Another form of Nazism - Page 7

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

Are you talking about korung? You don't need korungs for SV. You need a Schutzhund 3 for WUSV. For FCI than you need an IPO 3 but not Korung.

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

 Are you talking about korung? Korung are not needed for SV or FCI. The titles are required. Before you can get SchH. 1/2/3 or IPO 1/2/3 you need a BH. You also need a BH for korung. But NOT a KORUNG for SV. 

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. Assumptions made for why individuals might be opposed to the bylaw certainly don't fit me. I'm quite interested to see the reaction of others is once the statement makes it into general circulation. I'm even more surprised that given the noble intent cited for the proposed bylaw, that the letter did not *proceed* the bylaw proposal, but then we also have a complex process that requires clubs to register to vote before knowing what they might be voting on.

-Calvin

Calvin,

I posted this on another thread in response to a comment that you posted, but want to make sure you see it so I have repeated it:


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, cross posting as well,

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 the *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

Well the vote can be done but the NASS and the National are the same time 

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