Qualification trial

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by gsdstudent on 22 July 2013 - 09:07

Trial should be organized to have as little cause for concern as possible. Transparency would be great. I have known at least 2 cases where top handlers of top GSD said they could not afford so many events and it was not only money. Some people must use vacation time to travel to these events. 2 or 3 national events plus a week at a world event is sometimes out of the question for our sport friends.

by gsdstudent on 22 July 2013 - 09:07

It is not only money that keeps top handler/dog teams out of the game. I know of at least 2 teams [ who competed successfully at the world level] who had difficulty balancing vacation time with trial dates. This trial should be set up to be as transparent as possible. The handlers want it that way, the membership want it that way. Politicians are you listening?

by Mystere on 22 July 2013 - 11:07

There is no benefit to USCA. WDA has always been more show-oriented with shows being the priority. That is why there is no requirement for WDA clubs to ever hold a trial and no need to notify other clubs of any trial that is held. USCA and the breed is accorded no benefit from that set of values.

by Christopher Smith on 22 July 2013 - 11:07

All of this energy spent so 6 ( mostly professional) people can go to a championship? Amazing.

Truly great organizations are built from the bottom up, not top down.

by Mystere on 22 July 2013 - 13:07

Good point, Christopher. That is precisely why I stopped contributing to fund Team members. I noticed that the professionals among them never contributed, much less most of the non-pros. The Lord helps those who help themselves...and so do I.

by Unknown on 23 July 2013 - 11:07

I don't know about the WDA members that went to this trial. But of the 10 USCA members, only 3 are professionals, the other 7 have full time jobs other than dogs. And the 4 that made the team, none are professionals. All 4 have full time jobs outside of training dogs.

by mewoodjr on 23 July 2013 - 16:07

I find this very funny. First the GSDCA pushes for a qualification trial. Now that they run into the real possibility that they someday may not have anyone on the world team. They had to suspend the rules this year just so that they could present the maximum number of teams at this years qualification trial. Now they are trying to change the rules again so that it doesn't allow them to be excluded. I don't like the qualification trial, simply for the fact that it is yet another trial that the teams have to compete and trial in, but more than anything I want to make sure that we make team USA the best of the best.

by Dobermannman on 24 July 2013 - 17:07

If no GSDCA member is good enough to make the team? Then train harder. If no GSDCA member makes the team on account of unfair judging? Then change the process.

Thomas Barriano

by Bob McKown on 24 July 2013 - 17:07

Here we go again!

by troopscott on 24 July 2013 - 19:07

This does not affect me in the least and won't for the next two years until my pup wins nationals (sarcasm) but the bottom line is they should take the six highest scores in order no matter the affiliation.

While this is probably a politically incorrect statement and if anyone is offended I apologize but SCH should not have its own version of affirmative action. Why would you not want the top teams there vs someone who gets in by default.

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

Qualification trial - Page 3

Pedigree Database