This is a placeholder text
Group text
by OGBS on 02 November 2009 - 19:11
KCzaja,
You wrote:
"One need only to look at event calendars to see that WDA clubs offer many more koerungs. This passes and those who keep membership with UScA will be hard pressed to find a conformation event when they need one."
There is a reason for the low number of koerungs and conformation events held by UScA clubs. This is due to the fact that UScA is and has always been a club based on Schutzhund events and working dogs and not about conformation events. If there was a demand for it you would see more of them. WDA is more about show dogs and holds more show events and very few schutzhund trials.
As for not being able to find one of these events or being able to particpate in one, I do not see it anywhere in the proposed bylaw changes saying that you can not compete or show at an event held by a club from another organization. If that organization does not require you to join to participate you can go on trialing/showing wherever and whenever you want, except at national events where membership is required.
Kim,
You mentioned the effect of the conformation shows on the general fund. Do you honestly think that it has a great impact on the general fund compared to the 218 clubs that must hold a schutzhund trial each year. If we use your number of 8 dogs per trial as being the average (I think that this is low, but, oh well) that comes out to 1744 club event entries compared with the 400 entries at this years sieger show and a smattering of others at local shows and the regional conformation shows (some as low as 20 entries). Let's say, at best, the total of the conformation shows pull in about 800 entries for UScA. That is still only half the number of schutzhund entries and we haven't even added in the regional trials or any of the national events which in total bring in about another 400 trial entries. While I am not implying that the show entries do not make a difference, when comparing the two, the money in UScA comes mostly from schutzhund trials, not conformation events.
You wrote:
"One need only to look at event calendars to see that WDA clubs offer many more koerungs. This passes and those who keep membership with UScA will be hard pressed to find a conformation event when they need one."
There is a reason for the low number of koerungs and conformation events held by UScA clubs. This is due to the fact that UScA is and has always been a club based on Schutzhund events and working dogs and not about conformation events. If there was a demand for it you would see more of them. WDA is more about show dogs and holds more show events and very few schutzhund trials.
As for not being able to find one of these events or being able to particpate in one, I do not see it anywhere in the proposed bylaw changes saying that you can not compete or show at an event held by a club from another organization. If that organization does not require you to join to participate you can go on trialing/showing wherever and whenever you want, except at national events where membership is required.
Kim,
You mentioned the effect of the conformation shows on the general fund. Do you honestly think that it has a great impact on the general fund compared to the 218 clubs that must hold a schutzhund trial each year. If we use your number of 8 dogs per trial as being the average (I think that this is low, but, oh well) that comes out to 1744 club event entries compared with the 400 entries at this years sieger show and a smattering of others at local shows and the regional conformation shows (some as low as 20 entries). Let's say, at best, the total of the conformation shows pull in about 800 entries for UScA. That is still only half the number of schutzhund entries and we haven't even added in the regional trials or any of the national events which in total bring in about another 400 trial entries. While I am not implying that the show entries do not make a difference, when comparing the two, the money in UScA comes mostly from schutzhund trials, not conformation events.
by wallacepayne on 04 November 2009 - 08:11
Craig you write:
There are USCA General Board Members who are also WDA members and/or represent WDA member clubs. In a few days, as they have done in years past, they will cast votes at our annual GBM. These votes influence who the leaders of our organization will be. These votes will also influence USCA business decisions. The decisions that shape who we are and the direction that our organization moves in:
My question is, "Who Are WE"? We are not a breed registry period the end! We will never be one, Period the end! We are a performance organization that happen to love the GSD no more no less! The EB or should I say the EB has been influence by certain people to control the team. This has been the only goal from the beginning of the combine team.
Your reasons are the same as Lyle's, Johannes, and Nathaniel's based on fear. We are not the SV as a matter of fact the SV is the problem! Two year ago I had dinner with the SV Head Breed Warden along with Werner Kebernik and couple of friends from the states. I told him we needed the SV 30 years ago but now we don't. He agreed. I also told him that they had what I consider the best breeding system in the world but we should choose to breed like them not be force to breed like them just to send 6 people to a Schutzhund Trial once a year. He agreed again. I love my Mother (God rest her soul) but she no matter how wise she was could not run my house hold nor did she try. We should not let the SV run ours! We should strive to be like them but not be forced to be like them.
If the organization is truly concern about the preservation of the GSD they propose some kind of By-law change that forbid members from breeding under age dogs, breeding without titles, breeding without hip certifications etc. But you can't enforce those things can you? Here are few reason why you can't enforce them. One: We are not a breed registry! Two: We are to busy worrying about who's on the team. Three: Did I mention we are not a breed registry? Four: It's easier to kick people out of the organization for being members of another organization then it is to control how people breed their GSD. Why? Because we are not a breed registry.
You say GSDCA-WDA copies everything USA does. Isn't that the Greatest form of Flattery? Or you should say They Can Imitate but They Can't duplicate! But I forgot that will never work because we are running scared!
Lyle is write about one thing. I'm for sure one of those people that make a living off the sport I will not deny that. I'm a member of both organization. However, if this is passed I will not be a member of both. Not that any of the supports this by-law change care but this is what the organization will lose! In the past the South Metro Atlanta Schutzhund Club have hosted one GSDCA-WDA National event and two GSDCA-WDA club trials. On the other hand we have hosted two USA National events (And was asked recently if we would host another next year) two S.E. Regional Sieger Shows and countless club trials in the nine years we have been a club. We have provided our field to other USA local clubs to do their trials, we have Provided tracking for AWMA Nationals that was held in Atlanta. We have provided track layer for other National events. Loyal? I guess in your definition we are not? But you can't say we have not work our butts off for the organization.
This is what you will lose and you are going to lose more like us. I know that what you read on these forums are only a few people but you better believe it's just the tip of the Iceberg. Vote No to this by-law change people. The organization will lose!
Wallace Payne
Dual Member
There are USCA General Board Members who are also WDA members and/or represent WDA member clubs. In a few days, as they have done in years past, they will cast votes at our annual GBM. These votes influence who the leaders of our organization will be. These votes will also influence USCA business decisions. The decisions that shape who we are and the direction that our organization moves in:
My question is, "Who Are WE"? We are not a breed registry period the end! We will never be one, Period the end! We are a performance organization that happen to love the GSD no more no less! The EB or should I say the EB has been influence by certain people to control the team. This has been the only goal from the beginning of the combine team.
Your reasons are the same as Lyle's, Johannes, and Nathaniel's based on fear. We are not the SV as a matter of fact the SV is the problem! Two year ago I had dinner with the SV Head Breed Warden along with Werner Kebernik and couple of friends from the states. I told him we needed the SV 30 years ago but now we don't. He agreed. I also told him that they had what I consider the best breeding system in the world but we should choose to breed like them not be force to breed like them just to send 6 people to a Schutzhund Trial once a year. He agreed again. I love my Mother (God rest her soul) but she no matter how wise she was could not run my house hold nor did she try. We should not let the SV run ours! We should strive to be like them but not be forced to be like them.
If the organization is truly concern about the preservation of the GSD they propose some kind of By-law change that forbid members from breeding under age dogs, breeding without titles, breeding without hip certifications etc. But you can't enforce those things can you? Here are few reason why you can't enforce them. One: We are not a breed registry! Two: We are to busy worrying about who's on the team. Three: Did I mention we are not a breed registry? Four: It's easier to kick people out of the organization for being members of another organization then it is to control how people breed their GSD. Why? Because we are not a breed registry.
You say GSDCA-WDA copies everything USA does. Isn't that the Greatest form of Flattery? Or you should say They Can Imitate but They Can't duplicate! But I forgot that will never work because we are running scared!
Lyle is write about one thing. I'm for sure one of those people that make a living off the sport I will not deny that. I'm a member of both organization. However, if this is passed I will not be a member of both. Not that any of the supports this by-law change care but this is what the organization will lose! In the past the South Metro Atlanta Schutzhund Club have hosted one GSDCA-WDA National event and two GSDCA-WDA club trials. On the other hand we have hosted two USA National events (And was asked recently if we would host another next year) two S.E. Regional Sieger Shows and countless club trials in the nine years we have been a club. We have provided our field to other USA local clubs to do their trials, we have Provided tracking for AWMA Nationals that was held in Atlanta. We have provided track layer for other National events. Loyal? I guess in your definition we are not? But you can't say we have not work our butts off for the organization.
This is what you will lose and you are going to lose more like us. I know that what you read on these forums are only a few people but you better believe it's just the tip of the Iceberg. Vote No to this by-law change people. The organization will lose!
Wallace Payne
Dual Member
by dogladyj on 04 November 2009 - 15:11
Thank you all for stepping up to the plate. I hope we are heard.
I am the president of Tornado Alley Schutzhund Club, Assistant Regional Director for the Mid Central Region. Web master for both the club and MC region, an avid supporter of the working GSD, and a happy member of USA who just received her 10 year pin.
I am not currently nor have I ever been a member of WDA or GSDCA but you can bet your bottom dollar, if this bylaw comes to pass, I will be.
JoAnn Letcher
I am the president of Tornado Alley Schutzhund Club, Assistant Regional Director for the Mid Central Region. Web master for both the club and MC region, an avid supporter of the working GSD, and a happy member of USA who just received her 10 year pin.
I am not currently nor have I ever been a member of WDA or GSDCA but you can bet your bottom dollar, if this bylaw comes to pass, I will be.
JoAnn Letcher
by hodie on 04 November 2009 - 15:11
I am no longer a member of the United Schutzhund Clubs of America. There are several reasons, the latest of which involved my computer being dead and unable to supply a complete roster when club dues were paid (late). My club was essentially terminated for this, after having been involved for several years. During that time we were active we did our best as a very small club to put on a yearly trial, often a conformation show, and in many years also hosted an excellent seminar with people like Bernhard Flinks or others of his calibre. We struggled because we had to pay for helpers, sometimes bringing them in from out of state or even from Germany or the Czech Republic. We all loved our dogs and enjoyed the sport. But we had no interest in the politics.
We also were very aware that this was NOT an organization for the breed (despite the slogan), the smaller clubs, nor even the grassroot members. It is about a certain few people who hold office or want to, and about those who are the professionals in the sport. While we did not mind our small subsidizing of those on teams representing our country, we DID mind that we never, ever had a voice in the organization. We, like many clubs, could not send delegates to some meeting across the country. We could barely pay for the club to continue operating because it cost hundreds of dollars each month to pay a helper. We even did as much helper work on our own as possible at our age and physical condition. Without my personal significant financial subsidy to the club and the activities required as a club, or even as individuals wanting to participate with their dogs, we could not have existed for as long as we did. We participated by sending concerns in writing, and we were lucky to even get a response. So much for anyone giving a damn about what any of us thought.
I have suggested over and over that the members each be given a vote....a direct vote. Each year I received excuse after excuse as to why this could not be accomplished. Each year I asked that something be done to assist the real backbone of the organization, the small clubs, and that plea also fell on deaf ears. In short, the leadership cared more about spending thousands of dollars on bogus programs that did little to help the organization, the clubs (especially those that are small), or the individual members. And, much money has been wasted that did little to help the "breed". USA is about as far from a breed organization as one can be. To suggest otherwise, is laughable.
Making a proposal to ban dual memberships when, in fact, judges are often now holding a variety of certifications from outside organizations, for example, is disingenuous. As it is, in my part of the country, though I personally rarely participated in an event sponsored by another organization, I was glad that those other organizations existed and hosted events. Otherwise, I may not have ever made the progress I did with my own dogs. I know that if I were a member and wished to join another organization, I would do so. It is wrong to even suggest that people not be able to join organizations as they wish.
I won't be surprised at this amendment passing. After all, all too many clubs will have no voice, once again. Those who want to continue to shove their particular agenda down the throats of people with no voice will have ample opportunity to do so. Our club would never have supported such an idiotic idea. But then, we did not support most of the shenanigans promulgated by certain members who wish to take the organization in the wrong direction.
IF USA wanted to be the premier organization if says it wants to be, I submit there are plenty of other avenues to take. I find it pathetic that the organization does not value the membership enough to make CERTAIN THAT USA IS THE ORGANIZATION where all the positive things are happening in support of the breed. Finding
We also were very aware that this was NOT an organization for the breed (despite the slogan), the smaller clubs, nor even the grassroot members. It is about a certain few people who hold office or want to, and about those who are the professionals in the sport. While we did not mind our small subsidizing of those on teams representing our country, we DID mind that we never, ever had a voice in the organization. We, like many clubs, could not send delegates to some meeting across the country. We could barely pay for the club to continue operating because it cost hundreds of dollars each month to pay a helper. We even did as much helper work on our own as possible at our age and physical condition. Without my personal significant financial subsidy to the club and the activities required as a club, or even as individuals wanting to participate with their dogs, we could not have existed for as long as we did. We participated by sending concerns in writing, and we were lucky to even get a response. So much for anyone giving a damn about what any of us thought.
I have suggested over and over that the members each be given a vote....a direct vote. Each year I received excuse after excuse as to why this could not be accomplished. Each year I asked that something be done to assist the real backbone of the organization, the small clubs, and that plea also fell on deaf ears. In short, the leadership cared more about spending thousands of dollars on bogus programs that did little to help the organization, the clubs (especially those that are small), or the individual members. And, much money has been wasted that did little to help the "breed". USA is about as far from a breed organization as one can be. To suggest otherwise, is laughable.
Making a proposal to ban dual memberships when, in fact, judges are often now holding a variety of certifications from outside organizations, for example, is disingenuous. As it is, in my part of the country, though I personally rarely participated in an event sponsored by another organization, I was glad that those other organizations existed and hosted events. Otherwise, I may not have ever made the progress I did with my own dogs. I know that if I were a member and wished to join another organization, I would do so. It is wrong to even suggest that people not be able to join organizations as they wish.
I won't be surprised at this amendment passing. After all, all too many clubs will have no voice, once again. Those who want to continue to shove their particular agenda down the throats of people with no voice will have ample opportunity to do so. Our club would never have supported such an idiotic idea. But then, we did not support most of the shenanigans promulgated by certain members who wish to take the organization in the wrong direction.
IF USA wanted to be the premier organization if says it wants to be, I submit there are plenty of other avenues to take. I find it pathetic that the organization does not value the membership enough to make CERTAIN THAT USA IS THE ORGANIZATION where all the positive things are happening in support of the breed. Finding
by hodie on 04 November 2009 - 15:11
Deleting double post
by Bob McKown on 04 November 2009 - 15:11
If this passes what option is there for and available to the general membership to reverse or call for a full member vote? As I am not famalier with the national bylaws maybe someone more knowledgable could answer the question?
by hodie on 04 November 2009 - 15:11
Continued from my post above McKowns':
Finding ways to unite and excite people and HELP them participate and get something FROM the organization would go a long way in making sure others don't go join other organizations. What a concept that would be.........but I, for one, gave up expecting that it will ever be so.
Finding ways to unite and excite people and HELP them participate and get something FROM the organization would go a long way in making sure others don't go join other organizations. What a concept that would be.........but I, for one, gave up expecting that it will ever be so.
by eichenluft on 04 November 2009 - 16:11
could someone start a poll - a petition? Perhaps signatures of UScA members demonstrating the wishes of the membership would be helpful, especially if this "thing" passes.
molly graf
UScA member since 1992
Master Gold Sports Medal Recipient
Schh3 Club member
Not WDA member - yet.
molly graf
UScA member since 1992
Master Gold Sports Medal Recipient
Schh3 Club member
Not WDA member - yet.
by Aiyoshino on 05 November 2009 - 04:11
Absolutely, If this amendment is passed USA will loose all members in good standing from the Alpha K9 Schutzhund Club,and we will be a Club from the past.
My believe is that USA no longer needs USA. I think that it is dirty business ethics on how it all was done.
This should be a nation wide member vote and not at a meeting where it is not possible to have THE PEOPLE MEMBERS the guy and woman that simply train their dogs for fun, they talk about purity in dog sports. It is MAFIA @ work.
and it makes me sick.
This is America { Thank God } My choice has beem made, My DIGNITY is all i need.
Carlos Rojas & Ai Yoshino Rojas
ALPHA K9 SCHUTZHUND CLUB
North East Region
Member of
USA
WDA
GSDCA
DVG
UDC
DPCA
AKC
DPCA
SV
and i think many more, Because i can.
My believe is that USA no longer needs USA. I think that it is dirty business ethics on how it all was done.
This should be a nation wide member vote and not at a meeting where it is not possible to have THE PEOPLE MEMBERS the guy and woman that simply train their dogs for fun, they talk about purity in dog sports. It is MAFIA @ work.
and it makes me sick.
This is America { Thank God } My choice has beem made, My DIGNITY is all i need.
Carlos Rojas & Ai Yoshino Rojas
ALPHA K9 SCHUTZHUND CLUB
North East Region
Member of
USA
WDA
GSDCA
DVG
UDC
DPCA
AKC
DPCA
SV
and i think many more, Because i can.
by JudyK on 05 November 2009 - 23:11
I heard that this amendment passed at the meeting today. Has anyone heard differently?
Judy
Judy
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
