GSDCA Qualified Helper List - Page 6

I've told you what the violation is. If you want to know the section you will need to look it up for yourself. Sorry I do not have time to chase it down for you.

Momo you said " I don't want the AKC or UKC to fold up, BUT I also want a single FCI club to represent German Shepherds in the United States, not two."

I can not say it more clearly than what I have...for there to be "a single FCI club to represent the GSD in America, not two" then either GSDCA or USCA would have to fold up... Neither is going to happen. So you do contradict yourself right in the same sentance...... Either there is two (or more) or the others fold, you can't have it both ways....I'm sorry but that is reality, GSDCA/AKC will not adhere to FCI standard, and USCA will not adhere to AKC standard....so neither is going away.....

Great now you morons will try and get the DVG disallowed in the US.

@EliDog, there is no supporting evidence to prove this claim.  I wouldn't sweat it just yet.

@unknown, 

I've told you what the violation is. If you want to know the section you will need to look it up for yourself. Sorry I do not have time to chase it down for you.

It should be obvious to you that I have access to the FCI rules.  I see no such thing being inferred. "I believe" is not a rule, nor is it a means to look up and clarify any specific rule.  So, you'll certainly need to give more information.

As for your other comment about the GSDCA and UScA folding up, if that's what it takes, so be it.  Its not a "contradiction" to want a streamlined process and a clear separation between AKC, UKC and FCI standards, without having to read numerous bylaws and sending out a thousand emails and posts for clarifications.  It really boils down to consumer choice and convenience, not hard line political boundaries, drawn out by dead or soon to be dead members of the GSDAC and UScA, decades ago.  I don't care about any of that, nor do any of the other young folks and those new people entering the sport.

This is your "boomer" legacy battlefield, not mine.  In fact, your response, shows why, in the USA, that we have to select trial helpers from 3, idiotic, separate lists, based on "whose assets they are" and "what kind of club is holding the trial" rather than, "are they available, competent and near my trial". 

Thanks again, long dead and soon to be dead, political line-drawers, I personally love the decades old, idiocy you have left to the next generation. 

@unknown, this is not to single you out or point the finger at you, but its all pretty ridiculous and new folks shouldn't have to clean up this mess when your cohort is long gone and buried.  Just dissolve it and get it right this time at founding.

@momosgarage

It really boils down to consumer choice and convenience

I completely agree, and currently it seems that consumers are choosing to be a part in all the clubs available. People may initially join an organization for numerous reasons but they either stay because they like that organization or they jump to another. Heck a bunch jumped from the UScA ship a while back and then returned, even before the whole Yee vs the GSDCA lawsuit. I like having choices so please stop advocating that my choice be taken away for your convenience.

I like having choices so please stop advocating that my choice be taken away for your convenience.

This would be true if they followed all of the rules they claim to in their "mission", which they do not.  As you may know, I have posted these "rules omissions" here on the forum, resulting in many heated debates.  The FCI and VDH rules are clear cut, but the versions we post and use publicly here omits parts when convenient.  That's not choice, that's misdirection disguised as choice.  Because the rules as enforced now, just funnel you back someplace you may have left for good reason (i.e. the scorebook story which I have not elaborated on).

Confusion in the rules is one of the things breeding attrition in the sport.  Keep grinding down the new folks with a slew of unintelligible rules and you'll soon be left with nothing.  Only Unification can solve this, competing organizations operating under the same rules umbrella, only breeds continued confusion.  The world of schutzhund would be much better off with one GSD FCI breed club and DVG for those whom don't like it, for whatever reason.  Like I said, new comers are being brought into a political battle that they neither have "skin in" nor really care about, but currently need to pretend that they do.

But, you have brought my original point back, full circle.  The immediate elimination of dual membership bans, will sort out a lot of these issues over time because there will be more cross dialog between clubs with dual members,whom in the long run, will not tolerate this nonsense and will change things at the board level for the better.  Currently they are isolated in their camps, toeing the line.

DVG is not a breed club...it's a sport club. Good fit for all the people who don't want to get mired down in all the bullshit wranglings that always seem to accompany not just the GSD but many other breed clubs as well.

Momo:

                   I support USCA with my time my money and my dogs. It is my choice. I don,nt cry because i can,t be a GSDCA, WDA, member because thats what I "Choose"to be a member of it fits me and my dogs better plain and simple were not show line dogs. No one whipped me into my decision no one held a shinny apple for me to bite into.   There is no "Dark Conspiracy" that you attempt to elude to here. Talking about people dieing for things to change as before is just rude an childish. 

If you want paid for being a sleeve then by all means go be a hired sleeve only you are the one stopping you. There are credible differences in the 2 main organizations here in the U.S. guess what there needs to be!  The club I work with in Valpo has actually gotten 4 or 5 new members in the last 2 month,s and they continue to grow there was no big theory session or chalk board needed to explain the requirements of the membership as you have eluded to.

Just think whats going to happen when the RSV 2000 gets a foot hold going and grows here also. More options are a good thing.  

And as far as the DVG goes it,s a good orginization. I,m sure it has it,s own political issue,s, it,s the nature of the beast!

Momo

  I can not read German but here is the link to IPO Judges requirements. (Only in German)

http://www.fci.be/en/Reglements-6/Utility-Dogs-58.html

 A IPO Judge must reside in the country that his lic is issued in. If they move to a new country, they have 3 years to get a lic from the new organization/country.

We have just had this happen twice in the past year with Judges moving to America. This is what the FCI has told us is the rule. DVG America is grandfathered in I believe, but I'm not sure. That is why I do not believe that there will be another DVG type organization.

Under "Standing orders of the FCI"

http://www.fci.be/en/Reglements-6/Standing-Orders-of-the-FCI-40.html

Article 11 Judges

2. 
A judge can appear on the judges’ list of a member or contract partner only if he has 
his legal residence in the country in which this member or this contract partner has its 
head office. Furthermore, a judge can appear on one FCI judges’ list only. 
The members and contract partners must publish their updated judges’ list (name, 
address, email, phone number, qualifications, languages spoken) on their Internet 
website. In addition, this updated list has to be sent to the FCI General Secretariat 
every year. 

DVG Judges violate this section.

There is no "Dark Conspiracy" that you attempt to elude to here.

I didn't say conspiracy, I said idiotic, boomer induced, policies.  The banning of dual memberships was created by people whom are now entering thier 60's or older, so just because you have a "tolerance" for this non-sense, doesn't mean newbies and young people will once they take over the reins.  But as I said, the passing of the old guard to graves and nursing homes is the only catalyst, at this point, that can put an end to this.  Your stance is a testament to that fact.

 The club I work with in Valpo has actually gotten 4 or 5 new members in the last 2 month,s and they continue to grow there was no big theory session or chalk board needed to explain the requirements of the membership as you have eluded to.

Yeah, because they end up asking us after they don't get answers from the "old guard".  Also they are new, the questions come after they start looking at the "why" and "how" of the rules.  Hence, the whole "leaving the first club for a while, only to come back to it later" phenomena.

Just think whats going to happen when the RSV 2000 gets a foot hold going and grows here also. More options are a good thing.

I still haven't confirmed and read the rules posted by Unknown, but if Unknown is correct, this may not be possible, IF, one is correctly following FCI guidelines.

@EliDog, I have no issue with DVG either, I just want to see, in more detail, how they have applied the rules to their organization.  I also didn't say it was a breed club, I said it was a choice for those not happy with their respective breed clubs doing schutzhund.

@Unknown, thanks for the references, I will check them out.