GSDCA Qualified Helper List - Page 8

@Unknown - Thank you for the correction

There is a way to get out of this '' one club rule''. BTW it has been also called the JG rule for Johannes Grewe who introduced the rule to the general board mtg not so many years ago. 2 facts about Johannes. He is not 40, 30 , nor 20 years of age. He was past national training director for the WDA. I think his insight into both organization compelled him to propose the rule which was  voted on. the way out? get involved with national clubs. They do not meet here. I thank Frank P for his time, effort and sportsmanship, here, and at the many club function he attends thru the year[s]. 

@Unknown, thanks, I did not know the policy was started in 2009, I thought it was older.  That's heresay for ya.

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?

I have stated my opinion on this before.  Stick or no stick, should be noted in an identifiable manner in the scorebook and if the routine is significantly different than what has ben traditionally done, then it should be named differently as well (example IPO-1(a), IPO-1(b) etc).  I'm all for adding "asterisks" to titles earned under different conditions because the rules keep getting modified, those less rigorous titles should be recorded, in some way, as we go forward.

"Most" younger people would rather party then get up in the morning and track.

You're a little out of touch here.  The demographic that we are targeting, is not partying and are already showing dogs in another venue, they are far busier than we were at a similar age and they make far less money as well.  Its really about cost and daily time constraints, more than anything else, the issue at hand is not specifically the training start time or making long term commitments to train on a regular basis.  I see lots of young people in AKC venue, which in constrast, when first begining, has much lower start up costs, than all of the bitewok based events.  Also, with AKC clubs they can work their dog for an hour or two and then get back to their other responsibilities in life, not so with some schutzhund clubs schedules, where a whole day goes down the toilet.

As for your justification of the "members voted", neither USCA, nor GSDCA have a "one-member-one-vote" process.  They are both little oligarchies, where members are represented by someone other than themselves.  So, when you say a 2:1 vote against, you really mean, in regard to those on the board, not your actual member base, because you didn't really ask them to vote, you asked their "club delegate" to vote on their behalf.  I would argue with a system like this, you don't have any real way to gage what your rank and file members want because your current system doesn't allow for a direct vote of members, your nagging point about a 2:1 vote against the amendment is moot. 

Both 990 forms for the GSDCA and USCA answer the following questions with, NO:

Did the organization have members, stockholders, or other persons who had the power to elect or appoint one or more members of the governing body? NO

Are any governance decisions of the organization reserved to (or subject to approval by) members, stockholders, or persons other than the governing body? NO

Note, surprisingly the WDA answered, YES, to both of thee questions.  Meaning, at least on paper, that WDA members vote on policy directly, not "club delegates" on their behalf. 

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/942/942661522/942661522_201306_990O.pdf

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/396/396090825/396090825_201212_990O.pdf

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/251/251620274/251620274_201212_990O.pdf

So, for the sake of civility, I'll take you word for it, in regard to knowing the ages of those in the room.  But the GSDCA board is most definitely made up of 60+ year olds, its undisputable.

@Unknown, in regard to your earlier reference about IPO judge residence.  I don't read it that way.  It seems to me it specifically applies to judges for CACIB, CACIT, CACIAG, CACIOB and CACIL (the only North American Club with these kinds of judges is FCPR).  Second, the rule applies to "contract partners" and "members", which the AWDF is not.  Could it be that the immigrating judges, in your case, had trouble because the AWDF is not a "contract partner" and that the SV is a "member" in Germany, which created a conflict with no specific resolution?  But also, not specifically because they moved to America and did not get their domestic license within 3 years.

Overall, this is good information, thanks for filling in the blanks.

momos

 

 

Once again you are guessing and wrong.

You said "As for your justification of the "members voted", neither USCA, nor GSDCA have a "one-member-one-vote" process.  They are both little oligarchies, where members are represented by someone other than themselves.  So, when you say a 2:1 vote against, you really mean, in regard to those on the board, not your actual member base, because you didn't really ask them to vote, you asked their "club delegate" to vote on their behalf."

 

I never said the members voted, I said the member clubs voted. The members can send anyone they want to vote for their club, it is their vote. Each club delegate is NOT a member of the Executive board, they are exactly what it sounds like, the individual clubs representative at the GBM. Members can also contact their regional director or director at large and voice their opinion on which way to vote. It may not be the way you want it to be, but it is the "member clubs" that vote in the United Schutzhund CLUBS of America...we are an organization of CLUBS and each club gets a vote.

 

You said "You're a little out of touch here.  The demographic that we are targeting, is not partying and are already showing dogs in another venue, they are far busier than we were at a similar age and they make far less money as well.  Its really about cost and daily time constraints, more than anything else, the issue at hand is not specifically the training start time or making long term commitments to train on a regular basis.  I see lots of young people in AKC venue, which in constrast, when first begining, has much lower start up costs, than all of the bitewok based events.  Also, with AKC clubs they can work their dog for an hour or two and then get back to their other responsibilities in life, not so with some schutzhund clubs schedules, where a whole day goes down the toilet."

 

 Again I will disagree with your assumptions.... I will not however insult you like you choose to do with me by saying you are out of touch.... I (persumably unlike you) am in this sport 365 days per year and travel to many many many clubs all across the country and talk to MANY members, so if one of us is "out of touch" I would disagree that it is me. How many clubs in how many states have you visited this year? i guarentee less than I have. I have visted more than 20 clubs in 15 states this year alone.

 

 As for the financial aspect, my club cost $300 per year. Renting an AKC ring once per week at the local club is more expensive than that, and there you get no help, that costs extra. I think the expense depends on where you live and how "into" it you are. As for a whole day going down the toilet? Yes, this 3 phase sport takes a lot more time and effort then some other sports and "a lot" of younger people do not want to put in the time and effort required to succeed in this sport. "If it is important to you , you will find a way....If it is not, you will find an excuse"

 

 You said "@Unknown, in regard to your earlier reference about IPO judge residence.  I don't read it that way.  It seems to me it specifically applies to judges for CACIB, CACIT, CACIAG, CACIOB and CACIL (the only North American Club with these kinds of judges is FCPR).  Second, the rule applies to "contract partners" and "members", which the AWDF is not.  Could it be that the immigrating judges, in your case, had trouble because the AWDF is not a "contract partner" and that the SV is a "member" in Germany, which created a conflict with no specific resolution?  But also, not specifically because they moved to America and did not get their domestic license within 3 years."

 

 You are not reading what I posted correctly..... This is taken directly from the "Standing orders of the FCI"

http://www.fci.be/en/Reglements-6/Standing-Orders-of-the-FCI-40.html

Article 11 Judges

2. 
A judge can appear on the judges’ list of a member or contract partner only if he has 
his legal residence in the country in which this member or this contract partner has its 
head office. Furthermore, a judge can appear on one FCI judges’ list only. 
The members and contract partners must publish their updated judges’ list (name, 
address, email, phone number, qualifications, languages spoken) on their Internet 
website. In addition, this updated list has to be sent to the FCI General Secretariat 
every year. 

 

This does not say anything about any specific type of judge and DOES apply to IPO judges.

 

The rule applies to contract partners and members which AWDF is not, true. But VDH is a FCI member and DVG Germany is a member of VDH and DVG Germany is who issues the DVG America Judges Lic, which is in violation of FCI Standing orders Article 11, section 2 above.

 

 The 2 judges that had to get a lic from an American org was because the Foriegn Org that had issued their lic IS a FCI member and now that they have lived in America (not in the issueing country) for more than 3 years, they need to get a Lic issued from an organization in this country. It had nothing to do with the AWDF, SV or anyone else. It was because the FCI member org in their previous country had to remove their lic because they no longer held "legal residence in the country in which this member or this contract partner has its head office"......

 

 

@Unknown, I didn't say you were out of touch with the sport, I said you were out of touch with an up and coming demographic within it.  That distinction is not an insult, its an observation, that in reflection, you should aim to fix. 

Of course, you have seen more clubs than me, you are a board member of a national club and I assume you also make some money, working here and there, in the dog business.  I'm not going to argue that point because its obvious.  However, your response about "commitment" and "excuses" only reinforces my statement, that you are out of touch with a certain demographic that you should be grooming instead.  I know you and a few of the other clubs like to "cherry pick" those considered to be "good candidates", but this strategy won't work with millennials, you're going to have to change your views and tactics or, as a result, wither on the vine.  I have a much better insight into this demographics evolving attitude about the sport, than you do, not because I know more than you about schutzhund, but because I know more about the demographic that you are casting aside, due to my daytime profession, which is not dog training.  Unlike with previous generations "my way or the highway" is going to roast your public image with this demographic.  As I said in other posts, here on the forum, you can ignore them successfully, but you'll then have to double down on a core focus of LEO affiliated members only, to make up for the losses.

So, we can disagree on this point, for now, its something where time will certainly prove one of us correct.  I personally believe finances and the changing employment landscape has much more to do with the difficulties in grooming millennials in the sport, not specifically a desire from them for "late nights" and "sleeping in".  In turn, training schedules will have to conform to the new model of millennial work, which will not allow for full-day training sessions, unless of course, you are only training LEO types working a 4/10 or a 3/12.  Also note, Dual membership bans isn't helping your case with them either.

The cost argument could be regional, but yearly AKC club dues, hourly training rates and trial entry fees are easily, at least, 50% less than the IPO clubs in my area. 

Long term does the cost breakdown, end up, to be about the same across the sports? Absolutely, but someone new won't know that and they are only be able to gage their immediate costs.

Thanks for the further clarification of the judge rule.

Frank,

Thanks for hanging in there with the explainations. I think Momo has some validity to his vision.

I would like to jump back a few posts and ask for some clairification on the numbers. Your portrayal of the 2:1 favorable vote for the exclusionary amendment otherwise known as the JA in particular. The vote as you portray it was one where the membership expressed their support that continues to this day. My recollection of the whole affair is quite different. My question is; back in 2009 the vote was complied of both board members and club delegates, how many board members voted for it and how many delegates voted for it. Prior to the vote. What information was presented to the clubs so their delegate could represent their clubs' views in the vote?

Since the original vote a segment of USCA membership left the organization. I think it's fair to say it was predominately the conformation side as the club targeted by USCA was known more for their conformation side. On the second and third votes, would you agree the vote was skewed as a result of a large segment of those members that left were conformation oriented. With those members leaving, wouldn't the vote then not represent the more working side of membership at that point?

The value of Momo's observation is the demographics of the German Shepherd community is constantly changing. Is USCA keeping up with those changes and offering the best assortment of opportunities to grow the organization?

If I still have your attention, there has been discussion about dual membership within two WUSV affiliated clubs. The current USCA party line as I understand it is; The JA stands, the GSDCA is still considered a competing organization, but we're taking a look at it. Please correct me if I have this interpretation wrong.

If this is the interpretation I have two questions. When I renewed my USCA membership, I did not have to pledge allegiance this time around. The verbiage that I could not be a member of a competing GSD organization had been removed from the process. Is there a don't ask, don't tell policy behind the scene we need to know about? Second part is it's obvious there are some GSDCA members joining USCA. No secret here, it's published. If other GSDCA members are now members, why not open up the membership and let's all be friends again?

Dog1 asked, "...why not open up the membership and let's all be friends again?"

A simple proposal and vote of affirmation by USCA's member clubs would accomplish just that.  But as Frank pointed out, to date the membership has voted otherwise.  

Beyond that, there have never been within the USCA enough show line centric clubs to have affected outcomes on any vote these past 5 years regarding dual membership.  Club delegates overwhelmingly vote the interests of their clubs notwithstanding persistent efforts to portray outcomes as merely those of the nefarious "good 'ol boy network" aggrandizing their personal agendas.  

And, Momo, your "observations" while largely academic and impressive to read are so far removed from reality and the day to day "feelings" of the typical USCA member club as to be largely irrelevant beyond some proverbial ivory tower.  Frank's far more succinct experiences regarding what most clubs want (and vote for) will quite simply hold sway over any current or pending bylaw or rule assuming compliance with the SV.

Lastly, we no doubt have an aging demographic within IPO although the USCA membership after years of decline has resumed fairly significant growth.  But your conclusions regarding that demographic and it's motives is anecdotal, clearly out of touch on a larger scale, and even cliche in its tendency to categorize and label.

But, entertaining and a good read otherwise.

Best,

Kevin Nance

 

I can tell you that in my last club it was at least 5 to 1 agains the JA and we still voted for it.  it tends to happen that way with clubs who's TD's own the land you train on and remind everyone of it frequently.  I know, I know, if you don't like it, start your own.  I get it.  none of us have the place or space to actually hold trials nor want to go  thru the trouble of holding a trial off grounds somewhere else.  That's the price we pay to not have a voice.  Though we pay dues like everyone else, train harder than most I've met, support the clubs around us with trial entries and training days and everything else that goes along with this sport.  I would like it, if it were a true membership vote.

Another problem is that not all clubs are able due to money or time to send a representative to the meeting. On some important matters, like the JA, allowing the membership or clubs to vote via mail or electronically would be nice.

 

Kevin,

I think your response is similar to the average USCA thoughts portrayed. I see some problems and inconsistencies with the party line. Frank spent some time explaining USCA is a combination of clubs and board members that vote. Saying that the members voted that way is not accurate. What I want to know since it wasn't the members voting is; what preparation went into this thing as far as informing members and what was the vote. How many votes were board votes and how many are delegate votes in the 2:1 results? The reason I ask this is actions of USCA since then has been inconsistent with the party line.

Here's what I mean by inconsistent. Once the JA went into effect, USCA spent the next year(s) recovering. USCA went so far as to point out you could be a GSDCA member and participate in USCA events. USCA essentially removed every obstacle the JA created to circumvent the JA. USCA has recently shown some relaxation in the JA as you no longer need to pledge allegance when you sign up. USCA is also accepting GSDCA members. If the JA is all that great then I just want to know,,, WHY? Why did you do away with the pledge and accept GSDCA members? Why not just change the policy and open it up? Let's call a spade a spade and move on.

Bear in mind. If this JA thing was so great, the people that put it in place would still be in office. The only time the members really had a chance to speak was when they got rid of the old and came up with the new.

Let's look at the ívory tower situation. The SV did the exclusionary thing with the RSV2000. It was as bad for them as it was for USCA. The SV recovered by opening up the organization to all aspects of the breed. Check it out in the SV magazine. The breed with the SV direction is a dog for all people. There's something for everyone in the German Shepherd dog. USCA is predominantly IPO and some show. As I look through the pages of the magazine, that's pretty much what's in there.

Here's what I think Momo's point was. The newby coming into the sport, how does he get there? To penetrate through USCA you go to a club to learn Schutzhund, errrr, IPO. What is the retention rate of the 20 year old that got a new showling puppy and drove on over to the local USCA club? I'm thinking from past experiences,,,,single digit.

New game in town. The same 20 year old sits with new puppy in front of the screen on the GSDCA website and looks at what's out there to do. Hey Lars! Check it out! WE can do all sorts of stuff over here. Wanna catch a frisbee? Can you do that? Sure you can. How about agility? Want to go through a tunnel? Look there's an AKC show next weekend in our area, let's go check it out...... See what I mean? The ivory tower example exists in the SV and now exists in the US through the GSDCA. Will USCA continue it's popularity or does it stand to loose a section of growth by not progressing with the rest of the community? That's all......