# The USCA/WUSV/GSDCA/WDA debacle



## onyx'girl




----------



## Packen

I would not worry about politics, just train the dog and have fun competing. Nobody can take that away from you.


----------



## Mrs.K

I would contact them if they didn't recognize the titles. It's your hard work and money that went into it and if the USCA is in violation than they should have to answer for that and something needs to change!


----------



## Zahnburg

You have to understand that it is a "collective" right not an "individual" right so the rights granted by the constitution do not apply. No, wait, that doesn't make sense in these circumstances either.


----------



## onyx'girl

I'm a member of USCA with an AWDF scorebook. 

I'm just sharing this. Curious to see the final outcome(if there will be one).


----------



## cliffson1

Was only a matter of time...just sayin and been sayin!


----------



## schh3fh2

USCA absotultely recognizes all titles and awards issued by WUSV oranization Judges, FCI Judges and judge with the "SV recognized" designation.


----------



## cliffson1

...we must have two different subjects being discussed.


----------



## KJenkins

Interesting....so it seems anyone with a WDA scorebook cannot be denied entry into any WUSV event, which includes the UScA. No stipulation as to what sort of events so at face value WDA members could compete at any UScA event which would include Regional, National Championship and the WDC. 

This should be very interesting... :wild:


----------



## lhczth

Then the same would apply to the WDA Nationals and USCA members.


----------



## Liesje

I've never had issues with USCA accepting my non-USCA stuff (I have WDA titles in a WDA scorebook, a show card from WDA show, an AD from RKNA trial all used for a USCA breed survey and WDA BH used to get a USCA SchH1 with no questions or problems from USCA), but accepting the scorebooks is a different matter. Luckily I dodged that bullet by obtaining an AWDF book before last January. I thought someone on the WDA Facebook got their book joint-issued by the GSDCA and sent it to USCA to be "certified" but I don't know what became of it...


----------



## cliffson1

I think you are probably right Lisa....seems to me the letter says that all FCI organizations must accept the scorebooks of fellow members.


----------



## Liesje

Wouldn't you have to be a member of WDA to be in their national though? So that alone would negate the scorebook issue. Or can you enter national events without being a member of the organization hosting the national?


----------



## KJenkins

Both clubs will need to drop membership requirements to enter the National events unless the WUSV doesn't have an issue with requiring club membership to enter. 

If the requirement can remain then UScA is going to need a by-laws amendment to drop the competing organization clause so that WDA members may join if they want to keep the membership requirement in place otherwise they will still need to drop the mandatory membership requirement.


----------



## GSDElsa

Um, aren't they both just as guilty for the same grandstanding??

I didn't think you had to be a USA member to compete in USA events? Don't they both have the stupid requirement, however, that you aren't supposed to have 2 scorebooks or something? 

Anyhow. Pot calling kettle black all around. Both orgainzations needs to get over themselves regarding nonsense like this.


----------



## onyx'girl

Agree, and it's confusing enough just to understand clearly the new rules interpretations, let alone having to jump through hoops before you can trial. Especially now that many have defected from WDA and are potential future members of USCA.


----------



## Liesje

The problem is, as I understand from Frank, the scorebook rule is NOT a USCA or WDA rule but an FCI rule that you can no longer issue a dog a *second* scorebook (even if the owner doesn't plan to use both). Before this rule, all you had to do was get an AWDF book and stop using your WDA book. That is exactly what I did. But since January 2012 that was no longer allowed, so people with WDA books that want to compete in USCA events and/or would have obtained an AWDF book are stuck. The solution is for the WDA to re-issue books in conjunction with the GSDCA and for USCA to recognize this book but it's unclear whether either of these steps are happening...


----------



## cliffson1

Lies, the problem is the constitution of the FCI states reciprosity to other members and one organization from America forbade any dealings with another FCI member. AWDF should have never entered into the equation....the premise was faulty from the start. The WDA rode the coattails of the GSDCA and in the beginning the USCA rode the coattails of SV. It started with banning and not acknowling FCI approved judges and that was reversed, and and since WDA was created from GSDCA members it was only a matter of time. Part of sound leadership for large organizations is to make prudent decisions that are sound and in conformance with existing hiarchies......at least when I was Asst. CEO of a 2000 employee organization this was part of my responsibilites.


----------



## Liesje

You lost me....why can't everyone just place nice?


----------



## onyx'girl

And thats why they call it trialing! The dogs have it easy.


----------



## cliffson1

Look....I am not anti USCA and I am not anti WDA....I am pro FCI especially if that means more trials and options to more people in the states. The sport IPO movement is too small in this country to have the only two organizations placing restrictions on each other....makes little practical sense to furthering this sport for the regular people and it definitely doesn't help the overall situation of the breed in this country.jmo!


----------



## Mrs.K

cliffson1 said:


> Look....I am not anti USCA and I am not anti WDA....I am pro FCI especially if that means more trials and options to more people in the states. The sport IPO movement is too small in this country to have the only two organizations placing restrictions on each other....makes little practical sense to furthering this sport for the regular people and it definitely doesn't help the overall situation of the breed in this country.jmo!



:thumbup:


----------



## schh3fh2

cliffson1 said:


> Lies, the problem is the constitution of the FCI states reciprosity to other members and one organization from America forbade any dealings with another FCI member. .


 
Cliffson1

This statement is completely false and has no truth to it at all. There are zero FCI members in the USA. AKC is the "recognized registry", but that is the extent of any relationship with the FCI. The closest to any relationship with the FCI is the AWDF who is an "invited guest" to all FCI championships and meetings. That is the reason only AWDF can send a team to FCI Championships and why only AWDF member orgs can send Judges to the Judges meeting.

As for everyone working together, We (USCA) reached out to WDA president Mr Yee and GSDCA President Mr Fasano to say we think there is an opertunity to work together and find a way to open up all trials to each other members. We asked for a few months to get up to speed and get a better understanding of the possible problems invovled before making this decision. Mr Fasano from the GSDCA has been very cooperative and has offered to help any way he can. Mr Yee however decided the better tack was to "demand" and threaten USCA with WUSV sanctions if we do not comply with his demands imediately. Mr Yee of course can not make a complaint with WUSV as WDA is not a WUSV member, it would have to be made from Mr Fasano through the GSDCA. He also posted a letter supposedly written by Mr Lux on the internet. We have asked to see the original because the letter USCA received from Mr Lux said nothing like what was in Mr Yee's letter. If Mr Lux really intended to do what Mr Yee claims why was that letter sent only to GSDCA-WDA and his letter to USCA so different. The letter from Mr Lux to USCA stated only that USCA must accept all "awards and titles" issued by WUSV member judges at GSDCA-WDA events. It said nothing about recognizing WDA and their scorebook. We assured Mr Lux that USCA absolutely accepts all titles earned under WUSV Judges, FCI Judges and judges that are from organization with no ties to either as long as they have the "SV recognized" designation.
We tried to reach out and work together but unfortunately Mr Yee has decided to go the demand, threaten and force route.


----------



## Mrs.K

schh3fh2 said:


> Cliffson1
> 
> This statement is completely false and has no truth to it at all. There are zero FCI members in the USA. AKC is the "recognized registry", but that is the extent of any relationship with the FCI. The closest to any relationship with the FCI is the AWDF who is an "invited guest" to all FCI championships and meetings. That is the reason only AWDF can send a team to FCI Championships and why only AWDF member orgs can send Judges to the Judges meeting.
> 
> As for everyone working together, We (USCA) reached out to WDA president Mr Yee and GSDCA President Mr Fasano to say we think there is an opertunity to work together and find a way to open up all trials to each other members. We asked for a few months to get up to speed and get a better understanding of the possible problems invovled before making this decision. Mr Fasano from the GSDCA has been very cooperative and has offered to help any way he can. Mr Yee however decided the better tack was to "demand" and threaten USCA with WUSV sanctions if we do not comply with his demands imediately. Mr Yee of course can not make a complaint with WUSV as WDA is not a WUSV member, it would have to be made from Mr Fasano through the GSDCA. He also posted a letter supposedly written by Mr Lux on the internet. We have asked to see the original because the letter USCA received from Mr Lux said nothing like what was in Mr Yee's letter. If Mr Lux really intended to do what Mr Yee claims why was that letter sent only to GSDCA-WDA and his letter to USCA so different. The letter from Mr Lux to USCA stated only that USCA must accept all "awards and titles" issued by WUSV member judges at GSDCA-WDA events. It said nothing about recognizing WDA and their scorebook. We assured Mr Lux that USCA absolutely accepts all titles earned under WUSV Judges, FCI Judges and judges that are from organization with no ties to either as long as they have the "SV recognized" designation.
> We tried to reach out and work together but unfortunately Mr Yee has decided to go the demand, threaten and force route.


That is not entirely true! 

The WUSV is SV, the SV is a VDH member, the VDH is a FCI member. If I understood correctly, the USCA is WUSV and so is the GSDCA. Right? Technically that makes them FCI under the WUSV/SV umbrella.


----------



## schh3fh2

Mrs.K said:


> That is not entirely true!
> 
> The WUSV is SV, the SV is a VDH member, the VDH is a FCI member. If I understood correctly, the USCA is WUSV and so is the GSDCA. Right? Technically that makes them FCI under the WUSV/SV umbrella.


 
This is not correct either.... The SV is a member of the WUSV and through their affiliation with VDH the SV has ties to FCI, not the other way around. The WUSV has no ties to FCI at this time. What I wrote is correct.


----------



## Mrs.K

schh3fh2 said:


> This is not correct either.... The SV is a member of the WUSV and through their affiliation with VDH the SV has ties to FCI, not the other way around. The WUSV has no ties to FCI at this time. What I wrote is correct.


I stand corrected, you are correct. 



> COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FCI AND THE WUSV
> On the occasion of its meeting in Rome on April 13-14 2011 the FCI General Committee made the following decision with regard to the cooperation agreement between the FCI and the Weltunion der Schäferhundvereine (WUSV):
> Since it creates more problems than it smoothes the relations between the WUSV and some FCI members, the cooperation agreement will terminate on November 9, 2011.
> Consequently, from November 10, 2011 the following applies :
> 1. The pedigrees issued after 9 November 2011 by breed clubs members of the WUSV which are, however, not members of an FCI national canine organisation (NCO) CANNOT be accepted by an FCI NCO and its affiliated clubs.
> 2. The WUSV judges will still be allowed to officiate at events organised by an FCI NCO or by an FCI NCO affiliated club PROVIDED THAT they have the approval of the WUSV AND of the FCI NCO of their country of legal residence.
> We request the FCI members and contract partners to IMMEDIATELY inform their affiliated clubs and events organizers.
> 
> ACCORD DE COOPERATION ENTRE LA FCI ET


It is unbelievable, that the AKC with it's lax rules is accepted but the USCA is not. Why doesn't the USCA put in a little effort to be accepted by the FCI? I'd much rather like to see them than the AKC.


----------



## cliffson1

Frank, maybe my wording was incorrect about FCI but the principle is that WDA through GSDCA and USCA initially through SV were operating under the scope of FCI guidelines in IPO. I stand corrected on the specifics but I think the principle is correct. 
I commend USCA for reaching out to GSDCA and WDA and I understand that with changes within the WDA structure in recent years recipical cooperation has been difficult to acheive. I can understand the frustration of the actions of some in leadership on the otherside.....I just ask as one of the leaders in USCA, you continue to take the high road and work something out for the greater good of the sport and breed....personalities notwithstanding....Thanks for your response, you have always represnted USCA in a transparent fashion whether I have agreed with your position or not....and I respect that!


----------



## KJenkins

Mrs.K said:


> I stand corrected, you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> It is unbelievable, that the AKC with it's lax rules is accepted but the USCA is not. Why doesn't the USCA put in a little effort to be accepted by the FCI? I'd much rather like to see them than the AKC.


Have you ever actually read the the UScA breeding regulations? The breeding regulations for UScA are only binding if the breeder wants to register the litter with the UScA. I hear all this BS that only the UScA is the right organization for the GSD yet they tie any breeding regulations to only breeders wanting to register with the UScA. Why not make it mandatory regardless of registry if they are that concerned about the well being of the GSD? 

Do you ever read the AKC website and look at the punishments given to people who violate AKC rules and regulation? 

http://images.akc.org/pdf/secretary_page/January_2013.pdf

While the AKC can do some things that make you go wth they do some good things also.


----------



## KJenkins

So there's no possibility that each is getting a different response from the WUSV? 

I contacted UScA last year in regards to the UScA releasing judges to the RKNA as the USRC Secretary at the time and got a completely different answer than what was given to others. I still have the emails. So to say that organizations don't give different answers about the same question to different people is not beyond the realm of possibility.


----------



## Mrs.K

KJenkins said:


> Have you ever actually read the the UScA breeding regulations? The breeding regulations for UScA are only binding if the breeder wants to register the litter with the UScA. I hear all this BS that only the UScA is the right organization for the GSD yet they tie any breeding regulations to only breeders wanting to register with the UScA. Why not make it mandatory regardless of registry if they are that concerned about the well being of the GSD?
> 
> Do you ever read the AKC website and look at the punishments given to people who violate AKC rules and regulation?
> 
> http://images.akc.org/pdf/secretary_page/January_2013.pdf
> 
> While the AKC can do some things that make you go wth they do some good things also.


The same goes for the SV. If you want to register with the SV you have to abide by their rules and join the Club. If you don't abide the rules and it gets out, than the fines will be hefty as well. 

If you want to register with the AKC you have to abide by their rules or you won't get AKC papers. 

It's the same with every club... so what's the big fuzz?


----------



## KJenkins

You made the comment about the AKC and all it's lax rules...I made the counterpoint.


----------



## Mrs.K

KJenkins said:


> You made the comment about the AKC and all it's lax rules...I made the counterpoint.



And can you not just put two dogs together, without any titles and get AKC papers?


----------



## KJenkins

Yes you can. It's been that way since the AKC's inception in 1884. Not denying that at all. 

What I am saying is it not a bit hypocritical for the UScA to have a strict breeding mandate only if you want papers to a registry that doesn't really mean squat but if you use the AKC you aren't required to follow those requirements? How is that not as *lax* as the AKC?


----------



## Mrs.K

KJenkins said:


> Yes you can. It's been that way since the AKC's inception in 1884. Not denying that at all.
> 
> What I am saying is it not a bit hypocritical for the UScA to have a strict breeding mandate only if you want papers to a registry that doesn't really mean squat but if you use the AKC you aren't required to follow those requirements? How is that not as *lax* as the AKC?


The only way to make that happen is if the AKC is on board with that.


----------



## schh3fh2

cliffson1 said:


> Frank, maybe my wording was incorrect about FCI but the principle is that WDA through GSDCA and USCA initially through SV were operating under the scope of FCI guidelines in IPO.


 I'm sorry I misunderstood and thought you were talking about FCI Memberships.... I agree with the sentiment with your statement, that's why we reached out in the first place.


----------



## KJenkins

Mrs.K said:


> The only way to make that happen is if the AKC is on board with that.


So because the AKC doesn't require it the UScA doesn't need to take any of the responsibility for breeding correctly unless their registry is getting used?

UScA can write into the rules mandatory breeding practices for the GSD if they want without it being tied to any registry. You want to remain a member and want to breed a litter then you do xyz. Of course it's easier just to blame the AKC.


----------



## holland

Because I am anal and have no idea what anyone is talking about-which pardon the pun is frankly a relief-but it is opportunity-btw -not that it matters because this post will likely be deleted-ok back to whatever this thread was about...


----------



## cliffson1

Makes sense !....lol


----------



## schh3fh2

Mrs.K said:


> I would contact them if they didn't recognize the titles. It's your hard work and money that went into it and if the USCA is in violation than they should have to answer for that and something needs to change!


USCA is NOT in violation. USCA recognizes all titles earned under judges from WUSV member orgs, FCI Member orgs or judge with no ties to either that have the SV designation.


----------



## Mrs.K

schh3fh2 said:


> USCA is NOT in violation. USCA recognizes all titles earned under judges from WUSV member orgs, FCI Member orgs or judge with no ties to either that have the SV designation.


Are you absolutely sure about that? I remember a topic where this issue was discussed and people had issues with their titles and booklets going from WDA back to USCA even if they trialed under SV Judges.


----------



## Liesje

You're talking about two different thing: titles and scorebooks. My understanding is that USCA has no problems recognizing the titles and is currently in the process of trying to sort out the scorebook issue.


----------



## Mrs.K

Ah, makes sense. I don't remember if it was the titles or scorebooks that had been discussed in the past.


----------



## Mrs.K

KJenkins said:


> So because the AKC doesn't require it the UScA doesn't need to take any of the responsibility for breeding correctly unless their registry is getting used?
> 
> UScA can write into the rules mandatory breeding practices for the GSD if they want without it being tied to any registry. You want to remain a member and want to breed a litter then you do xyz. Of course it's easier just to blame the AKC.



Even with rules, there will always be those breeding outside the rules or try to find loopholes, bending the rules etc. And you will always have those, even without rules being imposed, that will breed for a higher standard and go above and beyond to breed quality dogs. 

I prefer those that take the responsibility upon themselves to breed to that high of a standard.


----------



## schh3fh2

Mrs.K said:


> Are you absolutely sure about that? I remember a topic where this issue was discussed and people had issues with their titles and booklets going from WDA back to USCA even if they trialed under SV Judges.


 I am abolutely sure...There is an issue with WDA scorebooks as they are not issued from a WUSV member org, but there is no issue with titles being recognized.


----------



## onyx'girl

Update, thoughts?
http://www.germanshepherddog.com/documents/2013-WUSV_WDA.pdf


----------



## Mrs.K

Ouch!
They better act on it now. 



schh3fh2 said:


> I am abolutely sure...There is an issue with WDA scorebooks as they are not issued from a WUSV member org, but there is no issue with titles being recognized.


However, I knew there was an issue with the USCA accepting and recognizing titles and scores from the GSDCA and the WDA. Believe me now?



> USCA is in violation of the WUSV Constitution because of its refusal to accept GSDCA
> and/or WDA members into its events. It is in further violation of WUSV rules and policies that
> require (1) recognition scores and titles awarded by SV, SVF or WDA judges that are
> recorded in GSDCA/WDA score books and (2) allowance of SV, SVF or WDA judges to enter
> scores and titles that are earned at WDA events by USCA members into their USCA score
> books


So I wasn't wrong at all about that!


----------



## ayoitzrimz

if only if only we could just train our dogs and not have to worry about the big-heads and their politics...


----------



## holland

I think most people do exactly that


----------



## Liesje

Sandra I disagree, I don't think there has ever been and issue with titles. Just because the letter spells out both things doesn't mean both were issues. I actually have titles and scorecards issued by SV judges at WDA events and have never once had them questioned at USCA events. I've presented a WDA scorebook at a USCA event and had no problems. I used a title in a WDA scorebook and a WDA show card at a USCA breed survey and had no problems. I never even had to explain what I was doing, it was clear these titles/ratings were awarded by SV judges and USCA has never challenged that.


----------



## Mrs.K

Liesje said:


> Sandra I disagree, I don't think there has ever been and issue with titles. Just because the letter spells out both things doesn't mean both were issues. I actually have titles and scorecards issued by SV judges at WDA events and have never once had them questioned at USCA events. I've presented a WDA scorebook at a USCA event and had no problems. I used a title in a WDA scorebook and a WDA show card at a USCA breed survey and had no problems. I never even had to explain what I was doing, it was clear these titles/ratings were awarded by SV judges and USCA has never challenged that.


I don't want to get into that argument again but I do remember specifically that something was going on with titles from the WDA/GSDCA and they were not accepted or recognized. It's been a couple of years back, before I even moved to the US but I do remember it. 

Anyhow, doesn't really matter. If they won't comply with WUSV rules, they'll have bigger issues on their hand which will hurt everyone in the Sport.


----------



## Liesje

The letter is still confusing because first it says that the WDA is under the WUSV because it is part of the GSDCA but then later on it says the GSDCA and WDA are different organizations with different membership. I agree USCA is being rather stubborn but I also don't think it's ridiculous to ask for the WUSV and GSDCA to give final clarification on this point which USCA has been asking for all along.


----------



## hunterisgreat

ayoitzrimz said:


> if only if only we could just train our dogs and not have to worry about the big-heads and their politics...


Thats what I do. I don't even get involved or are made aware of drama within my own club, much less the governing bodies lol. I just go to train dogs.


----------



## Mrs.K

hunterisgreat said:


> Thats what I do. I don't even get involved or are made aware of drama within my own club, much less the governing bodies lol. I just go to train dogs.


I am following the Drama in Germany and out here as well as support the "SV Initiative".


----------



## cliffson1

Was only a matter of time.......


----------



## onyx'girl

Today Jim Alloway is in Germany to meet with Henke and Lux regarding the letter from Mr.Henke.
This is an important issue, and I would like membership input.
BACKGROUND
USCA and GSDCA are members of the WUSV. most countries do not have 2 organizations like United States
GSDCA and GSDCA-WDA are 2 separate organizations
The GSDCA (AKC) President is Frank Fasano and GSDCA-WDA President is Dan Yee. There is no organization as WDA.
The GSDCA-WDA is NOT a member of the WUSV, but works in coordination with GSDCA (AKC) 
Voting at the WUSV is based on membership numbers 
GSDCA has 7 votes - USCA has 5 votes - SV has about 60 votes
The WUSV mandated (2yr ago) that countries with 2 or more recognized organizations, must hold a Qualification Trial to determine the final 6 dogs to compete at the WUSV. Prior to this, GSDCA each sent a Team. This ended due to the popularity of the trial and limits on country participation. The forced cooperation created conflict i.e.: GSDCA promotes an entirely different dog than dogs from USCA, SV and other WUSV members
Mr. Yee has requested USCA recognize GSDCA(WDA) scorebooks, which he based his request on WUSV constitutional provisions (see attached) 
This is causing a problem because the original WDA scorebook had GSDCA-WDA on the cover. However, GSDCA had nothing to do with issuing the book. 
Then WDA changed the covers, and the new cover has GSDCA logo. But these books are NOT sold, recorded, or purchased from the GSDCA. Our current policy is : NOT to accept any of the books until we can confirm that the scorebooks are in fact issued by GSDCA. To complicate issues: only 1 WDA Judge is an SV judge, 2 are SVR judges, and 2 are not recognized by the SV. We do not accept titles awarded by non-SVR judges. Obviously the books contain titles from non-SVR judges. Some books contain titles by judges who are now SVR, but were not SVR when the titles were awarded. And, GSDCA-WDA members are NOT members of GSDCA – this requires 2 separate membership cards

Should negations constitute USCA to accept their books/titles: Is your club in favor of this ? Are you in favor of issuing a non-member fee, plus the regular trial fees to enter our trials? Do you have alternative suggestion ?
Please reply directly to me: [email protected]
Thank you, 
Mark Scarberry
Mid East Regional Director


----------



## onyx'girl




----------



## Liesje

This is my response I sent to my club:

My opinion is unless USCA leaves the WUSV then we should just accept it. Charge a one-time fee to "certify" the dog or the dog's book, but no additional fees beyond that. I'm no fan of the GSDCA but I have and do still enter WDA events and have not been charged extra. I was not charged extra to enter both dogs in an RKNA trial (which USCA accepted titles from because Johannes was the judge). I do lots of other dog sports that have 2, 3, 4 different organizations and am only charged a one-time fee to "register" my dog with each org (usually called a "run number") and am not charged additional fees every time I enter. I've been issued run numbers, scorebooks, TL numbers, etc from six or so different organizations without any of them asking or caring what other orgs I already belong to. Maybe if everyone's trials were always filling up that would be one thing but SchH/IPO seems to be dwindling or at least not growing in this country so why make it any harder for people to compete? If non-USCA members enter then we still get their entry fees but if entering becomes cost-prohibitive then we get nothing for the entries we lose and can't fill with USCA members.

JMHO based on my overall experience in dog sports, without any regard to politics or which org I think is "better" for GSDs.


----------



## onyx'girl

I guess my question would then be...if I don't _have _to be a USCA member to trial, then why would I_ need_ to be a member? As long as I have a scorebook, would I need to be a current member of an organization to still trial?


----------



## cliffson1

They just need a valid scorebook as determined by WUSV to trial.


----------



## onyx'girl

right, so they want membership to support the organization, therefore, I doubt the 'don't pay extra' will fly when non-members trial. They wouldn't get anything out of it....non-profit, status, however should play into it? 
And paying for this emergency trip must be a bit of a drain on the coffers.


----------



## Doc

No wonder the younger generation has no interest in dog organizations. The last 6 pages is enough to drive any desire out of someone. What a bunch of crap. Sounds like a bunch of kids fighting on a playground. JMO


----------



## onyx'girl

I'm old and it is draining my desire!


----------



## Liesje

Non-members entering helps the clubs hosting events. The more entries they get, the more cost is covered. The cost of hosting a trial is a fixed overhead cost. You pay the same airfare, hotel, transport, etc for a judge regardless of how many entries there are, and entries are already capped by the org so you aren't extending events any more days and thus having to spend more on the judging. It's not any more expensive to host a trial with 6 USCA members and 4 WDA members than just 6 USCA members.

Or, get rid of the JA and problem solved.


----------



## onyx'girl

get rid of the JA and problem solved.
ding ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner!


----------



## Liesje

Well I guess that does not solve the scorebook issue for some people, but it would solve the issue for a lot of people involved.


----------



## Doc

onyx'girl said:


> I'm old and it is draining my desire!


Your mind goes as you get older, just saying ...:wild:


----------



## Liesje

Liesje said:


> Well I guess that does not solve the scorebook issue for some people, but it would solve the issue for a lot of people involved.


Just realized I made no sense. What I meant was, repealing the JA would not solve the scorebook issue (if you got a WDA book after January 2012 you can't get an AWDF book whether you become USCA member or not), but it would solve the issue of people leaving the JA because they don't like to be told what they can/can't do, and the issue of people who have left the WDA or want to leave but are not joining USCA because of the JA. I wonder how many people would leave USCA if the JA were repealed and if that number is more than people who would come back or switch orgs in favor of USCA without the JA?


----------



## cliffson1

A lot of egos and feelings driving this situation, much less practical sense. It's a shame.....history has shown that the best competitors are often not the best managers....I value history, today's generation feels THEY built Rome.


----------



## Doc

cliffson1 said:


> A lot of egos and feelings driving this situation, much less practical sense. It's a shame.....history has shown that the best competitors are often not the best managers....I value history, today's generation feels THEY built Rome.


You mean they didn't????  LOL


----------



## schh3fh2

Liesje said:


> Non-members entering helps the clubs hosting events. The more entries they get, the more cost is covered. The cost of hosting a trial is a fixed overhead cost. You pay the same airfare, hotel, transport, etc for a judge regardless of how many entries there are, and entries are already capped by the org so you aren't extending events any more days and thus having to spend more on the judging. It's not any more expensive to host a trial with 6 USCA members and 4 WDA members than just 6 USCA members.


 You are thinking small term...You are correct the expense of putting on the trial is fixed. Who pays for the office staff saleries to track and document results? Who pays for continued Judges education? So our events are judged more fairly and consistantly. Who pays for continued Helper education? So our helpers are better and safer and we develope new helpers. The extra fees go to the organization that in turns spends it on the members, not to help the cost of putting on the actual club trial.

Preliminary results of the meeting in Germany...

The WUSV confirmed that they view the GSDCA and WDA as the same organization. They understand that legally and actually they are seperate organizations but they view as the same and they would like USCA to also. They want the GSD orgs to work together and both to stop fighting each other.

USCA can and will charge an extra fee for entry from non-members

WDA is only allowed to enter club level trials for IPO events. USCA membership is required for entry into Championships (Regional and National)


a USCA club can still refuse entry from anyone for any reason to their club trials (this was put in place as a lot of club fields are on private property and WUSV have no objections)

USCA members would get priority entry into USCA events, even if it meant turning away a non-member to make room for a USCA member. Even if a USCA member enters late.

Non members entering must be a member of an AWDF org, GSDCA or WDA to enter USCA events.

WDA scorebooks and Judges will be accepted. 

Just having a WDA scorebook does NOT equal GSDCA membership. A person must be a member of GSDCA, WDA or both.

USCA asked WUSV for clearification on this matter and until the letter (which also was not clear or correct) and the meeting it was not communicated clearly. Since the meeting it is now clear what the WUSV wanted and where all orgs stand.

The WUSV verbally relaxed the 10th deadline 

This has to be all hashed out and voted on in the EB but I believe it will all be worked out shortly


----------



## Liesje

schh3fh2 said:


> You are thinking small term...You are correct the expense of putting on the trial is fixed. Who pays for the office staff saleries to track and document results? Who pays for continued Judges education? So our events are judged more fairly and consistantly. Who pays for continued Helper education? So our helpers are better and safer and we develope new helpers. The extra fees go to the organization that in turns spends it on the members, not to help the cost of putting on the actual club trial.



Right....but there is a niche of folks who would like to pay membership to USCA but currently are not allowed to. The way I see it, if I like an org and support what they do, then I join and pay my membership. It's not just about being forced to pay before I enter a trial so that I can enter. I keep up my membership even if my dog is not entered in events that year. Maybe that's too altruistic of a view but I think other people would do the same if they were not prohibited because they also pay membership to another organization. There are lots of sports that are put on by multiple organizations and I have no issues paying my membership (or registering myself or myself and my dog, however they have it done) across the board. If I don't support what the org is doing then I wouldn't join and enter my dog. Usually my support is not exclusive to one organization. If people are willing to join both, why prevent them? That is cutting out membership fees that can be used on staff, social media, judging programs, helper programs, national events, etc.


----------



## schh3fh2

Liesje said:


> Right....but there is a niche of folks who would like to pay membership to USCA but currently are not allowed to. The way I see it, if I like an org and support what they do, then I join and pay my membership. It's not just about being forced to pay before I enter a trial so that I can enter. I keep up my membership even if my dog is not entered in events that year. Maybe that's too altruistic of a view but I think other people would do the same if they were not prohibited because they also pay membership to another organization. There are lots of sports that are put on by multiple organizations and I have no issues paying my membership (or registering myself or myself and my dog, however they have it done) across the board. If I don't support what the org is doing then I wouldn't join and enter my dog. Usually my support is not exclusive to one organization. If people are willing to join both, why prevent them? That is cutting out membership fees that can be used on staff, social media, judging programs, helper programs, national events, etc.


 I understand your statement and I have answered that question many many times on this and other boards but basically my vote for JA was a direct result of the aggression shown by the other orgs to try to force us out. It was drawing a line in the sand as this is us and that is them. Granted the times have changed and some of the threats are definately gone now. That may very well be something that gets looked at in the future to see if it is needed anymore. But That is a GBM thing. Also I think there should be some time pass to see after this big change to see how things settle out....


----------



## lhczth

THANK YOU, Frank!!


----------



## Liesje

schh3fh2 said:


> I understand your statement and I have answered that question many many times on this and other boards but basically my vote for JA was a direct result of the aggression shown by the other orgs to try to force us out. It was drawing a line in the sand as this is us and that is them. Granted the times have changed and some of the threats are definately gone now. That may very well be something that gets looked at in the future to see if it is needed anymore. But That is a GBM thing. Also I think there should be some time pass to see after this big change to see how things settle out....


Thanks for clarifying. I'm not really for or against it, since I don't fully understand the motivation behind it.

I guess what I see (and what happened to me) is a lot of people join WDA without really making an informed decision and end up shooting themselves in the foot. They join because their breeder is a member, or the first club they visit is a WDA club and they're new to GSDs and excited to join *something* without really realizing that they've locked themselves out of USCA unless they ask for their membership to be revoked and now they're stuck with a WDA scorebook regardless. I was a WDA member initially because my breeder is/was and that's who was helping me train and show my dog, not because I had any reason *not* to join USCA or any real allegiance to WDA. Many people have said they would have joined USCA from the beginning if they'd known better. Not that it's USCA's fault, but it's just kind of sad to see people who are new to the breed and to SchH and come in with a lot of enthusiasm make that mistake and get caught up in the politics. Once the scorebook thing is resolved, I suppose the JA is no longer a barrier for participating.


----------



## KJenkins

Yeah let's just see if they get rid of the JA....:smirk:...it still keeps GSDCA/WDA members out of anything above the club level. 

Already frigging loopholes to keep WDA members out regardless of level...the infamous private property issue...let's be honest all any club has to do is say the event is full even if they only have one dog.

Everyone who thinks this hasn't happen or won't happen again raise your hand...


----------



## cliffson1

Seems like a productive meeting, it sounds like the WUSV wants everyone to act like an adult....hopefully this will be achieved without transparent barriers used by either side.


----------



## onyx'girl

Transparency is _the_ key...and I think the new board has done well in this area. The communication and updates have shown they are at least trying.


----------



## cliffson1

I wholeheartedly agree!


----------



## Liesje

So now that USCA is accepting WDA scorebooks why is the WDA telling me I can't enter their show because of my USCA breed survey?


----------



## lhczth

Because they don't recognize our USCA Körmeister.


----------



## onyx'girl

From President Jim Alloway:

*Rule Books*

Trial rule books are now available for download on the USCA site. There are both 8.5x11 and smaller formats (replacements for purchased rule books) available. We are working on making printed, bound versions available through the office. A huge thanks to Nathaniel Roque for 
HUNDREDS of hours of work on this!!!

Click here to view: 
USA - Forms


*USCA Policy Changes / Clarifications*
USCA no longer requires scorebook certification for non-members and has removed the previous $40 certification fee.
Club trial entry fee is a $25 "additional" filing fee for non-members (i.e. USCA members filing fee is $4 and non-members is $29 - be sure to pass on the extra $25 expense to the participant).
Trial entrants must be a member of USCA, AWDF, FCI, or WUSV (WDA and or GSDCA are members of the WUSV) and provide proof of membership.
Scorebooks must be from a AWDF, FCI or WUSV member organization.
Because regional and national level events are qualification trials for the WUSV team, they are open to USCA members only.


----------



## Andaka

onyx'girl said:


> From President Jim Alloway:
> 
> *Rule Books*
> 
> Trial rule books are now available for download on the USCA site. There are both 8.5x11 and smaller formats (replacements for purchased rule books) available. We are working on making printed, bound versions available through the office. A huge thanks to Nathaniel Roque for
> HUNDREDS of hours of work on this!!!
> 
> Click here to view:
> USA - Forms
> 
> 
> *USCA Policy Changes / Clarifications*
> USCA no longer requires scorebook certification for non-members and has removed the previous $40 certification fee.
> Club trial entry fee is a $25 "additional" filing fee for non-members (i.e. USCA members filing fee is $4 and non-members is $29 - be sure to pass on the extra $25 expense to the participant).
> Trial entrants must be a member of USCA, AWDF, FCI, or WUSV (WDA and or GSDCA are members of the WUSV) and provide proof of membership.
> Scorebooks must be from a AWDF, FCI or WUSV member organization.
> Because regional and national level events are qualification trials for the WUSV team, they are open to USCA members only.


So let me get this straight -- If I, Daphne, am a WDA member, and I want to trial Buster at a USCA trial, I have to pay an additional $25 per entry instead of a one time $40 certification fee. Do they really have so many entries from the USCA that they can afford to run off the other side?


----------



## Liesje

Yes and probably (unless you are GSSCC, it didn't mention that but the e-mails we received on each topic did, they are already exempt per a previous agreement). I guess this is how it is already done in other countries with more than one WUSV org? The nice thing is WDA members no longer need a two-step process for being able to use their scorebook (getting GSDCA to co-issue it and then USCA to certify it).


----------



## schh3fh2

Andaka said:


> So let me get this straight -- If I, Daphne, am a WDA member, and I want to trial Buster at a USCA trial, I have to pay an additional $25 per entry instead of a one time $40 certification fee. Do they really have so many entries from the USCA that they can afford to run off the other side?


 Daphne

There has to be benefit to being a member of any organization. 


If non-members get the exact same privledges as members, why would anyone pay a membership fee to any of our organizations? USCA budgets and spends approx $25,000 per year in judges education so that the judging at our events are getting more consistant, Judges are better informed on the current rules and trials are more fair to all competitors. USCA budgets and spends approx $18,000 per year in helper education so that trial helpers in our events are safer, more consistant and better informed on trial procedures. USCA has an office staff that we have to pay that tracks and documents all trial results. USCA membership dues help to pay for all of these sevices and more. It would not be fair to our members to give those services away for free to non-members. As it stands right now, if a Non- member does their BH, IPO1, IPO2 and IPO3 at a USCA event, they will pay the exact same amount of additional fee that they have in the past ($25 x 4 = $100 compared to $40 scorebook cert plus $15 X 4 = $60 for a total of also $100) If they show in one of their own clubs events they will actually pay less then they did in the past. Plus now they do not have the hassle of having to send in their scorebooks for certification.

 The $25 fee was agreed upon by both organizations and is suppose to be put into effect in both organizations (WDA charge extra $25 for USCA members to enter their events) If WDA actually choose to or not I do not know, but that was agreed upon by both presidents.


This is about being fair to our members and running USCA as a business and not giving away services to non-members for free.

 I hope this helps you to understand.


 Frank 


​


----------



## cliffson1

That's fair! Frank!.....I see no problem with this as it provides access to any person that wants to compete and has the legitimate dog and paperwork.


----------



## onyx'girl

I'm happy things have moved forward positively and all these vague areas have been cleared up. 
And YAAY!!!! Scorebooks are finally available....just in time for trial season


----------



## KJenkins

schh3fh2 said:


> Daphne
> 
> There has to be benefit to being a member of any organization.
> 
> If non-members get the exact same privledges as members, why would anyone pay a membership fee to any of our organizations? USCA budgets and spends approx $25,000 per year in judges education so that the judging at our events are getting more consistant, Judges are better informed on the current rules and trials are more fair to all competitors. USCA budgets and spends approx $18,000 per year in helper education so that trial helpers in our events are safer, more consistant and better informed on trial procedures. USCA has an office staff that we have to pay that tracks and documents all trial results. USCA membership dues help to pay for all of these sevices and more. It would not be fair to our members to give those services away for free to non-members. As it stands right now, if a Non- member does their BH, IPO1, IPO2 and IPO3 at a USCA event, they will pay the exact same amount of additional fee that they have in the past ($25 x 4 = $100 compared to $40 scorebook cert plus $15 X 4 = $60 for a total of also $100) If they show in one of their own clubs events they will actually pay less then they did in the past. Plus now they do not have the hassle of having to send in their scorebooks for certification.
> 
> The $25 fee was agreed upon by both organizations and is suppose to be put into effect in both organizations (WDA charge extra $25 for USCA members to enter their events) If WDA actually choose to or not I do not know, but that was agreed upon by both presidents.
> 
> 
> This is about being fair to our members and running USCA as a business and not giving away services to non-members for free.
> 
> I hope this helps you to understand.
> 
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> ​


What a load Phillips. When I trial at a DVG or WDA trials their judges are just as informed to trial rules and certainly just as fair to competitors as any UScA judge I've ever trialed under and to suggest otherwise is plain bull, misleading and self-serving.


----------



## schh3fh2

KJenkins said:


> What a load Phillips. When I trial at a DVG or WDA trials their judges are just as informed to trial rules and certainly just as fair to competitors as any UScA judge I've ever trialed under and to suggest otherwise is plain bull, misleading and self-serving.


Keith


I never suggested USCA judges or helpers were any better then any other organization's judges or helpers. I just stated that USCA spends that money to try to make our judges and helpers better then they were the year before... I was talking about USCA and only USCA. I do not make disparaging remarks about any other organization. You can twist and distort all you want, but I never EVER said anything that you claim in this statement.

Frank


----------



## KJenkins

schh3fh2 said:


> Daphne
> 
> There has to be benefit to being a member of any organization.
> 
> If non-members get the exact same privledges as members, why would anyone pay a membership fee to any of our organizations? USCA budgets and spends approx $25,000 per year in judges education so that the judging at our events are getting more consistant, _*Judges are better informed on the current rules and trials are more fair to all competitors. *_USCA budgets and spends approx $18,000 per year in helper education so that trial helpers in our events are safer, more consistant and better informed on trial procedures. USCA has an office staff that we have to pay that tracks and documents all trial results. USCA membership dues help to pay for all of these sevices and more. It would not be fair to our members to give those services away for free to non-members. As it stands right now, if a Non- member does their BH, IPO1, IPO2 and IPO3 at a USCA event, they will pay the exact same amount of additional fee that they have in the past ($25 x 4 = $100 compared to $40 scorebook cert plus $15 X 4 = $60 for a total of also $100) If they show in one of their own clubs events they will actually pay less then they did in the past. Plus now they do not have the hassle of having to send in their scorebooks for certification.
> 
> The $25 fee was agreed upon by both organizations and is suppose to be put into effect in both organizations (WDA charge extra $25 for USCA members to enter their events) If WDA actually choose to or not I do not know, but that was agreed upon by both presidents.
> 
> 
> This is about being fair to our members and running USCA as a business and not giving away services to non-members for free.
> 
> I hope this helps you to understand.
> 
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> ​


Ok then who are you more informed and fairer than? You can twist it any way you like because you mostly are implying that UScA judges are better than someone.


----------



## schh3fh2

KJenkins said:


> Ok then who are you more informed and fairer than? You can twist it any way you like because you mostly are implying that UScA judges are better than someone.


Keith you are the master of distortion and untruths.... You can't highlight a portion of a statement and try to BS people into thinking it ment something different...
We are trying to get OUR own judges more informed and better then they were the year before. That is the point of continued education of judges and helpers, to make them better then they were the year before..... It's maybe be a new concept to you but we are trying to get ourselves better every year. i'm sorry if you can't understand the concept of an Org trying to improve it's own services each year.


**comment removed by ADMIN. Keep these types of comments to yourself, please. Thank you, ADMIN Lisa**

Frank


----------



## GSDElsa

Keith, until you made your post I certainly didn't imagine what Frank was saying was anything close to what you are twisting it to mean. They pay XX amount of money for continuing ed for judges and helpers a year to make them more consistent, safer, and better. You are the one that assumed he meant "than X organization." I read it how he says he meant it, which is they are investing the money in those things to make them more consistent, safer, and better each year.

Think of it this way: I'm in a field that has no competing organizations....it's just one main one. We have certain yearly training where the goal is to make the people in X field have more standardized practices and more consistent in carrying out those practices. Same exact type of wording Frank used...but we're talking about improvement with the organization itself.

And I would also like to point out people in the field who are not a member of the organziation have to pay additional money towards this training.

People really need to stop reading into stuff more than there is to read. People like that is, IMO, exactly how the situation became so ungly to begin with.


----------



## Vinnie

Um, I totally understood what Frank was saying. But like GSDElsa I work in a field where continuing ed is common. It’s not about making people better than others, it’s about making oneself better than you were before. 

Anyway….

So does this mean that WDA will be dropping all their requirements on non-members to enter their trials too? Does anyone know? I know a lot of focus in the past has been placed on what USCA is doing but we rarely hear the other side. Maybe that’s because more people have wanted to enter USCA trials instead of WDA trials???

I believe (at least in the recent past) WDA required non-members to not only submit an FCI/WUSV scorebook but also submit copies of your proof of ownership of the dog (AKC registration works), a 4-generation pedigree tattoo/microchip certified by the AKC for all American born GSDs or for foreign born dogs a pedigree from their country of birth. If your American born GSD’s pedigree is not tattoo/microchip certified by the AKC, you must have a form (provided by the WDA) completed by a veterinarian and submit that with the other paperwork. Also if your scorebook is an SV scorebook it “MUST be certified by the GSDCA-WDA office prior to entry”. This is all just to enter one of their club trials - if you are a non-member of WDA.


----------



## lhczth

*I have deleted some posts that were just back and forth bickering between two people that did nothing to further this discussion. Please, gentleman, if you want to continue your discussion, do so in private. It will not be allowed on this board. *

*GSDElsa, your posts were only removed because they were in response to deleted posts. You did nothing wrong.* 

ADMIN Lisa


----------



## KJenkins

For the record the WDA does not plan to charge extra for non-members to trial. I received this information after this past weekend's board meeting.


----------

