This is a placeholder text
Group text
by sueincc on 30 October 2009 - 21:10
I forgot to say that I agree with OGBS, big time.
As far as GSDCAs language about the duel standards, to me this is at the least incongruous and more than a little hypocritical, to say nothing about making it impossible to trust anything associated with GSDCA as it stands now because yes, to me they are at odds with one another. GSDCA will never alienate it's gigantic customer base by changing the standard to match the SV standard, but what's to stop them from cutting off WDA once the WUSV event is over and WDA is of no more use to them?
The whole damn thing gives me a headache too..
As far as GSDCAs language about the duel standards, to me this is at the least incongruous and more than a little hypocritical, to say nothing about making it impossible to trust anything associated with GSDCA as it stands now because yes, to me they are at odds with one another. GSDCA will never alienate it's gigantic customer base by changing the standard to match the SV standard, but what's to stop them from cutting off WDA once the WUSV event is over and WDA is of no more use to them?
The whole damn thing gives me a headache too..
by OGBS on 30 October 2009 - 21:10
Sueincc,
I completely agree with you!
In my opinion, the problem that really exists is that there are two organizations competing for us as members. We really only need one and I was all for the WDA leaving GSDCA and joining forces with UScA.
We don't need two sieger shows, we don't need 4 or 5 national schutzhund championships, and we certainly don't need two, or more, differing views on the organizational level as to how to move this breed forward in this country.
I completely agree with you!
In my opinion, the problem that really exists is that there are two organizations competing for us as members. We really only need one and I was all for the WDA leaving GSDCA and joining forces with UScA.
We don't need two sieger shows, we don't need 4 or 5 national schutzhund championships, and we certainly don't need two, or more, differing views on the organizational level as to how to move this breed forward in this country.
by Kim Gash on 30 October 2009 - 21:10
by Kim Gash on 30 October 2009 - 22:10
Currently, are there any requirements for membership to participate at local or regional trials, or local or regional shows in USA or WDA?
Is membership not just required at the point of National competition, both in show and trial?
So for theoretical purposes, you do not have to belong to any club in order to trial or show? You would only have to choose your club at the point of competing on a national level?
Theoretically, out of 4000 $60.00 USA memberships and out of say 1500 $60.00 WDA memberships, who actually has to belong and pay dues to either club to trial or show? Answer, about 400 people.
Does this not only affect the less than 100 that compete on a national level? Maybe another 400 that go to Sieger shows and I don't think that anyone with a pup less than 1 year which makes up a ton of entries there would have to be a member even at a Sieger show - so now we are up to 250 people that HAVE to belong to either organization. The other 3,750 people are really just members to belong who compete locally and get a magazine, all of these grassroots people provide the extra membership fees for costs of Nationals, costs of judges programs, cost of helper programs, you name it. Its the ones on the "bottom" that fund the organziations.
Even if surcharges would get voted in for a non member to trial or show at a local venue, lets say even 20 a pop, if you only trialed 3 times, you still would be equal with your membership dues, if you belonged to both clubs you could expend 120.00 in non-member participation fees (6 shows or trials) before you equaled your two yearly memberships and you would not have to choose which club you belonged to.
As a business owner, I would be hard pressed to take the risk of loosing 3750 $60.00 memberships, knowing all that absolutely had to have membership to attain a national title would be at best 500 $60.00 memberships - basically, I would weigh, do I want for sure $240,000 in income or do I want for sure $30,000 income - why would anyone chance dropping income by $210,000 ?
Add then that a competing organization could say "no surcharge" for non-members and "no restictions on membership" and as bad as the economy has gotten, why create risk on income if the purpose of this is to preserve standards. Being right and broke is not going to protect the breed.
Is membership not just required at the point of National competition, both in show and trial?
So for theoretical purposes, you do not have to belong to any club in order to trial or show? You would only have to choose your club at the point of competing on a national level?
Theoretically, out of 4000 $60.00 USA memberships and out of say 1500 $60.00 WDA memberships, who actually has to belong and pay dues to either club to trial or show? Answer, about 400 people.
Does this not only affect the less than 100 that compete on a national level? Maybe another 400 that go to Sieger shows and I don't think that anyone with a pup less than 1 year which makes up a ton of entries there would have to be a member even at a Sieger show - so now we are up to 250 people that HAVE to belong to either organization. The other 3,750 people are really just members to belong who compete locally and get a magazine, all of these grassroots people provide the extra membership fees for costs of Nationals, costs of judges programs, cost of helper programs, you name it. Its the ones on the "bottom" that fund the organziations.
Even if surcharges would get voted in for a non member to trial or show at a local venue, lets say even 20 a pop, if you only trialed 3 times, you still would be equal with your membership dues, if you belonged to both clubs you could expend 120.00 in non-member participation fees (6 shows or trials) before you equaled your two yearly memberships and you would not have to choose which club you belonged to.
As a business owner, I would be hard pressed to take the risk of loosing 3750 $60.00 memberships, knowing all that absolutely had to have membership to attain a national title would be at best 500 $60.00 memberships - basically, I would weigh, do I want for sure $240,000 in income or do I want for sure $30,000 income - why would anyone chance dropping income by $210,000 ?
Add then that a competing organization could say "no surcharge" for non-members and "no restictions on membership" and as bad as the economy has gotten, why create risk on income if the purpose of this is to preserve standards. Being right and broke is not going to protect the breed.
by OGBS on 30 October 2009 - 22:10
Kim,
Nice try!
Do you really think that UScA is going to lose 3750 members over this???
If so, I have a lot of excellent swamp land for sale!
They will lose some members and most of them will be "show folk"!
As for a few of the world level competitors, it cuts down their opportunities to make the world team because they will have to make a choice. Other than that it doesn't impact a whole bunch of people.
Nice try!
Do you really think that UScA is going to lose 3750 members over this???
If so, I have a lot of excellent swamp land for sale!
They will lose some members and most of them will be "show folk"!
As for a few of the world level competitors, it cuts down their opportunities to make the world team because they will have to make a choice. Other than that it doesn't impact a whole bunch of people.
by Kim Gash on 30 October 2009 - 23:10
OGBS.,
No actually, I think the world will go on as is because people never really protest with their dollars and I don't think this is going to be as earthshaking as all the posts and private discussions. At the heart of it, everyone enjoys their clubs and what each one gets out of it. Bottomline is that all enjoy their dogs and enjoy the whole spectrum.
But, if people truly felt the amendment was so egregious, then they could protest with the old pocket book. However, its like when the price of gas went up, if everyone had stopped buying for just one day, the consumer would have been in control. Much like this, everyone will just keep on because we all enjoy the dogs. But honestly, the one thing everyone forgets is that you don't have to belong to either organization to participate on a local level. Its not the end of the world for most if you just don't send in a membership. Just like saying you cannot belong, conversely you do not have to belong until a certain level.
USA provides the most trials and clubs and does a super job. WDA provides an alternate. I think people will continue to belong to USA because it is a good organization and provides what members need. Likewise, WDA fills a niche also. There is room for all clubs as long as there are membership fees to support them. While my scenario was theoretical, its the money that keeps the organizations afloat. Without it, they cannot exist - neither has profit or large sums stashed away for a rainy day as it stands now, each needs the membership income to survive.
No actually, I think the world will go on as is because people never really protest with their dollars and I don't think this is going to be as earthshaking as all the posts and private discussions. At the heart of it, everyone enjoys their clubs and what each one gets out of it. Bottomline is that all enjoy their dogs and enjoy the whole spectrum.
But, if people truly felt the amendment was so egregious, then they could protest with the old pocket book. However, its like when the price of gas went up, if everyone had stopped buying for just one day, the consumer would have been in control. Much like this, everyone will just keep on because we all enjoy the dogs. But honestly, the one thing everyone forgets is that you don't have to belong to either organization to participate on a local level. Its not the end of the world for most if you just don't send in a membership. Just like saying you cannot belong, conversely you do not have to belong until a certain level.
USA provides the most trials and clubs and does a super job. WDA provides an alternate. I think people will continue to belong to USA because it is a good organization and provides what members need. Likewise, WDA fills a niche also. There is room for all clubs as long as there are membership fees to support them. While my scenario was theoretical, its the money that keeps the organizations afloat. Without it, they cannot exist - neither has profit or large sums stashed away for a rainy day as it stands now, each needs the membership income to survive.
by ILMD on 30 October 2009 - 23:10
Kim, tried to follow, just couldn't keep up.
I am a member of both USA and WDA and hope to remain so. That is what benefits me and my dogs.
Some of what I think is being missed here is that I see the very same people at both the WDA and the USA events that I have attended/participated in.
I am a member of both USA and WDA and hope to remain so. That is what benefits me and my dogs.
Some of what I think is being missed here is that I see the very same people at both the WDA and the USA events that I have attended/participated in.
by Kim Gash on 30 October 2009 - 23:10
PS OGBS,
Regarding "show people" - the show people are a vital part of the organziation as the Sieger show is where profit is made each year for USA and WDA. That profit funds the working dog side also, it is spread over the general expenses for the entire organization. So while I prefer working, I appreciate the show people and their contributions.
ILMD,
Yes, not many that are WDA are not USA also. Most of us belong to USA and WDA. I also belong to DVG, SV and ENCI and SAS . I am sure there are many multiple membership people.
by Visitor on 31 October 2009 - 01:10
I also am a member of multi-org. but will not be a member of USA any longer if this passes,
by cledford on 31 October 2009 - 03:10
My feeling is that this issue is much bigger than the USA-WDA rift. First lets address the stated goal of all of this which loosely quoted is, for the preservation of the working German Shepherd Dog within the USA. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But let’s wait a second here and think for a moment… Regard as to the statement regarding breed standard in the WDA charter, aren’t they holding working trials, fielding members to international events (who are putting up scores that beat those from the UScA as often as not, showing that they must know something…), holding conformation shows (judged by SV judges…), etc. So, while words in a charter (which easily could have been required for the WDA to even be allowed to exist by the GSDCA) say one thing, what do their ACTIONS show? Possibly something close (or exactly the same…) as to what we believe/practice?
Next thought, so if we’re really all about preserving the working GSD, does essentially, grabbing our toys and going home help or hinder this endeavor? More specifically, how does not permitting members of the UScA to belong to the GSDCA/WDA improve or provide the opportunity to improve the issues within the GSDCA related to the lack of adherence to the FCI standard? Let’s see, in one scenario there is some small degree of influence, the later ZERO. Also, are we really expected to believe that the losing of the 400 or so odd members cited above (assuming they all chose the path outlined by the USA President) will cause the GSDCA to wake up and see the error of their ways? That the members (WDA types) they (the rest of the GSDCA) cannot stand, can barely tolerate and simple endure (from their perspective), that they’ll be that sad to see them go if they ALL were to choose UScA? Honestly, can someone explain how exactly forcing those, that one might presume are trying to effect change within the GSDCA, to leave, might further the working GSD in a more significant way then if those individuals stayed couldn’t?
If this matter is so important, why hasn’t it been discussed and debated for a long time? Why does it seem to be on a fast track, where it was not even formally acknowledge until after the voting registration process was closed to clubs? Why would a letter of explanation be sent long after the proposal and the close of the registration process, to a select few on a private list (one not officially part of the UScA) and to the leadership of the UScA, instead of say, printing in the magazine, posting it on the website, etc, so that the MEMBERSHIP ON WHOLE UNDERSTOOD THE RATIONAL? Why would the President (one might assume would want assume a stance of impartiality) be writing letters at all, when the bylaw amendment was proposed by someone else?
The way I see it, the WDA makes a last minute decision that (in their opinion) meets their needs better. This can be interpreted as a sign of disrespect to the UScA, a snub, specifically to the President who was working hard behind the scenes to bring them into the fold. Shortly thereafter there is a proposal put forth to essentially force the general membership to choose one organization or the other but not both? This rather draconian amendment is later supported in a very forceful way by the same president, who essentially states that anyone opposed to it must be out for either “fame or fortune” instead of simply addressing the questions?
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
Next thought, so if we’re really all about preserving the working GSD, does essentially, grabbing our toys and going home help or hinder this endeavor? More specifically, how does not permitting members of the UScA to belong to the GSDCA/WDA improve or provide the opportunity to improve the issues within the GSDCA related to the lack of adherence to the FCI standard? Let’s see, in one scenario there is some small degree of influence, the later ZERO. Also, are we really expected to believe that the losing of the 400 or so odd members cited above (assuming they all chose the path outlined by the USA President) will cause the GSDCA to wake up and see the error of their ways? That the members (WDA types) they (the rest of the GSDCA) cannot stand, can barely tolerate and simple endure (from their perspective), that they’ll be that sad to see them go if they ALL were to choose UScA? Honestly, can someone explain how exactly forcing those, that one might presume are trying to effect change within the GSDCA, to leave, might further the working GSD in a more significant way then if those individuals stayed couldn’t?
If this matter is so important, why hasn’t it been discussed and debated for a long time? Why does it seem to be on a fast track, where it was not even formally acknowledge until after the voting registration process was closed to clubs? Why would a letter of explanation be sent long after the proposal and the close of the registration process, to a select few on a private list (one not officially part of the UScA) and to the leadership of the UScA, instead of say, printing in the magazine, posting it on the website, etc, so that the MEMBERSHIP ON WHOLE UNDERSTOOD THE RATIONAL? Why would the President (one might assume would want assume a stance of impartiality) be writing letters at all, when the bylaw amendment was proposed by someone else?
The way I see it, the WDA makes a last minute decision that (in their opinion) meets their needs better. This can be interpreted as a sign of disrespect to the UScA, a snub, specifically to the President who was working hard behind the scenes to bring them into the fold. Shortly thereafter there is a proposal put forth to essentially force the general membership to choose one organization or the other but not both? This rather draconian amendment is later supported in a very forceful way by the same president, who essentially states that anyone opposed to it must be out for either “fame or fortune” instead of simply addressing the questions?
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
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
