UScA respect from WUSV - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by niahater on 09 November 2010 - 01:11

I am confused. UScA makes a big deal about there place within the WUSV. UScA incorporates JA and exclusionary tactics because they are so worried about international recognition. Then at their own National Championship (the smallest championship in recent years) we give dogs 100 pt tracks who are circling and returning to there owners on  tracks much less than 600 paces , we give dogs good SG scores who completely miss the escape grip and can't catch the helper? The one person who stood up to the president and ran in the election against the president  had his tires slashed. The JA was opposed by the majority of the delegates yet stands? Is this how UScA "earns" respect.  I think if UScA would incorporate good business practices and actually judge at there own National championship rather than just give away scores then JA wouldnt be necessary people might actually choose to belong rather than just feel pressured into staying. UScA is an ebarassment with in the schutzhund community.

by Eric Eisenberg on 09 November 2010 - 11:11

I think everyone one needs to stop fighting,arguing, and choosing sides. Whats done is done. Go where you feel most comfortable, and train your dog and get back to enjoying your hobby. Keep things inperspective.

Eric

by justus on 09 November 2010 - 12:11

 Tires were slashed???

If this is not true, why isn't anyone disputing it?

If this is true, it is disgraceful.  Talk about immature and unsportsmanlike conduct!

UglyK9

by UglyK9 on 09 November 2010 - 13:11

Hey I have an idea......If people would spend half as much time training their dogs or doing helper work as they do on these boards crying about things the organization would gain respect through well trained dogs and badass helpers. SHUTUP AND TRAIN!

by justus on 09 November 2010 - 14:11

 Diversionary tactic?  I just asked a simple yes or no question.  Typing your non=answer took longer than simply saying yes or no.

Still no one to deny tires were slashed?

judron55

by judron55 on 09 November 2010 - 18:11

tires were supposedly slashed...who you going to blame...Ghost Busters...it was an individual who did such a thing...NOT an organization. I agree with Eric!

 


by Bob McKown on 09 November 2010 - 18:11

I had heard also that Matt got his tires cut, there are ass holes every where you won,t get away from them no matter where you are or what you do. I,d like to see UScA make a gesture and offer to pay for the tires.

I agree with Eric, It,s good advice. 

by CMassGSD on 09 November 2010 - 21:11

 IF tires were slashed, and I doubt there was, why did Matt not file a police report? This "supposedly" happened in a Casino parking lot............all under constant video surveillance! Again, NO REPORT! 

UglyK9

by UglyK9 on 09 November 2010 - 22:11

Agreed.....if it really happened should have filed the report, cops would have looked at the video and surely within the organization that person would have been recognized. Then press charges and file complaint with the boi. But none of this happened. Hmmm........

Phil Behun

by Phil Behun on 10 November 2010 - 05:11

Those responses cover one of the prior accusations, and they are more criminal than organizational.  If it is true, then the truth will come out and reparations should be made.  As far as charges of dogs receiving 100 pts. on tracks while circling and SG scores for dogs missing the escape bite, does anyone have video proof?  We already know that no one would step up in regards to witnessing the farce that was the Sieger Show.  Just another example of the poor, weak leadership of the current administration and the direction of UScA,,,,,,,,,,,,,fraud.





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top