This is a placeholder text
Group text
by cledford on 31 October 2009 - 03:10
CONTINUED:
Does this all sound like well thought out policy, with clear strategic design, or something a little more along the lines of retribution to the WDA for dissin the USA? Assuming the latter, should leadership be making decisions about who the organization aligns with (or to whom individual members can and cannot belong to) based on matters of respect, or what makes the most sense long term to continue to further the stated goal of preserving the working GSD? You know, in this day and age of BSL, mandatory spay/neuter laws, insurance companies cracking down on certain breeds, ever increasing attacks from the “animal rights” groups (in virtually ALL state and local venues), increasing fees, along with more and more stringent licensing and zoning requirements for breeders, does it really make sense to turn our back on the either the WDA or the GSDCA? Or maybe, instead, accept them as flawed and continue to try to educate them and effect change from the inside out (where each and every UScA member who is a GSDCA member has a vote) and assume that when someone comes for our dogs they’ll be with us in the fight to stop such a thing? One path seems quite short sighted and ineffective to me, the other might actually lead to something someday.
-Calvin
Does this all sound like well thought out policy, with clear strategic design, or something a little more along the lines of retribution to the WDA for dissin the USA? Assuming the latter, should leadership be making decisions about who the organization aligns with (or to whom individual members can and cannot belong to) based on matters of respect, or what makes the most sense long term to continue to further the stated goal of preserving the working GSD? You know, in this day and age of BSL, mandatory spay/neuter laws, insurance companies cracking down on certain breeds, ever increasing attacks from the “animal rights” groups (in virtually ALL state and local venues), increasing fees, along with more and more stringent licensing and zoning requirements for breeders, does it really make sense to turn our back on the either the WDA or the GSDCA? Or maybe, instead, accept them as flawed and continue to try to educate them and effect change from the inside out (where each and every UScA member who is a GSDCA member has a vote) and assume that when someone comes for our dogs they’ll be with us in the fight to stop such a thing? One path seems quite short sighted and ineffective to me, the other might actually lead to something someday.
-Calvin
by cledford on 31 October 2009 - 03:10
Oh, I'm not a breeder, member of the GSDCA or WDA and can only hope to ever qualify for a world team years from now.
-Calvin
-Calvin
by sueincc on 31 October 2009 - 15:10
Can someone explain why WDA entered into discussions of merging with USA , but during those negotiations turned around and signed an agreement with GSDCA? Is this because WUSV wants clubs combined by the year 2012? If so, why would they sign an agreement with GSDCA, an organization it has very little in common with and not USA, an organization with goals much more in line with those of WDA? Both GSDCA and USA are WUSV members so why would WDA want to side with GSDCA if they truly have the best interest of the breed at heart? Surely they didn't cave because of GSDCA/WDS machinations.
I would have really liked to see a reconciliation and merger between USA and WDA. To me, that would have been what was best for our breed. Barring that, I have no problem with the status quo, WDA and USA in the same dysfunctional relationship as always, like divorced parents alternating who get to send how many competitors on alternate years. What I have a real problem with is AKC GSDCA WDA attempting to become the dominant schutzhund organization at the expense of and possibly causing the demise of USA, especially because I believe after the WUSV event, AKC GSDCA will continue in their usual vein of supporting and promoting the ASS, and will go back to non-support of any grip sport, or anyone interested in promoting the FCI standard or SV shows, breed surveys, etc..
I would have really liked to see a reconciliation and merger between USA and WDA. To me, that would have been what was best for our breed. Barring that, I have no problem with the status quo, WDA and USA in the same dysfunctional relationship as always, like divorced parents alternating who get to send how many competitors on alternate years. What I have a real problem with is AKC GSDCA WDA attempting to become the dominant schutzhund organization at the expense of and possibly causing the demise of USA, especially because I believe after the WUSV event, AKC GSDCA will continue in their usual vein of supporting and promoting the ASS, and will go back to non-support of any grip sport, or anyone interested in promoting the FCI standard or SV shows, breed surveys, etc..
by ILMD on 31 October 2009 - 16:10
Is there any evidence to support the statement that the WDA prez was attempting to merge with USA. I find this very surprising as things like would be determined by the membership, not someone who comes up for election every 2 years and serves at the discretion on the membership.
And even if it were true, what were the conditions discussed. Did the WDA envision a new organization governed much like the WDA with the membership having the final say on practically every issue.
Or was the USA expecting the "prize" to be laid at the feet of the USA Supreme Ruler.
I have very little use for the GSDCA. I am a member of WDA and so far have no issues with the way things are run. I'm also a member of USA. I am disappointed that the Supreme Ruler apparently plans to appoint himself to judge the USA Sieger show every year. I can see that this will be good for the GSD in the U.S.
I have had discussions with members of 3 different USA clubs. Not one is in favor of this rule. Reading here, only Sue seems to support it. Everyone else seems to be opposed.
The thing is, as USA members, we have no say in the matter (other than to complain). It is not up to us and need not be approved by us. Supreme Ruler did not even consider the membership important enough to be consulted or even informed of this attempt. Basically, if it passes, we will have no recourse, either swallow it or leave. Supreme Ruler can't be voted out or removed.
And even if it were true, what were the conditions discussed. Did the WDA envision a new organization governed much like the WDA with the membership having the final say on practically every issue.
Or was the USA expecting the "prize" to be laid at the feet of the USA Supreme Ruler.
I have very little use for the GSDCA. I am a member of WDA and so far have no issues with the way things are run. I'm also a member of USA. I am disappointed that the Supreme Ruler apparently plans to appoint himself to judge the USA Sieger show every year. I can see that this will be good for the GSD in the U.S.
I have had discussions with members of 3 different USA clubs. Not one is in favor of this rule. Reading here, only Sue seems to support it. Everyone else seems to be opposed.
The thing is, as USA members, we have no say in the matter (other than to complain). It is not up to us and need not be approved by us. Supreme Ruler did not even consider the membership important enough to be consulted or even informed of this attempt. Basically, if it passes, we will have no recourse, either swallow it or leave. Supreme Ruler can't be voted out or removed.
by Kim Gash on 31 October 2009 - 17:10
Sue -
There are two stories floating around from either President of the organizations - one, USA is saying there was a merger being disucssed and two, WDA is saying they were pursing all the organizations forming a North American Working Dog Alliance. You would have to call each person involved to make your own mind up what was really intended. Both speak and write compellingly.
WDA was functioning without an agreement with GSDCA. The SV had directed WDA and GSDCA that they must have a written agreement to continue using the services of the SV due to the fact that GSDCA is the WUSV member, not WDA. This agreement finally got signed at the end of June orJuly. So for arguments sake, let's say there was a merger discussion, it was natrual for WDA to just stay where it was. Sure, USA should feel a little burned if that is what happened, but that is business; rmemeber that each officer is obligated to do what is right for their own organization, Not doing so could create a huge liabiltiy. The other thing is that USA the clubs vote, in WDA the members vote - so no merger probably could have happened without a vote of WDA members. An attorney who specialized in 501 non profit law would have to speak to that.
Let's say WDA had merged with USA - GSDCA would have just done another WDA like organization or when AKC Ok's the SchH - they just would have made it a committee under GSDCA. So the proposed merger would not have made it just one club. GSDCA is not going to give up its membership in WUSV so it will always do something to keep that membership.
Whatever USA is doing is what they think is best for USA's survival and stature in the world community. There has been nothing disclosed that there is any threat to their survival or stature. Personally, I think the AKC recognizing SchH is not really a threat to anyone because it requires that an established SchH organization be chosen by each breed club to administer it. That choice can be a non-AKC entity - so each AKC breed club could choose different ones and it could be any one like DVG, USA, AWDF, WDA. If WDA would be allowed to join AWDF, then AWDF would be a clear choice for AKC to choose for the administration of the SchH activities and there would be no flirting with the possibility of a split in the AWDF teams.
Again, most on this discussion, including me, really have not heard a compelling reason why any of us should only be allowed to belong to one GSD breed club. Conflict of interest really only speaks to officers and board members in the 501 non profits, not to a bunch of people out trying to show and trial their dogs on the grass roots level. . I, like others , would like to hear a more direct reason. As it stands no one does not belong to USA that wants to just because they belong to GSDCA or WDA - the only thing I see it as is trying to stop income to WDA. WDA is so small in membership, clubs etc. to USA, I am not seeing it to be a threat to the survival of USA. Maybe there is something else afloat that has not been disclosed. If so, most would like that told before anyone starts choosing what club is best for their membership use. If the real reason is a potential that AKC approving SchH will cause USA to loose its WUSV membership, then I think no one would have a problem with the amendment, because that would be inately unfair thing to happen and unwarranted, but to date, no one has given that type of compelling reasoning for the restriction on what clubs you can belong to.
There are two stories floating around from either President of the organizations - one, USA is saying there was a merger being disucssed and two, WDA is saying they were pursing all the organizations forming a North American Working Dog Alliance. You would have to call each person involved to make your own mind up what was really intended. Both speak and write compellingly.
WDA was functioning without an agreement with GSDCA. The SV had directed WDA and GSDCA that they must have a written agreement to continue using the services of the SV due to the fact that GSDCA is the WUSV member, not WDA. This agreement finally got signed at the end of June orJuly. So for arguments sake, let's say there was a merger discussion, it was natrual for WDA to just stay where it was. Sure, USA should feel a little burned if that is what happened, but that is business; rmemeber that each officer is obligated to do what is right for their own organization, Not doing so could create a huge liabiltiy. The other thing is that USA the clubs vote, in WDA the members vote - so no merger probably could have happened without a vote of WDA members. An attorney who specialized in 501 non profit law would have to speak to that.
Let's say WDA had merged with USA - GSDCA would have just done another WDA like organization or when AKC Ok's the SchH - they just would have made it a committee under GSDCA. So the proposed merger would not have made it just one club. GSDCA is not going to give up its membership in WUSV so it will always do something to keep that membership.
Whatever USA is doing is what they think is best for USA's survival and stature in the world community. There has been nothing disclosed that there is any threat to their survival or stature. Personally, I think the AKC recognizing SchH is not really a threat to anyone because it requires that an established SchH organization be chosen by each breed club to administer it. That choice can be a non-AKC entity - so each AKC breed club could choose different ones and it could be any one like DVG, USA, AWDF, WDA. If WDA would be allowed to join AWDF, then AWDF would be a clear choice for AKC to choose for the administration of the SchH activities and there would be no flirting with the possibility of a split in the AWDF teams.
Again, most on this discussion, including me, really have not heard a compelling reason why any of us should only be allowed to belong to one GSD breed club. Conflict of interest really only speaks to officers and board members in the 501 non profits, not to a bunch of people out trying to show and trial their dogs on the grass roots level. . I, like others , would like to hear a more direct reason. As it stands no one does not belong to USA that wants to just because they belong to GSDCA or WDA - the only thing I see it as is trying to stop income to WDA. WDA is so small in membership, clubs etc. to USA, I am not seeing it to be a threat to the survival of USA. Maybe there is something else afloat that has not been disclosed. If so, most would like that told before anyone starts choosing what club is best for their membership use. If the real reason is a potential that AKC approving SchH will cause USA to loose its WUSV membership, then I think no one would have a problem with the amendment, because that would be inately unfair thing to happen and unwarranted, but to date, no one has given that type of compelling reasoning for the restriction on what clubs you can belong to.
by sueincc on 31 October 2009 - 18:10
ILMD: Just to clarify, if you read this thread, other threads on this board and the threads on USA GSD list, you will find that while the overwhelming majority of people have reacted negatively over this proposed amendment, I am certainly not the lone ranger when it comes to wanting to first understand the reasoning behind the proposed amendment as well as wanting to understand the reasons and motives behind Danny's actions regarding GSDCA and WDA. and what it all means to schutzhund and the GSD in the future.
I also am not the only person to say Lyle's letter made a compelling argument in favor of the amendment, though once again I would like to thank Kim Gash, for another well laid out explanation, which answered my questions, cleared up some of my confusion and brought things into better prospective for me.
I also am not the only person to say Lyle's letter made a compelling argument in favor of the amendment, though once again I would like to thank Kim Gash, for another well laid out explanation, which answered my questions, cleared up some of my confusion and brought things into better prospective for me.
by OGBS on 31 October 2009 - 21:10
ILMD,
Look at the meeting minutes from last year on the WDA web site. It spells things out rather clearly as to what the WDA was planning on doing. The GSDCA had decided, and then informed the WDA, that upon the AKC passing Working Dog Sport that it (WDA) would be reduced to a committe. When the WDA was made aware of this they entered in to negotiations with UScA to form an alliance and, I believe, signed an agreement with them to "work closely together". This was last year (2008). GSDCA of course got wind of this and my guess is they prevented the AKC from taking that vote (because it never was voted on) to prevent themselves from losing the WDA.
Kim,
To make more clear what you wrote about the GSDCA and the WDA and their agreement from earlier this year:
The WDA signed it back when the agreement was drawn up in June or July. To me that says the WDA was genuine about it, But,
The GSDCA just signed it about 3 weeks ago. Sounds a little disengenous to me on the part of the GSDCA. They signed it after Danny S. started making noise again about how the GSDCA was treating the WDA. If you read his blog you will see that prior to his meeting with the GSDCA at their National show he had resigned from the GSDCA WUSV committee because he couldn't work with them anymore. Whatever happened at the meeting gave Danny a lot of hope and he was set to make an announcement about the tremendous progress made between the WDA and the GSDCA "in a few days" and everyone is still waiting a week and half later.
The part about the WDA pursuing a "North American Working Dog Alliance" sounds a little strange because there already is one. It is called the AWDF!
As for the Sieger Shows funding working dog events, this may be true for the WDA because they hold so few trials and are much more of a show dog organization than UScA. To my knowledge, the USA Sieger this year in Chicago is the first to make any money in the past five or six years. If they have been losing money on this for many years how is it funding the other working dog events???
Look at the meeting minutes from last year on the WDA web site. It spells things out rather clearly as to what the WDA was planning on doing. The GSDCA had decided, and then informed the WDA, that upon the AKC passing Working Dog Sport that it (WDA) would be reduced to a committe. When the WDA was made aware of this they entered in to negotiations with UScA to form an alliance and, I believe, signed an agreement with them to "work closely together". This was last year (2008). GSDCA of course got wind of this and my guess is they prevented the AKC from taking that vote (because it never was voted on) to prevent themselves from losing the WDA.
Kim,
To make more clear what you wrote about the GSDCA and the WDA and their agreement from earlier this year:
The WDA signed it back when the agreement was drawn up in June or July. To me that says the WDA was genuine about it, But,
The GSDCA just signed it about 3 weeks ago. Sounds a little disengenous to me on the part of the GSDCA. They signed it after Danny S. started making noise again about how the GSDCA was treating the WDA. If you read his blog you will see that prior to his meeting with the GSDCA at their National show he had resigned from the GSDCA WUSV committee because he couldn't work with them anymore. Whatever happened at the meeting gave Danny a lot of hope and he was set to make an announcement about the tremendous progress made between the WDA and the GSDCA "in a few days" and everyone is still waiting a week and half later.
The part about the WDA pursuing a "North American Working Dog Alliance" sounds a little strange because there already is one. It is called the AWDF!
As for the Sieger Shows funding working dog events, this may be true for the WDA because they hold so few trials and are much more of a show dog organization than UScA. To my knowledge, the USA Sieger this year in Chicago is the first to make any money in the past five or six years. If they have been losing money on this for many years how is it funding the other working dog events???
by sudlich on 31 October 2009 - 23:10
No agreement to merge existed. Membership dynamics in the USA is with the clubs, in the GSDCA-WDA it is with the individual member. You cannot merge the two opposing factions. The legal issues are far and wide. One only has too spend a brief moment studying the legal issues in Colorado to discern the complexity of this issue. Further, the members of the GSDCA-WDA would be asked to vote in support of a merger of the organization. It is not a decision that can be made by the leadership. One voice one vote that is how the GSDCA-WDA is structured.
Second, it was very well known throughout the world that WDA was having conversations on a written agreement with GSDCA. This agreement was mandated by the SV (Wolfgang Henke) last year. This was no secret nor does that agreement in any manner impact USA. A copy the agreement is on the GSDCA-WDA website in the July Agenda. It was published in the Magazine, Hundegram and in every President's Message for months. This agreement does nothing but establish how paperwork is processed. It has been published for all the world to see, now it is being cast as some mysterious document.
Third, everyone in the United States, including the entire leadership team of USA, was aware of the AKC WDS issue. USA, DVG and AWDF were invited by WDA to join in writing to the AKC regarding this program. None replied but AWDF did send a letter seeking to become the recognized organization for schutzhund.
Rhonda
Second, it was very well known throughout the world that WDA was having conversations on a written agreement with GSDCA. This agreement was mandated by the SV (Wolfgang Henke) last year. This was no secret nor does that agreement in any manner impact USA. A copy the agreement is on the GSDCA-WDA website in the July Agenda. It was published in the Magazine, Hundegram and in every President's Message for months. This agreement does nothing but establish how paperwork is processed. It has been published for all the world to see, now it is being cast as some mysterious document.
Third, everyone in the United States, including the entire leadership team of USA, was aware of the AKC WDS issue. USA, DVG and AWDF were invited by WDA to join in writing to the AKC regarding this program. None replied but AWDF did send a letter seeking to become the recognized organization for schutzhund.
Rhonda
by Kim Gash on 01 November 2009 - 00:11
OGBS -
The agreement between WDA and GSDCA was originally signed in the form that is posted on the agenda at the website - the then president signed it of GSDCA, the board would not approve it. It has been rewritten as Rhonda states regarding the handling of paperwork and also it now includes an end date.
To say Danny changed his view is correct - for awhile there, it appeared WDA might end up being without a way to particpate with the benefits of the GSDCA WUSV membership, much of which came and still comes from time to time with the talk and comments of bringing the functions of WDA under GSDCA as a committee just like they are structured for other venues like agility. Both GSDCA and WDA are member voted organizations. GSDCA was incorporated in New York State and WDA was incorporated in Colorado. There are opinions these two can legally merge - but again, it would take membership vote.
Rhonda has also expressed a very good understanding of some of the mechanics of a merge not being possible without a WDA membership vote.
Regarding the North American Working Dog Alliance, both Danny Spreitler and Al Govednick have referenced that this was being discussed with USA also in emails which have been copied to many people.. It would have been more than just the scope of the current AWDF and I beleive Mexico was mentioned also, possibly Canada as part of the alliance. There was no mention of it being any part or RSV2000, though at the time some intimated that was the reason for the dicussion.
So lots going on, but yet nothing really new and there is nothing that would really affect USA's standing with the WUSV or threaten its existence that would require it to restrict membership in other US GSD organzations. Unless there is something out there that has not been disclosed that USA knows and has not mentioned. Surely at the annual meeting they will outline why they feel it is necessary. After the vote next week things will either remain the same or people may be forced to choose clubs. I for one hope it remains like it has been.
The agreement between WDA and GSDCA was originally signed in the form that is posted on the agenda at the website - the then president signed it of GSDCA, the board would not approve it. It has been rewritten as Rhonda states regarding the handling of paperwork and also it now includes an end date.
To say Danny changed his view is correct - for awhile there, it appeared WDA might end up being without a way to particpate with the benefits of the GSDCA WUSV membership, much of which came and still comes from time to time with the talk and comments of bringing the functions of WDA under GSDCA as a committee just like they are structured for other venues like agility. Both GSDCA and WDA are member voted organizations. GSDCA was incorporated in New York State and WDA was incorporated in Colorado. There are opinions these two can legally merge - but again, it would take membership vote.
Rhonda has also expressed a very good understanding of some of the mechanics of a merge not being possible without a WDA membership vote.
Regarding the North American Working Dog Alliance, both Danny Spreitler and Al Govednick have referenced that this was being discussed with USA also in emails which have been copied to many people.. It would have been more than just the scope of the current AWDF and I beleive Mexico was mentioned also, possibly Canada as part of the alliance. There was no mention of it being any part or RSV2000, though at the time some intimated that was the reason for the dicussion.
So lots going on, but yet nothing really new and there is nothing that would really affect USA's standing with the WUSV or threaten its existence that would require it to restrict membership in other US GSD organzations. Unless there is something out there that has not been disclosed that USA knows and has not mentioned. Surely at the annual meeting they will outline why they feel it is necessary. After the vote next week things will either remain the same or people may be forced to choose clubs. I for one hope it remains like it has been.
by Kim Gash on 01 November 2009 - 00:11
OGBS - regarding sieger shows et al funding working dogs
The fees generated by show dog people I would guess far outweighs what the working dog side generates. One just has to look at Mittelwest and Wilhendorf to see the numbers of dogs they bring to just one sieger show, other shows, their number of litters, their registrations, hips elbows, koerungs etc. These fees from all of this, not just entries, do go in to the general fund which helps pay for all of our club benefits. Individual trials and shows have their surcharge fees which goes back to the parent club, but most shows have 40-80 dogs entered like at a regional with 400+ a sieger show - those entry fees are paid whether they physically show up or not - that's the rule. So compared to most of our trials where there are not many dogs and usually do not charge anyone unless they show up because there is no rule otherwise for trial, let's be generous and say 10 for a club trial, yes the show dogs do contribute alot overall. We are hard pressed to have 80+ dogs at a national trial. Its the same way in Germany, Italy and I am sure most countries. That is why the show dog breeders have a lot of power.
WDA has made very good money on NASS - I think the highest was $30,000 - it all depends on location and what indivisual or club runs it. There is no reason USA could not make money also if they have not been.
I had only mentioned their contribution because you had said all USA would loose of they passed the new rule would be show dog people. Of course this is a discussion for another thread as it really has nothing to do with if there are compelling reasons for USA to possibly pass an new rule where members could not have membership in another US GSD club.
The fees generated by show dog people I would guess far outweighs what the working dog side generates. One just has to look at Mittelwest and Wilhendorf to see the numbers of dogs they bring to just one sieger show, other shows, their number of litters, their registrations, hips elbows, koerungs etc. These fees from all of this, not just entries, do go in to the general fund which helps pay for all of our club benefits. Individual trials and shows have their surcharge fees which goes back to the parent club, but most shows have 40-80 dogs entered like at a regional with 400+ a sieger show - those entry fees are paid whether they physically show up or not - that's the rule. So compared to most of our trials where there are not many dogs and usually do not charge anyone unless they show up because there is no rule otherwise for trial, let's be generous and say 10 for a club trial, yes the show dogs do contribute alot overall. We are hard pressed to have 80+ dogs at a national trial. Its the same way in Germany, Italy and I am sure most countries. That is why the show dog breeders have a lot of power.
WDA has made very good money on NASS - I think the highest was $30,000 - it all depends on location and what indivisual or club runs it. There is no reason USA could not make money also if they have not been.
I had only mentioned their contribution because you had said all USA would loose of they passed the new rule would be show dog people. Of course this is a discussion for another thread as it really has nothing to do with if there are compelling reasons for USA to possibly pass an new rule where members could not have membership in another US GSD club.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
