Search forum
Back to German Shepherd Dog
Liked top 20
ForumsGerman Shepherd Dog > usca-gsdca/wda,,, conflict how (39 replies)
by Kim Gash on 24 November 2009 - 23:21 |
| Regarding challenging the scorebooks, probably no one ever thought to bring it up, nor had the moxy to do it because of everyone's shitty attitudes and the sick bickering over clubs which just brings members down. People just want to trial and show their dogs so they stay out of the fray. Just by the discussions on this board and others, I am really amazed at the lack of knowledge people have. But maybe that is why there is no transparancy with any club and especially now with USA. People rely way to much on well "that's what I was told" or just sit in the dark because they are afraid to ask a question for fear of appearing stupid. Easy to control people who do not have knowldege. The SV does not hunt around for problems, just like the USA BOI does not go hunting, well at least up to now. USA BOI waits until a complaint is filed and then they look into it. SV cannot police what is going on between the clubs unless someone complains. I came very close a couple of times but even I played the game just to keep the peace and had judges sign USA and WDA and SV books just because I get tired of all the bickering. The judges would just look at me and said this is crazy, I said I agreed and stated I am just trying to get along, keep from having a BS blow up. The bickering is poor sportsmanship and a high school drama perpetuated by adults. A score by an SV judge is valid whether it is written in a WDA or Czech, Hungarian, or whatever from the moon scorebook there is. USA has no more and no less esteem of the SV or WUSV than anyone else. USA's paper is no better than anyone else's. The logic that this has been going on since 2003 is like the logic of a juvenile deliquent who keeps breaking the law and no one has the time to deal with a penny ante theif - because he has never been caught or challenged that makes all behavior OK. Because no one says anything he gains confidence and power and becomes a bully and that's just where USA is now. The Emporer has been walking around with his new clothes for sometime with everyone afraid to say he is naked for fear of reprisals or looking stupid - its about time people had the guts to say the obvious, there aren't any clothes. Jus t people agreeing because they are afraid to not agree. At some point the members and their needs should come first rather than manipulative people's aspirations of greatness over a dog club of all things. Can't wait for the next directive to goosestep to, because after all, it will be "what is good for the club " will be the rallying cry, again with no semblance of logic. Pretty soon thinking will be a conflict of interest. |
Kim Gash by Mystere on 24 November 2009 - 23:51 |
Simply a statement of fact: The non-recognition began in 2003 and has not been an issue with the SV for the six years that it has been in place. The SV is fully aware of it--HELL, Diegel was in the room listening when it happened!!  I doubt that no one has challenged it in all these years--even those who profess to just "going along to get along." Even ball-less wonders have proven themselves capable of doing whatever they can to stir up shit ...and keep it stirred for as long as possible, when it suits their purpose.  |
Mystere by smartguy1469 on 25 November 2009 - 00:39 |
| The judge was Mike West that did my original BH but i had to do it again for Ernest Hintz and then continue the next day with a sch1. I called USA that week and they said don't worry about it the judge will just send us the score book and you will be fine. Trial day i find out I'm going for a BH not a sch1. I was so MAD. I didn't even remember the BH ROUTINE! Sounds dumb but i had drilled a sch1 and 2 routine for weeks visualizing and it was stuck in my head that way. Mr. Hintz was very understanding. |
smartguy1469 by Kim Gash on 25 November 2009 - 01:01 |
In so far as Diegel being in the room, has anyone caught on yet that whatever SV person is here they get along with whoever is in the room and their host, paid their way? Honestly they don't give a shit if USA and WDA would kill each other. Not their pig and not their farm. Only when it becomes a problem with them direct as a financail loss does it become their fight. Henke was in the room last year at the WUSV when board members told him they were going to do this LAST YEAR. Does that mean he thought it was a good idea? This playing of who does daddy love more is just ridiculous. So the people on this board who are not happy with the turn USA has taken are "ballless wonders" and "proven themselves capable of doing whatever they can to stir up shit ...and keep it stirred for as long as possible, when it suits their purpose" I think that same thing has been said about people who complain about their "funny uncle". So that is your opinion of anyone who says what they have said that is not in agreement with USA's new amendments. Hmmm. Good logic, at least your opinion is not a conflict of interest with USA's. - Oh that's right, you have not belonged to any other club in how long? so none of this has any effect on you! You lost no options, you have a club near you for training and trials and shows, actually a few and you have kept your appointment to the By-Law Committee that dreamed this thing up. If passing all the bylaws for membership exclusivity were the right thing to do, I am sure all the "ballless wonders" "stirring things up" will only help bring more people that have been just dying to join a club where it is the only place they can be a member. I think Jim Jones did the same thing and the Koolaid party was a complete success. A couple of people there had a conflict of interest there at the end not wanting to die, but it was quickly settled with bullets when the Koolaid did not work. End of conflict of interest. We are never going to agree on this. I beleive in having the ability to belong to as many clubs as I want, you don't. My take on the conflict of interst is like in banking - there should never be any of the same board of directors on competing banks (and by statute that is so) - but that does not trickle down to customers who have accounts in different banks and use their services. Its apples and oranges. I like the freedom of going where the interest rate is better. Without options, and having to stay with one bank, the interest rate would become non-existent. Meaning no return on my investment. Same goes with belonging to a club, restrict people and you do not have to provide much. Free Stockholm syndrome with every membership. Eventually you will grow to love your captors because that is all you have. |
by Mystere on 25 November 2009 - 01:20 |
| Kim, PLEASE STOP mischaracterizing my posts!! I did not say anything about "anyone" who disagrees with the amendment". In fact, my posts did not relate to it at all. They specifically related to the issue of USA's non-recognition of WDA scorebooks. No more, and no less. (I use emphasis in an attempt for keep anyone from being misled by your attempt to mischaracterize what is clear and in black and white...or blue, as the case may be). My posts are quoted below: Quote: "USA has not recognized WDA scorebooks since 2003! I would think that if the SV had an issue with it, it certainly would have come to light in the intervening SIX years, iow, by now! " Quote: "Simply a statement of fact: The non-recognition began in 2003 and has not been an issue with the SV for the six years that it has been in place. The SV is fully aware of it--HELL, Diegel was in the room listening when it happened!! I doubt that no one has challenged it in all these years--even those who profess to just "going along to get along." Even ball-less wonders have proven themselves capable of doing whatever they can to stir up shit ...and keep it stirred for as long as possible, when it suits their purpose. " Now, where is even the slightest reference to any amendment, Kim? Nowhere, that's where!! Those to whom my description does apply, however, know full well WHO they are! |
by Kim Gash on 25 November 2009 - 14:00 |
| Again, Diegel in the room or any other SV WUSV or person from Mars does not give validity to what USA or any other orgaznization does. Henke was in the room at NASS and now says that USA has misinterpreted what their newfound judges designation is when all of this blew up regarding the assinine amendment . So do we say oh that must be right - because the head of the SV was standing there - nope, we wait for a formal statement. Also USA has taken a course of action insidiously, gradually, moving towards this exclusivity. And its always a knee jerk reaction to some percieved insult or wrongdoing by others that somehow fantastically threatens their exisistence, yet there are never any facts that speak to this big "they" threat. Going back to smartgus frustration - how many on this board know that Mike West was one of the high ranking USA judges until 2003? This was on of the first things put into place by USA to try to put people in their place by creating the "you can only play with me" with the judges. Mike was a judge also with WDA and he was told to make a choice. Its a pretty sick thing when an organziation of about 4000 people feels threatened like this that they have to lash out at everyone. USA thought enough of Mike West to be a USA judge, but then all of a sudden he was crap because he wanted to judge at WDA events also - the facade that only USA judges are qualified to judge events is a nonsensical arguement - its more of the protectionism USA insiduously effects every few years all the while never giving a compelling reason why. So to frustrated smartguy, ain't it great you bust your butt trying to enjoy your dog and because Mike West stood up to USA and walked from being a USA judge, much like what has happened with this membership amemndment, that you had to repeat your BH etc. ? Your BH did not count because of USA being spiteful with Mike West in I think 2001 or 2002. Well telling judges that they could not be a WDA judge while being a USA judge did not work in killing the competition, so then USA did the kill them through not recognizing WDA scorebooks. Amazing I can take my WDA scorebook to another country and its recognized, but not good enough for USA. Then now here we are in 2009 with the restrictive membership amendment - I would gander a guess that eventually, if that is unsuccessful in killing WDA that someone when they get up on the wrong side of the bed will come up with if you participate in any GSDCA or WDA events, you are out. Look at the pattern, it just does not stop. Name calling, saying people are ballless wonders etc. are smoke screen arguments - USA has still failed to give any facts as to why this complete pattern of protectionism through exclusivity is needed for their survival or makes them a beacon of a club to stay with. Instead of diverting attention from USA's nonsensical actions with name calling, how about laying out the facts of why the insiduous pattern of amendments over the last years to limit members vis a vis judges and scorebooks . Guess it did not produce the desired effect, so here comes the membership restriction. Again, sorry to smartguy - West was a USA judge, he stood up to USA when they did the judges "you can't be a judge in another organziation" when given the ultimatum, he walked. Does any of this sound familiar? |
by Louise M. Penery on 25 November 2009 - 16:51 |
| Kim, One can never accuse you of being a "balless wonder"--LOLOL!! I've enjoyed your argumentation and look forward to reading more of your comments. Perhaps USA should change its name to the Cryptorchid Club of America?? Louise |
by OGBS on 25 November 2009 - 17:30 |
| Kim, Interesting that you bring up Mike West. I believe the issue with him was that he was at USA trials as a judge (this is an official capacity) and he was trying to get USA members to sign up with the WDA. Not only a conflict of interest, but, un-professional, and downright stupid! Wouldn't this be the reason that USA would not recognize titles earned under WDA judges? While we're on it, isn't Mike West one of the biggest proponents of the AKC WDS program? Hmmm......was there something political and backhanded going on there also??? The shit stinks on both sides. Not just USA. Whether anyone wants to believe it, or not, and regardless of how "official" it was, Danny S. was working on an alliance, or possible merger, or whatever you want to call it with Lyle and he duped him. I know people close to him that have confirmed this, but, will not publicly. As I have said before, look at the meeting minutes from last summer. It is pretty clearly spelled out. Everyone wants to talk about how USA is the only bad guy in this. Well, it's a bunch of crap. I know a fair number of people who have lost a lot of respect for Danny because they know what he did. I also find it quite amazing how silent he has been over this. I also know of clubs that are dropping their affiliation with the WDA over this and becoming USA clubs. It is going both ways. Choose your organization, enjoy Thanksgiving, and move on!!! |
OGBS by Louise M. Penery on 25 November 2009 - 18:02 |
.gif) |
by Kim Gash on 25 November 2009 - 19:14 |
OGBS - not true on Mike West. I was in the regional meeting when the mandate was given - that you could only be a judge in USA. It was discussed at that time, much like the dicsussions about the restrictive membership now - many people were incensed, going to walk - few did. Mike put his actions where his mouth was and walked. |
by Kim Gash on 25 November 2009 - 19:16 |
| NEW BUSINESS: Formation of the North American Alliance with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America: It was moved by Daniel Yee and seconded by Miriam Barkus "to approve the formation of the North American Alliance with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America". The purpose of the North American Alliance is to preserve and protect the heritage of the German Shepherd Dog in the United States with respect to the SV breed standard through the formation and maintenance of an alliance between the WDA and the United Schutzhund Clubs of America. Dr, Landau asked what are the conditions and the rules with regard to the alliance. The Chair explained that there are no rules. There are no rules or policies because people may view this as a merger of the two organizations, which it is not. The two areas discussed with the UScA were the reciprocal acceptance of judges and score books. There is nothing in writing between the two organizations. The motion is merely asking the board for permission to form the alliance and then to come back to the board as things come up for further board approval. The WDA's participation in this alliance must be approved by the Board every step of the way. Mr. Yee responded to Dr. Landau and advised that the alliance should not have any restrictions imposed upon it. If there were any restrictions, then the alliance would be prevented from exploring matters that may be in the best interest of the breed and both organizations. The committee representing the WDA in this alliance must come back to the Board for approval of everything. Mr. Yee asked the board not to restrict the committee from carrying on dialogue on subjects that may be good for the breed and the WDA. Dr. Landau then suggested that the motion be amended to approve a committee to develop an alliance without restriction on topics to be brought back to the board for approval. The Chair suggested that Dr. Landau's suggestion be handled as a subsidiary motion. The subsidiary motion reads: "Motion to approve a committee to develop an alliance without restriction on topics to be brought back to the Board for approval." The original motion by Mr. Yee "to approve the formation of the North American Alliance with the United Schutzhund Clubs of America" and the motion by Dr. Landau "to approve a committee to develop an alliance without restriction on topics to be brought back to the Board for approval" were joined at the suggestion of the Chair. The Chair called for the vote. Except for Gail Hardcastle who abstained, the remaining members voted to approve the joined motions. The motions carried. |
by OGBS on 25 November 2009 - 21:45 |
| Sorry he had already been caught prior to that meeting and it is well known! As for conflicts of interest, my years studying the law have hopefully provided me with enough information on how to decide what is and isn't a conflict of interest. Actions in this situation showed that this was. A conflict of interest is not only concerning personal gain, but also when actions of an official, or someone holding a position of influence in more than one organization, creates gain or loss for one of those orgainzations over the other through those actions. |
by Rik on 26 November 2009 - 00:56 |
| There is no one person, not the president of WDA, not the president of GSDCA, not the POTUS who has the authority to "merge" WDA. From all reports GSDCA was a breath away from cutting WDA back to a committee. Are there really people out there who believe that GSDCA would have just waved bye-bye to WDA. How incredibly naive one has to be to believe that anyone elected to a 2 yr. term by a direct vote of the membership, has the authority to act in any way other than the dictates of the office, is beyond rational reason. If the prez of the WDA (or anyone else) was making all these incredible promises, then there should certainly be some evidence other than "he said, she said". Until someone comes up with hard evidence (e-mail, written correspondence, recorded phone conversations), I'm calling bull shit that any such promises were made to "hand over" WDA. Anyone with any experience/knowledege at all of GSDCA would know that this was not going to happen. Rik |
by jletcher18 on 26 November 2009 - 06:45 |
| so if this "conflict of interest" applies to those "in power", how is it a conflict for your average member to be in both clubs? i only bring this up because it has yet to be said. i would venture to guess im not the only person wondering where exactly the conflict is at. |
jletcher18 by Christopher Smith on 26 November 2009 - 09:15 |
| USCA could not have accepted WDA scorebooks or judges if they wanted to anyway. Under the urging of USCA, the AWDF has a rule that no AWDF club can accept a WDA scorebook or use a WDA judge. |
by Kim Gash on 26 November 2009 - 14:30 |
Rik and John - I agree with you, obvisously - |
by Russ on 26 November 2009 - 14:51 |
| Kim, I want to thank you for putting the information out that you have. I would imagine that it has been at no small personal price to you including a couple of lost friendships. Your posts have been factual and documented. You have not stooped to the level of direct or indirect personal attacks. You have shown a lot of class. And I for one want to thank you. |
by Bob McKown on 26 November 2009 - 18:28 |
Conjecture,theory,intrigue folks this is getting old I have a idea instead of beating this dead horse lets try this lets train our dogs under what ever affiliation we desire train,title,show your dogs and put as much effort into these endeavors as we do complaining or whining. The powers that be will do as they please no matter who,s version of counting the votes prevails I Will train my dogs and show my dogs no differently as I did before the politics that are prevalent will slowly slip away they are not timeless they do all have expiration dates associated with them. It really comes down to association be it with Germany or the A.K.C. it really is that simple you can argue all you want point fingers and proclaim mastery of the subject when the truth is we will never know what the truth was behind this amendment but in the end we will probably be back to the same old argument working lines versus show lines, money versus management. Those that stay with USA will stay with USA, those that stay with WDA will stay with WDA. There is more then 1 GSD orginization in Germany. |
by Russ on 27 November 2009 - 03:18 |
| From what I can see a lot of people have moved on Bob, which is certainly their right. The ones that haven't; their battle, may not be your battle, but that too is their right. I think dogs will get trained and trialed regardless. |
by Bob McKown on 27 November 2009 - 15:24 |
| Russ: My friend, At no time did I say not to battle the powers that be, but it,s time to do some thing about it not banter back and forth which as you say is a right. A silent warrior achieves there goals before a loud charge is even invisioned. Be well and plan wisely. |
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!