Is it really about the dogs? - Page 2

For me it's about the dogs, but I don't breed, I don't compete at a high level, and I'm not active in either organization other than being obligated to belong in order to attend events with my dogs.  I am only a member because it's the only way I can show and trial my dogs (and often I let my membership lapse until I need to enter a show or trial).  I also train and compete in AKC, UKC, SDA, C-WAGS, APDT, and CPE events but likewise don't care much about those organizations either other than a way to have fun with my dogs.  I compete because it see it as checks and balances against my training, a way to evaluate how well we are doing, not because I need titles to breed or satisfy my ego.  I do not read half of what's in the organizations' magazines (generally I just look at ads and browse the results), I don't vote, I don't pay any attention to all the by-laws and politics.  I belong to a SchH club that is currently not affiliated with any organization.  I own and train my own dogs.  I don't pay anyone else to train my dogs and I won't train or handle any one else's dog.  I have dogs because I enjoy their companionship and working as a team.  When we are training, showing, or competing it is really only about me and my dog.

How the hell are you supposed to effect change from within when UScA doesn't let the membership vote? They already manipulated that one pretty dang well.

USCA has refused repeatedly to allow the membership votes. The idea is exactly to keep the power in the hands of a few. Unfortunately, they do manipulate the issues and no, there is little chance in hell for an internal change.

I do not know Eisenberg, and yes, I am vaguely familiar with a court case involving him and one other less than stellar representative of the sport. This is not about them or their issues at that time. It IS about one organization thinking that it can dictate the direction of all dog related issues, including who serves on teams etc., to the detriment of other organizations (or at least it hopes the other organizations will be injured). It is about an organization selectively telling people who they can and cannot associate with. That is the issue Bob, so please don't confuse it even accidentally. Your point that the other organizations have not been exactly stellar in their conduct and goals is valid in my opinion. However, the WDA HAS taken recent action to show it has some guts, and all members in that organization I believe have a vote. Therefore, yes, given that people can agree on a direction (and sometimes that too is difficult), that organization will better represent the membership and their goals than an organization that is ruled by people with their own narrow agenda. Those are the issues here. 

As a last resort, yes, one can remain independent, but then one for certain will have absolutely no say in direction or issues. Sort of like being a member of USCA.....if you ask me.

You do have a choice...and be careful making it! I belong to USA....I am about the dogs..I don't worry about whether USA is. They have always been a place where I could trial. I still can. I have never joined WDA or the GSDCA. No need to. I belong to USA. If I ever decide that USA isn't for me than I can make another choice.  Not really a big deal. I have problems with USA...I don't like AKC other than to register my dogs. WDA..not enough trials...WDS...what is that!

ron

Hodie:

          My friend, just make sure those that are beating the drums of war and whipping the troops in to a frenzie are willing to take a bullet like the rest and not just stand at the rear of the colum yelling charge. 

I hope our club switches to WDA so there'll be more choices in the area. Too many USA clubs in one small part of the world. Monopoly.  If you ask me, it oughta be closer to 50/50, and hopefully UScA has pushed that one into happening. It's no good when one bunch gets too much power.

It,s up to the numbers of members to make it more available not the orginization.