THE POLITICS AT THE 2011 NASS - Page 5

"i think an explanation is in order as to why i will not publish my true identity like most of you- i think it is fairly obvious but as a 9yr member of WDA who has many friends that may have been angered by my post i wish to in some cases stay anonymous and not lose friends in the WDA hierarchy and just as important do wish to face reprisals by the powerful people who rule this organization."



As I said almost exactly a year ago at the USCA GBM:  "Some of the people in this sport lack the courage they expect their dogs to have."    Apparently, this is just another example.

As I said in Deanna's thread with the pictures, the Sieger Show is primarily a CONFORMATION EXHIBITION. The bitework portion is to give only a small glimpse of a dog's work. If you want to know about a dog's character, go watch it work in a WORKING trial. Anyone who would base ANY decision or opinion about a dog's character or working ability by a 2 minute drill at a SS needs to learn a few things. The helper work was fair and unbiased, of that I am certain. The helpers did as they were instructed, but all dogs were treated equally. As for the judge's decisions in the ring... like everyone else who entered, I PAID for the judge's opinion. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but I got what I paid for. This thread is absolutely ridiculous. If you don't like the way it is done, don't enter, don't go. Theresa

Markopolo: I could not have said it better! My first time at NASS and very disappointed. JUDGES+$$$+BREEDERS =VA.
Small Breeders have no chance and get set up for failure to avoid competition in BREEDER'S Backyard. All the best to those few who deserved the VA rating and achieve it without $$$ or politics. (WELL DONE) What happened to the overall GSD?, How can dogs who consistently fail bite work and run off the field, become VA by fluking a poor bite work outing. I KNOW HOW! $$$$$  POOR SUCKERS who buy puppies produced by them. As someone else mentioned, dogs should be judged by # and no paperwork should be given till after placement. this would assure judging the dogs that day as they are presented and worthy of the STANDARD. After all isn't that what the judges are judging to? (Supposed to be judging to?).

Markopolo, your posts on the politics at this NASS are right on target and well detailed.  I agree this was probably the most corrupt, politically driven Sieger Show ever.
Politics and corruption are alive and well on both sides of the pond! Two of the first 4 males actually belong to the same breeder and SV German Judge Frank Goldlust/Frankengold Kennel owner and breeder who flew to NASS to be seen by his fellow SV judges/breeders.  Don't know the dogs, the breeder, or the judge--but seems very unusual for one breeder/owner to be "so lucky" in one show.  And more troubling is that same German SV Judge is invited to judge NASS 2012 and US Schutzhund 2012.  Favoritism and politics seem to becoming more and more blatant.  Why do the Germans come to an American venue and do the things they do---guess it's because they know they can get away with it.  Like you, I didn't have a dog in the show, but I feel sorry for all those who worked so hard and spent so much money to compete in a show where, unless they were politically connected, they did not have a chance.  The exceptionally large number of German judges, official and unofficial, and brokers at this show was unbelievable.
As for your surprise in another thread (NASS 2011) as to how VA7 Rocco and V1 Yasso could have been placed so far back--Rocco V8 and Yasso V13, get a copy of the WDA minutes from July that were passed out in what I hear was a rather hostile WDA membership versus Board of Directors meeting.  The past Secretary passed out copies of the July minutes which the Board had still refused to approve in October.  Reading through those minutes shows that politics are indeed alive and well on both sides of the pond.  Read about the maneuvering to keep Julie Martinez and Mittelwest from being reinstated even though she had fulfilled all of the obligations and you have an answer as to why Rocco and Yasso ended up so far back.  Apparently fights, delays, and stalling tactics continued well into September by conference calls until "they" finally gave up.  The temporary secretary does not always record specific names as did the past one.  Will be interesting to see if these minutes are cleansed before being published in a Hundegram.   And by the way, congratulations to Mittelwest and Globalhaus for great kennel presentations and well deserved honors.
Read also to see that for the NASS 2012, one director successfully nominated his region for the show and successfully nominated 3 of the 4 judges to be invited. The procedure for selecting judges needs to be changed to allow input from WDA members.  Maybe that would eliminate at least some suggestions of impropriety and conflicts of interest by Board Members.  It is my understanding that the members present demanded that the Board rotate future NASS shows geographically and apparently a motion was passed by the membership that the 2012 NASS would be held in the Midwest, not in the home region successfully nominated by one of the directors.
The 2 NASS judges controlled this show from beginning to end.  Even the helpers were not asked for input on bitework awards.  I normally look forward to Sieger Shows, but this one left a bad taste in my mouth.  There were many deserving American dogs that were overlooked and/or underplaced because of politics.  And as for the unbelievable 9 of 19 females and 12 of 35 males being awarded VA's, the Germans obviously had to do something to satisfy the American entrants so they would not complain about the German dogs and the same German handlers being awarded the top placements.  One of the judges bragging about his own handlers who were competing and the other judge openly commenting on having too many favors to fulfill at this show just go to show the arrogance that goes with the p

...with the power.  I agree with Markopolo that this was a sad day for the WDA, breeders/competitors with no political connections, and, worst of all, for the betterment of our German Shepherd breed. JMHO

Being one of the "small guys", I'm very happy where our Honey placed - VA5 and #1 Protection.. I wish someone had video of the females doing protection - oh well.

My pup made VP7 and was pleasently surprised by this, as he forgot his training and acted a fool in the ring.....My other pup was placed towards the bottom and once again it was fair as she is fat....my fault!

A large part of the show is learning to act in a sportsman like way....... being gracious and working hard throughout the year, competing in shows in order to get your dog's name out there, to improve from show to show. 

As with any Sieger Show, one must at times "sort through" the results to see who the winners really are ..... everyone knows this, so what is the surprise?

I'm happy for you, SitasMom, that you did well in the show and were happy with your placements; good for you!  I have absolutely no monetary interest in these shows nor any interest in breeding so I went to no special lengths when presenting the dog I brought and was really just there to have fun.  I'd have called bullshit had we not gotten an SG rating but we did so it's all good.  Given my dog's lack of ring training, he did fine and I'm satisfied with our results.

Having said that, it would be disingenuous to deny that there were politics involved in this show and in some classes it was painfully obvious, especially in the young dog classes.  It didn't happen with the helpers in the working classes, either; the dogs were pretty much all worked the same way and they either made it or they did not.  How they placed after that, well, believe what you will.  From my perspective, everyone who wasn't connected can essentially mentally place their dogs 3 to 4 places ahead of where they would have ended up had there been no favoritism.

I asked a well-connected friend about the preference for specific handlers during the show and was told that so-and-so handler only handles dogs he thinks will win.  If the judges assume that to be correct as well, why do we even need them?  Why not just let the handlers pre-judge the dogs and be done with it?  Are we expected to believe that said handler who only handles dogs that can win wouldn't, for any amount of money, handle a lesser dog and if the judges are already assuming that helper only handles the best, couldn't that dog end up being placed well ahead of where it should be based on its merits?

I'm not an expert in the AKC ring but it's pretty well known in that venue that any dog that isn't handled by a recognized handler won't place.  We've seen how well that has worked out for their version of the breed; is that really what we want for ours?

The unapproved July/August WDA minutes which were past out at the Membership Meeting by the past secretary who seems to have been suspended by a questionable motion offer a real insight into the behind the scenes activities of that "august" body.  If you haven't read them, try contacting the past secretary--Gail Kirkwood-- and see if you can get a copy and see politics in action.  Today's Hundegram said that  "there was a lively discussion with the memberships general feeling being the board needs to listen to the membership."  I suggest that if more detailed minutes of the Board meetings (like the ones handed out at the Membership meeting) were provided to the members, the board would have no choice but to listen to the membership.  I did not attend the meeting but I have been told that the board meetings are taped and then transcribed by the secretary and then each board member is given about a month to approve (remove?) what he or she has said.  Only then--sometimes months later--are members informed in a sanitized version what happened at the meeting.  I find this to be very unusual and unacceptable.  JMHO

Switching from the show to the WDA election. It was interesting to see two very different platforms presented by the candidates. One was for a continuance of the current trends which provided a focus on programs, past success, and plans outlining a direction for the future. The other platform was one where the focus was on politics and how the WDA needed the political presence at the higher levels. One candidate had a history of service, was ever present at the event working the event and has been a breeder for years. The other is not really involved with dogs, not really in tune with the mechanics of the dog world, struggles with issues from time to time, but more politically oriented.

It's clear that the majority of the members selected the political agenda. They now have it. What's wrong with that?