This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Bob McKown on 07 January 2010 - 18:01
Kim:
It,s amazing that the other boards you hang out on you ask specifically what you can do to get people to come to WDA and thats okay but don,t act all high and mighty okay? if you want to do the WDA thing go right ahead it,s your decision.
You would think with all that money they could afford to put on a few more trials?
Kim blow sunshine up somebody elses ass okay.
Gee like nobody knew going into it they had to have a yearly trial is that the best Carlos and Danny could come up with coaching you on this stuff?
It,s amazing that the other boards you hang out on you ask specifically what you can do to get people to come to WDA and thats okay but don,t act all high and mighty okay? if you want to do the WDA thing go right ahead it,s your decision.
You would think with all that money they could afford to put on a few more trials?
Kim blow sunshine up somebody elses ass okay.
Gee like nobody knew going into it they had to have a yearly trial is that the best Carlos and Danny could come up with coaching you on this stuff?
by bgstout on 07 January 2010 - 19:01
Kim,
Don't show me the money, show me the trials! Only 2 trials withen 8 hours driving time and one is a National event. With this being the second largest GSD organization where are the trials? The money I save would all be spent driving around the US looking for trials.
Why should I join an organization when the clubs offer very few trials?
Don't show me the money, show me the trials! Only 2 trials withen 8 hours driving time and one is a National event. With this being the second largest GSD organization where are the trials? The money I save would all be spent driving around the US looking for trials.
Why should I join an organization when the clubs offer very few trials?
by Bob McKown on 07 January 2010 - 19:01
KIm:
It also isn,t surprising that the GSDCA has money ever see the price for show line dogs? Yes GSDCA has been here a long time and look at the shape of the GSD now? I,m happy that the GSDCA-WDA and the AKC are eye to eye on the GSD that also says alot.
All we can do is see how this plays out in the end.
Oh I was wondering if you had sent in that resignation to the S.V. yet since they have passed that terrible noncompetitive thing with the RSV2000 I know how you guys are about being told where you can play. I,m sure your going to stand on the moral high ground here as well you can,t be told who you can play with right? I,ll wait and see how many GSDCA-WDA members drop out from the S.V. on those same grounds... Viva La Revolution.
It also isn,t surprising that the GSDCA has money ever see the price for show line dogs? Yes GSDCA has been here a long time and look at the shape of the GSD now? I,m happy that the GSDCA-WDA and the AKC are eye to eye on the GSD that also says alot.
All we can do is see how this plays out in the end.
Oh I was wondering if you had sent in that resignation to the S.V. yet since they have passed that terrible noncompetitive thing with the RSV2000 I know how you guys are about being told where you can play. I,m sure your going to stand on the moral high ground here as well you can,t be told who you can play with right? I,ll wait and see how many GSDCA-WDA members drop out from the S.V. on those same grounds... Viva La Revolution.
by Mystere on 07 January 2010 - 19:01
To my knowledge, the only USA members who have ever actually sued, or threatened to sue USA, are a judge whose license was revoked (or there was a threat to revoke, I can't quite recall,now) after a series of incidents, an officer who was (inaccurately?) accused of theft of USA funds by another officer, and a competitor who was not allowed on the team several years ago, because of unsportsmanlike conduct.
The only other instance I recall was a photographer who threatened to sue USA, unless USA agreed to allow that individual to be the "official photographer" for all national events for ten years. The photographer also threatened to sue a club hosting a national event that year, because the club contracted with someone else as the "official photographer." The threats did not fly. USA refused, the club refused , no suits were ever filed, and the photographer had to move along with his idle threats.
Bottom-line: Let's face it: What actual tortious or contractual conduct is USA likely to engage in against any member providing grounds to sue?
While I have issues with the arbitration provision to be signed, as written, I also don't see where USA is likely to give me actual grounds or reasons to sue, either, particularly given the background.
I also have absolutely NO issues with the concept of an agreement to arbitrate disputes.
The actions of a couple of members alone (Hell, even one member!!), can lead to any organization incurring massive legal expenses, however unfounded a member's accusations or threats to sue may be. Anyone can threaten legal action, leading to an organization needing to consult with legal counsel and thereby incurr legal expenses, however baseless the member's actions may be. Bottom line: Any fool can, and probably will, sue you (or an organization) for anything, well-based assertions or groundless foo-hah. It may still cost you money anyway. Ergo, the move by many organizations and clubs to arbitration agreements.
The only other instance I recall was a photographer who threatened to sue USA, unless USA agreed to allow that individual to be the "official photographer" for all national events for ten years. The photographer also threatened to sue a club hosting a national event that year, because the club contracted with someone else as the "official photographer." The threats did not fly. USA refused, the club refused , no suits were ever filed, and the photographer had to move along with his idle threats.
Bottom-line: Let's face it: What actual tortious or contractual conduct is USA likely to engage in against any member providing grounds to sue?
While I have issues with the arbitration provision to be signed, as written, I also don't see where USA is likely to give me actual grounds or reasons to sue, either, particularly given the background.
I also have absolutely NO issues with the concept of an agreement to arbitrate disputes. The actions of a couple of members alone (Hell, even one member!!), can lead to any organization incurring massive legal expenses, however unfounded a member's accusations or threats to sue may be. Anyone can threaten legal action, leading to an organization needing to consult with legal counsel and thereby incurr legal expenses, however baseless the member's actions may be. Bottom line: Any fool can, and probably will, sue you (or an organization) for anything, well-based assertions or groundless foo-hah. It may still cost you money anyway. Ergo, the move by many organizations and clubs to arbitration agreements.
by CrashKerry on 07 January 2010 - 19:01
It appears that due to USCA articles of incorporation as a sport dog club and not a GSD breed club, that making bylaws that single out members who belong to competing GSD organizations could well prove to be unenforceable if challenged in Missouri State courts or brought to the attention of the IRS.
If brought to the attention of the IRS, I guarantee you that they won't give a damn. As USA is a 501(c)(7), one of the IRS requirements is limited membership. Whether that means limited to a sport or a breed doesn't make a difference to the IRS. Changing from a sport club to a breed club doesn't substantially change USA's purpose.
by TessJ10 on 07 January 2010 - 20:01
The S.V. is a German organization. Americans don't want an AMERICAN organization telling Americans what they can or cannot join.
by Bob McKown on 07 January 2010 - 20:01
I,ve never seen that issue made, The issue was freedom to do what we want where we want as often as we want and any orginization that we pay dues into does not have the right to tell us who we can belong to or where we can trial... Am I not correct? so why would,nt the same disgust and anger apply here? Other then it doesnt fit the purpose of the Big Names waving there banner I say suppression of the rules no matter where or when is the same so again I want to see all the Members so put off by it also leave this oppressive orginization the S.V. on the same grounds??
by Mystere on 07 January 2010 - 20:01
Bob,
You are asking for consistency and ethics. This all sounds like my parents when I was a kid. They alternated between "you're the oldest..." and "there's not that much difference in your ages...", depending on their "agenda" at the moment. All I wanted was a bit of consistency. Didn't get it then, and I doubt I'll see it now.
You are asking for consistency and ethics. This all sounds like my parents when I was a kid. They alternated between "you're the oldest..." and "there's not that much difference in your ages...", depending on their "agenda" at the moment. All I wanted was a bit of consistency. Didn't get it then, and I doubt I'll see it now.
by Bob McKown on 07 January 2010 - 20:01
Let me say this, Those that choose to leave have all the right in the world to nobody can take that from them. As those of us who stay also have that right.
Are USA elected official acting in the best interest of the organization or acting out ? it will be up to those of us who stay to put pressure on those elected officials to prove there current methods No one is permanent in there place here all people and all administrations have a expiration date. Good luck to us all.
by Kim Gash on 07 January 2010 - 21:01
Bob -
Regarding my post to WDA
http://www.facebook.com/?filter=app_2361831622#/topic.php?uid=183553415442&topic=11344 I belong to several organziations- when asked for suggestions for improvement, I do put my opinion in. If USCA would have a board or site run by its president and the question was asked how to improve USCA, I would give my response there also. USCA has not really asked anyone how to make USCA a better club.
Regarding Money for trials - not sure why you think money should go for trials - do you need WDA to put on more trials? I am sure there will start to be more clubs and trials as this all evolves with the USCA bylaw restrictive amendments, but whover wants a WDA trial has one. With the proliference of USCA trials, no one needed to have a trial, you could just go to USCA's. Until this amendment, you did not have to be a member of USCA to trial and no other restrictions.
I brought up the assets of the club as a remark on stability and also their "credit" record.
Coaching - don't know Carlos except from a thank you email I got from him for donating to the FCI team travel fund. I have questioned Spreitler on points everyone has brought up. I am only saying what I know to be true through my own experience and research. I post my opinions only. WDA and GSDCA are not perfect either. However most of my posts have been to respond to people going off half cocked and not having good information.
bigstout -
Absolutely you should go with the club that offers you what you want - if trials are it and USCA is in your area, you absolutely should make no change - you probably are not a member of other organziations so it all really does not affect you.
Bob - again
You kind of mix apples and oranges on the money thing - as no organization sells dogs and profits from any sale, the monies in the treasuries are not from dog sales they are from member particpation, so money in treasuries has nothing to do with the price of showline dogs. There are a lot of well priced working dogs also. So I do not see your analogy. If you are saying there are more wealthy people that belong to GSDCA, and WDA that may be true on a per capita basis, I don't know. The money in GSDCA's treasury is made up of funds from events, including their national, agiltiy, herding, etc. same as any other club. I think the largest profit WDA has had on NASS was about 30,000 and I know USA has not made that kind of money with theirs. But they do not have to spend every dime they get in - again, it speaks to stability and stewardship.
Regarding GSDCA-AKC seeing eye to eye - I assume you mean they have conspired to make a dog you don't like -
Again, and I have posted this time and again, there is nothing stopping you or anyone from joining GSDCA and changing it from within and the type of dog that is being bred. IF you belonged to GSDCA and went to some of the shows, agility, obed. etc. you would see there is already a movement with dogs that do not look like the ones none of us like. Many are importing German dogs - just like everyone is saying take a year and see if you can change USCA from within, the same goes for GSDCA - and its even easier there with one vote per person rather than through a club. You can even belong to other clubs to compare while you belong to GSDCA and WDA and see what you really want to do. The really intersting thing is IF you read t
Regarding my post to WDA
http://www.facebook.com/?filter=app_2361831622#/topic.php?uid=183553415442&topic=11344 I belong to several organziations- when asked for suggestions for improvement, I do put my opinion in. If USCA would have a board or site run by its president and the question was asked how to improve USCA, I would give my response there also. USCA has not really asked anyone how to make USCA a better club.
Regarding Money for trials - not sure why you think money should go for trials - do you need WDA to put on more trials? I am sure there will start to be more clubs and trials as this all evolves with the USCA bylaw restrictive amendments, but whover wants a WDA trial has one. With the proliference of USCA trials, no one needed to have a trial, you could just go to USCA's. Until this amendment, you did not have to be a member of USCA to trial and no other restrictions.
I brought up the assets of the club as a remark on stability and also their "credit" record.
Coaching - don't know Carlos except from a thank you email I got from him for donating to the FCI team travel fund. I have questioned Spreitler on points everyone has brought up. I am only saying what I know to be true through my own experience and research. I post my opinions only. WDA and GSDCA are not perfect either. However most of my posts have been to respond to people going off half cocked and not having good information.
bigstout -
Absolutely you should go with the club that offers you what you want - if trials are it and USCA is in your area, you absolutely should make no change - you probably are not a member of other organziations so it all really does not affect you.
Bob - again
You kind of mix apples and oranges on the money thing - as no organization sells dogs and profits from any sale, the monies in the treasuries are not from dog sales they are from member particpation, so money in treasuries has nothing to do with the price of showline dogs. There are a lot of well priced working dogs also. So I do not see your analogy. If you are saying there are more wealthy people that belong to GSDCA, and WDA that may be true on a per capita basis, I don't know. The money in GSDCA's treasury is made up of funds from events, including their national, agiltiy, herding, etc. same as any other club. I think the largest profit WDA has had on NASS was about 30,000 and I know USA has not made that kind of money with theirs. But they do not have to spend every dime they get in - again, it speaks to stability and stewardship.
Regarding GSDCA-AKC seeing eye to eye - I assume you mean they have conspired to make a dog you don't like -
Again, and I have posted this time and again, there is nothing stopping you or anyone from joining GSDCA and changing it from within and the type of dog that is being bred. IF you belonged to GSDCA and went to some of the shows, agility, obed. etc. you would see there is already a movement with dogs that do not look like the ones none of us like. Many are importing German dogs - just like everyone is saying take a year and see if you can change USCA from within, the same goes for GSDCA - and its even easier there with one vote per person rather than through a club. You can even belong to other clubs to compare while you belong to GSDCA and WDA and see what you really want to do. The really intersting thing is IF you read t
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top