GSDCA Qualified Helper List - Page 3

I received a very informative and much appreciated email from Jim Alloway and it is my hope that with the ongoing cooperation between the GSDCA and UScA that everything will be resolved and we can all work together for the betterment of the breed. 

Judy

Richard

I will try to address your concerns here...

 

1. You said 

As far as I know, the AWDF has not officially become a "contract partner" of FCI, but should they decide to do so, they will have to agree to the "Standing Orders" of FCI which state the following:

Article 5 - Members
The national canine organisations (FCI members and contract partners) and their
members are under a mutual obligation not to interfere in each other’s respective
cynological matters.

 

Answer:

 

No the AWDF is not a contract partner with FCI, we are an "invited guest", invited to participate in all competition and meetings, But no official tie to the FCI. Also the AKC is the "recognized registry" of the FCI, also NOT a member.

 

If we all were, the FCI would not get invovled in this as it does not violate anything in the FCI, if it did they would prevent the SV from having the exact same rule barring membership in the SV and RSV2000. Both VDH (thus FCI) members.

 

 

2. You said: 

 

Also since the AKC (which the GSDCA is a member of) is now operating a PAC (political action committee), USCA's rule baring membership of GSDCA members, could be interpreted as political discrimination per FCI's bylaws:

Article 3 Non-discrimination and stance against racism
Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or groups of people on
account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason is
strictly prohibited within the FCI and punishable by suspension or expulsion.

 

 Answer:

 

 Here I think you are stretching it quite a bit.  Saying you have to choose to be a member of either organization has nothing to do with racism. But if you feel it is a battle you can win, I wish you the best of luck.

 

 

  Frank

 

Frank:

You really don't need to address my concerns since my concerns had absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. I believe you need to review your remarks and credit the statements you claim I made to the individual who actually made them.  Maybe the stretch you accuse me of will shrink dramatically once you know to whom you should be speaking.

Regards,

Richard

Ahh Richard I appologize, I saw your name at the top and thought it was your statement.... But I was not really trying to "acuse" anyone of anything...Just answer some questions that were asked. Again sorry, I attributed the questions to you when in fact it was Momosgarage that asked the questions.

 

 

   Frank

 

@Frank, before I begin, thanks for clarifying the current FCI membership status of the AWDF.  However, you did gloss over my points and misquoted me as well.

Saying you have to choose to be a member of either organization has nothing to do with racism.

You are right, it doesn't have anything to do with racism, nor did I say that racism was a factor. I said, USCA's rule baring membership of GSDCA members, could be interpreted as political discrimination per FCI's bylaws.

I also see that you have provided a perfectly valid example, noting that the SV has a rule barring membership in the SV and RSV2000 in Europe.  However, does the SV or RSV2000 have ANY political action committee equivalents operating within the EU?  Since the AKC has an officially registered Connected PAC, an argument can be made that under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), barring membership of GSDCA members, by USCA, is in fact political discrimination. Which is not at all the case with the SV or RSV2000 because they do not, in a legal capacity, represent "political beliefs" only "breeding standards" in Europe.  Now, I'll admit, this doesn't mean, if investigated, such will be found to be the case by FCI, but it is certainly a valid enough issue to warrant investigation at this point.  Remember I am talking about "political discrimination", not "racism"

There are some other important differences with the GSDCA/USCA and the SV/SV2000 comparison.  First, the AKC is the breed registry for the United States, which only has a technical agreement with FCI regarding registrations/stud books, that's not the case at all with the SV or RSV2000.  In Europe an FCI member is FCI, nobody questions it, neither dog owners nor breeders.  That's not the case in the USA at all.  So when USCA says that their members can't be members of the GSDCA, they are saying that they cannot belong to the largest breed registry in the USA.  That is clearly interfering another clubs respective cynological matters per Article 5:

Article 5 - Members
The national canine organisations (FCI members and contract partners) and their
members are under a mutual obligation not to interfere in each other’s respective
cynological matters. 

If you really think about it, that's a pretty big request being made by USCA and I think FCI has enough knowledge about the way thing are done in the USA to frown upon such a practice.  Which, in regards to barring dual membership in their own region, would have far less significant consequences to individual members, dog owners and breeders.  

Hence, my reference to AWDF section III(c):

Article III. Membership in the Association.

C. Member clubs may affiliate with international associations.
a. If the rules and regulations of the AWDF and those of an
international affiliation conflict, the member club must
resolve the conflict immediately by withdrawing from either
the other organization or from the AWDF.
b. The Executive Committee may grant a time extension, not to
exceed one year, to allow the member club to resolve the
conflict or poll its members on what action to take.

So although the AWDF (and USCA's membership, in such, by default) is not a "contract partner", they are affiliated with FCI as an "invited guest".  Which under Article II(j) the AWDF, obliged itself to be a responsible supporting member of FCI.

Article II. Objectives.

J. Is a responsible member of the international canine establishment,
supporting the Federation Cynologique Intenationale (FCI).

"Responsible" means not baring a individual membership due to "cynological matters" and/or "discrimination of politics".

What all this means is that barring GSDCA members from USCA membership is conceivably a violation of FCI's Standing Orders, which require clubs NOT "interfere in each other’s respective cynological matters" nor should they practice "discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or groups of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason".

-USCA baring AKC membership could meet this cynological interference criteria, due to the USA breeders needing to deal almost exclusively with the AKC for registration. 

-The baring can also meet the policy of discrimination of any kind because the AKC has a Connected PAC and represents political beliefs and legislative actions, as of 2007.

-I also didn't even begin to discuss how barring "mutual membership" between USCA and the GSDCA, could violate the "Convention on Cooperation" which was signed by the AWDF and the AKC.  In fact, challenging under this agreement, could likely get swifter results domestically.

Who has time to set and contemplate this kinda stuff?  "Could be" "Possibly" "Maybe" If the wind blows from the east and the sun starts to rise could the tail feathers on a seagull ruffle up or down after he shits?? To much brain drain while we postulate shoulda woulda couldas ! and should be more concerened about our dogs and our programs.  

 

 

Who has time to set and contemplate this kinda stuff?

@Bob McKnown, its not necessarily about "time to contemplate", but rather how "barring dual membership" violates existing agreements with the AWDF, FCI and the Convention on Cooperation.  These bylaws are short, so if anyone bothered to read them and think a little, they would see the same things I have. 

I didn't write these rules, likely, its your peers whom did and they then decided to ignore them when they were inconvenient.

The basis for violations exist, we just need an official statement from each organization on dual membership from the AWDF, FCI and the Convention on Cooperation.  We already have one official statement, from the WUSV, which said "no violation".  If the others say the same thing, then case-closed, but as of now we have no official statements from them.

 

Momosgarage

 I guess I see your legalize roadmap to a possible objection to the no dual membership bylaw. However, I don't believe the FCI would get invovled with a Non-FCI-member club's bylaw preventing membership in another NON-FCI member club. Why would they get invovled when NEITHER clubs are FCI members.

 

I can not comment on the exsistance or not of any PAC type thing in the SV or RSV200, just that the VDH and FCI have not objected to their dual membership rule.

 

  Frank

 

This thread has gone complete off topic for some time and is not dealing with the new GSDCA helpers. It is an interesting list. There are two "qualified' club helpers neither of whom have done a trial in years. One is 68 years old, severly overweight, and could not work two Schutzhund IPO 3 dogs, let alone four or more, in a row without getting a stroke.

Then, there is a teaching helper who hates show dogs and trains exclusively with an electric collar. This does not seem like a very good fit for a breed club, but probably a better fit for UScA or AWDF.

Perhaps the executive board of the GSDCA should have a closer look at who they are qualifying. They may be surprised at what they find if they go into the background of some of their qualifiers.

@Auslese, not to harp on you, but the rules discussions here, is relevant to the overall qualified helper list discussion.  UNITED SCHUTZHUND CLUBS OF AMERICA (USA) CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS, Section 2(e), bars UScA members from joining the GSDCA, thereby reducing the potential pool of SV certified helpers available for GSDCA events.  Hence, the result being, the 68 year old, the teaching helper who hates show dogs and the severely overweight chap. 

I simply pointed out how such a rule could be removed procedurally or found to be in violation of existing agreements made by UScA and GSDCA.  I agree with zdog's point, that there should one helper list, combining all those lists, currently separated individually, for DVG, UScA & GSDCA.  One of the reasons why that can't happen is because of Section 2(e) of the UScA bylaws:

SECTION 2. RULES FOR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP
e) USA members may not be members of, or be affiliated with, any competing German Shepherd Dog
organization in the United States.