any schutzhund organization in the US.
You get a quality magazine that is worth at least $25 dollars a year and would probably be worth $30 dollars a year if I did not write for it.
Helper programs to teach proper technique for working dog in our sport and making our sport safe for everyone.
A judges program that is probably the most advanced in the United States and has been recognized worldwide. by both the WUSV and the FCI.
The GSDCA is really not in favor of us as an organization. If they would become the dominant force in Schutzhund in the United States would we have the same ability to participate in our sport especially at the club level? Or would our sport become more of a spectator sport?
There are many people who work very hard to make or organization what it is. Is it perfect no. I believe that if we want our sport to prosper in needs to be in the hands of those who appreciate it.
Just My thoughts
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone want to let the USA grass roots membership in on why it is appropriate to NOT officially publish such dramatic and reaching bylaw changes until AFTER the deadline for delegate letters to be received is? That such a backwards thing could occur (requiring cash strapped clubs to make decisions to send delegates and then comply with a very bureaucratic process BEFORE knowing what the issues being considered are) is very suspect to me.
Frankly, the whole “delegate letter” thing stinks to me, but the not publishing GBM agenda until after the deadline, well, I'd just love to hear the rational for it.
-Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
| Clubs should be able to vote by mailed ballots if they cannot afford to send a delegate, thats always been my thoughts. But it would be harder to slip in a quickey that way. |
|
|
|
|
| Calvin Its called CONGRESS |
|
|
|
|
While I've read the letter - I don't feel I have authority to cross post it. I will say that, in reading it, I was personally insulted by it. Statements made for why individuals might be opposed to the bylaw certainly don't fit me.
-Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
Calvin,
I find this interesting: For first time in my memory (I've been a USA member for about 15 years) they are not allowing late delegate letters. For as long as I can remember they have taken them at the door.
This year, the agenda was sent out at 10:00 pm. Delegate letters had to be in by midnight of the same night. There was no time for clubs to make plans to send a delegate. The delegate letter was pulled off the website before the next morning.
It is my understanding that this by-law change has the support of the executive committee. When it is time for a vote, each board member will represent a club. Therefore, it is to their advantage to not have many clubs represented. (They only need 20% of the clubs to make a quorum.)
All this is very scary because it appears that they do not want this vote to represent the wishes of the membership. It is being orchestrated and stacked against the member clubs. One has only to read these posts to see that 99% of the membership is against this!
Rhonda |
|
|
|
|
Rhonda,
Frankly, that is my biggest issue with the whole, unseemly matter. While I have no idea what the real intent or rationalization is behind such practices, I would expect that the organization would be bending over backwards to be inclusive to the voice of the membership. Heck, such effort is only to *cornerstone* of our nation! How such things as strict "delegate letter" processes, receivable deadlines, a backwards (to me) posting of agenda AFTER the voting registration process is over, to letters from the president, justifying such bylaws, that aren't distributed to the membership in a timely (like BEFORE the delegate letters are due, or agenda published) or shared inclusively (ie. published in the USA magazine, posted on the website, etc.) simply doesn't make sense to me. I'm an open -minded person and trying to see how this could happen, but am just not able to get it.
FWIW, the delegate letter deadline was an issue last year as well. Not sure about the years before that. I recall last year for sure because that was the year that the HOT championship was rolled in with the other large event - which was a contentious change as well.
-Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
Calvin,
I was National Secretary from 1999-2004. I was told by the Presidents, Mike Hamilton and Jim Elder that I was to accept Delegate Letters until roll call at the General Board Meeting. Granted this took a bit of work on my part to verify club status and membership but working with the Office it was do able. I also tried like heck to get at least the Bylaw Changes and a first draft Agenda out to the clubs by mid-September. Sad, but this last minute wait on deadlines has become the norm.
Pros and Cons for changes were also included along with financial impact and reasoning behind any change
From an earlier post from Wallace's original discussion II wrote:
I think Johannes' proposal is an exercise in fear based aggression. They are worried that GSDCA-WDA will put on a better WUSV championship providing them with more income. Hence, GSDCA-WDA will be able to host MORE member benefits like National Seminars without needing to shell-out tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees for not treating their members as promised. This is the same Johannes that refused to register his litters with AKC. Now if that's not shooting yourself in the foot.....Maybe this will be next year's proposal under the guise of "For the good of the breed"
Speaking of the breed, how does this proposal help? How does this proposal bring all GSD enthusiasts together? How does this attract new members to USA? There will still be GSDCA members that get hip ratings, identify their dogs, title their dogs and show them for conformation, herding, S&R, therapy, agility. This proposal isolates USA members, and will set the sport back in this country.
I'm sure the supporters of this proposal are thinking, "This is great, we found a way of getting rid of So-And-So or a competing club down the road." I've always thought, "USA can only get along with 5 people at one time." Their programs especially the Judges have not grown in decades.
I remember when John Mulligan was asked if he would sign a GSDCA-WDA Scorebook. His response, "Yes this is an organization that is for the German Shepherd". I'll sign all of them and let God sort it out.
Amen...
Diane Madigan
USA Lifetime Member
|
|
|
|
|
| If you want to read the letter it's posted on the USA-GSD forum, but you need to be a member of the forum. |
|
|
|
|
| so why is it i can see all the letters etc. from GSDCA, WDA, etc. but not the one from USCA? |
|
|
|
|
Wow, so what are those of us living in the middle of no where who don't always get a breed survey or trial within reasonable driving distance with one organization supposed to do if this passes? Mr. Grewe needs to realize the US is not like Germany, we don't have five clubs within a twenty minute driving distance. We don't have the opportunity to trial/show every weekend like the SV does. I am lucky to find one a year that would fit my and my spouses schedule, due more to the lack of trial/show options than anything else. I am looking at a choice of driving to either Boise, Seattle, or Portland. Two of those are five hours away and one is three if there is not city traffic to contend with. I am sure I am not the only one who finds themself in this situation.
C. Neubert
|
|
|
|
|
Someone posted on another list that the GSDCA and WDA are both "one vote, one member" clubs and that everything is decided by a direct vote of the membership. (I don't know the accuracy of this statement...) If true, the point was that instead of cutting off ties with GSDCA/WDA and forbidding cross membership, the UScA should be encouraging every UScA member to *join* then vote for change, that such an effort would be the best way to effect the preservation of the working GSD that is cited for the proposed bylaw amendment.
-Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
C.Neubert, exactly. Diane, beautifully said.
I understand fully the concern over the AKC taking any kind of control over schutzhund. But lets be realistic. Breeders who stick to the SV standard will still want SV koerungs, SV judges, and SV rules and standards. If the AKC sticks their nose in too far and tries to make changes that the SV won't approve, it will kick them in the behind. They will have no one to control, because no one will show/trial/etc. under their rules if they differ from the SV. WDA functions because they offer an SV system. Change that, and everything changes for the WDA. We all know we won't see any AKC Ch. on the WUSV team in our lifetime, so who cares? They aren't even the same breed, imo.
The bottom line is, if this passes, everyone has to choose. And for everyone, it means less trials, less koerungs, less conformation events, less chances to ensure our dogs conform to SV standards. Everyone who wants to stick to the standard will suffer, and sooner or later, so will the breed in this country.
I am fortunate enough to live in an area where there are a fair amount of shows and trials, but cut that in half, and things will get rough. For many who do not live in hotbeds for SchH, there is only one or two clubs in driving distance. Unless each and every WDA clubs drops WDA and becomes a USCA club (what are the chances of that?) this will hurt working GSD enthusiatsts all over this country, just like the current scorebook headache.
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to throw my two cents in here.
First, like most I was very against this. I thought it was a stupid idea.
Why should we have to choose one organization over the other?
I thought that it would get voted down (and still think it will get voted down.)
However, after reading Lyle's letter, I am not so sure this is as bad an idea as I once did. I am more on the fence now and leaning towards backing it.
Lyle explained that his reason for backing this is that he and Danny (WDA Pres) had agreed to merge the WDA with UScA (meaning WDA would secede from GSDCA) and Lyle had set that process in motion by working on bylaw changes that would allow this. After this process begun he was informed that Danny had signed a letter agreeing that the WDA and the GSDCA would continue with their relationship. I believe that Lyle feels that this was a slap in the face and that he had been duped by the WDA.
If we go back in history and look at the reason why UScA exists it is because the stupid old farts running the GSDCA did not believe in the true working German Shepherd Dog. (By the way these are the same old farts running the GSDCA, but, they are now 35 years older and just as, or more, stupid.)
Lyle's belief is that the UScA is the only organization in this country that has truely sought out to protect the true working GSD over the course of its existence and that the WDA, by being a part of the GSDCA, does not promote those ideals and standards for the breed.
Is UScA perfect? No! It also needs improvements, but, the thoughts behind it are to promote the working GSD, not crippled, worthless American Line GSD's.
There has always been a well founded lack of trust in the GSDCA in this country by those who feel that their version of the GSD is the incorrect one. After the duping by Danny over the proposed merger it has renewed that mistrust in a way that will take many years to overcome.
The choice that Lyle is asking people to make is not so much between WDA and UScA, but, between UScA and what it has and does stand for, and the GSDCA and what it has and does stand for, including which, in my opinion, that they will eventually do away with the WDA altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Article 1 section 2 of the GSDCA WDA bylaws state:
"The GSDCA-WDA is a corporation separate and apart from the German Shepherd Dog Club of America (“GSDCA”) but shall be closely allied and associated with the aims, purposes, and pursuits of the GSDCA..."
http://www.gsdca-wda.org/forms/GSDCA-WDABy-lawsRev1503.pdf
Section 2 item B of the GSDCA bylaws states:
THE OBJECTS OF THE CLUB SHALL BE:
b. To urge members and breeders to accept that standard of the breed, as approved by the American Kennel Club, as the only standard of excellence by which the German Shepherd Dog shall be judged
http://www.gsdca.org/gsdca_joomla/images/pdf_items/bylaws.pdf
I would have more of a problem aligning myself with an organization that tells you that I must accept the AKC standard as the ONLY STANDARD BY WHICH THE GSD SHALL BE JUDGED than I would aligning myself with USA. |
|
|
|
|
Then wouldn't the WDA be in violation of the GSDCA's bylaws, as at every WDA event any of us has ever attended, it the SV standard that it followed there, NOT the AKC standard?
This stuff gives me a headache just looking at it.
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to say that I agree with OGBS, big time.
As far as GSDCAs language about the duel standards, to me this is at the least incongruous and more than a little hypocritical, to say nothing about making it impossible to trust anything associated with GSDCA as it stands now because yes, to me they are at odds with one another. GSDCA will never alienate it's gigantic customer base by changing the standard to match the SV standard, but what's to stop them from cutting off WDA once the WUSV event is over and WDA is of no more use to them?
The whole damn thing gives me a headache too.. |
|
|
|
|
Sueincc,
I completely agree with you!
In my opinion, the problem that really exists is that there are two organizations competing for us as members. We really only need one and I was all for the WDA leaving GSDCA and joining forces with UScA.
We don't need two sieger shows, we don't need 4 or 5 national schutzhund championships, and we certainly don't need two, or more, differing views on the organizational level as to how to move this breed forward in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, are there any requirements for membership to participate at local or regional trials, or local or regional shows in USA or WDA?
Is membership not just required at the point of National competition, both in show and trial?
So for theoretical purposes, you do not have to belong to any club in order to trial or show? You would only have to choose your club at the point of competing on a national level?
Theoretically, out of 4000 $60.00 USA memberships and out of say 1500 $60.00 WDA memberships, who actually has to belong and pay dues to either club to trial or show? Answer, about 400 people.
Does this not only affect the less than 100 that compete on a national level? Maybe another 400 that go to Sieger shows and I don't think that anyone with a pup less than 1 year which makes up a ton of entries there would have to be a member even at a Sieger show - so now we are up to 250 people that HAVE to belong to either organization. The other 3,750 people are really just members to belong who compete locally and get a magazine, all of these grassroots people provide the extra membership fees for costs of Nationals, costs of judges programs, cost of helper programs, you name it. Its the ones on the "bottom" that fund the organziations.
Even if surcharges would get voted in for a non member to trial or show at a local venue, lets say even 20 a pop, if you only trialed 3 times, you still would be equal with your membership dues, if you belonged to both clubs you could expend 120.00 in non-member participation fees (6 shows or trials) before you equaled your two yearly memberships and you would not have to choose which club you belonged to.
As a business owner, I would be hard pressed to take the risk of loosing 3750 $60.00 memberships, knowing all that absolutely had to have membership to attain a national title would be at best 500 $60.00 memberships - basically, I would weigh, do I want for sure $240,000 in income or do I want for sure $30,000 income - why would anyone chance dropping income by $210,000 ?
Add then that a competing organization could say "no surcharge" for non-members and "no restictions on membership" and as bad as the economy has gotten, why create risk on income if the purpose of this is to preserve standards. Being right and broke is not going to protect the breed.
|
|
|
|
|
Kim,
Nice try!
Do you really think that UScA is going to lose 3750 members over this???
If so, I have a lot of excellent swamp land for sale!
They will lose some members and most of them will be "show folk"!
As for a few of the world level competitors, it cuts down their opportunities to make the world team because they will have to make a choice. Other than that it doesn't impact a whole bunch of people.
|
|
|
|
|
OGBS.,
No actually, I think the world will go on as is because people never really protest with their dollars and I don't think this is going to be as earthshaking as all the posts and private discussions. At the heart of it, everyone enjoys their clubs and what each one gets out of it. Bottomline is that all enjoy their dogs and enjoy the whole spectrum.
But, if people truly felt the amendment was so egregious, then they could protest with the old pocket book. However, its like when the price of gas went up, if everyone had stopped buying for just one day, the consumer would have been in control. Much like this, everyone will just keep on because we all enjoy the dogs. But honestly, the one thing everyone forgets is that you don't have to belong to either organization to participate on a local level. Its not the end of the world for most if you just don't send in a membership. Just like saying you cannot belong, conversely you do not have to belong until a certain level.
USA provides the most trials and clubs and does a super job. WDA provides an alternate. I think people will continue to belong to USA because it is a good organization and provides what members need. Likewise, WDA fills a niche also. There is room for all clubs as long as there are membership fees to support them. While my scenario was theoretical, its the money that keeps the organizations afloat. Without it, they cannot exist - neither has profit or large sums stashed away for a rainy day as it stands now, each needs the membership income to survive. |
|
|
|
|
Kim, tried to follow, just couldn't keep up.
I am a member of both USA and WDA and hope to remain so. That is what benefits me and my dogs.
Some of what I think is being missed here is that I see the very same people at both the WDA and the USA events that I have attended/participated in.
|
|
|
|
|
PS OGBS,
Regarding "show people" - the show people are a vital part of the organziation as the Sieger show is where profit is made each year for USA and WDA. That profit funds the working dog side also, it is spread over the general expenses for the entire organization. So while I prefer working, I appreciate the show people and their contributions.
ILMD,
Yes, not many that are WDA are not USA also. Most of us belong to USA and WDA. I also belong to DVG, SV and ENCI and SAS . I am sure there are many multiple membership people.
|
|
|
|
|
| I also am a member of multi-org. but will not be a member of USA any longer if this passes, |
|
|
|
|
My feeling is that this issue is much bigger than the USA-WDA rift. First lets address the stated goal of all of this which loosely quoted is, for the preservation of the working German Shepherd Dog within the USA. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But let’s wait a second here and think for a moment… Regard as to the statement regarding breed standard in the WDA charter, aren’t they holding working trials, fielding members to international events (who are putting up scores that beat those from the UScA as often as not, showing that they must know something…), holding conformation shows (judged by SV judges…), etc. So, while words in a charter (which easily could have been required for the WDA to even be allowed to exist by the GSDCA) say one thing, what do their ACTIONS show? Possibly something close (or exactly the same…) as to what we believe/practice?
Next thought, so if we’re really all about preserving the working GSD, does essentially, grabbing our toys and going home help or hinder this endeavor? More specifically, how does not permitting members of the UScA to belong to the GSDCA/WDA improve or provide the opportunity to improve the issues within the GSDCA related to the lack of adherence to the FCI standard? Let’s see, in one scenario there is some small degree of influence, the later ZERO. Also, are we really expected to believe that the losing of the 400 or so odd members cited above (assuming they all chose the path outlined by the USA President) will cause the GSDCA to wake up and see the error of their ways? That the members (WDA types) they (the rest of the GSDCA) cannot stand, can barely tolerate and simple endure (from their perspective), that they’ll be that sad to see them go if they ALL were to choose UScA? Honestly, can someone explain how exactly forcing those, that one might presume are trying to effect change within the GSDCA, to leave, might further the working GSD in a more significant way then if those individuals stayed couldn’t?
If this matter is so important, why hasn’t it been discussed and debated for a long time? Why does it seem to be on a fast track, where it was not even formally acknowledge until after the voting registration process was closed to clubs? Why would a letter of explanation be sent long after the proposal and the close of the registration process, to a select few on a private list (one not officially part of the UScA) and to the leadership of the UScA, instead of say, printing in the magazine, posting it on the website, etc, so that the MEMBERSHIP ON WHOLE UNDERSTOOD THE RATIONAL? Why would the President (one might assume would want assume a stance of impartiality) be writing letters at all, when the bylaw amendment was proposed by someone else?
The way I see it, the WDA makes a last minute decision that (in their opinion) meets their needs better. This can be interpreted as a sign of disrespect to the UScA, a snub, specifically to the President who was working hard behind the scenes to bring them into the fold. Shortly thereafter there is a proposal put forth to essentially force the general membership to choose one organization or the other but not both? This rather draconian amendment is later supported in a very forceful way by the same president, who essentially states that anyone opposed to it must be out for either “fame or fortune” instead of simply addressing the questions?
Does this all sound like well thought out policy, with clear strategic design, or something a little more along the lines of retribution to the WDA for dissin the USA? Assuming the latter, should leadership be making decisions about who the organization aligns with (or to whom individual members can and cannot belong to) based on matters of respect, or what makes the most sense long term to continue to further the stated goal of preserving the working GSD? You |
|
|
|
|
CONTINUED:
Does this all sound like well thought out policy, with clear strategic design, or something a little more along the lines of retribution to the WDA for dissin the USA? Assuming the latter, should leadership be making decisions about who the organization aligns with (or to whom individual members can and cannot belong to) based on matters of respect, or what makes the most sense long term to continue to further the stated goal of preserving the working GSD? You know, in this day and age of BSL, mandatory spay/neuter laws, insurance companies cracking down on certain breeds, ever increasing attacks from the “animal rights” groups (in virtually ALL state and local venues), increasing fees, along with more and more stringent licensing and zoning requirements for breeders, does it really make sense to turn our back on the either the WDA or the GSDCA? Or maybe, instead, accept them as flawed and continue to try to educate them and effect change from the inside out (where each and every UScA member who is a GSDCA member has a vote) and assume that when someone comes for our dogs they’ll be with us in the fight to stop such a thing? One path seems quite short sighted and ineffective to me, the other might actually lead to something someday.
-Calvin
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I'm not a breeder, member of the GSDCA or WDA and can only hope to ever qualify for a world team years from now.
-Calvin |
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain why WDA entered into discussions of merging with USA , but during those negotiations turned around and signed an agreement with GSDCA? Is this because WUSV wants clubs combined by the year 2012? If so, why would they sign an agreement with GSDCA, an organization it has very little in common with and not USA, an organization with goals much more in line with those of WDA? Both GSDCA and USA are WUSV members so why would WDA want to side with GSDCA if they truly have the best interest of the breed at heart? Surely they didn't cave because of GSDCA/WDS machinations.
I would have really liked to see a reconciliation and merger between USA and WDA. To me, that would have been what was best for our breed. Barring that, I have no problem with the status quo, WDA and USA in the same dysfunctional relationship as always, like divorced parents alternating who get to send how many competitors on alternate years. What I have a real problem with is AKC GSDCA WDA attempting to become the dominant schutzhund organization at the expense of and possibly causing the demise of USA, especially because I believe after the WUSV event, AKC GSDCA will continue in their usual vein of supporting and promoting the ASS, and will go back to non-support of any grip sport, or anyone interested in promoting the FCI standard or SV shows, breed surveys, etc.. |
|
|
|
|
Is there any evidence to support the statement that the WDA prez was attempting to merge with USA. I find this very surprising as things like would be determined by the membership, not someone who comes up for election every 2 years and serves at the discretion on the membership.
And even if it were true, what were the conditions discussed. Did the WDA envision a new organization governed much like the WDA with the membership having the final say on practically every issue.
Or was the USA expecting the "prize" to be laid at the feet of the USA Supreme Ruler.
I have very little use for the GSDCA. I am a member of WDA and so far have no issues with the way things are run. I'm also a member of USA. I am disappointed that the Supreme Ruler apparently plans to appoint himself to judge the USA Sieger show every year. I can see that this will be good for the GSD in the U.S.
I have had discussions with members of 3 different USA clubs. Not one is in favor of this rule. Reading here, only Sue seems to support it. Everyone else seems to be opposed.
The thing is, as USA members, we have no say in the matter (other than to complain). It is not up to us and need not be approved by us. Supreme Ruler did not even consider the membership important enough to be consulted or even informed of this attempt. Basically, if it passes, we will have no recourse, either swallow it or leave. Supreme Ruler can't be voted out or removed. |
|
|
|
|
Sue -
There are two stories floating around from either President of the organizations - one, USA is saying there was a merger being disucssed and two, WDA is saying they were pursing all the organizations forming a North American Working Dog Alliance. You would have to call each person involved to make your own mind up what was really intended. Both speak and write compellingly.
WDA was functioning without an agreement with GSDCA. The SV had directed WDA and GSDCA that they must have a written agreement to continue using the services of the SV due to the fact that GSDCA is the WUSV member, not WDA. This agreement finally got signed at the end of June orJuly. So for arguments sake, let's say there was a merger discussion, it was natrual for WDA to just stay where it was. Sure, USA should feel a little burned if that is what happened, but that is business; rmemeber that each officer is obligated to do what is right for their own organization, Not doing so could create a huge liabiltiy. The other thing is that USA the clubs vote, in WDA the members vote - so no merger probably could have happened without a vote of WDA members. An attorney who specialized in 501 non profit law would have to speak to that.
Let's say WDA had merged with USA - GSDCA would have just done another WDA like organization or when AKC Ok's the SchH - they just would have made it a committee under GSDCA. So the proposed merger would not have made it just one club. GSDCA is not going to give up its membership in WUSV so it will always do something to keep that membership.
Whatever USA is doing is what they think is best for USA's survival and stature in the world community. There has been nothing disclosed that there is any threat to their survival or stature. Personally, I think the AKC recognizing SchH is not really a threat to anyone because it requires that an established SchH organization be chosen by each breed club to administer it. That choice can be a non-AKC entity - so each AKC breed club could choose different ones and it could be any one like DVG, USA, AWDF, WDA. If WDA would be allowed to join AWDF, then AWDF would be a clear choice for AKC to choose for the administration of the SchH activities and there would be no flirting with the possibility of a split in the AWDF teams.
Again, most on this discussion, including me, really have not heard a compelling reason why any of us should only be allowed to belong to one GSD breed club. Conflict of interest really only speaks to officers and board members in the 501 non profits, not to a bunch of people out trying to show and trial their dogs on the grass roots level. . I, like others , would like to hear a more direct reason. As it stands no one does not belong to USA that wants to just because they belong to GSDCA or WDA - the only thing I see it as is trying to stop income to WDA. WDA is so small in membership, clubs etc. to USA, I am not seeing it to be a threat to the survival of USA. Maybe there is something else afloat that has not been disclosed. If so, most would like that told before anyone starts choosing what club is best for their membership use. If the real reason is a potential that AKC approving SchH will cause USA to loose its WUSV membership, then I think no one would have a problem with the amendment, because that would be inately unfair thing to happen and unwarranted, but to date, no one has given that type of compelling reasoning for the restriction on what clubs you can belong to.
|
|
|
|
|
ILMD: Just to clarify, if you read this thread, other threads on this board and the threads on USA GSD list, you will find that while the overwhelming majority of people have reacted negatively over this proposed amendment, I am certainly not the lone ranger when it comes to wanting to first understand the reasoning behind the proposed amendment as well as wanting to understand the reasons and motives behind Danny's actions regarding GSDCA and WDA. and what it all means to schutzhund and the GSD in the future.
I also am not the only person to say Lyle's letter made a compelling argument in favor of the amendment, though once again I would like to thank Kim Gash, for another well laid out explanation, which answered my questions, cleared up some of my confusion and brought things into better prospective for me. |
|
|
|
|
ILMD,
Look at the meeting minutes from last year on the WDA web site. It spells things out rather clearly as to what the WDA was planning on doing. The GSDCA had decided, and then informed the WDA, that upon the AKC passing Working Dog Sport that it (WDA) would be reduced to a committe. When the WDA was made aware of this they entered in to negotiations with UScA to form an alliance and, I believe, signed an agreement with them to "work closely together". This was last year (2008). GSDCA of course got wind of this and my guess is they prevented the AKC from taking that vote (because it never was voted on) to prevent themselves from losing the WDA.
Kim,
To make more clear what you wrote about the GSDCA and the WDA and their agreement from earlier this year:
The WDA signed it back when the agreement was drawn up in June or July. To me that says the WDA was genuine about it, But,
The GSDCA just signed it about 3 weeks ago. Sounds a little disengenous to me on the part of the GSDCA. They signed it after Danny S. started making noise again about how the GSDCA was treating the WDA. If you read his blog you will see that prior to his meeting with the GSDCA at their National show he had resigned from the GSDCA WUSV committee because he couldn't work with them anymore. Whatever happened at the meeting gave Danny a lot of hope and he was set to make an announcement about the tremendous progress made between the WDA and the GSDCA "in a few days" and everyone is still waiting a week and half later.
The part about the WDA pursuing a "North American Working Dog Alliance" sounds a little strange because there already is one. It is called the AWDF!
As for the Sieger Shows funding working dog events, this may be true for the WDA because they hold so few trials and are much more of a show dog organization than UScA. To my knowledge, the USA Sieger this year in Chicago is the first to make any money in the past five or six years. If they have been losing money on this for many years how is it funding the other working dog events???
|
|
|
|
|
No agreement to merge existed. Membership dynamics in the USA is with the clubs, in the GSDCA-WDA it is with the individual member. You cannot merge the two opposing factions. The legal issues are far and wide. One only has too spend a brief moment studying the legal issues in Colorado to discern the complexity of this issue. Further, the members of the GSDCA-WDA would be asked to vote in support of a merger of the organization. It is not a decision that can be made by the leadership. One voice one vote that is how the GSDCA-WDA is structured.
Second, it was very well known throughout the world that WDA was having conversations on a written agreement with GSDCA. This agreement was mandated by the SV (Wolfgang Henke) last year. This was no secret nor does that agreement in any manner impact USA. A copy the agreement is on the GSDCA-WDA website in the July Agenda. It was published in the Magazine, Hundegram and in every President's Message for months. This agreement does nothing but establish how paperwork is processed. It has been published for all the world to see, now it is being cast as some mysterious document.
Third, everyone in the United States, including the entire leadership team of USA, was aware of the AKC WDS issue. USA, DVG and AWDF were invited by WDA to join in writing to the AKC regarding this program. None replied but AWDF did send a letter seeking to become the recognized organization for schutzhund.
Rhonda |
|
|
|
|
OGBS -
The agreement between WDA and GSDCA was originally signed in the form that is posted on the agenda at the website - the then president signed it of GSDCA, the board would not approve it. It has been rewritten as Rhonda states regarding the handling of paperwork and also it now includes an end date.
To say Danny changed his view is correct - for awhile there, it appeared WDA might end up being without a way to particpate with the benefits of the GSDCA WUSV membership, much of which came and still comes from time to time with the talk and comments of bringing the functions of WDA under GSDCA as a committee just like they are structured for other venues like agility. Both GSDCA and WDA are member voted organizations. GSDCA was incorporated in New York State and WDA was incorporated in Colorado. There are opinions these two can legally merge - but again, it would take membership vote.
Rhonda has also expressed a very good understanding of some of the mechanics of a merge not being possible without a WDA membership vote.
Regarding the North American Working Dog Alliance, both Danny Spreitler and Al Govednick have referenced that this was being discussed with USA also in emails which have been copied to many people.. It would have been more than just the scope of the current AWDF and I beleive Mexico was mentioned also, possibly Canada as part of the alliance. There was no mention of it being any part or RSV2000, though at the time some intimated that was the reason for the dicussion.
So lots going on, but yet nothing really new and there is nothing that would really affect USA's standing with the WUSV or threaten its existence that would require it to restrict membership in other US GSD organzations. Unless there is something out there that has not been disclosed that USA knows and has not mentioned. Surely at the annual meeting they will outline why they feel it is necessary. After the vote next week things will either remain the same or people may be forced to choose clubs. I for one hope it remains like it has been.
|
|
|
|
|
OGBS - regarding sieger shows et al funding working dogs
The fees generated by show dog people I would guess far outweighs what the working dog side generates. One just has to look at Mittelwest and Wilhendorf to see the numbers of dogs they bring to just one sieger show, other shows, their number of litters, their registrations, hips elbows, koerungs etc. These fees from all of this, not just entries, do go in to the general fund which helps pay for all of our club benefits. Individual trials and shows have their surcharge fees which goes back to the parent club, but most shows have 40-80 dogs entered like at a regional with 400+ a sieger show - those entry fees are paid whether they physically show up or not - that's the rule. So compared to most of our trials where there are not many dogs and usually do not charge anyone unless they show up because there is no rule otherwise for trial, let's be generous and say 10 for a club trial, yes the show dogs do contribute alot overall. We are hard pressed to have 80+ dogs at a national trial. Its the same way in Germany, Italy and I am sure most countries. That is why the show dog breeders have a lot of power.
WDA has made very good money on NASS - I think the highest was $30,000 - it all depends on location and what indivisual or club runs it. There is no reason USA could not make money also if they have not been.
I had only mentioned their contribution because you had said all USA would loose of they passed the new rule would be show dog people. Of course this is a discussion for another thread as it really has nothing to do with if there are compelling reasons for USA to possibly pass an new rule where members could not have membership in another US GSD club.
|
|
|
|
|
Neither organization is a breed registry nor will they ever will be. They are no more then performance organization that love the GSD and believe me they painfully understand that. This is about the team. If you re-read Johannes's, Lyle's, and Nathaniel's explanations you will see that.
A little history lesson: I first made the WUSV team in 1997 (GSDCA-WDA) back then neither team liked each other. USA considered them the B team but they did recognized each others score books. Then came the WUSV rule change one team per country then the fights started getting really bad.
The straw that broke the camels back or should I say brought about this propose by-law change started some time after the GSDCA-WDA Nationals when first Rick Burgos pulled from the GSDCA-WDA team then Eric Eisenberg pulled. GSDCA-WDA replaced them with two other people that showed in their national event. USA felt that at least one should have been replaced by their alternate. GSDCA-WDA was within their rights to replace them and they did. To add insult to injury, USA selected T. Floyd to be their team captain then all of sudden Dana moved up on the list to show for GSDCA-WDA. Thus the Bullshit reason for the by-law change "Conflict of interest"
Now, I will not be at the meeting I have people coming to train. ( We are sending a delegate however) but I am willing to bet that if this by-law change doesn't pass that someone will make a motion that you can't be a member of another competing GSD organization in the U.S. and represent USA or some variation of that. Then you guys will see that this has nothing to do with the preservation of the GSD but the TEAM.
Wallace Payne |
|
|
|
|
| Okay now I'm confused again. It was my understanding that on alternating years, one organization names 3 team members, the other organization names 2 team members and one alternate for our WUSV team. If one of the team members pulls, the alternate takes that person's place, regardless of which organization the team member who pulls is from, no? Didn't this same thing happen in 2005? A WDA team member pulled prior to traveling to the event, so the USA alternate stepped into that position because those are the rules? |
|
|
|
|
No Sue,
This was way prior to the team ever leaving to go to the WUSV. The WDA qualifier winners went in the order::
SchH3 289 Aceofnike van het Bleekhot Charley-Karoly Meszaros 97 96 96 a V
SchH3 286 Buddy vom Burg Kurzwallen Eric S. Eisenberg 99 89 98 a V
SchH3 285 Cento van Kiefbos Rick Burgos 99 91 95 a SG
SchH3 282 Dasko von der Daelenberghutte Pete Kovach 94 89 99 a SG
SchH3 281 Nando vom Schloß Zweibruggen Dana Palumbo 93 94 94 a SG
SchH3 277 DJ vom Zieringer-Land Bill Pivirotto 91 89 97 a SG
SchH3 276 Tino vom grauen Bund Jim Alloway 97 82 97 a SG
Eric and Rick had to pull their dogs months before the WUSV for injury and personal reasons.
So that moved everyone up by two places - there were 4 spots on the GSDCA team in 2009 (3 and 1 alternate) So that made the team Charlie, Pete and Dana with the alternate dog being ? Not sure they sent one, but it should have been the next placing after Dana.
USA sent Dan, Mike for their 2 spots on the team and Lisa was USA's alternate.
What Wallace is saying, and had already been told this many months ago when it happened, is that USA wanted USA's dogs to fill the spots on GSDCA that were vacated by Eric and Rick. Which is totally illogical and does comport to the rules.
But I heard it from many sources that it did happen. Of course, WDA just moved up their next placings to fill the team. That is the way it should be for either USA or WDA.
I similar problem happened I think in France at the WUSV where dogs were injured on GSDCA (WDA) and USA wanted to put their dogs in rather than WDA's alternates. If I am remembering correctly, it was even taken to the WUSV committee, of course, GSDCA used their alternates. Had it been in the reverse, GSDCA would have no right to put its alternates in over USA's alternates.
Like I said the amendment is pointed directly at national competitors - Wallace is providing a precipitating factor. In 2004 at the WDA National in Tacoma, competitors said there were a lot veiled threats to particpants out there that they would be kicked out of USA if they competed there. That did not happen.
What Wallace is saying is that the whole thing is about control of the team. And of course that goes back to the old Hatfield and McCoys feud that has been there since WDA was formed and the "dislike" has continued. Liek Wallace said it got heated up again when WUSV told United States and the other countries who had similar situations with two clubs and two teams to reach an agreement and combine. That is how the 2 and an alternate and 3 and an alternate rotation got started.
Bottom line is each team fills their own spots whether they are full or vactated. |
|
|
|
|
Sue, also, in 2005 for WUSV France, Charlie's dog was injured on the way to the airport. The other Team members for GSDCA were Jim Lempner, Dave Kroyer and Chico Sanford was the alternate. Dave's dog was injured in practice in France and pulled. Chico was the GSDCA alternate and filled the spot for Charlie. The two team Members for USA were Wallace who ended up a very super placing of 4th and all scores were within one point of another 2nd through 4th. T Floyd was the other team member for USA and Randy Rhodes was the alternate - Randy stepped in to take Kroyer's place as GSDCA had used up their alternate, so USA's had to fill the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
Kim, your recollections are not correct. You are welcome to contact Dean, 2005 USA Team Captain, at deancalderon@hotmail.com or feel free to give him a call at 740-477-9827 tomorrow (he's on the road tonight) for the facts. He'll also be at Nationals next weekend should you care to discuss this further.
Thank you,
Karla Calderon |
|
|
|
|
I too have to weigh in on this one.
If push comes to shove, I will drop my membership with the UScA club. I feel the WDA is the organization that most people who show dogs will stay with due to the fact that there are so many more member clubs that put on conformation shows.
I do not agree with the GSDCA or what they stand for, so I have dropped my membership. And the AKC does nothing for our German, Czech, etc., dogs except rake in the money for filing fees etc. . Now I believe the AKC will recognize the SV titles so that is one concession in the right direction and I do believe the WDS is having a quiet burial.
The UScA who consists of Tim Burke and Mary what ever her name is who was the show secretary in Chicago could make any one go running away screaming. I wrote a letter regarding her rudeness and never so much as received an answer or rebuttal. They treated Connie Miller like crap. And this a woman that put on a Sieger Show in Wi almost alone and did a wonderful job.
So go ahead and vote, but be prepared to lose alot of members. |
|
|
|
|
Absolutely true, Pat! One need only to look at event calendars to see that WDA clubs offer many more koerungs. This passes and those who keep membership with UScA will be hard pressed to find a conformation event when they need one.
Sounds to me like this is more about ego and politics than upholding the working GSD standard.
|
|
|
|
|
Wallace has hit the nail on the head. If you analyze Lyle’s arguments, they boil down to:
1) Vague statements about international intrigue. The only international event USA has anything to do with is the WUSV championship, so his agenda clearly concerns the team, and the possibility that WDA will do a bang-up job of hosting in 2013. There are perhaps at most 20 (out of 3000+) members of USA who have a realistic shot at making the team, so control of the team and championship does not seem to me to be of much benefit to most members.
2) Statements about betrayal by WDA leadership. I have no idea what really went on, but punishing grassroots members for the fact that USA leadership was out-negotiated or out-flanked is absurd.
3) Statements about preserving the GSD as a working dog. These statements only sound like logic. As someone writing earlier pointed out, walking away from AKC/GSDCA/WDA gives those of us who care genuinely about working and the breed no voice at all. We may not like what the AKC has done to our breed, and many others, but it is the recognized breed registry in this country, and we have to live with them. While I don’t expect the GSDCA to change their standard to conform to the SV standard and require koerung, I didn’t ever expect to see them recognize schutzhund titles, either.
4) Statements about conflict of interest. I’m sorry, but members cannot have a conflict of interest. Officers, yes, but the organization is its members, and their expression of their self-interest is entirely appropriate. Registering a litter with the AKC so that the puppies will have an internationally recognized pedigree does not imply approval of their standard. Yes, it funds an organization which I personally find problematic (to say the least), but, then, I’m not entirely thrilled with everything my taxes buy, and I intend to keep on paying them.
The way USA conducts business, through its executive committee and at a general board meeting held at the Nationals effectively prevents grassroots members from having much of a voice. For the most part, only clubs who have members competing are represented, and that is not likely to be representative of the membership at large.
This amendment would be very bad for USA. It also hand WDA a public relations goldmine, giving them the opportunity to poach members who are presently satisfied with USA. I honestly believe that it will result in significant loss of membership and revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
I stand by my statements. I was called by team members on WDA and the team captain as it was a brouha. Landau could not be located who was VP of WDA and the Liason for GSDCA at the time (meaning the only officer in France at the time that had any authority to act for GSDCA). Because I had hosted the 2005 WDA National, all felt I could find/call the correct parties here in the US to resolve the issue. I also heard other comments in the background by othe people.
The letter from the president of GSDCA at the time the combined team was dictated, Ginny Altman, was sent over which settled the argument. The letter was to USA outling how GSDCA would field its teams and another point was that the uniforms would bear the name of the United States of America so there would never be confusion with the abbreviation of USA as to there were two clubs involved.. It is the only thing in writing there is.
No alternates were not validly entered in the WUSV - all entries were accepted by WUSV that made up the United States Team. More than 6 dogs were accepted as entries combined.
Also will add that there is NO WUSV rule for how WUSV teams from a country where they are made up by two seperate clubs will handle succession. They expect those clubs to work it out between themselves. The agreement came out to 2 spots on the team for GSDCA in even years, with 3 spots on the team in odd years, the reverse for USA.
I am not for one club or the other. They both serve good purposes. Both are doing what they have the legal and WUSV membership rights to do. In that instance, the USA team captain postured to put USA people in the slot. That is a good team captain fighting for his own club. I am sure he was unaware of the letter and that USA had not put anything in writing. Likewise, GSDCA stood up for their team members. The one thing that does bother me though, is there is a lot of misinformation to rank and file out there and people do not know where to go verify the facts.
You could write to the current president of GSDCA, Tish Walker and ask her for a copy of the letter that Ms. Altman wrote to USA. You could also write to USA office or president and ask for the letter, I beleive Jim Elder was the presidentt at the time. Bottomline, other than Ms. Altman's letter, to my knowledge, there is no written agreement. Now could have team captains maybe discussed sucession? Maybe - but they are not officers of the organization nor are they authorized to override an officer's directives or anything board approved.
You can also write the WUSV and ask if there are rules regarding this.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron,
Good post and wth clarity. |
|
|
|
|
KCzaja,
You wrote:
"One need only to look at event calendars to see that WDA clubs offer many more koerungs. This passes and those who keep membership with UScA will be hard pressed to find a conformation event when they need one."
There is a reason for the low number of koerungs and conformation events held by UScA clubs. This is due to the fact that UScA is and has always been a club based on Schutzhund events and working dogs and not about conformation events. If there was a demand for it you would see more of them. WDA is more about show dogs and holds more show events and very few schutzhund trials.
As for not being able to find one of these events or being able to particpate in one, I do not see it anywhere in the proposed bylaw changes saying that you can not compete or show at an event held by a club from another organization. If that organization does not require you to join to participate you can go on trialing/showing wherever and whenever you want, except at national events where membership is required.
Kim,
You mentioned the effect of the conformation shows on the general fund. Do you honestly think that it has a great impact on the general fund compared to the 218 clubs that must hold a schutzhund trial each year. If we use your number of 8 dogs per trial as being the average (I think that this is low, but, oh well) that comes out to 1744 club event entries compared with the 400 entries at this years sieger show and a smattering of others at local shows and the regional conformation shows (some as low as 20 entries). Let's say, at best, the total of the conformation shows pull in about 800 entries for UScA. That is still only half the number of schutzhund entries and we haven't even added in the regional trials or any of the national events which in total bring in about another 400 trial entries. While I am not implying that the show entries do not make a difference, when comparing the two, the money in UScA comes mostly from schutzhund trials, not conformation events.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig you write:
There are USCA General Board Members who are also WDA members and/or represent WDA member clubs. In a few days, as they have done in years past, they will cast votes at our annual GBM. These votes influence who the leaders of our organization will be. These votes will also influence USCA business decisions. The decisions that shape who we are and the direction that our organization moves in:
My question is, "Who Are WE"? We are not a breed registry period the end! We will never be one, Period the end! We are a performance organization that happen to love the GSD no more no less! The EB or should I say the EB has been influence by certain people to control the team. This has been the only goal from the beginning of the combine team.
Your reasons are the same as Lyle's, Johannes, and Nathaniel's based on fear. We are not the SV as a matter of fact the SV is the problem! Two year ago I had dinner with the SV Head Breed Warden along with Werner Kebernik and couple of friends from the states. I told him we needed the SV 30 years ago but now we don't. He agreed. I also told him that they had what I consider the best breeding system in the world but we should choose to breed like them not be force to breed like them just to send 6 people to a Schutzhund Trial once a year. He agreed again. I love my Mother (God rest her soul) but she no matter how wise she was could not run my house hold nor did she try. We should not let the SV run ours! We should strive to be like them but not be forced to be like them.
If the organization is truly concern about the preservation of the GSD they propose some kind of By-law change that forbid members from breeding under age dogs, breeding without titles, breeding without hip certifications etc. But you can't enforce those things can you? Here are few reason why you can't enforce them. One: We are not a breed registry! Two: We are to busy worrying about who's on the team. Three: Did I mention we are not a breed registry? Four: It's easier to kick people out of the organization for being members of another organization then it is to control how people breed their GSD. Why? Because we are not a breed registry.
You say GSDCA-WDA copies everything USA does. Isn't that the Greatest form of Flattery? Or you should say They Can Imitate but They Can't duplicate! But I forgot that will never work because we are running scared!
Lyle is write about one thing. I'm for sure one of those people that make a living off the sport I will not deny that. I'm a member of both organization. However, if this is passed I will not be a member of both. Not that any of the supports this by-law change care but this is what the organization will lose! In the past the South Metro Atlanta Schutzhund Club have hosted one GSDCA-WDA National event and two GSDCA-WDA club trials. On the other hand we have hosted two USA National events (And was asked recently if we would host another next year) two S.E. Regional Sieger Shows and countless club trials in the nine years we have been a club. We have provided our field to other USA local clubs to do their trials, we have Provided tracking for AWMA Nationals that was held in Atlanta. We have provided track layer for other National events. Loyal? I guess in your definition we are not? But you can't say we have not work our butts off for the organization.
This is what you will lose and you are going to lose more like us. I know that what you read on these forums are only a few people but you better believe it's just the tip of the Iceberg. Vote No to this by-law change people. The organization will lose!
Wallace Payne
Dual Member
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you all for stepping up to the plate. I hope we are heard.
I am the president of Tornado Alley Schutzhund Club, Assistant Regional Director for the Mid Central Region. Web master for both the club and MC region, an avid supporter of the working GSD, and a happy member of USA who just received her 10 year pin.
I am not currently nor have I ever been a member of WDA or GSDCA but you can bet your bottom dollar, if this bylaw comes to pass, I will be.
JoAnn Letcher |
|
|
|
|
I am no longer a member of the United Schutzhund Clubs of America. There are several reasons, the latest of which involved my computer being dead and unable to supply a complete roster when club dues were paid (late). My club was essentially terminated for this, after having been involved for several years. During that time we were active we did our best as a very small club to put on a yearly trial, often a conformation show, and in many years also hosted an excellent seminar with people like Bernhard Flinks or others of his calibre. We struggled because we had to pay for helpers, sometimes bringing them in from out of state or even from Germany or the Czech Republic. We all loved our dogs and enjoyed the sport. But we had no interest in the politics.
We also were very aware that this was NOT an organization for the breed (despite the slogan), the smaller clubs, nor even the grassroot members. It is about a certain few people who hold office or want to, and about those who are the professionals in the sport. While we did not mind our small subsidizing of those on teams representing our country, we DID mind that we never, ever had a voice in the organization. We, like many clubs, could not send delegates to some meeting across the country. We could barely pay for the club to continue operating because it cost hundreds of dollars each month to pay a helper. We even did as much helper work on our own as possible at our age and physical condition. Without my personal significant financial subsidy to the club and the activities required as a club, or even as individuals wanting to participate with their dogs, we could not have existed for as long as we did. We participated by sending concerns in writing, and we were lucky to even get a response. So much for anyone giving a damn about what any of us thought.
I have suggested over and over that the members each be given a vote....a direct vote. Each year I received excuse after excuse as to why this could not be accomplished. Each year I asked that something be done to assist the real backbone of the organization, the small clubs, and that plea also fell on deaf ears. In short, the leadership cared more about spending thousands of dollars on bogus programs that did little to help the organization, the clubs (especially those that are small), or the individual members. And, much money has been wasted that did little to help the "breed". USA is about as far from a breed organization as one can be. To suggest otherwise, is laughable.
Making a proposal to ban dual memberships when, in fact, judges are often now holding a variety of certifications from outside organizations, for example, is disingenuous. As it is, in my part of the country, though I personally rarely participated in an event sponsored by another organization, I was glad that those other organizations existed and hosted events. Otherwise, I may not have ever made the progress I did with my own dogs. I know that if I were a member and wished to join another organization, I would do so. It is wrong to even suggest that people not be able to join organizations as they wish.
I won't be surprised at this amendment passing. After all, all too many clubs will have no voice, once again. Those who want to continue to shove their particular agenda down the throats of people with no voice will have ample opportunity to do so. Our club would never have supported such an idiotic idea. But then, we did not support most of the shenanigans promulgated by certain members who wish to take the organization in the wrong direction.
IF USA wanted to be the premier organization if says it wants to be, I submit there are plenty of other avenues to take. I find it pathetic that the organization does not value the membership enough to make CERTAIN THAT USA IS THE ORGANIZATION where all the positive things are happening in support of the breed. Finding |
|
|
|
|
| If this passes what option is there for and available to the general membership to reverse or call for a full member vote? As I am not famalier with the national bylaws maybe someone more knowledgable could answer the question? |
|
|
|
|
Continued from my post above McKowns':
Finding ways to unite and excite people and HELP them participate and get something FROM the organization would go a long way in making sure others don't go join other organizations. What a concept that would be.........but I, for one, gave up expecting that it will ever be so.
|
|
|
|
|
could someone start a poll - a petition? Perhaps signatures of UScA members demonstrating the wishes of the membership would be helpful, especially if this "thing" passes.
molly graf
UScA member since 1992
Master Gold Sports Medal Recipient
Schh3 Club member
Not WDA member - yet. |
|
|
|
|
Absolutely, If this amendment is passed USA will loose all members in good standing from the Alpha K9 Schutzhund Club,and we will be a Club from the past.
My believe is that USA no longer needs USA. I think that it is dirty business ethics on how it all was done.
This should be a nation wide member vote and not at a meeting where it is not possible to have THE PEOPLE MEMBERS the guy and woman that simply train their dogs for fun, they talk about purity in dog sports. It is MAFIA @ work.
and it makes me sick.
This is America { Thank God } My choice has beem made, My DIGNITY is all i need.
Carlos Rojas & Ai Yoshino Rojas
ALPHA K9 SCHUTZHUND CLUB
North East Region
Member of
USA
WDA
GSDCA
DVG
UDC
DPCA
AKC
DPCA
SV
and i think many more, Because i can.
|
|
|
|
|
I heard that this amendment passed at the meeting today. Has anyone heard differently?
Judy |
|
|
|
|
Did it pass as proposed or were there amendmends before the vote?
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a lawsuit in the making against the Directors and Officers of the UScA. That will tie up resources and finances. How does the UScA intend to reimburse all the costs for applying for UScA registry of the dogs who will now be owned by non-members? How is the UScA intending to police this? Whereas it used to take the employed staff forever to get documentation turned around, now they will have some other tasks to do, like fending off all the multitude of questions resulting from such a decision. I just wonder how this is for the betterment of the club and the general membership and even more so for the betterment of the working GSD.
If I were a director or officer of a club that without the vote of the general membership pushes through such a ruling, I would be worried and inquire how I am insured under the club's Director's and Officers' liablity policy and if the limits are sufficient to cover my personal financial situation should a class action suit be brought against the board and its officers. Yes, the membership has rights and can bring this to court.
This is a country of due process and if the general membership is not in agreement with the changes, something can be done. And I personally think that would be in the interest of the general membership and breed. |
|
|
|
|
| I think all current members who hold dual memberships should request a refund of their USA dues since they are clearly terminating our participation in their organization as of today. I paid dues for one year in good faith and they changed the terms of the contract mid stream. Time to be heard, people. Ask for a refund or like Sunshine said, initiate a class action suit. Money speaks. |
|
|
|
|
| Get this: this critical vote was by show of hands (with delegate cards in hand)--no secret ballot. How do we know how people would have voted without perceived peer pressure in a club of the good old boys? |
|
|
|
|
I have trouble believing that a change such as this can fly when tested in court. I think the only way a by-law that effects the general membership can be changed is that the membership until that point and time are grand fathered in and any new members must comply with the requirement of not being a member of a competing club.
I am sure there are attorneys out there but I as a lay person, have alot of trouble in believing that what happened is on sound legal footing.
|
|
|
|
|
I have trouble believing that a change such as this can fly when tested in court. I think the only way a by-law that effects the general membership can be changed as has just been done, is that the membership until that point and time are grand fathered in and any new members must comply with the requirement of not being a member of a competing club.
I am sure there are attorneys out there but I as a lay person, have alot of trouble in believing that what happened is on sound legal footing.
|
|
|
|
|
I was there and yes it did pass in it's original form. As of now, you are "not allowed" to have membership with USCA and WDA concurrently. You "will be allowed" to retain a current membership with WDA until it expires at which time you "are not allowed" to renew it and maintain USCA member status. Members of other AWDF affiliate clubs "will be allowed" to compete at USCA "CLUB" trials without USCA membership but participation at the Regional and National level will require enlistment.
As a non GSD owner but USCA member, I attended with interest to witness the gall of USCA to basically take away one's personal liberties regarding where one trains and with whom they do it. As a long time member of USCA, I absolutely disagree with the decision of the "voting few". This country was based on freedom of choice and if my memory serves me correct, we were colonized by Pilgrims who made a "choice" to leave their homeland to avoid religious persecution and start anew. NO ONE has the right to take these liberties from you.
Here's a novel idea, instead of trying to eliminate the competition by force and intimidation, why not strive to make your product better so Schutzhund enthusiasts will CHOOSE by their own free will to join you.
I use this forum to express my opinion as only predetermined delegates were allowed to speak at today's proceedings. I can fully understand the policy of "delegates only" contributing to the final vote, but members in good standing not even being allowed to speak was truly uncalled for and rude. The way that people were spoken to on more than one occasion by members of the Executive Board was in my opinion, abuse of authority. Having served honorably in the U.S. military, I volunteered to protect the rights of individuals to free speech and assembly. I take exception to the denial of my rights as well as those of others who are not only citizens of our great country but also members (so far) of this organization. |
|
|
|
|
I wonder how close the vote was. And yes one would hope/think that such an important and hot-button issue would have been by ballot incase of challenge or recount. What to do now with those twenty plus years of membership :(
|
|
|
|
|
| My understanding is that one vote made the difference. |
|
|
|
|
| The vote was not that close. I believe the "NO" votes were in the high teens and while the "YES" votes were being counted, I left. I think the afternoon session was attended by 46? voting delegates (don't quote me). |
|
|
|
|
Here's a question......what happens when 2 members of a household own GSD's "together"....(both names on pedigree ownership)..and 1 is a member of UScA, and the other of WDA??? Will the dog be able to compete in any UScA event???...
|
|
|
|
|
| Divorce is mandatory, dogs must be split in half. The vote to see if they will be split top and bottom or front and back had to be shelved for another day. Demonstrations were available but people kept throwing up. |
|
|
|
|
Phil...yeah, thats hysterical......
Putting aside the above humor.....honestly.....what happens in the scenario of "co-owned" dogs?! |
|
|
|
|
| Good question, but while I was still in attendance, it was not addressed. Oh, I forgot, I was not allowed to speak. They did however, allow me bathroom privileges. My coffee filled bladder was very thankful. Yeah, yeah, I know,,,,,too much information. |
|
|
|
|
| Sounds like to me it's time to clean house at USA |
|
|
|
|
| Phil...thank you for being there.... |
|
|
|
|
vote was 36 yes, 17 no,,,,,as was told to me by our delegate
john |
|
|
|
|
Phil, as a USA member, thank you.
Rik |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the information, Phil.
Sad day for the GSD and for the schutzhund sport today.
Robin, I wondered that myself about co-ownerships, it would seem like a way to get around the rules- but when they see your dog earned a title for koerung at a WDA event, that would let the cat out of the bag, I would think. I would rather not give USA a penny of my membership fee, or entry fee, in light of this poor decision. I may go watch the USA SS to see the dogs "work", but I won't so much as buy a catalog or a bottle of water.
Seems to me like most of the WDA clubs plan to stay that way, I take it?
|
|
|
|
|
Phil, did they say how they are going to police this mess? I doubt WDA will give up a membership list for them to check off names. And you are right about this being all about personal freedom to choose. I haven't seen so many people so wired about anything in a long time.
Judy |
|
|
|
|
I ask this question because we do "co-own" dogs with other people......a couple are UScA members also, as are/were we.
Where does it leave the "dogs"??......must one then be forced to "divorce" a partnership, like Phil humored...?
This is a sad day for the sport(s) and membership(s).
Robin |
|
|
|
|
Question for anyone who was there - in regards to the new rule that you have to be a member of USA for a regional or higher event, and an AWDF club member for a club trial, did anyone bring up an exception for foreigners? |
|
|
|
|
| Yes. People who hold membership with foreign registries are exempt from persecution, after all, we don't have the right to tell other countries what to do or how to run their politics,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,do we? |
|
|
|
|
This is a fundamentally flawed amendment and if any of you, your clubs, your friends really care about the freedom issue so often spouted herein on this forum, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. WITHDRAW FROM MEMBERSHIP - whether you go join WDA or some other organization is up to you.
I would bet money that if many clubs start withdrawing from the United Schutzhund Clubs of America as member clubs, and individuals do the same and refuse to renew their membership, this action will be changed. No one has the right to tell anyone what group, club, or organization one may not belong to, however offensive or at odds with the other group, club or organization that membership in such a second entity might seem. This is an issue as much about principle as it is anything else. And no, you can bet WDA will not divulge its' membership lists, but just think of it, there are plenty of people who have been open about their dual memberships. Maybe now we will see a renewal of the Witch Trials, where people are accused of belonging.....what a thought. This is so idiotic a measure that it really takes the cake and those who foisted this upon the membership should also be ousted.
Of course, anyone who has long been involved in this organization also knows that there are a host of other reasons why such an amendment was promulgated. The vote process, where a very small number of clubs can dictate what will happen to the membership as a whole is flawed to begin with and has, over the years, said it all in terms of what the organization thinks of the voice of individuals who make up the organization. It has been, and will continue to be about a small group of people and clubs, until and unless the rest of you speak out.
I know my club is happy we are no longer associated with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America. They could have cared less about us, except for our money and our roster....
I say again, until those of you who realize what has happened here protest in a meaningful manner, meaning leaving the organization, nothing will change. Of course, that is exactly what the powers that be hope for. If, as so often, people only gripe here and do nothing else, nothing will come of it. The powers that be are betting on your lack of action and commitment.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, hodie! Great to see you back.
|
|
|
|
|
| Does the USA membership requirement also apply to those who enter their dogs in regional breed shows or in the USA SS? |
|
|
|
|
| I have a question a friend of mine brought up. What about helpers? Can we use our usual USA-member club trial helper if our club decides to switch to WDA? |
|
|
|
|
"ALL THE KINGS' HORSES' AND ALL THE KINGS' MEN, COULD' NT PUT USA SCH, (HUMPTY DUMPTY) TOGETHER AGAIN! Biting off their nose to spite their face.
This will be the undoing of SCH USA! BAD move!
What a shame for the dogs! |
|
|
|
|
Louise- don't you have to a member to show a dog over 12 months of age? It looks that way as I read it.
|
|
|
|
|
| Given that several delegates left the meeting (for scheduled practice times?), was there actually a quorum present at the meeting at the time the vote was taken? |
|
|
|
|
The South Metro Atlanta SchH Club, a UScA club until yesterday, canceled our trial scheduled for this weekend. Our club was a dual UScA/GSDCA-WDA club, and will now put all our energy and resources into the support of GSDCA-WDA.
I, for one, will not renew my UScA membership on December 1, 2009. Most, if not all, of our club members will follow suit. Wallace Payne will be withdrawing his membership.
I have been a member for about 16 years. This is very, very sad day.
Rhonda |
|
|
|
|
| I for one (or two since I have a family membership) will be terminating my membership of UScA. I cannot in good conscience be a member of a club that intends to dictate what I can and cannot do. It is clearly a violation of civil and personal liberties guaranteed by our constitution. I also take exception to the violation of free speech present at the meeting. I will gladly take part in a class action lawsuit as well. |
|
|
|
|
| Foreigners were always exempt. Read the rules for confirmation.
|
|
|
|
|
For any facebook users opposing the change, I made a cause in regards to the issue, feel free to join it. Numbers speak.
|
|
|
|
|
What happens if a compeititor in this weekend's trial has dual membership? Will they be disqualified?
Judy |
|
|
|
|
KCzaja,
Where can I find this on facebook? can you post the link?
JoAnn Letcher |
|
|
|
|
Y'know, folks, the USA general membership staged a revolt before, when the grasps of the officers sent the organization into financial ruin--anyone remember when members suddenly didn't get their magazine, because the publisher hadn't been paid and finally cut them off? Remember the little empire that had been built back then, which came tumbling down when enough of the 'nobody' members had enough of the shenanigans?
It's been done before. It can be done again, if enough people are interested in reclaiming the organization.
Oh, and to Dawn, who said:
"What a shame for the dogs!'
remember this: the dogs could not possibly care less. As long as they get to hang out and do stuff with their person, they don't give a damn if there's a USA or a recognized trial or anything else. It's the two-legged member of the partnership that has the ego needs.
(My dogs are 14 years old, so I don't really care what happens to USA, either. I dropped out after I moved to an area where the nearest club was 4 hours from me (one way); I couldn't see paying individual membership dues to a National organization that considered me to be non-existent because I didn't belong to a member club in addition to the National one. For my annual $60, I felt I should at least get to vote by email or something.) |
|
|
|
|
It IS a shame when people forget it is for, and about the dogs, and not a glorified Testosterone Club, with rules that are changed on a whim, so a person can feel powerful, and people follow like sheep, just because they are afraid to stand up to him.
It is sad... life is short for us and our dogs.
It is what it is ... and I will still enjoy MY DOGS, and MY LIFE, and do not need a CLUB or ORGANIZATION.
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant.
Cause USA membership to avoid many of the too few training opportunities and events available in this country, opportunities to aquire titles and ratings necessary for breeding in order to follow the SV breed standard, in the name of preserving the quality of the breed.
The passing of this rule is a tragedy and a shame for the breed and the sport in this country, and an embarrassment for the general membership of USA.
My questions are these:
- How is USA planning to enforce this rule?
- Are there funds in the budget ear-marked for Membership Police, covertly installed undercover in the WDA office?
- Shall any USA member listed as a competitor in the official catalog of a major WDA event be ejected from USA?
Freaking brilliant. I feel sure I can hear the Europeans laughing from here... again.
SS
|
|
|
|
|
I am just spechless to this bylaw change.....
They appearantly can't bare a Code of Ethics- since there is still none in place...but dictate membership???
Speaking of morals and ethics...but can't have a Code of Ethics???
Somethings wrong, but that's just my oppinion! |
|
|
|
|
JudyK: I was wondering the same thing???? The new CZARSHIP may not effect the NASS this today??
Also Where else do you send to get the HIP Ratings done by SV if not thru the USA???
HEXE: AMEN AND AMEN!
I think I will go frame my last USA magazine
YR
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many of you who want to switch to GSDCA WDA, or cancel your USA membership, because you think the process is so much more democratic, or are angry because USA is asking you to make a choice, have actually read the GSDCA WDA bylaws? Skip down to the section IV OFFICERS & BOARD OF DIRECTORS, interesting reading, explains a lot about where the balance of power within the organization truly lies. Also explains how certain people who screwed the last WDA President, (something many of the membership were extremely upset about, and thought would be done with in the subsequent election, can still somehow remain in positions of power. These powerful people don't even have to have any knowledge or experience in schutzhund or SV showing, or have WDA best interests at heart. Be very careful, you may just be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
http://www.gsdca-wda.org/forms/GSDCA-WDABy-lawsRev1503.pdf |
|
|
|
|
All organizations function under the same trial rules and when offering conformation venues, show and koerung (breed survey rules). So no matter who is in charge, who is voted in, who is an idiot, who has experience, whatever political intrigue happens, all function under the same trial, show and breed survey rules. Its a mute point who argues with whom, screws whom, as long as the organization continues to comport to the international rules and memebrships that we compete under. To keep in accordance with the WUSV membership, there is no choice in the matter - so all the political BS and power struggles and whether people train, show or even own a dog that got elected or appointed have any hands on experience does not affect the internationals rules on trial, show and breed surveys all clubs function under. No one elected is dumb enough to do anything that would cause a loss of their WUSV for the Shepherds or their FCI, or VDH standing and cause their club to lose its abiltiy to function.
The only difference with who is elected or who is in charge is how petty they will be and how that pettiness affects day to day amendments and functions that cause it to be harder to enjoy being a member of any club. People join clubs for enjoyment. Whether its tiddlywinks, dogs, basketweaving or horses, people want to take their few disposable dollars and have fun. When any leadership creates a stressful environment, lessens the fun or does idiot things while taking members money then eventually people will just quit sending money.
Any club, who makes it onerous to be a member is going to lose members; any club who makes it fun and stress free to be a member is going to blossom. I really don't care if elected officers kill each other, hate each other, have degrees in dog training, a fifth grade education or a masters degree. I care if they keep the organization comporting with the terms of their international memberships that allow me to title and Koer my dogs and those titles adn even registrations are not meaningless. Call me a dumbass, but this sport and conformation titles are a hell of a lot of work even on club level and I if I can get a world standard or a local standard for the same amount of work, might as well get the gold. I also do not want an organizational mind set that is so insecure that they say you can belong to only me. Guys I dated like that were creepy and it has not lost it creepiness when a dog organziation has done it. |
|
|
|
|
Kim,,, well said, once again.
john |
|
|
|
|
Quiting USA and running to an organization that basically only pays lip service to schutzhund is not the answer. Obviously the USA board knew what was going to happen with the passing of this amendment, the organization is not so arrogant or stupid to think it could continue to run without the support of the membership and clubs. I suggest people calm down and find out what is really going on before listening to those who would suggest you immediately jump ship - especially when the alternative being suggested is run and controlled by GSDCA.
|
|
|
|
|
| The DVG is another alternative. It isn't like Dems and Repubs.....there ARE other alternatives. I don't even know them all. The problem for me is that UScA's decision was a sadly (and deliberately) divisive move. Why would they NOT want to be the one club that all the other memberships ALSO belong to? **Addition: I have always thought of UScA as the "mother ship." Now I feel that they have just turned themselves into one of the pods. If you'll pardon the metaphor.** |
|
|
|
|
Well for the leaving of members and clubs... The UScA doesn't seem to be too concerned since one statement, I heared, was that UScA can easyly lose 1000 members and still be good. They just eventually gain it back.
Not much of a concern about the members in that one.
Prohibiting mebership to other clubs is not the answer, the GSD was too long too isolalted in other clubs.... Communication and involvement have the far greater impact!!! But this fact seems to be ignored with this bylaw change! |
|
|
|
|
| I guess they'd better hope that the most useless among us (myself included) are among the thousand that leave, and not any of the heavy hitters. |
|
|
|
|
| I honestly don,t think you will see "a thousand leave" It will be intresting to whatch it unfold, I,ll put money on much less then that leaving. |
|
|
|
|
please join this cause:
Schutzhund USA, overturn your dual membership bylaw!
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/392013?m=3f1cca43
If you want to help stop this nonesense... |
|
|
|
|
"I wonder how many of you who want to switch to GSDCA WDA, or cancel your USA membership, because you think the process is so much more democratic, or are angry because USA is asking you to make a choice, have actually read the GSDCA WDA bylaws?"
Sueincc, to be honest I personally don't give a rat's ass about all the by-laws and elections and politics. For me (and many, many, many I'll wager) these organizations are just venues for showing and competing with our dogs. I don't really care which is "better". This change bothers me because if I want to retain my USA membership then that automatically cuts out over 2/3 of the events that I already attend and compete in b/c those happen to be WDA events. So if I don't renew my USA membership, it's not because I think that ultimately the WDA is better (maybe they are, maybe they aren't), it's because that is the organization that offers the most events that I'm already involved in. So for me if I have to make a choice it's only a choice by default, not because I'm trying to make some statement against USA. USA is more expensive and offers less events for me, that's really what it boils down to for me.
|
|
|
You must be logged in to reply to posts
Classified: Great 14 mo. old male for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Search Website
Login
Messagelist
Post Reply