GSDCA Lawsuit - Letter of Clarification from the AKC - Page 1

This information posted with the permission of the GSDCA

As you may or may not know the hearing originally scheduled for July 21, 2014 was cancelled due to the WDA filing a amended lawsuit just days prior to the hearing.  To provide the GSDCA and their attorneys’ time to review and respond to the new document, both sets of attorneys agreed to cancel the hearing on July 21 and to work together to schedule a new date for the hearing.

Here is a link to the Amended Lawsuit document as filed with the court.  http://gsdca.org//images/secured_pdf/amended-complaint-with-exhibits-a-b.pdf   Of specific interest in the document are the following two points shown below.  The GSDCA is a member of the AKC and is the parent club for the German Shepherd Dog in the United States.  Basically these two statements are meant to imply that the GSDCA cannot hold/host any event that contains “bite work and/or protection work such as a Sieger Show.

28. The AKC has historically forbidden any bite work and/or protection training due to the perceived danger of "training a dog to attack" or doing protection work.

38. AKC has not changed its policy regarding bite work for its member-clubs.

The GSDCA and their attorney have contacted the AKC for written clarification of these points.  Here is a link to the letter from the AKC.  http://gsdca.org//images/secured_pdf/mcmanus%20letter%207.30.2014.pdf

After reading the letter you can see that the AKC has no problem with the GSDCA holding any events that contain bite work and/or protection work such as a Sieger Show.

That should be a no brainer since the GSDCA and AKC had the Working Dog Sport program approved a few years ago and they are including working titles on the AKC pedigrees, Have been for awhile. Wasn't the WDA aware of that?

I'm only on Page 7 and I'm wondering where all those hundreds of events are going to be? I'm looking at the current schedule and only see one or two events monthly. Where do they come up with their numbers? Could they be 'fudging some evidence'? Looks like a claim they have never achieved in the past and with the numbers dwindling, it's difficult for me to see how they can justify their evidence. Would love to hear their rational.

cmandela:

I wondered if anyone would post the letter to this board. I glad that you have posted it and that the GSDCA saw the propriety for openess and gave you permission to do so.   I first read the letter, as I guess you did, on the GSDCA website. It clears up once and for all and for all the dogworld to see that the AKC has granted authority for the GSDCA to do pretty much anything it desires. I also believe the letter serves to considerably muddy the water for the WDA in its efforts to perfect and eventually prosper from their lawsuit. It appears, from my humble and non-attorney perspective, that the WDA has now pretty much ended up backed into a very tight corner with the GSDCA actually being the member of the WUSV and the AKC giving the GSDCA unquestioned permission to hold international Shows and IPO events.

Thanks for helping to keep the issue, from the GSDCA's perspective, out in the open for all interested parties.
 

Dog1,

I agree, historically the WDA has never held "hundreds" of events in a year.  At the end of June I had done some research and compiled some data on the number of shows and trials held by the WDA.

cmandela:

 It appears to me from a cursory review of  Exhibit B of their lawsuit that they list 11 separate trials and shows their clubs will be hosting for the period from July 18,2014 through November 10,2014. That is unless they are counting 2 day events as 2 separate events and 3 day events as 3 separate events rather than continuations. If that is the case they may feel justified in asserting that they have 27 or 28 events schedule for the specified period. 

The pertinent portion of their filing on page 7 is quoted here: "71. WDA and its member clubs have numerous WUSV/SV-style events scheduled through the remainder of the year, and will have hundreds scheduled for 2015. A list of those events currently planned and remaining for 2014 is attached as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by reference".

It appears that the WDA has never performed to the level they anticipate for 2015. In the face of diminishing numbers of events over the last few years, the WDA is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat and host hundreds of events! Considering their Treasurer's report basically admits they loose money each year from their events. It seems they have no track record of being able to do this and they don't appear to have the money to bear the loss of their current events, much less triple or quadruple the loss. Why would they make such a statement and present it as fact in a court case? Oh, maybe an attempt to claim inflated damages that would never exist.........

What I found interesting in the 7 pages I read so far was the tone. The WDA goes back in history with the relationship from the beginning and builds their case from the start of the organization. Things change and what once was a prosperous organization has perhaps become a burden, even a financial liability to the GSDCA. Why not start your case from the point in time when things within the WDA changed?

Start with the time when the events no longer made money and the WDA stuck their hand out for the GSDCA to pay for the WDA shortcomings as the WDA is on record doing through their Jan. 2014 Treasurer's report.

Or maybe the recent move to dismiss the GSDCA from their board in violation of their own Bylaws.

Richard,

Yes in Exhibit B they list each day of an event, however, most rational people would not count a trial that lasts 2 days as 2 events or a show lasting 3 days as 3 events.  Considering that the upcoming NASS lasts 3 days I doubt you would find many people who would count it as 3 separate events.  It is an event that just happnes to span the course of 3 days.

I think they're counting every time a dog takes a crap on a club training field as an, "event."  

Richard, I've gone to UScA trials when in a weekend there were 2 trials on same weekend.

Basically Exihibt B is bogus. If there was a question as to a three day event being one event or three events,,,,the WDA Ehibit A defines under Event Format that ..."the qualification trial is a (2) day event." One event, two days. The facts are simply misrepresented by their own evidence. 

The rest of the case looks just as weak. The best this case can do is drag on for a few years allowing the WDA to operate as usual until there is a decision. 

Ten bucks says they run out of money before the case is ever heard.