This is a placeholder text
Group text
by sueincc on 21 July 2011 - 20:07
That reminds me. Back when the JA went into effect, I seem to remember a lot of talk about how WDA was going to get a lot of new members and new clubs and would be improving by holding a lot more trials. What ever happened to all that? I just went to the WDA website and at least for the remainder of this year, I count less trials in the whole organization than UScA is having in just my region alone.
by Mystere on 21 July 2011 - 21:07
There is nothing new about that. It has pretty much always been that way. One of the reasons, aside from the relatively small number of clubs, is that WDA does not require clubs to actually "do" anything. Thus, the reliance upon USCA trials for those that want to actually train and title.
Randy,
I chose the organization I wanted to participate in and support from the outset. At one time, I joined WDA in order to get the magazine (such as it was--it was only worth the paper printed on when Kim Gash was putting it out). When WDA began to require execution of an agreement not to litigate, I dropped the membership. ( FUNNY, none of you ever complained about that, but certainly groused about a similar provision from USCA. Hmmm) WDA was always small to insignificant potatoes in the PNW. At one point the most active "WDA club" was actually a Canadian club, and the GSSCC soon put a stop to the notion of WDA "sanctioning" any trials in Canada.
I am curious. Those who say they simply want to participate (show, primarily) in both--do you do anything else? Do you actually give any of your time and effort to the organization in any manner? Serve on any committees? Write articles for the magazine? Hold educational seminars? Conduct a workshop on matters in which you have some expertise, such as conformation, handling for shows, etc? ????
by EliDog on 21 July 2011 - 22:07
Keith
by Dog1 on 22 July 2011 - 01:07
Go back a few months before the JA on the greenboard and read the shortcomings the WDA was facing about that time. Bylaws being changed to take away members rights, board member using the organization for their own personal profit, members being convicted of rules that didn't exist, dogs qualified to enter but couldn't because the elbow rules were poorly written. They really had some situations to overcome. The WDA had the sense to change the bad policies. USA just came along at the right time with something worse to divert the artillery into their compound.
Do we ever contribute? Did you catch my article in the WDA magazine about the 2010 NASS? It was my second article that year.
You bring up a terrific point to support my 'Both' scenario. USA is more trial oriented, WDA more show oriented. The breed requires both,,,,what better way to get full coverage than to belong to both?
by Rik on 22 July 2011 - 03:07
Rooters News Service is reporting today, quoting Unkown sources, that a little known organization in the U.S. is responsible for the present world economic crisis. According to these Unkown sources, WDA has also been linked to unrest in the Middle East and the present upsurge in oil prices.
Calls to the WDA headquarters went unanswered, as apparently, they stick to their own knitting and make no public comments.
While this reporter was allowed to hear the recorded conversations with the Unkown source, it seemed to me that it was some sort of chanted mantra, along the lines of "Liar, Liar, pants on fire".
The tapes have been sent for further analysis.
from the front lines,
Rik
by Mystere on 22 July 2011 - 06:07
by Mystere on 22 July 2011 - 06:07
by zdog on 22 July 2011 - 13:07
I ask again, why can't we belong to both? I certainly don't have any notion that either org exists for my benefit. They exist to feed themselves. why is limiting people to one org a benefit to the dogs or to me? I don't care about scrore books, I had no problem with score books. I bought a USA book, joined both orgs, and could trial under WDA trials with my book or USA and everything was good. I always chose SV judges so all titles would be recognized by both.
How does this loyalty clause make the dogs better? how do the members benefit from this? How does exclusion make things better? Tell me how this wasn't just about ego's and money and control, i'm waiting.
by sueincc on 22 July 2011 - 15:07
nevermind, this has been done to death. 
by EliDog on 22 July 2011 - 22:07
Keith
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
