GSDCA Qualified Helper List - Page 7

RSV 2000 already has a club in the US

@bzcz, I will further clarify what I meant.  Who issues thier scorebooks and who accepts those scorebooks?  I prefer to not write a novel length explanation, but there a quite a few others things I can list as well, showing how this is not a straight foward option yet.  If I were to make a quick judgment, all I see is another hampered effort spawning here, such as KNPV-USA.

RSV2000, Vermont, seems to have been approved sometime around mid 2014:

http://www.rsv2000.de/opencms/en/news/announcements/general-announcements/rsv2000-vermont.html

Momo:

Old Gaurd????? Get real !.  Hows and Whys ?  It,s simple you don,t like the current system Okay but don,t try to  make a shit pot from a cup of coffee.  Who is us? are you afraid to state your name or organization?  If your part of the "Newbie or Young people" taking over the reins it is scary because you whine like a child in the first place. I don,nt think your capable of the heavy lifting it takes to support a organization. If you think life isn,t fair to you well you have a lot to learn Life isn,t fair get used to it and go train your dog !

@Bob McKown, I clarified the age range of the "old guard", whom invented the dual membership ban (which you brushed off as a conspiracy theory).  It certainly wasn't anyone under 40, not even those in their late 40's, I imagine.  I quote rules that your peers wrote, which you then call "whining" and "obscure references", you're a funny guy.

I don't think your capable of the heavy lifting it takes to support a organization. If you think life isn,t fair to you well you have a lot to learn Life isn,t fair get used to it and go train your dog !

This has NOTHING to do with running a fiscally sustainable oganization and growing its membership base. 

Are you a better helper and trainer than me? Thats is certainly possible, due to your experience. 

Can you grow an organization, maintain membership and raise revenue year, after year, after year, better than me or my peers?  Not necessarily, because the organizational management of a non-profit club is not dog training.

We'll gladly take people who you think are "whiners" because at the end of the day, they pay the bills.  They also aren't really that hard to please anyway (as long as they are paying dues and enterting trials of course).

Momo

 You have your "facts" a little skewed. The "Old Guard" did not "invent" the dual membership ban. In FACT, the amendment was vorted on by a more than 2:1 majority by the member clubs delegates, of which MANY were in their 40's or below (I was at the meetings, were you?) not once , but TWICE and Last year I made a proposal to modify the dual membership ban to be less restrictive but it was turned down by a 2:1 margin vote. So 3 times the member clubs voted for this dual member ban, not an "old guard" "inventing" it.

  This is all old news and with the new relationships being developed between the WUSV member orgs in America, it may not be needed in the future anymore, but until the Member clubs vote it out, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

@Unknown,

I don't have any issues with your individual appraoch.  If you have read my prior posts here, you would know that I have made points about the median age in the sport, which I believe is quite high.  So, unless you have ages listed on those ballots, and a charted demographic voting pattern, you can not prove your point any more than mine.

Also, voting to maintian a rule "today" is not the same thing as "when first written".  What year was the rule first introduced?

Except I was in the room voting, and know a lot of the delegates and their ages... You are just guessing :-)

First voted in in 2009

Momo

 There is no question that the average age of the participants in this sport is higherthan 20's. I believe it is because of the time and effort required to do this sport. "Most" younger people would rather party then get up in the morning and track.

 However, I'm not sure what that has to do with a rule that was enacted 5 years ago and reenforced twice since.....  

 But your statements like " It certainly wasn't anyone under 40, not even those in their late 40's, I imagine."...Is completely wrong, I was in my 40's and voted for it....and so were MANY MANY more in that room. There were a lot of things going on at that time that made this decision something that was perceived as needed. As I said, those times "may" be changing.

and your assumption that in the last 5 years since it was voted in, all those delagtes are either dead or in nursing homes now is also wrong :-)

@momosgarage - Here is one of the reasons that a Complete Unified FCI rule system will not work AND why the FCI is smart enough to allow some of the rules to be "tailored" by the organization as long as the organization states they are a deviation from FCI unified and noted within the Org.s rule book

The FCI banned Stick hits, the UScA did not.

"We will not be removing the stick hits from our trials. USCA is dedicated to preserving the working heritage of the German Shepherd Dog. While Schutzhund has become a sport/showcase for our training and dogs, we must never lose sight that at its core, it is a breed suitability test. When rules are created that threaten or water down the evaluation process, we have an obligation to the breed to resist."

Weather or not you agree with Alloway's statement, this is a substantial difference between UScA and FCI. And the objection to stick hits is because of pressure from a party (Green party?? i think???) in Europe. And what if the GSDCA wants to go this route also for what ever reason? You feel that their IPO scores in bite work would be equivalent then to bite work scores with out stick hits? Should the score books be treated as equal even if the routine is different? Well maybe Mondio and French ring should recognize each others scores?    

Cutaway

 Your point is well taken, but just for clearity, the FCI has not removed the stick hits....Yet.

  It is in discussions for the 2017 rule change, but as of now they still exist in the FCI rules.

 But here is one, in the FCI rules a handler may only handle 2 dogs per trial, because of the size of the United States and availability of trials in some areas, USCA allows a handler to show 3 dogs.