# AWDF take over attempt...



## Christopher Smith

*[FONT=&quot]Check out the agenda for the next for the AWDF meeting. Notice those few items at the bottom. This looks to me as if the BRT club and USCA are up to hijinks. If this voting scheme goes through USCA will have unopposed control of the AWDF. If you think that it's wrong for one club to control the AWDF please let USCA and BRT know that this will not go unchallenged and ask your sportfriends to do the same[/FONT]*



* February 6, 2012 Conference call Agenda*

President report
 New requirements of AWDF to the FCI

Vice president Report

Secretary report - October 24<sup>th</sup> 2011 minutes

Treasurer report – Budget

*Old Business*
2012 AWDF Championship
Aggressive Dog policy
Events committee
Judges Committee and AWDF Program 

*New Business*

*2012 Elections* – President, Treasurer, 2 DAL positions - Vera Reeves & Glenn Stephenson (who resigned Sean O’Kane appointed to fill the remainder of the term)
All members running for an elected position within the AWDF must have the endorsement of their member organization. *A letter from that organization signed by its President will serve as proof of such endorsement. All nominees must fill out a petition for nomination form and it must be submitted 45 days (deadline: 3/27/12) prior to the General Board Meeting.* Nominees may submit a resume to the Nomination Committee to be posted on the AWDF website.
The nominations committee assembles a slate of candidates to fill existing or upcoming vacancies among the officers or at-large Executive Committee members.
The Secretary circulates the slate to the General Board at least *30 days (deadline: 4/11/12)* before the annual meeting.
The nomination committee:
 AWDF Secretary Michelle Testa, Dyan Harper, Patty Bartley,and Frank Phillips 

*New IPO rule clarification for the following:*
a) 1 scorebook regulation - Submitted by Ann Camper AWMA & Carol Walker NAWBA
b) APr titles 1,2 & 3 submitted by Linda Kruz UDC 

*Scorebooks *
a) Each AWDF member breed be able to give scorebooks to any breed of dog - Submitted by Anne Marie Chaffin BRT club
b) UScA only scorebooks being submitted to non UScA trials submitted by Mark Chase

*Voting* – Submitted by Anne Marie Chaffin BRT club 
Each AWDF member club should have votes based on membership numbers (example 1 per 250)


----------



## Mario Fernandez

Only good thing former USCA pres. Paul Meloy did was help set up the AWDF.

AWDF host the premier IPO trial in North America, proof is in the entries over the past five years. I think the AWDF is fine how it is. No one breed club should have more voting rights than any other. I hope the breed clubs veto this proposed bill.

Regards,

Mario


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Its obvious UScA would have the most votes. I'm still lost on the scorebook madness. UScA proposes to have it be the only scorebook even for non-UScA events which would pad their coffers for sure. At this point, is there an umbrella AWDF scorebook that can be used at UScA events or do you have to pay for the UScA book for UScA events and the same thing for having a DVG specific scorebook?

T


----------



## Frank Phillips

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Its obvious UScA would have the most votes. I'm still lost on the scorebook madness. UScA proposes to have it be the only scorebook even for non-UScA events which would pad their coffers for sure. At this point, is there an umbrella AWDF scorebook that can be used at UScA events or do you have to pay for the UScA book for UScA events and the same thing for having a DVG specific scorebook?
> 
> T


Not sure what you are talking about here...The USCA scorebook IS an AWDF scorebook...and ALL breed club scorebooks except DVG are AWDF scorebooks, and USCA members with alternate breeds MUST get their purebred scorebook from the Breed club, not from USCA, so I have no idea how you think that would "pad their coffers for sure"

As for the attempted take over... Most organization have voting rights based on number of members. I don't think it would be correct for the BRT club with 20 members to have the same voting power as AWMA with 500 members. Plus Dues are paid to the AWDF based on members numbers in each club, so if the voting is one per club then the dues should be split up equal for all clubs, causing a lot of the smaller clubs to not be able to afford to be members of AWDF....I think it is wrong to think that USCA should totally support AWDF because they have more members but then only have one vote, same as clubs that pay 1/10th the amount of dues and have 5% of the total members......JMHO...

Frank


----------



## tracey schneider

How many members does usa have?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Christopher Smith said:


> a) Each AWDF member breed be able to give scorebooks to any breed of dog - Submitted by Anne Marie Chaffin BRT club
> b) UScA only scorebooks being submitted to non UScA trials submitted by Mark Chase
> 
> *Voting* – Submitted by Anne Marie Chaffin BRT club
> Each AWDF member club should have votes based on membership numbers (example 1 per 250)


 
A) sounds like UScA wants to be able to issue scorebooks to all breeds again, I think that's where the "pad their coffers" statement came from. 

B) is probably to discuss UScA's "workaround" to the "only breed clubs can issue scorebooks for that breed" rule, they took a financial hit when they couldn't issue books to non-GSD anymore, hence their new UScA only book. 

Although I can understand UScA wanting more votes since they are bigger, I have to agree that it would basically be a total takeover of AWDF by UScA, and IMO that's not the best thing for AWDF, it could actually lead to the destruction of the organization. If UScA has full control of the organization, I don't see a lot of reason for the other clubs to continue their memberships, which could result in clubs leaving the organization, or even another competing organization being formed.

Might make more sense for AWDF to do something like base votes on membership numbers, but put a cap on it so no one club can have total control. IE # votes are based on 1 per 250 members, but with a maximum of 4 votes per club. Gives the bigger clubs who are bringing more members and money to the table more say, but also keeps things even enough that the smaller clubs can band together to vote down proposals they don't like, so the majority in terms of clubs can still have some say.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Probably referring to that good for only *USA Trials* score book that will list your specific breed not just as mixed. 

I know for a fact that *USA Only* book is slipping past the cracks and being used in other organizations.

I find it amazing after 20+ years now that more and more clubs are gaining entry to the AWDF the vote process needs to be re-vamped. Good or bad the USA already has way too much influence within the AWDF as is. 

For the record I represent only my own opinion not that of any organization I may belong.


----------



## tracey schneider

Kadi Thingvall said:


> A) sounds like UScA wants to be able to issue scorebooks to all breeds again, I think that's where the "pad their coffers" statement came from.
> 
> B) is probably to discuss UScA's "workaround" to the "only breed clubs can issue scorebooks for that breed" rule, they took a financial hit when they couldn't issue books to non-GSD anymore, hence their new UScA only book.
> 
> Although I can understand UScA wanting more votes since they are bigger, I have to agree that it would basically be a total takeover of AWDF by UScA, and IMO that's not the best thing for AWDF, it could actually lead to the destruction of the organization. If UScA has full control of the organization, I don't see a lot of reason for the other clubs to continue their memberships, which could result in clubs leaving the organization, or even another competing organization being formed.
> 
> Might make more sense for AWDF to do something like base votes on membership numbers, but put a cap on it so no one club can have total control. IE # votes are based on 1 per 250 members, but with a maximum of 4 votes per club. Gives the bigger clubs who are bringing more members and money to the table more say, but also keeps things even enough that the smaller clubs can band together to vote down proposals they don't like, so the majority in terms of clubs can still have some say.


=D>


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> Not sure what you are talking about here...The USCA scorebook IS an AWDF scorebook...


You also have USCA only book that you sell to "alternate" breeds. Right Frank? 



> ALL breed club scorebooks except DVG are AWDF scorebooks, and USCA members with alternate breeds MUST get their purebred scorebook from the Breed club, not from USCA, so I have no idea how you think that would "pad their coffers for sure"


USCA is trying to undo the rule (one that they voted for mind you) that the AWDF set up a couple of years ago that made it so that each breed club could only issue scorebooks for the breed that they represent. Why would they want to undo do that Frank? Do you really think that that is in the best interest of the dogs? 


> As for the attempted take over... Most organization have voting rights based on number of members.


HOW ABOUT YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION? does your club USCA allow the individuals to vote? No. The local clubs vote at the National meeting, not the individuals. Why don't you clean up your own house first? Why is it OK to do within your club yet you have the opinion that what's going in the AWDF is so wrong?



Frank you are conveniently forgetting that_* the only members of the AWDF are clubs*_, not the individuals of that club. The AWDF is a federation of clubs not individuals. And every member has one vote. This is how the federation started and should remain.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Also Frank, does USCA give more votes at the national meeting to larger clubs?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> Also Frank, does USCA give more votes at the national meeting to larger clubs?


No...but the bigger clubs pay the same amount of dues as the smaller clubs....

I'm OK with it either way actually, I just don't like it when it goes all one way...USCA pays 10 times what everyone else does but all have 1 vote....If the other clubs within AWDF want all to have equal votes are they willing to pay an equal share??


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Club membership is 200.0 per year plus .75 per member. So now after 2 plus decades the USCA now feels slighted they don't have more votes because they pay a higher amount than the smaller clubs?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> You also have USCA only book that you sell to "alternate" breeds. Right Frank?


No they do not...They have a "USCA Only" scorebook that is for MIXED breeds, not Alternate breeds.



Christopher Smith said:


> USCA is trying to undo the rule (one that they voted for mind you) that the AWDF set up a couple of years ago that made it so that each breed club could only issue scorebooks for the breed that they represent. Why would they want to undo do that Frank? Do you really think that that is in the best interest of the dogs?


I don't know where it says that is in the best interest of the dogs. But I can see where it is benificial to EVERY orgs own members...Everyone is hurting in this economy. Why should a member of AWMA that has Mals and Dobermans have to also join UDC just to get a scorebook for the doberman? To me ALL orgs should be able to sells breed specific scorebooks to their members. I think it is wrong for any organization to force a member to join another organization just to get a scorebook.



Christopher Smith said:


> HOW ABOUT YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION? does your club USCA allow the individuals to vote? No. The local clubs vote at the National meeting, not the individuals. Why don't you clean up your own house first? Why is it OK to do within your club yet you have the opinion that what's going in the AWDF is so wrong?


Chris, no need to get angry because I disagree with you. My opinion is just that it is not fair to force one org pay 10 times what the orgs pay but have the same vote...One vote each should be equal dues each. Would YOUR org be willing to pay an equal amount in dues? 

USCA is ALSO a club organization (like AWDF) where the clubs get a vote. To change that there would have to be a By law change. No one has put up a by law change amendment to change that in all of the GBM that I have gone too. So I am saying that AWDF should be the same way as USCA, One vote per club, One equal yearly dues per club...




Christopher Smith said:


> Frank you are conveniently forgetting that_* the only members of the AWDF are clubs*_, not the individuals of that club. The AWDF is a federation of clubs not individuals. And every member has one vote. This is how the federation started and should remain.


This is EXACTLY the same as USCA (yet you think it is all wrong). USCA United Schutzhund CLUBS of America...CLUBS....but they also allow individual memberships. But the org is a org of clubs and was set up that way from the begining.


Chris I respect your opinion, I just disagree that the AWDF should expect one org to financially supprt much much more then the rest and everyone have a equal say. 

As I said before, If you want one vote each then everyone should be equally financially supportive of the org. If everyone is equally financially responsible then I have no problem with everyone having one vote.

Can you explain to me why you think one organization should pay 10 times more the others yet each have a equal vote.

Frank


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> Club membership is 200.0 per year plus .75 per member. So now after 2 plus decades the USCA now feels slighted they don't have more votes because they pay a higher amount than the smaller clubs?


 
I don't know where you get the idea that "I" speak for USCA...I was just stating my opinion....Maybe you should be happy that USCA supported your club for 2 plus decades and now pay your own way....


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> USCA pays 10 times what everyone else does but all have 1 vote....If the other clubs within AWDF want all to have equal votes are they willing to pay an equal share??


My next door neighbor pays less taxes than I do, so maybe we should take away is right to vote too? Or maybe the other breed clubs should just be considered 3/5 of a club? :roll:


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> Can you explain to me why you think one organization should pay 10 times more the others yet each have a equal vote.


For the same reason that my neighbor still gets one vote even though I pay three times as much in taxes than she does.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Keith Jenkins said:


> Club membership is 200.0 per year plus .75 per member. So now after 2 plus decades the USCA now feels slighted they don't have more votes because they pay a higher amount than the smaller clubs?


Here is the things that I don't understand Keith, USCA voted in the affirmative for all of this stuff. They voted for the scorebook rules that we are going by now. And they voted for the dues structure as it stands.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> For the same reason that my neighbor still gets one vote even though I pay three times as much in taxes than she does.


 
Come on now, that is disingenuous.... That is taxes ......This is a dog club membership....


I'm serious, tell me why one org should pay 10 times what the other orgs pay? How is that fair to that orgs members.

You did not answer my question, would you (AWMA) be willing to pay 3 or 4 times what you pay now to have everyone have equal votes???? would the smaller clubs be willing to pay 10 times what they do now? Or not even willing but able......If the roles were reversed I think you would understand my point.....

Just my opinion:

Dues based on number of members - Votes based on number of members = *Fair...*

Dues equal per club - Vote equal per club = *Fair again....*

Like I said, I am OK with it being one vote each, then why should my club be charged so much more to be a member then yours????

Frank


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Actually the USCA does sell *USA Only* score-books to alternate breeds and the breeds are listed as whatever not as *mixed* unless that is what they are. 

The AWDF gets money from me through three different organizations of which I'm a member, including the USCA. 

There are already 3 out of 7 Executive committee members of the AWDF that are also officers within the USCA and now it's not fair because they pay more so should have even more say within the AWDF by basing number on votes by out much you pay?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> Actually the USCA does sell *USA Only* score-books to alternate breeds and the breeds are listed as whatever not as *mixed* unless that is what they are.
> 
> The AWDF gets money from me through three different organizations of which I'm a member, including the USCA.
> 
> There are already 3 out of 7 Executive committee members of the AWDF that are also officers within the USCA and now it's not fair because they pay more so should have even more say within the AWDF by basing number on votes by out much you pay?


 
Look Keith

Stop trying to make it sound like my opinion is WHY they are trying to change this rule....I don't know why they are trying to change it...I just stated my opinion (which I am entitled too)....and if you want me to change my opinion then give me a reason "why" my opinion of:
Dues based on number of members - Votes based on number of members = *Fair...*

Dues equal per club - Vote equal per club = *Fair again....*

Is wrong...Tell me a "reason" why one club should be forced to pay 10 times what other orgs pay for the same services?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> Come on now, that is disingenuous.... That is taxes ......This is a dog club membership....


It's not disingenuous in the slightest. The reason why everyone gets one vote is because it good for society. And any one club having a disproportionate amount of power is not good for our dogsport society. 

To your question of fairness. No it's not fair. Just like it's not fair for the guy that sends his kids to private school to pay taxes for public school. It's not fair that a pacifist pays for wars with her taxes. It's not fair that other clubs in the AWDF miss out on revenue from WDA scorebook holders because of USCAs ridiculous beefs. We all have to deal with unfairness at times. But we deal with it because it benefits society as a whole, or in this case a federation as a whole.


----------



## tracey schneider

I dont see it as USCA paying a different amount. They pay the same thing.. a base amount plus the exact same amount per member. That is the same across the board. You make it sound as if its unfair... I dont see it that way... it is not specific to USCA its applies to each club = fair. I mean at the core it comes across as a claim of unfairness because USCA has ALOT of members.. probably not much sympathy from the smaller struggling clubs...

t


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank, if the USCA feels so burdened by the current dues structure, and nothing changes, do you think they will leave the federation?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> Frank, if the USCA feels so burdened by the current dues structure, and nothing changes, do you think they will leave the federation?


Who says they feel "so burdened"...Like I said , it is my opinion, period. I don't know what USCA thinks or how they feel....Just stated my opinion and you and keith started saying I was wrong...as I asked before....Tell me why my opinion is wrong, not just I'm wrong because you say so....I'm open minded and willing to change my opinion if you have a logical arguement...

and No, I don't think USCA would leave AWDF (again, just my opinion and no inside info)

Frank


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> I dont see it as USCA paying a different amount. They pay the same thing.. a base amount plus the exact same amount per member. That is the same across the board. You make it sound as if its unfair... I dont see it that way... it is not specific to USCA its applies to each club = fair. I mean at the core it comes across as a claim of unfairness because USCA has ALOT of members.. probably not much sympathy from the smaller struggling clubs...
> 
> t


 Tracey, you can't have it both ways, in one breath claim AWDF is a CLUB organization (which it is) and then say we change dues per member....Just because it applies to each club, that alone doesn't mean it is fair to all....and I think everyone is struggling, membership is down in EVERY dog org... larger orgs cost more to run and put on larger events.....I just disagree....No problem

Frank


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> Tell me why my opinion is wrong, not just I'm wrong because you say so....I'm open minded and willing to change my opinion if you have a logical arguement...


Tracy outlined one reason you are wrong above. You could always find new ways to get rid of some members then you will pay the same as everyone else. 

But mine, like yours, is just an opinion. 

And we both have the same opinion on one thing, USCA won't leave the federation. And I think that they won't leave because they are getting a value for their money.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> membership is down in EVERY dog org


Not every club. AWMA has continued to grow every year.


----------



## Gregory Doud

Christopher Smith said:


> The reason why everyone gets one vote is because it good for society. And any one club having a disproportionate amount of power is not good for our dogsport society.
> 
> Chris, I agree with you 100% on this comment. - Greg


----------



## Keith Jenkins

AWDF was formed so that like mind a-typical breed clubs could gain access to the FCI and have titles and such recognized world wide. It was IMO set-up with the one club one vote process so that no one club would carry more power than the next. This is what makes it fair. You want fairness to be based on dollars spent.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> Tracy outlined one reason you are wrong above. You could always find new ways to get rid of some members then you will pay the same as everyone else.
> 
> But mine, like yours, is just an opinion.
> 
> And we both have the same opinion on one thing, USCA won't leave the federation. And I think that they won't leave because they are getting a value for their money.


 I already explained why I think Tracey's explaination is not valid...As YOU pointed out, it is a CLUB based organization, not a member based organization....

So am I to take your reason to be USCA won't leave so we might as well take advantage of them.....

I can completely understand your statement about one org not taking over too much power and rthe concerns with that....But many many many club based Orgs (like AWDF) are run that way, with each club having voting strength based on membership numbers (ie WUSV) but then Club dues are based on membership numbers also...I don't know any orgs where it is both ways....I just don't think that is fair...like I said, just my opinion, I am sorry I can't explain myself well enough for you to at least see my side.....


have a good day


Frank


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Why would any of the other member clubs vote to base AWDF on membership numbers? Only UScA will benefit. Of course you have to discount the BRT and Airedale clubs that will vote the
UScA party line :-(


----------



## tracey schneider

So I just read the by laws and its states (which is very interesting) there are two types of members.... Individuals who exercise their rights through breed clubs or multi breed sport/ service clubs. So individual membership with a representative of a breed club and a club membership if a multi breed sport/ service org.


----------



## Danny Craig

Just out of curiosity, what's the big deal if UScA 'takes over' (as if it hadn't a long time ago) the AWDF? What is it exactly that I am to be concerned about? Or is this just a bunch of inside baseball?


----------



## mark chase

so far as the scorebook goes. it was brought up and passed because some people did not want to belong to the breed club and were getting scorebooks from usca. it passed it was not a good choice. if you do not want to belong to usca you should be able to belong to another club to have a valid scorebook issued. or if you have a boxer and do not like the boxer club obtain your book from usca or dvg. 
in the vdh books are issued by the members of the azg. and boxers have had sv books. it is not a big deal.

it is a big deal where everything has to be sent into usca and stamped. it should be fine to enter with a valid membership card and scorebook.

usca has issued scorebooks for other breeds to members. they were not marked mixed. they were marked for the race of the dog. they were just not the awdf scorebook but the older version of the usca book.

dues were equal for member clubs in the beginning. it was later when a graduated scale was adopted. and is in place now.

the income for the awdf should not only be from club dues but from recording fees for events held. similar to how the bk sv adrk psk dv pay to the VDH. 

at the this time usca basically runs the awdf in any event. they have the votes on most issues.

it is the same with the new regulation usca does not intend to follow the fci. they will want exceptions to the regulations. based on the fact that the fci is not here and they are members of the wusv.

it seems flawed to me that the sv would not be following the fci rules as they are part of the azg and therefore part of the fci and are bound to follow the regulations of the fci.

so why would the sv then give different regulations to members of the wusv. unless it is not following trial regulations and passing dogs that should not pass because no one will know back in europe.

it is time to follow the regulation and act as a national organization.
or is it normal to follow the rules when it is convenient to.

mark chase


----------



## mark chase

atibox is not weighted it is one dues per club. 200 euros.
the bulk of the income comes from the 3 events the show the working championship and the tracking championship.
atibox still has a working agreement with the fci as at this time the
fci and wusv do not.


----------



## mark chase

usca won't leave. the only reason it was started was to enter the fci championship. paul tried to enter with just usca and was told it is not possible. only a national club can send a team and then the awdf started. then usca sent a team to the fci championships.


----------



## mark chase

so far as the scorebook goes. it was brought up and passed because some people did not want to belong to the breed club and were getting scorebooks from usca. it passed it was not a good choice. if you do not want to belong to usca you should be able to belong to another club to have a valid scorebook issued. or if you have a boxer and do not like the boxer club obtain your book from usca or dvg. 
in the vdh books are issued by the members of the azg. and boxers have had sv books. it is not a big deal.

it is a big deal where everything has to be sent into usca and stamped. it should be fine to enter with a valid membership card and scorebook.

usca has issued scorebooks for other breeds to members. they were not marked mixed. they were marked for the race of the dog. they were just not the awdf scorebook but the older version of the usca book.

dues were equal for member clubs in the beginning. it was later when a graduated scale was adopted. and is in place now.

the income for the awdf should not only be from club dues but from recording fees for events held. similar to how the bk sv adrk psk dv pay to the VDH. 

at the this time usca basically runs the awdf in any event. they have the votes on most issues.

it is the same with the new regulation usca does not intend to follow the fci. they will want exceptions to the regulations. based on the fact that the fci is not here and they are members of the wusv.

it seems flawed to me that the sv would not be following the fci rules as they are part of the azg and therefore part of the fci and are bound to follow the regulations of the fci.

so why would the sv then give different regulations to members of the wusv. unless it is not following trial regulations and passing dogs that should not pass because no one will know back in europe.

it is time to follow the regulation and act as a national organization.
or is it normal to follow the rules when it is convenient to.

mark chase


----------



## Dana McMahan

I've read the agenda and its definitely concerning from my perspective as a Membership Chair for the AWMA.

The dues of the AWDF are all based on the honor system. Nobody sends in lists, just an invoice and check. We also have different membership cycles, so some end several months ahead of others. I know the USRC starts in January, while the AWMA's starts in May. I do not believe that USA even has a set membership cycle, it just runs 1 year from when you first join. 

So to me, if you are going to base votes in AWDF on membership numbers, every club needs to have consecutive membership cycles which would require bylaw changes for most of the AWDF clubs as well as a complete change to most of the Membership Chair's databases which usually are automated for the larger clubs. Then you would need to have every membership chair or officier submit lists of names/addresses to prove the identity of each member and someone to verify those lists. Then you have the issue of youth memberships, which are non voting, but I'm sure if it would boast the votes that people would start counting them.

IMO its going to be more trouble than its worth, and it will only result in USCA having more power than the other breed clubs, which is already the present situation. To me, its bad anytime one club monopolizes all the votes in a Federation. It could result in rule changes that only benefit that club (say, USA decides it does not want any of the members of a member club in AWDF to have dual membership in WDA) .... or it could result in dues hikes that will hit the smaller clubs harder. I could also forsee biased rules being in place to alter the teams for FCI, biased voting on dates for events (for example how AWDF always conflicts with FMBB, meaning the top Malinois teams will not be able to show to get a spot on the FCI team), etc. I guess I just don't see any POSITIVE to having any SINGLE club in control of a FEDERATION, no matter who that club is. And once votes are based on membership (aka $$$$), I think we will see corruption and people fudging on their membership lists if it means extra votes. I guess I'm a believer in keeping it simple. To start doing votes based on membership is going to result in a mess of bylaw changings for all the clubs, and a whole lot more work on the part of the membership chairs (aka ME!). 

The scorebook issue needs resolved once and forall. Its just not a simple process. The stamping, and the AWDF book versus breed club books, and all that nonsense just needs stream lined. One book per dog that works for all events so long as there is a current membership with that club that its purchased through. The sport is hard enough without making the paperwork so complex. The AWDF needs to get everyone on the same page, make one set of rules for books being issued, and everyone needs to just follow them.


----------



## Danny Craig

Dana McMahan said:


> The scorebook issue needs resolved once and forall. Its just not a simple process. The stamping, and the AWDF book versus breed club books, and all that nonsense just needs stream lined. One book per dog that works for all events so long as there is a current membership with that club that its purchased through. The sport is hard enough without making the paperwork so complex. The AWDF needs to get everyone on the same page, make one set of rules for books being issued, and everyone needs to just follow them.


Amen.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Dana McMahan said:


> One book per dog that works for all events so long as there is a current membership with that club that its purchased through. The sport is hard enough without making the paperwork so complex. The AWDF needs to get everyone on the same page, make one set of rules for books being issued, and everyone needs to just follow them.


I agree with most of your post, but not this part. IMO it should simply be that the person needs a current membership in an AWDF club, not specifically the club that issued the book. Remember, AWDF isn't just about Sch anymore, there are also Mondio and French Ring clubs that are members. 

If someone joins a breed club, and gets their book, I don't see why they should have to remain a member of that breed club for their dogs entire career, especially if they aren't even competing in a sport the breed club offers. IE I join AWMA, get a book, and maybe even play in Sch for a year or two. Then I decide I want to do Mondio Ring, I should not be required to continue an AWMA membership for the next 5 years just so I can go compete at USMRA events, when I also have to join USMRA to compete also.


----------



## Christopher Smith

> IE I join AWMA, get a book, and maybe even play in Sch for a year or two. Then I decide I want to do Mondio Ring, I should not be required to continue an AWMA membership for the next 5 years just so I can go compete at USMRA events, when I also have to join USMRA to compete also.


Kadi I think that Dana misspoke. The situation is as you describe. The scorebook belongs to the dog. Therefore if you have an AWMA, or any other AWDF scorebook, you can enter events as long as you are a member of any AWDF club. So you can go play mondio with an AWMA scorebook and a USMRA membership card. 

There are places where things get sticky. For instance, some clubs require that you be a member to enter a championship. The other big one is that you MUST have an AWDF scorebook and membership card from an AWDF club to enter the AWDF championships. 

But the rules might have change in the time that it took to write this post. :roll:


----------



## Christopher Smith

mark chase said:


> usca won't leave. the only reason it was started was to enter the fci championship. paul tried to enter with just usca and was told it is not possible. only a national club can send a team and then the awdf started. then usca sent a team to the fci championships.


I think it was also an attempt to legitimize USCA in their unending scorched earth quest to become the only WUSV member in the US.


----------



## Danny Craig

Christopher Smith said:


> The other big one is that you MUST have an AWDF scorebook and membership card from an AWDF club to enter the AWDF championships.


Chris or Dana, 

Unless something has changed don't you need a AWDF Scorebook from your breed club? Have I got this right? The only place a rottie owner that wants to compete in the AWDF championship can get an AWDF scorebook is from the AWDF rottie club (USRC).

Can that rottie owner now no longer be a member of the USRC but a member of another AWDF breed club like UScA compete in the AWDF Championship with his/her USRC issued scorebook and UScA membership?

I hate all this stuff.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

I can't speak for the Ring people but any DVG member can enter the AWDF Championship through them regardless of breed.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Danny Craig said:


> Chris or Dana,
> 
> Unless something has changed don't you need a AWDF Scorebook from your breed club? Have I got this right? The only place a rottie owner that wants to compete in the AWDF championship can get an AWDF scorebook is from the AWDF rottie club (USRC).
> 
> Can that rottie owner now no longer be a member of the USRC but a member of another AWDF breed club like UScA compete in the AWDF Championship with his/her USRC issued scorebook and UScA membership?
> 
> I hate all this stuff.





Christopher from two post above Danny's said:


> There are places where things get sticky. For instance, some clubs require that you be a member to enter a championship. The other big one is that you MUST have an AWDF scorebook and membership card from an AWDF club to enter the AWDF championships.


You have to be a member of an AWDF club and have an AWDF scorebook to enter the AWDF championship.

So you might have a person that is a Airedale club member with a scorebook from USMRA and they could enter the AWDF Championship.

We all hate this stuff.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

DVG is the only AWDF member where any breed can enter the AWDF Championship. USCA only has GSD's on their team, UDC only Dobermanns, AWMA only Malinois etc. USMRA and NARA do not have a IPO team.
I liked it better when it was a Team Challenge. Each club was allowed up to nine team members (three at each level) and they
took the top two scores (one SchH III and a SchH i or II). The UDC actually won a couple of times when all the UScA team were
SchH III's
Now with unlimited breed club entries The GSD's and Mals make up 80% or more of the entries and alternate breeds are at a distinct disadvantage :-(


----------



## Keith Jenkins

What disadvanatage? It's alternate breed's choice as to enter or not so there is no one to blame but the owner. 

Your dog is good enough to be there then enter... if not don't. There are plenty of GSDs and Mals that don't enter for that very reason.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Christopher Smith said:


> Kadi I think that Dana misspoke. The situation is as you describe. The scorebook belongs to the dog. Therefore if you have an AWMA, or any other AWDF scorebook, you can enter events as long as you are a member of any AWDF club. So you can go play mondio with an AWMA scorebook and a USMRA membership card.


Is this true for USCA trials also? I'd like to enter a few Sch trials at some point, probably just BH but maybe something else, but don't really want to add one more club membership to the list of bills to pay. I do have an AWDF scorebook, and a membership in at least 1 AWDF club, sometimes more clubs.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Is this true for USCA trials also? I'd like to enter a few Sch trials at some point, probably just BH but maybe something else, but don't really want to add one more club membership to the list of bills to pay. I do have an AWDF scorebook, and a membership in at least 1 AWDF club, sometimes more clubs.


When I did my BH ( at a USA club) even though I had a AWDF score book issued through FEDAB. I still had to pay $40.00 just to have the score book stamped by USCA. Which I feel is wrong if were all under the umbrella of AWDF and using their score book.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Lynda Myers said:


> When I did my BH ( at a USA club) even though I had a AWDF score book issued through FEDAB. I still had to pay $40.00 just to have the score book stamped by USCA. Which I feel is wrong if were all under the umbrella of AWDF and using their score book.


I know about getting the books stamped, have had to do it in the past. Although I agree with you, if they really are all under one umbrella organization, it shouldn't be required. 

I'm just wondering if I have to have a USCA membership also to trial in USCA trials, or if membership in another AWDF club is enough.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Keith Jenkins said:


> What disadvanatage? It's alternate breed's choice as to enter or not so there is no one to blame but the owner.
> 
> Your dog is good enough to be there then enter... if not don't. There are plenty of GSDs and Mals that don't enter for that very reason.



The disadvantage is in depth. There are a lot more GSD's and Mals competing. Now a Dobermann or Rottweiler has to get a higher score then 50-60 GSD's to win. The AWDF Championship is now about the top ten placements and the team challenge aspect is secondary. Is the AWDF about all breeds being treated equally or another GSD dominated and controlled group? Most of the officers and judges are from UScA and if Anne Marie Chaffins motion passes they'll get more votes then any other club. It's possible that UScA could have more votes then all the other members combined (except maybe DVG) How is that fair?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I'm just wondering if I have to have a USCA membership also to trial in USCA trials, or if membership in another AWDF club is enough.


As far as I know that's enough. But as mentioned there is a stamp tax and there is another fee for not being a member that is levied on you or the host club (I don't remember which) if you are not a USCA member.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Lynda Myers said:


> I still had to pay $40.00 just to have the score book stamped by USCA. Which I feel is wrong if were all under the umbrella of AWDF and using their score book.


If you feel it's wrong then don't do USCA trials. I know it's a PITA sometimes because they have more trials. But you can do your BH at any AWDF member club. You could even do it at a WDA club as long as it's an FCI judge.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Thomas Barriano said:


> DVG is the only AWDF member where any breed can enter the AWDF Championship. USCA only has GSD's on their team, UDC only Dobermanns, AWMA only Malinois etc. USMRA and NARA do not have a IPO team.
> I liked it better when it was a Team Challenge. Each club was allowed up to nine team members (three at each level) and they
> took the top two scores (one SchH III and a SchH i or II). The UDC actually won a couple of times when all the UScA team were
> SchH III's
> Now with unlimited breed club entries The GSD's and Mals make up 80% or more of the entries and alternate breeds are at a distinct disadvantage :-(


Thomas how would you feel if they took all of the scores from each breed and used the average score to determine the breed winner?


----------



## Keith Jenkins

USA now charges more from clubs for non-USCA members trialing.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Smith said:


> Thomas how would you feel if they took all of the scores from each breed and used the average score to determine the breed winner?


That would certainly be fairer then the way it's done now and still be able to have a large number of entries.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Keith Jenkins said:


> USA now charges more from clubs for non-USCA members trialing.


Thanks Keith. Do you know how much?


----------



## Keith Jenkins

For non-USA members the USA charges a club 10.00 per entry. The idea of the USCA was clubs should charge an extra 15.00 so the club could also make more money.


----------



## Mario Fernandez

It was a change in Administrative fee for Trial entries that the clubs pay when submitting the trial entries to USA. USa decided to make it a two tiered fee schedule instead of the the flat rate that was for many years. The clubs pay $4 for each USA member for trial entry fees and non USA members pay $15 per trial entry. So the club could have an option to increase that to whatever they want to make additional income. Our club list the change on our trial entry and our trial flyer, so their are no surprises and competitors know in advance. Our club doesn't make any thing off the fee, we just pass the $15 to non-USA members. We only had to do this once in 5 trials, since it passed 1/1/11. 

Here is the ballot.

E-Ballot #01-11 Motion made by Nathaniel Roque and seconded by Al Govednik to change the Administrative fee for Trial entries from a flat fee of $ 4.00 for each entry to a two tiered fee schedule to benefit USCA Membership.
Maintain the $4.00 fee for USCA members entered into a USCA Trial and add a non-member fee paid to the USCA Office for all non-USCA members entered in a USCA Trial to $ 15.00 per entry. Effective March 1, 2011 (to allow time for the clubs to develop a policy and USCA to include Membership info on the Trial Score sheet). 
*Background* — The current fee is $4.00 per entry for all entries. There should be benefits to USCA Membership and one of these should be lower entry fees to members. With the increased cost of maintaining Judges, hosting trials etc these expenses should be shouldered by all entering our events. Our USCA members already support the organization through their membership. Non-USCA members should be charged a slightly increased fee to help maintain the costs associated with our events. There must be benefits to membership otherwise, why join, just use the organization for free. 
*Suggestions for implementing:* The USCA Score Sheet will be updated to include membership Info. For all entries with USCA Membership a $ 4.00 fee will be submitted (as has always been completed) for non USCA membership a $ 15.00 fee will be submitted to the USCA Office. I encourage the Clubs to carry this over to their entry fees to cover the costs of hosting a trial by having a two tiered entry fee; example Entry to ScHH1 $50.00 for USCA Member and $ 70.00 for Non USCA member with $ 15.00 going to USCA and the Club earning an additional $ 5.00 for hosting an event allowing Non Members benefit from our resources (Judges,venues, publications etc)


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Gotta pay for that field of dreams some way....well they only got a single membership from me this year...


----------



## Frank David

How many Org. require a scorebook stamp before trialing?

How many Org. issue scorebooks to alternate breeds?


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Here in the US just USA as far as I know Frank requires a *stamp*. Let's see... USCA issues scorebooks to other breeds as does DVG. WDA will also issue you a score book regardless of breed.


----------



## Wendy Schmitt

Please everyone the best thing we can do is vote no. I know the UDC will be voting no for this proposal and I ask all of you that represent alternate breed clubs stand up for your rights and vote no as well. Be sure to contact your AWDF rep so they are aware of what is happening and the importance of attending this meeting.
The AWDF was started as an all breed club lets keep it that way PLEASE!

Wendy Schmitt


----------



## Wendy Schmitt

Also if this vote were about money as Frank states then we would be voting about money and a dues issue wouldn't we ? But were not, were voting about CONTROL of AWDF aren't we??


----------



## Frank Phillips

Wendy Schmitt said:


> Also if this vote were about money as Frank states then we would be voting about money and a dues issue wouldn't we ? But were not, were voting about CONTROL of AWDF aren't we??


whao whao whao...I never said the vote was about money, so please don't put words into my mouth....I just said a lot of other organizations have voting on a per capita basis....And then the membership dues are also based on a per capita basis..I just said I don't know of any clubs that base membership on per capita and voting one each, so that one club pays 10 times that of the other clubs but has the same vote....I also think one vote each is fair...But then I think the membership dues the same per club would also be fair.... 

Like I said just my opinion....


----------



## Paige Shriver

I think the USCA gets more than their fair share of votes already, being that the executive board each gets a vote. The odds are kind of stacked in their favor already, if you get my drift....


----------



## Frank Phillips

Paige Shriver said:


> I think the USCA gets more than their fair share of votes already, being that the executive board each gets a vote. The odds are kind of stacked in their favor already, if you get my drift....


The Executive Board can be from any club...and that can turn over any and every year. So no, I don't really get your drift. sorry. What are you trying to say? Right now there are 3 USCA EB members, One is stepping down and being replaced with a person from another club. 1 of the remaining 2 are up for election in 4 months and could be voted out. So in 4 months there may be 1 USCA member on EB..... So what are you trying to say? 
I don't believe EB members should play into your arguement because they can be changed every year....

Frank


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Come on Frank...do you really think people are so naive as to think that the USCA doesn't pretty much run the AWDF?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> Come on Frank...do you really think people are so naive as to think that the USCA doesn't pretty much run the AWDF?


Keith, look , I understand that you and others are strict USCA haters and bash at any opportunity and always have....I didn't say they are not in control now, I also did not say I thought they should have more control...what I said was the FACT that the EB can be changed at any time.

Keith, show me what I said that was wrong?


Frank


----------



## Paige Shriver

I was referring specifically to the Pres, VP, and the Treasurer.
You know, the ones who are also BOD members of the USCA....
Again, it's stacked pro USCA!


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Hate is a really strong word Frank. Do I have issues and dislikes?...Sure I do and IMO with good reason. 

I didn't say you were wrong about anything Frank. I said don't think people are so naive as to think the USA pretty much runs the AWDF. USA has a great amount of influence over the AWDF and in turn the individual member clubs with the possible exception of the DVG because they don't rely on using USA judges for their trials.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> Hate is a really strong word Frank. Do I have issues and dislikes?...Sure I do and IMO with good reason.
> 
> I didn't say you were wrong about anything Frank. I said don't think people are so naive as to think the USA pretty much runs the AWDF. USA has a great amount of influence over the AWDF and in turn the individual member clubs with the possible exception of the DVG because they don't rely on using USA judges for their trials.


OK then I guess my statement was where did I even insinuate that USCA didn't "pretty much run" AWDF? I didn't, I never have. They do, no question...But that didn't really have anything to do with the post I made, you just had to throw out something negative about USCA at all costs....

If you really don't like USCA that much, don't join, if you do join and are not happy about how things are going. step up and get invovled and change things...As I have said many times before (not to you) Bitching on the internet accomplishes NOTHING.

You seem like a well educated and well informed guy who has passion for the sport, exactly the type of guy that "should" be helping to steer the org, not complaining about it on the internet....

Paige, I know who you were talking about, me too...thos are the 3. Tresurer is stepping down and being replaced by a different breed club member. president is up for election in 4 months. If you don't like the job he has done, vote him out.

My point was these postition can and will change which club the office holder comes from.....


Frank


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Will the vote on the Chaffin motion for the UScA to take over the AWDF (votes based on membership numbers) while the President,
VP and Treasurer are UScA members and have an individual vote?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> Will the vote on the Chaffin motion for the UScA to take over the AWDF (votes based on membership numbers) while the President,
> VP and Treasurer are UScA members and have an individual vote?


Tresurer NO, he is going to resign and be replaced by another club's member before that...Vice pres Yes, Pres depends on who gets elected....


----------



## Christopher Smith

Paige Shriver said:


> I think the USCA gets more than their fair share of votes already, being that the executive board each gets a vote. The odds are kind of stacked in their favor already, if you get my drift....


Paige you also forgot about the sham Airedale and Black Russian Terrier clubs that are run by Marcia Govednik and Ann Marie Chaffin. These clubs do NOTHING. They don't hold events, update their websites, send dogs to the AWDF.....NOTHING. Nothing, but vote in lockstep with USCA.


----------



## Paige Shriver

It's my understanding that Sean won't be resigning officially until the tax return for 2011 is complete. Isn't this on the agenda for a vote during the February teleconference?

Oh yes, I'm well aware of the votes that will come from the Airedale and BRT club.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> Keith, look , I understand that you and others are strict USCA haters and bash at any opportunity and always have....



I don't know very any people that hate USCA. I do know lots of people that dislike some of USCA policies and methods. Maybe people have legitimate criticisms. Do you think that's at all possible? 

It's easy to say people are haters and bashers. It's hard to find out why they are criticizing and address those criticisms.


----------



## Anita Griffing

So a small member club of under 20 gets the same vote as a club with
a couple thousand members and pays less. Yes that seems fair. What? I am sure
all the smaller breed clubs are thinking about themselves and not UScA at this
point and want nothing changed as it benefits them. From an outsider
looking in it seems that DVG is laughing all the way to the bank since they
can have all breeds and give breed scorebooks. If you have
a family trialing a number of breeds, then DVG is the way to go to save
money. The little clubs would rather take or force people from UScA to join their organizations
rather than let them choose? These are the same people that say UScA shouldn't
force people to pick between UScA and WDA? lololol it was a good plan 
to get that through AWDF early. And when UScA people help other
breed clubs it is a UScA agenda? What? As long as these
UScA people just shut up and work it is ok? I think UScA should leave and not
even worry about it then the rest can run it as they see fit. And make it one vote for each
member, too.
Anita


----------



## Frank Phillips

Paige Shriver said:


> It's my understanding that Sean won't be resigning officially until the tax return for 2011 is complete. Isn't this on the agenda for a vote during the February teleconference?
> 
> Oh yes, I'm well aware of the votes that will come from the Airedale and BRT club.


 
That maybe be true but that will be done before the meeting...Sean told me next month and the replacement is picked....

so of the 3 USCA EB members now, 1 Definately, 1 Definately NOT and 1 up for election...so USCA "MAY" have 2 of the total of 5 EB members...don't really think that is complete control.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> I don't know very any people that hate USCA. I do know lots of people that dislike some of USCA policies and methods. Maybe people have legitimate criticisms. Do you think that's at all possible?
> 
> It's easy to say people are haters and bashers. It's hard to find out why they are criticizing and address those criticisms.


 Chris

Of course there are MANY legitimate criticisms and complaints about USCA, there are things that I do not like and plan to do something about them. But if you are trying to say that there are not some people on these chat lists that take shots (deserved AND not deserved) at USCA at every and any opportunity you are not being honest. You are either so jadded you can't see the agenda of some or you don't want to.

My point was, if people don't like something, do something about it and work to change it.....

and just because an AWMA member does not like something USCA does, does not mean it is not the right thing to do for USCA and all it's members....


----------



## tracey schneider

Frank Phillips said:


> That maybe be true but that will be done before the meeting...Sean told me next month and the replacement is picked....
> 
> so of the 3 USCA EB members now, 1 Definately, 1 Definately NOT and 1 up for election...so USCA "MAY" have 2 of the total of 5 EB members...don't really think that is complete control.



I read this and the first thing that came to mind is they are in panic mode... wrong or right that is exactly what I thought...


----------



## tracey schneider

Im still not fully understanding how they pay more. The by laws clearly state there are individual members who exercise their rights through breed clubs and there are sport clubs.. those are the only two types of members.... Individual members and the sport clubs. So each club pays the set amount for a club and each member (individual person) pays the amount due per member. This is how the by laws have it set up... 

A possibility would be to waive the breed club fee or have it set to a minimum dollar amount that must be met (what it is now) for those with fewer members, where their membership can not make that due amount... not sure how anyone feels about that however lol


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

tracey delin said:


> Im still not fully understanding how they pay more. The by laws clearly state there are individual members who exercise their rights through breed clubs and there are sport clubs.. those are the only two types of members.... Individual members and the sport clubs. So each club pays the set amount for a club and each member (individual person) pays the amount due per member. This is how the by laws have it set up...


The clubs are the ones that write the check to AWDF. I guess that is what is meant by they, the clubs, are paying more or less. I doubt any of the clubs aren't passing that charge on to their membership though, so in the end it's the members that are paying for it.


----------



## tracey schneider

exactly and those individual members have the breed clubs to represent them so of course it would be one check from their representative club...


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> I read this and the first thing that came to mind is they are in panic mode... wrong or right that is exactly what I thought...


 Who do you think is in panic mode? If you think USCA was then wouldn't you think they would "appoint" USCA member to take over as Tres.?


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> exactly and those individual members have the breed clubs to represent them so of course it would be one check from their representative club...


and this is where "my opinion" of fairness comes in...4000 members = 1 vote or 25 members = 1 vote

I just don't think that is fair representation of the larger club's members.....and even less if USCA memebrs stop stepping up to run for office......


----------



## Keith Jenkins

While I appreciate the vote of confidence Frank I'm not PC enough to run for anything within the USA. If someone is coloring outside the lines I don't look the other way...I point and say wait a second bubba, which is not putting me on much of a pedestal in my own breed club. 

The biggest issue to me is the USCA wants to hold the GSD breed strings *and* the schutzhund strings which in turn limts my free of choice to what clubs I want to be a member of and I don't and never will have a swamp collie...I'm a Hogweiler man. 

I've been a member of the USCA going on 9 years this time around. 

If USCA left they wouldn't have a direct avenue for the FCI Championships.


----------



## tracey schneider

Frank Phillips said:


> and this is where "my opinion" of fairness comes in...4000 members = 1 vote or 25 members = 1 vote
> 
> I just don't think that is fair representation of the larger club's members.....and even less if USCA memebrs stop stepping up to run for office......


I understand how you are thinking that way, I really do... but that is not the intent of the club. Here is what the AWDF website says..

"provide a broader base to represent the working dog throughout the world and to preserve and *protect the heritage of our respective breeds in America.*

The goals shared by the AWDF member clubs are: 

*To preserve and protect the working heritage of the various working breeds. *That working character has been weakened by American breeders is seldom argued. In several working breeds, the "type" of the dogs that are produced in their homelands now is considerably different, both physically and mentally, from those produced in America."

It says their goal and purpose is to protect the working heritage of all the breeds... so how can you say the USCA should have more opinion on how to do that with the various breeds than those breed owners and their representative clubs? Putting more votes in the hands of any single club would go against that IMO. 

Between the by laws and the goals... I just dont see it. Fair or not in your opinion it does NOT represent what the AWDF is about.

JMO
t


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> While I appreciate the vote of confidence Frank I'm not PC enough to run for anything within the USA. If someone is coloring outside the lines I don't look the other way...I point and say wait a second bubba, which is not putting me on much of a pedestal in my own breed club.


Too Bad...to me THAT is exactly the type of person that "SHOULD" be running for office....If only the "go along to get along " crowd run for office then nothing changes.....



Keith Jenkins said:


> The biggest issue to me is the USCA wants to hold the GSD breed strings *and* the schutzhund strings which in turn limts my free of choice to what clubs I want to be a member of and I don't and never will have a swamp collie...I'm a Hogweiler man.


I think the 2 go hand in hand...or atleast they did up until Jan 1, 2012....Schutzhund was a GSD Breed suitability test and then evovled into a sport.... I understand your feeling, even though USCA only says you must choose between 2 clubs, and you are more then welcome to join ALL the other clubs out there.... Unfortunately sometimes a "Club" must do what the leaders feel is in the best interest of "the Club", be it a popular decision or not....If it was as bad as some like to make you think, I don't think it would have been defeated by a 2:1 margin, TWICE!




Keith Jenkins said:


> I've been a member of the USCA going on 9 years this time around.
> 
> If USCA left they wouldn't have a direct avenue for the FCI Championships.


USCA "members" would have NO possibility of competing at the FCI Championships without being a member of AWDF...


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> It says their goal and purpose is to protect the working heritage of all the breeds... so how can you say the USCA should have more opinion on how to do that with the various breeds than those breed owners and their representative clubs? Putting more votes in the hands of any single club would go against that IMO.


 I don't think you have been reading my posts very thoroughly...I never said I thought they should have more votes....I said many clubs operate on votes per capida basis, and within those clubs membership is also on a per capida basis....I have never seen a club that charges membership fees on a per capida basis and then turns around and says 1 vote per member club reguardless of size.....I just think THAT part is not fair...I have said this at least 2 times now on this thread, I would have no problem with one vote per club but I think the dues should be s a set amount per club also....


----------



## tracey schneider

Frank Phillips said:


> I don't think you have been reading my posts very thoroughly...I never said I thought they should have more votes....I said many clubs operate on votes per capida basis, and within those clubs membership is also on a per capida basis....I have never seen a club that charges membership fees on a per capida basis and then turns around and says 1 vote per member club reguardless of size.....I just think THAT part is not fair...I have said this at least 2 times now on this thread, I would have no problem with one vote per club but I think the dues should be s a set amount per club also....


I gotcha and fully understand what you are saying... Im just saying between the by laws and the goals, I dont see how that can (or should is maybe more appropriate) happen while conforming to both. Its just the way the club is currently set up... 

t


----------



## Anita Griffing

OTE=Keith Jenkins;321806] 
The biggest issue to me is the USCA wants to hold the GSD breed strings *and* the schutzhund strings which in turn limts my free of choice to what clubs I want to be a member of and I don't and never will have a swamp collie...I'm a Hogweiler man. 

If USCA left they wouldn't have a direct avenue for the FCI Championships.[/QUOTE]

See this is what seems so disingenuous. It is ok to be forced by AWDF to go to USRC if you
are a Rottie person even though you might want to stay UScA? But UScA, the big bully,
can't possibly do that, too. It is one FCI World Championship with different breeds, I can't think
it would be that important. UScA has the Worlds, World Universal Sieger, World Sieger Show,
Nationals, WDC/HOT, UScA Sieger Show, Regionals, and lots of club trials, etc. I don't think 
that the FCI Champs is so important, if it means not having a vote equal to its member
size and dues. Nothing wrong with DVG looking out for itself and its members, or USRC, or UScA.
Anita


----------



## Keith Jenkins

For the record USRC was against this score book change and no one is forcing anyone to join the USRC unless you don't want your Rottweiler listed as mixed even then you can still join DVG. This is from the USCA website:

There are currently (2) different types of scorebooks being offered through the USA Breed Book Office, they are as follows:
1.) AWDF/USA Scorebook-issued if you have a GSD. Any other breed will be marked as Mixed.
2.) USA ONLY Scorebook-issued if you have any other purebred or mixed breed dog wishing to compete USA trials only.


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> I gotcha and fully understand what you are saying... Im just saying between the by laws and the goals, I dont see how that can (or should is maybe more appropriate) happen while conforming to both. Its just the way the club is currently set up...
> 
> t


 Not sure why you think that....There are NO individual memberships, it sounds that way but there is NOT, Only Member clubs...

And to changes the dues is easy....Per the By-Laws

_A. The General Board determines and adjusts dues and other 
assessments, as necessary, by majority vote. _


Doesn't seem that difficult to me


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> For the record USRC was against this score book change and no one is forcing anyone to join the USRC unless you don't want your Rottweiler listed as mixed even then you can still join DVG. This is from the USCA website:
> 
> There are currently (2) different types of scorebooks being offered through the USA Breed Book Office, they are as follows:
> 1.) AWDF/USA Scorebook-issued if you have a GSD. Any other breed will be marked as Mixed.
> 2.) USA ONLY Scorebook-issued if you have any other purebred or mixed breed dog wishing to compete USA trials only.


 Where is the problem with this? 

Do you think a USCA member with a Rott should be forced to Join USRC to obtain a scorebook even if they ONLY intend to compete at USCA trials?


----------



## Betty Mathena

Frank Phillips said:


> and this is where "my opinion" of fairness comes in...4000 members = 1 vote or 25 members = 1 vote
> 
> I just don't think that is fair representation of the larger club's members.....and even less if USCA memebrs stop stepping up to run for office......



But isn't that how USCA is set up? Club with 50 members, USCA gets 50 annual dues, club gets 1 delegate vote.

Club with 10 members, USCA get 10 annual dues, club gets 1 delegate vote?


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Perhaps you misunderstood Frank, the USRC didn't want to go to the AWDF books. We've had our own books for years and felt no need to change. 

I had no problem with the way books were issued before the change. If someone wanted to belong to USA and get a book through them they could. If they wanted to join USRC and get a book great. 

I do have an issue with the *USA* only books as they are slipping through the cracks outside the USA.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Betty Mathena said:


> But isn't that how USCA is set up? Club with 50 members, USCA gets 50 annual dues, club gets 1 delegate vote.
> 
> Club with 10 members, USCA get 10 annual dues, club gets 1 delegate vote?


yes but with AWDF the club with 4000 memberts pays $3200 annual dues and the club with 25 members pays $218 annual dues....

you are making my point


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> I do have an issue with the *USA* only books as they are slipping through the cracks outside the USA.


 
Then the "problem" lies with the other clubs not following their own rules...Not really a USCA problem


----------



## tracey schneider

Frank Phillips said:


> Not sure why you think that....There are NO individual memberships, it sounds that way but there is NOT, Only Member clubs...
> 
> And to changes the dues is easy....Per the By-Laws
> 
> _A. The General Board determines and adjusts dues and other
> assessments, as necessary, by majority vote. _
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem that difficult to me


This is what the AWDF by laws state exactly:

"Article III. Membership in the Association.
A. There are two types of membership in the organization.

a. *Individual members,* who are individuals and members in
good standing of a Club Member as that term is defined in
Subsection 2 of this Article III. The rights, privileges and
authority of any individual member may be exercised only
through that member’s membership in a Member Club, except
where otherwise provided in these by-laws.

b.* Multi-breed clubs* based in the United States whose purpose
is to support and advance a specific service or sport program,
including obedience, VPG, IPO, ring sport, law enforcement and
military, search and rescue, herding, agility, and hunting.
Multi-breed clubs must be less than one half of total AWDF club
memberships."

Im not saying changing the dues is hard lol... Im saying the by laws state there ARE individual members (represented by breed clubs). I would imagine to collect individual membership dues is the reason this was worded the way it was... note the "multi breed clubs" is/ was an after thought. So I see nothing wrong with taking individual membership fees based on the member count... totally "fair" and it makes perfect sense with the by laws and in keeping in line with their goals for each of the different breeds (see previous post) then no more than one vote per breed should be given... again jmo. My argument is not whether or not it can be done... its refuting your claims of it not being "fair" when how it is written currently it is "fair" imo.

And before you tell me again, Im not reading what you are writing... I AM. My point is not what is or is not fair by other organizations standards, whats typical, what I think it should or shouldnt be... its simply based on my interpretation of the By laws and goals and how they are CURRENTLY written and if it is or isnt fair in relation to them right now.

t


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> Then the "problem" lies with the other clubs not following their own rules...Not really a USCA problem


That is a problem. But there is a communication break down somewhere between the handlers and USCA in many cases. 

I know for a fact USCA is not telling people that the book is a USCA only book when they call the USCA office to inquire about a scorebook. I have recived complaints by Malinois handlers and have called the USCA office a few times myself to verify that this is going on.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Anita Griffing said:


> It is one FCI World Championship with different breeds, I can't think
> it would be that important.


It's not just that that is might change if USCA was not a member of the AWDF. 

Their judges could lose their SV licenses
They could loose there spot in the WUSV
Their titles would not be recognized outside of their own organization


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Betty Mathena said:


> But isn't that how USCA is set up? Club with 50 members, USCA gets 50 annual dues, club gets 1 delegate vote.
> 
> Club with 10 members, USCA get 10 annual dues, club gets 1 delegate vote?
> 
> 
> Frank Phillips said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes but with AWDF the club with 4000 memberts pays $3200 annual dues and the club with 25 members pays $218 annual dues....
> 
> you are making my point
Click to expand...

I read that more as "USCA and AWDF run the same when it comes to the money they get from their clubs having nothing to do with how many votes a club gets, each club gets 1 vote regardless of membership size". 

If that is the case, why does USCA consider it OK to run their voting system the same way as AWDF, but wants AWDF to change?


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Frank Phillips said:


> Then the "problem" lies with the other clubs not following their own rules...Not really a USCA problem


You're right Frank...and if titles get stripped due to a score book sliding through I can tell them you should have trialed at USA.


----------



## Paige Shriver

Good point Kadi ^


----------



## Anita Griffing

Christopher Smith said:


> It's not just that that is might change if USCA was not a member of the AWDF.
> 
> Their judges could lose their SV licenses
> They could loose there spot in the WUSV
> Their titles would not be recognized outside of their own organization


Why would they lose their SV licenses? That is with the SV and (I think) WUSV.
WUSV is not a FCI member it is still alive.
Titles by UScA Judges were recognized by the SV for years why would their lack of membership
into the AWDF change that?
Anita


----------



## Keith Jenkins

I don't think it would have changed in previous years but with the advent of the *one World* IPO through FCI there *might* be repercussions now. (I said might folks)


----------



## Betty Mathena

Frank Phillips said:


> yes but with AWDF the club with 4000 memberts pays $3200 annual dues and the club with 25 members pays $218 annual dues....
> 
> you are making my point



I must not of been clear, sorry about that. My point was that the USCA clubs only have one delegate vote regardless of the dues the members pay and the size of the club.


----------



## Anita Griffing

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I read that more as "USCA and AWDF run the same when it comes to the money they get from their clubs having nothing to do with how many votes a club gets, each club gets 1 vote regardless of membership size".
> 
> If that is the case, why does USCA consider it OK to run their voting system the same way as AWDF, but wants AWDF to change?


Kadi I do think you have a point, but <---- I feel it is apples and oranges.
In UScA 1 person voting is representing 5 to 25 club members (guessing) possibly creating
150+ voting delegates, compared to 1 vote per 3000+ people in AWDF? 
Anita


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> That is a problem. But there is a communication break down somewhere between the handlers and USCA in many cases.
> 
> I know for a fact USCA is not telling people that the book is a USCA only book when they call the USCA office to inquire about a scorebook. I have recived complaints by Malinois handlers and have called the USCA office a few times myself to verify that this is going on.


That is a problem then and the USCA office should be educated...Who did you contact about this issue?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> It's not just that that is might change if USCA was not a member of the AWDF.
> 
> Their judges could lose their SV licenses
> They could loose there spot in the WUSV
> Their titles would not be recognized outside of their own organization


How do you figure ANY of these would happen...NONE of your examples happen because of USCA's ties with AWDF...They ALL happen because USCA is a MEMBER of WUSV..Period....

I understand you want to make your point but these are out right false statements....


----------



## Frank Phillips

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I read that more as "USCA and AWDF run the same when it comes to the money they get from their clubs having nothing to do with how many votes a club gets, each club gets 1 vote regardless of membership size".
> 
> If that is the case, why does USCA consider it OK to run their voting system the same way as AWDF, but wants AWDF to change?


I would think (my opinion) because USCA has individual memberships and they are represented by Regional Directors and DAL's at the GBM.... EACH club re4gardless of size pays the SAME membership dues and each has 1 vote, RD's and DAL's have votes to represent Members without clubs....

I have said 4 times now, I don't have a prblem with 1 vote per club but the smaller clubs want their cake and to east it too....You want the big bad USCA to pay all the dues and financially support the AWDF but you also want to make all the rules and spit on USCA say how bad they are at every turn at every turn....


----------



## Frank Phillips

Betty Mathena said:


> I must not of been clear, sorry about that. My point was that the USCA clubs only have one delegate vote regardless of the dues the members pay and the size of the club.


Right, but ALL clubs pay the same amount in dues, regardless of how many members they have.....


----------



## Frank Phillips

Anita Griffing said:


> Kadi I do think you have a point, but <---- I feel it is apples and oranges.
> In UScA 1 person voting is representing 5 to 25 club members (guessing) possibly creating
> 150+ voting delegates, compared to 1 vote per 3000+ people in AWDF?
> Anita


 
Your correct...2010 GBM voting delegates...USCA = 112, AWDF = 19


----------



## Wendy Schmitt

Frank I noticed you used the 2010 numbers for deligates. That was when everyone tried to send a member to fight the "only one membership" rule I know I was a delagate for my club. As you also know you didn't have even half those numbers last year for the USA meeting. 
Of course AWDF won't have alot of delegates there are only so many working breeds. More delegates really isn't even needed.
Just let it be said I like UScA and have helped out at many regional and national events. However, AWDF is for the support of all breeds and really it would be detrimental if any one club had overwheling power no matter who that club was.

So again if this is about finances and UScA feels slighted then they should be asking to change the money they are paying out.....which is not an unreasonable request I might add. But this is not what they have asked they want more POWER/CONTROL. 

And yes I will be putting my money were my mouth is and running for one of those DAL openings. 

Wendy Schmitt


----------



## Frank Phillips

Wendy Schmitt;321869 said:


> Frank I noticed you used the 2010 numbers for deligates. That was when everyone tried to send a member to fight the "only one membership" rule I know I was a delagate for my club. As you also know you didn't have even half those numbers last year for the USA meeting.


Yes I tried to use numbers from election years...Numbers are always down on NON-election years for USCA....AWDF elects every year, so I tried to use election years for both....fair!
But even 2011..USCA = 50 delegates on NON-election year....AWDF = 20 election year....



Wendy Schmitt said:


> Of course AWDF won't have alot of delegates there are only so many working breeds. More delegates really isn't even needed.
> Just let it be said I like UScA and have helped out at many regional and national events. However, AWDF is for the support of all breeds and really it would be detrimental if any one club had overwheling power no matter who that club was.


I agree...and have said so many times....



Wendy Schmitt said:


> So again if this is about finances and UScA feels slighted then they should be asking to change the money they are paying out.....which is not an unreasonable request I might add. But this is not what they have asked they want more POWER/CONTROL.
> 
> And yes I will be putting my money were my mouth is and running for one of those DAL openings.
> 
> Wendy Schmitt


Again...I have no idea what this is about as far as USCA, I am not invovled in the politics...I just stated "my opinion" about the other clubs wanting it both ways and that not fair in my opinion....and again...I have no problem with one vote per club....I just get tired of the CONSTANT USCA bashing ...The only thing I haven't seen but am waiting for is the "USCA is the reason the federal economy is in the toilet" post....


----------



## Betty Mathena

Frank Phillips said:


> Right, but ALL clubs pay the same amount in dues, regardless of how many members they have.....


Well I suppose an argument can be made either way...... The clubs may have the same dues, but USA is collecting more money from the larger clubs through individual dues.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> That is a problem then and the USCA office should be educated...Who did you contact about this issue?


The Nathanial Roque and the entire AWDF board were informed.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> The Nathanial Roque and the entire AWDF board were informed.


Then hopefully it should not be an issue anymore....atleast not with the USCA office giving out the wrong information....


----------



## Christopher Smith

Anita Griffing said:


> Why would they lose their SV licenses? That is with the SV and (I think) WUSV.
> WUSV is not a FCI member it is still alive.
> Titles by UScA Judges were recognized by the SV for years why would their lack of membership
> into the AWDF change that?
> Anita


Because the FCI has acknowledge the AWDF as the working organization for the US. So if USCA falls outside of the AWDF they can't be FCI recognized.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Betty Mathena said:


> Well I suppose an argument can be made either way...... The clubs may have the same dues, but USA is collecting more money from the larger clubs through individual dues.


But there are no individual memberships in AWDF...ONLY clubs...

I guess we can agree to disagree


----------



## Christopher Smith

Frank Phillips said:


> They ALL happen because USCA is a MEMBER of WUSV..Period....


How long do you think that would last with the relationship you have with the WDA? They would definetly push to have USCA expelled from the WUSV. And what leg would USCA have to stand on?

Also USCA titles could not be recognized in any groups outside of the FCI. Does any FCI organization accept scores or scorebooks from outside of the FCI? 

Lastly, even the other clubs within the AWDF would be unable to accept your scorebooks because AWDF has a rule that no scorebooks other than AWDF and FCI scorebooks can be accepted. And if I remember correctly the president of USCA argument in favor of this rule was centered on, this is the way the rest of the world does it. 

As far as my statements being false goes, please notice the word _could_ that I used? It's impossible for you to honestly call my statement false unless you have a working crystal ball or a time traveling DeLorean. :razz:


----------



## Anita Griffing

Christopher Smith said:


> Because the FCI has acknowledge the AWDF as the working organization for the US. So if USCA falls outside of the AWDF they can't be FCI recognized.


UScA or AWDF is not FCI recognized although (I think) AWDF is working on it. UScA Judges
have been recognized for a long time. What year did Shumaker go over and judge
the worlds? Way before UScA was "UN"officiallly anything with FCI. UScA has been going
over on the world team for WUSV for a long time, (which was FCI recognized but not now).
So if UScA quits AWDF they are still recognized by the SV and WUSV so UScA loses what again?
Anita


----------



## Frank David

Keith Jenkins said:


> Here in the US just USA as far as I know Frank requires a *stamp*. Let's see... USCA issues scorebooks to other breeds as does DVG. WDA will also issue you a score book regardless of breed.


 
Thanks Keith.... and congrat's on the win : ) I'm a little late but just found out a few weeks ago.


----------



## Betty Mathena

Frank Phillips said:


> But there are no individual memberships in AWDF...ONLY clubs...
> 
> I guess we can agree to disagree



Aha! But USCA states that they are an organization of clubs................

Sorry, couldn't resist..


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Frank David said:


> Thanks Keith.... and congrat's on the win : ) I'm a little late but just found out a few weeks ago.


Thanks Frank!...I know how you New Yorker's can be!


----------



## Frank David

Frank Phillips said:


> yes but with AWDF the club with 4000 memberts pays $3200 annual dues and the club with 25 members pays $218 annual dues....
> 
> you are making my point


 
Hi Frank, It's been a while...


Imo, The club with 25 members paying $218 is just as much if not more of a burden, as the club paying $3200. Small clubs are very limited on how they create revenue.

Aside from that, I would think any club joining the AWDF would know where the annual dues are coming from before joining. 


From my point of view, USA agreed to an obligation (annual dues) knowing they carried more members then another club. Now, they want to use that obligation as leverage to gain more votes. The issue isn't what's fair or unfair in terms of costs.... USA knew the cost involved when they joined. 


Whatever USA's motivation, it's a bad idea to have one club control the AWDF


----------



## James Downey

I agree with Frank D. 

First, Money should never buy votes. This has never ever worked in the history of man. And it also does up hold the spirit in which the AWDF represents. The AWDF is an all breed club. Making other clubs subordinate to one is not an all breed club. It's a one breed club with some other clubs that belong simply because of lack of a better option. 

Second, UScA Charges 100 a year to be a member, AWMA 35. But yet both clubs pay the same amount per member. Although it does not cost the AWMA any more per member. It burdens the AWMA more per member, simply because the AWMA is able to keep less per member. Looking at from the AWMA perspective it would be fairer for the clubs to pay a percentage of member dues, than a flat rate per member.

If this passes, the other clubs will become second class citzens. AWDF will just be UScA2.


----------



## Dana McMahan

I think a big problem is that USCA voted one way on the scorebooks being issued by the individual breed clubs, then turned around and started issuing "USA only books". Yes I too know people who got these books not understanding they couldnt be used at other AWDF trials. I think it went against the spirit of the rule and the federation and that USCA would be the first to scream and holler if it was a rottie or Malinois club issuing GSD books. Now what's happened is other breed clubs can't issue for GSDs yet USCA is still making their money on alternate breeds. To me, USCA wants to be "for the German shepherd" but still get the revenue and benefits of being a sport club like DVG. They need to make up their mind and not treat alternate breeds like crap one minute and then want their $ the next.

In the interest of unification, all clubs should issue one type of book which to me should be the AWDF book because it encompasses all the sports. One membership in any AWDF club should be sufficient for a club level trial but non members of that club should pay a higher entry fee to bring some revenue to the national club. And regionals/nationals should still require membership of that national club.

If everyone simplifies the rules, it will open the sport up which will raise trial revenue, make the paperwork simpler for new comers, and create a cohesive fairness in the AWDF. Oh and I'm not sure where the dues of .75 per member club initially came from but it's stupid and should go back to being a flat rate per club before we allow a club to essentially base votes on money.


----------



## Anita Griffing

Dana McMahan said:


> I think a big problem is that USCA voted one way on the scorebooks being issued by the individual breed clubs, then turned around and started issuing "USA only books". Yes I too know people who got these books not understanding they couldnt be used at other AWDF trials. I think it went against the spirit of the rule and the federation and that USCA would be the first to scream and holler if it was a rottie or Malinois club issuing GSD books. .


Other breed clubs do give GSDs scorebooks. Flat rate would be fair, too. Does AKC base
its dues on how big GSDCA or DPCA is? (I don't know)
I think AWDF can be the bully to UScA and tell them to
do it this way or else, but DVG falls back on "Germany won't let us do that." The original
intent of the AWDF scorebook was for those that didn't have any, not to take over all the 
others scorebooks. I think if someone votes on something and then decides it wasn't right
that is their prerogative. 
Anita


----------



## Dana McMahan

What breed clubs issue GSDs books without listing as a mix? USA is the only one who has circumvented the rule to my knowledge... And I'm sorry but if you vote one way then decide its not working, you bring it back for a vote. You don't play games and create a second process To get around the rule that everyone else is still following. We have rules and bylaws for a reasons so it's not up to them to pick and choose when and which ones they would like to follow. 

JMO but the individual breed clubs scorebooks are more hassle than their worth from a competitor stand point and is what has led to dogs having multiple scorebooks. The new rules state one book. Something has to give and the easiest course of action is for everyone to use the AWDF book from here forward and get rid of scorebook stamping fees and all these different types of books (DVG books, USA only books, etc). Clubs can make the same revenue from books but they will at least be uniform.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Thing is as a DVG member I have to use a DVG book at a DVG trial as I don't have a choice. 

I don't think the DVG with a membership that is probably 12-15 times bigger than all the AWDF added together is going to drop score-book requirements it's had in place forever so that the AWDF can issue one book. 

While the DVG is a member of the AWDF they are first and foremost a member of the VDH. So unless the DVG decides to rewrite everything for one LV the books we have now are the ones we are required to use.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Christopher Smith said:


> How long do you think that would last with the relationship you have with the WDA? They would definetly push to have USCA expelled from the WUSV. And what leg would USCA have to stand on?


First, how would WDA be able to try to have USCA expelled from WUSV? Why would WUSV listen to anything that the WDA requests when WDA are NOT and member of the WUSV.... The GSDCA is the WUSV member and has tried MANY times to have USCA expelled and failed, and that was when they were lying about their membership numbers (WUSV votes on per capida basis  )...USCA's leg to stand on is we are the largest GSD organization in the U.S. and provide a lot more money to the SV then GSDCA does...And you know. just like the AKC, the SV is about making money. So NO, I do not believe for one second that could happen.



Christopher Smith said:


> Also USCA titles could not be recognized in any groups outside of the FCI. Does any FCI organization accept scores or scorebooks from outside of the FCI?


Yes they do....SV accepts WDA scorebooks and score, SV = FCI member, WDA, Not.



Christopher Smith said:


> Lastly, even the other clubs within the AWDF would be unable to accept your scorebooks because AWDF has a rule that no scorebooks other than AWDF and FCI scorebooks can be accepted. And if I remember correctly the president of USCA argument in favor of this rule was centered on, this is the way the rest of the world does it.


 
I do not believe USCA would ever leave AWDF anyway so not really sure where this statement is going....




Christopher Smith said:


> As far as my statements being false goes, please notice the word _could_ that I used? It's impossible for you to honestly call my statement false unless you have a working crystal ball or a time traveling DeLorean. :razz:


Well to me it is just not in the best interest of the sport overall to make statement's that will NEVER happen just to try to scare people into believing your point...
You "could" say anything (and some do) knowing it is false just to make a point but then pull out the cop out "I said could" to justify doing it...One of the big reasons people can NOT believe any of the crap written on some of these list...I thought this one was different but I guess they are all the same....scream, yell, distort, twist or fabricate just to make your point with zero accountability or facts to back it up....

Look, this has spun way out of control ( as most of these type complaints do on the internet)... My whole point was I do not know of one organization that runs this way, where dues are paid per capida and votes are 1 each...I know many dog orgs that operate successfully on a per capida basis for dues AND votes OR on a equal votes and dues basis.... USCA didn't say this, I have no idea what USCA feels or thinks about why this is being done, I am not invovled in USCA's discussions...It was just my opinion that it is not fair....and others on here have admitted it is not fair, but too bad...and if that is the way it is then so be it......

So please, Can anyone tell me another organization that operates this way, Dues per capida, votes equal?

I am just wondering if it is done successfully in any other organizations....


----------



## Frank Phillips

Dana McMahan said:


> hat breed clubs issue GSDs books without listing as a mix? USA is the only one who has circumvented the rule to my knowledge... And I'm sorry but if you vote one way then decide its not working, you bring it back for a vote. You don't play games and create a second process To get around the rule that everyone else is still following. We have rules and bylaws for a reasons so it's not up to them to pick and choose when and which ones they would like to follow.


 So Dana, are you saying that if a AWMA member has Mals and a GSD and intends to ONLY trial in AWMA events..Then AWMA will FORCE that member to join USCA or DVG to get a scorebook? 

In my opinion, all clubs should be able to sell books to their members who only intend to enter their events....The economy is too hard right now to FORCE people to join multiple orgs just because they own mulitiple breeds....



Dana McMahan said:


> JMO but the individual breed clubs scorebooks are more hassle than their worth from a competitor stand point and is what has led to dogs having multiple scorebooks. The new rules state one book. Something has to give and the easiest course of action is for everyone to use the AWDF book from here forward and get rid of scorebook stamping fees and all these different types of books (DVG books, USA only books, etc). Clubs can make the same revenue from books but they will at least be uniform.


 USCA will not get rid of the "Stamp Fees" why should an Organization offer services to Non-members at the same cost as for members....Non one would join any org that way....

I wrote a proposal for a possible solution to the "scorebook issue" last year and submitted it.....It would basically allow EVERY Org to sell it's members a scorebook with an additional fee for non-breed club breeds...

For example: An AWMA member also has a Rott....He wants a scorebook for his Rott, AWMA charges $10 for a Mal scorebook and then would charge $15 for the non-breed club breed (Rott), the person wanting the scorebook with the breed listed would have to submit a official pedigree with the application....AWMA would then inturn send a copy of the pedigree and the addition $5 fee to USRC so they are aware of the Rott invovled in the sport and they get the $5 profit they would get if they had sold the scorebook...

Then if the dog works out and the handler wants to go to AWDF championship, at that time they would have to join USRC and enter the championships through their breed club.....

that was the basic version of what I submitted.....


----------



## tracey schneider

James Downey said:


> Looking at from the AWMA perspective it would be fairer for the clubs to pay a percentage of member dues, than a flat rate per member.


That wouldnt be a good idea, because clubs would get "sneaky" and charge less for their member dues and maybe more for a scorebook, as an example, to get around something like that... 

t


----------



## Keith Jenkins

I guess this all boils down to this, after going on more than two decades the same voting process that has been in place, one club one vote, now suddenly seems unfair/unjust. The only explanation that has really been given is because other organizations do it that way.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> I guess this all boils down to this, after going on more than two decades the same voting process that has been in place, one club one vote, now suddenly seems unfair/unjust. The only explanation that has really been given is because other organizations do it that way.


No...again.. Just in my opinion it is not fair to have 4000 AWDF members represented by 1 vote and 5 other AWDF members also having 1 vote...I'm sorry if you can't see that is not fair to all AWDF members and you think it is fair to all members.....

I take it you don't know of any other org that operates this way?


----------



## Keith Jenkins

How many times does an organization need to dip into a competitor's pocket? 

USCA doesn't really do anything other than write down a number on a score book when they certify a book. For that they get 40.00 from non-members. They get an extra 15.00 now per entry for non-members who enter a trial. There is no more *paperwork* involved for non-members versus members that trial( The USCA doesn't submit forward anything to other clubs). Is it more of a burden on a USCA judge to judge a non-member dog? 

DVG doesn't charge extra for non-members or any book certification fee.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> How many times does an organization need to dip into a competitor's pocket?
> 
> USCA doesn't really do anything other than write down a number on a score book when they certify a book. For that they get 40.00 from non-members.
> They get an extra 15.00 now per entry for non-members who enter a trial. There is no more *paperwork* involved for non-members versus members that trial( The USCA doesn't submit forward anything to other clubs). Is it more of a burden on a USCA judge to judge a non-member dog?
> 
> DVG doesn't charge extra for non-members or any book certification fee.


The "extra" fee for non-members is $11...The filing fees are $4 for members and $15 for Non-members...

so you think all orgs should offer all services for the same to cost anyone, a member or not....why would anyone join? Not really a good way to operate a organization.

USCA spends $30k per year on Judges education, they have a office staff that records all the results of the trials and they get paid and all kinds of other expenses related to members and NON-members using USCA sercvices.....Member Dues go to pay for this, so there are extra fees to NON-members to help offset these costs for services you are using...again, sorry if you can't understand this...


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Frank Phillips said:


> No...again.. Just in my opinion it is not fair to have 4000 AWDF members represented by 1 vote and 5 other AWDF members also having 1 vote...I'm sorry if you can't see that is not fair to all AWDF members and you think it is fair to all members.....
> 
> I take it you don't know of any other org that operates this way?


Actually the AKC operates this way:

_The American Kennel Club is a not-for-profit organization devoted to the advancement of purebred dogs. AKC is a "club of clubs", comprised of over 500 member clubs and almost 5000 affiliated clubs. There are no individual members. Each member club exercises its voting privileges through a representative known as a "delegate." The delegates form the legislative body of the AKC, making the rules and electing from their body the individuals who serve on AKC's Board of Directors._

Every full-member AKC club has one vote regardless of individual club size.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> Actually the AKC operates this way:
> 
> _The American Kennel Club is a not-for-profit organization devoted to the advancement of purebred dogs. AKC is a "club of clubs", comprised of over 500 member clubs and almost 5000 affiliated clubs. There are no individual members. Each member club exercises its voting privileges through a representative known as a "delegate." The delegates form the legislative body of the AKC, making the rules and electing from their body the individuals who serve on AKC's Board of Directors._
> 
> Every full-member AKC club has one vote regardless of individual club size.


Does every club reguardless of size pay the same dues? (and just asking the question because I know nothing about how AKC operates and really want nothing to do wih them)

(and we could argue the "successful" part, I don't think AKC is successful at operating in what is best for the dogs  )


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Frank Phillips said:


> You want the big bad USCA to pay all the dues and financially support the AWDF but you also want to make all the rules and spit on USCA say how bad they are at every turn at every turn....


I hope this is a generic "you" and not aimed at me, because I don't recall saying any of those things.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

There is no difference in dues amount based on members.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

I'm not the biggest proponent of the AKC either but they are pretty much first in the trenches when something catastrophic happens or BSL raises it's ugly head. While they make a lot of revenue they also spend a lot on dogs and dog related issues.


----------



## Anita Griffing

Keith:

DVG hasn't given up their scorebook or some other privileges, because Germany
won't 'let' them. Pretty convenient and unfair. DVG needs to pick. You HAVE to 
be a member of a club in DVG you can't be independent so DVG forces you to join
a club whether you go or not. Wasn't Carole Patterson, President of DVG, the second to the
scorebook issue? But DVG doesn't have to follow that? Hmmmmm.

Also, if I have at home (which I once did) where I have a dobie, my husband had
a mali and my son had a GSD and I wanted to go to AWDF it would just be better
to go DVG. IMO Carole Patterson is very smart to support that scorebook issue
as it behooves her organization both in size and money and punished UScA. And
if the mali people want their membership bigger than make it a better organization so
people will come don't force UScA members to leave. So: The scorebook issue
passes in AWDF, non GSDs members get mad at UScA because they think UScA GSD people
don't like them when it was forced on UScA by AWDF. And yes you can change your
mind during the light of day. 
Anita


----------



## Keith Jenkins

The only reason a DVG member had to get an AWDF score-book was if they intended to enter the AWDF Championship. Up until these new rules changes DVG members were assured that both their DVG and AWDF-DVG issued score books would be signed at the Championship. AWDF fully understood that the DVG was required to use their own books. DVG/America is the only LV outside of Germany, they don't get to make the rules. In fact I feel very fortunate to be able to trial DVG here at all.

It wasn't a problem until now. 

Yes the DVG did away with at-large membership which I don't agree either but there are a lot of clubs out there that will allow you to be a member on their roster for next to nothing. So in most cases it really didn't put any extra financial burden on individuals.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I hope this is a generic "you" and not aimed at me, because I don't recall saying any of those things.


yes it was a generic "you" ...sorry


----------



## Anita Griffing

Keith Jenkins said:


> The only reason a DVG member had to get an AWDF score-book was if they intended to enter the AWDF Championship. Up until these new rules changes DVG members were assured that both their DVG and AWDF-DVG issued score books would be signed at the Championship. AWDF fully understood that the DVG was required to use their own books.
> 
> It wasn't a problem until now.
> 
> Yes the DVG did away with at-large membership which I don't agree either but there are a lot of clubs out there that will allow you to be a member on their roster for next to nothing. So in most cases it really didn't put any extra financial burden on individuals.


Keith what do you think UScA should do with the scorebook issue? Just go along with
it? Should DVG give up their scorebook? What will happen when a DVG member goes
to an AWMA event and AWMA says they won't recognize anything but an AWDF book?
Or if a DVG member wants to go to AWDF Champs and has to have a AWDF scorebook
which needs to have proof of all titles? Also, I want to repeat the scorebook originally
was for the breed clubs that didn't have any. UScA already HAD one. Over time, the control over
these scorebooks by the other breed clubs have been prohibitive for UScA. IMO
Anita


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> There is no difference in dues amount based on members.


so then that doesn't opporate the same way, does it....Do you know of one that does?


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Sorry I misunderstood...I'll look but I'm pretty sure I will find something if I look hard enough that meets your criteria. 

My standpoint was and is that votes are not and should not be based on how much money a club pays. That IMO is what leads to unethical things transpiring. What is to keep a club with deep pockets from padding the numbers to retain control?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> Sorry I misunderstood...I'll look but I'm pretty sure I will find something if I look hard enough that meets your criteria.
> 
> My standpoint was and is that votes are not and should not be based on how much money a club pays. That IMO is what leads to unethical things transpiring. What is to keep a club with deep pockets from padding the numbers to retain control?


I agree...I just don't think it is fair to have it both ways....


----------



## Keith Jenkins

If one reads the IPO rules regarding score books it doesn't state that all dogs within an organization must use the same books. It states only one book per dog is too be issued and that is left up to the National organization. There is nothing prohibiting the AWDF from allowing DVG to enter using it's own book, regardless if it's a member club trial or championship. 

Since my DVG score-book is already FCI recognized with or without the AWDF, how could any member club deny the book?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> If one reads the IPO rules regarding score books it doesn't state that all dogs within an organization must use the same books. It states only one book per dog is too be issued and that is left up to the National organization. There is nothing prohibiting the AWDF from allowing DVG to enter using it's own book, regardless if it's a member club trial or championship.
> 
> Since my DVG score-book is already FCI recognized with or without the AWDF, how could any member club deny the book?


Correct, and I don't think they will....The only "obstacle" that I believe has to be addressed will be if you enter the AWDF Championship.....and to me that is a easy fix also....allow DVG scorebooks.... everyone else has already agreed to the AWDF scorebook but DVG can't.....


----------



## Anita Griffing

Keith Jenkins said:


> If one reads the IPO rules regarding score books it doesn't state that all dogs within an organization must use the same books. It states only one book per dog is too be issued and that is left up to the National organization. There is nothing prohibiting the AWDF from allowing DVG to enter using it's own book, regardless if it's a member club trial or championship.
> 
> Since my DVG score-book is already FCI recognized with or without the AWDF, how could any member club deny the book?


 
Do you think it is fair that UScA has to follow the AWDF rules whether it hurts them
or not and DVG gets a free pass? And if you could answer, since we are all being quite
decent about this, what would you have UScA do? Have the UScA non-GSD members to
go to DVG? Or have DVG mandate that all the pure bred dog members in DVG become 
members of their respective breed clubs ALSO, so to follow through with what they SAID 
was the intention of the scorebook change THAT Carole seconded and voted on to get
the smaller clubs more members? 

Anita


----------



## Dana McMahan

Frank Phillips said:


> So Dana, are you saying that if a AWMA member has Mals and a GSD and intends to ONLY trial in AWMA events..Then AWMA will FORCE that member to join USCA or DVG to get a scorebook?
> 
> In my opinion, all clubs should be able to sell books to their members who only intend to enter their events....The economy is too hard right now to FORCE people to join multiple orgs just because they own mulitiple breeds....


I'm saying the rule is what it is. I currently have to be a member of both AWMA and USRC (or DVG) to get books for my Mali and Rottweilers because AWMA won't issue books for my Rottweiler, per the rules established by AWDF. I don't see how its fair that I have to join two organizations because AWMA and USRC are following the rules, but USA members decided not to follow the rule and they dont.

If your not going to follow the rule (and personally I don't care about the rule itself), then it should be voted on and removed so that its fair for everyone. Clubs should not get to cherry pick which ones they are going to follow. IMO it should go to a vote again because that is the procedure we have in place and USA should not be issuing "USA Only" books until they took the proper route to change the rule. 

As far as USA's fees, I am not sure how well its working out for them. I was a member for about 6-7 years with Rottweilers (my GSD was an older rescue dog). I paid my stamp fees because I had to get my books from other organizations in order to do my breed tests, which aren't offered by USA. I'd have to look at my Sportspasse to see how many trials I did but I'm guessing probably around 5-6. I decided not to renew because I participate in WDA trials if they become available and was told you could not support both clubs. So I dropped my long time membership and left the USA club I was training with.

It makes more financial sense, in this economy, for me to pay the extra fees than to pay the $100 membership fee. I went to 1 USA trial this year, and the owner had already stamped the scorebook so we paid the extra $15 (savings of $85). The owner of the dog was actually a USA member at the time and I confirmed whether the owner or the handler had to be members and was told both (even though that is NOT how its written); so I told the owner to just drop their USA membership because it was cheaper to do that, and pay the extra fee at the trial. USA lost out on $200 membership fees and gained $15 on that one trial we did.

For me, I join to support the cub. I'm currently a member of USRC, AWMA, and NARA. I would have continued supporting the USA even without competing with a GSD but time and again they seemed to spit at their alternate breed members and put more and more restrictions and fees. If their not careful they are definitely going to price themselves out of the market because they are not the only game in town. USA's benefit to DVG was that it was a significantly cheaper membership fee but now that isnt the case. And WDA's membership is half of USA's, and I can enter their trials without a stamp or extra entry fee. What makes the most sense in this economy??


----------



## Keith Jenkins

DVG is a sport club not a*breed* club. Same can be said with the Mondio and FR club in the AWDF. They accept all breeds, full or mixed so why would they mandate anyone be required to join a breed club to also be a member of their club? 

The DVG became a member with the blessing of the AWDF before any issue with AWDF score-books were in the picutre. The AWDF passed the score-book rule knowing the DVG members were going to need a bit of end-a-round when it came to the AWDF Championships. You can call it *free pass* or whatever this is not something that just appeared out of thin air. It was a known factor from the start.


----------



## Anita Griffing

Keith Jenkins said:


> DVG is a sport club not a*breed* club. Same can be said with the Mondio and FR club in the AWDF. They accept all breeds, full or mixed so why would they mandate anyone be required to join a breed club to also be a member of their club?
> 
> The DVG became a member with the blessing of the AWDF before any issue with AWDF score-books were in the picutre. The AWDF passed the score-book rule knowing the DVG members were going to need a bit of end-a-round when it came to the AWDF Championships. You can call it *free pass* or whatever this is not something that just appeared out of thin air. It was a known factor from the start.


Keith, thanks for discussing this. UScA is a breed club and DVG is a sport club. Great.  That is
true, but I am not sure that answers my question. Since the original intent of the scorebook
change was to get people to go to their respective breed clubs why does DVG get a
pass because it is a sport club. The "end around" is becoming apparent to me that
it was not the intent to make the breed clubs bigger, as was told and promoted to
UScA, it was just to make UScA smaller.
Anita


----------



## Anita Griffing

Dana,
Why don't you contact the Boxer Club and the other breed clubs to see if
they have allowed other breeds. What your are saying is just not true.
Anita


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Anita Griffing said:


> Dana,
> Why don't you contact the Boxer Club and the other breed clubs to see if
> they have allowed other breeds. What your are saying is just not true.
> Anita



My Dutch Shepherd has a AWMA score book so breed clubs DO issue them to other breeds. All AWDF member clubs should be able to issue a score book to any breed (not listing it as a mix)
Let all the breed clubs provide a better service to attract members. It's not up to AWDF or UScA to force anyone to join any breed club just to get a score book.
Re: Carol Patterson
She is a class act. Trying to claim she is doing something underhanded by supporting any score book motions is untrue and unfair.
DVG America is an AWDF member club, NOT the entire DVG
(All the Landesgruppe) organization. The limitations that DVG America had in regards to their parent organization were well know when DVG America was STRONGLY recruited to become a AWDF member club.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> My Dutch Shepherd has a AWMA score book so breed clubs DO issue them to other breeds. All AWDF member clubs should be able to issue a score book to any breed (not listing it as a mix)
> Let all the breed clubs provide a better service to attract members. It's not up to AWDF or UScA to force anyone to join any breed club just to get a score book.


Geez Thomas...I was almost agreeing with you on this statement until you had to throw in that USCA dig that is again NOT true.....You just can't help yourself can you...hahaha. USCA did not make this rule and they DO NOT force anyone to join a breed club, they follow the AWDF rules, unless you want a USCA ONLY scorebook that con ONLY be used at USCA events by USCA members......

I have a proposal to do just that , that I submitted to people and hopefully it is something that can be implemented to fix the scorebook problem......


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Frank Phillips said:


> Geez Thomas...I was almost agreeing with you on this statement until you had to throw in that USCA dig that is again NOT true.....You just can't help yourself can you...hahaha. USCA did not make this rule and they DO NOT force anyone to join a breed club, they follow the AWDF rules, unless you want a USCA ONLY scorebook that con ONLY be used at USCA events by USCA members......
> 
> I have a proposal to do just that , that I submitted to people and hopefully it is something that can be implemented to fix the scorebook problem......


Frank,

I've been a UScA member since 99. I have two Dobermanns in the UScA SchH III club. When UScA tells me they'll list my Dobermann as a "mix" unless I join UDC. Then that looks like
"force" to me? I'm a member of USMRA and got my AWDF score books for my new Dobermann and GSD from them 
Depending on how training goes (which I'm going to do now)
I may see you in June


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> Frank,
> 
> I've been a UScA member since 99. I have two Dobermanns in the UScA SchH III club. When UScA tells me they'll list my Dobermann as a "mix" unless I join UDC. Then that looks like
> "force" to me? I'm a member of USMRA and got my AWDF score books for my new Dobermann and GSD from them
> Depending on how training goes (which I'm going to do now)
> I may see you in June


The thing you are not understanding...It is NOT USCA that made that rule, it is a AWDF rule... USCA are just following the AWDF rule... You "could" get a USCA scorebook that can be ONLY used at USCA events with them listed as Doberman 

My wife is in a similar situation...She has 2 Dobermans (USCA member) and wants to enter AWDF this year, she is being forced to join UDC so she can enter through her breed club.....


Hope to see you in June....


----------



## Wendy Schmitt

I would just like to state you do not have to be a member to get a Dobermann scorebook from the UDC. So not all clubs force you to be members to get a score book.

People lets please get off this score book issue your beating a dead horse. This thread was and is about UScA trying to get control of AWDF and that we need to keep it balanced for ALL breeds and not to favor any. 

Wendy


----------



## Anita Griffing

Thomas Barriano said:


> My Dutch Shepherd has a AWMA score book so breed clubs DO issue them to other breeds. All AWDF member clubs should be able to issue a score book to any breed (not listing it as a mix)
> Let all the breed clubs provide a better service to attract members. It's not up to AWDF or UScA to force anyone to join any breed club just to get a score book.
> Re: Carol Patterson
> She is a class act. Trying to claim she is doing something underhanded by supporting any score book motions is untrue and unfair.
> DVG America is an AWDF member club, NOT the entire DVG
> (All the Landesgruppe) organization. The limitations that DVG America had in regards to their parent organization were well know when DVG America was STRONGLY recruited to become a AWDF member club.


I agree with you totally. I think Carole is a class act. Period. I do think that she looks
after the best interest of DVG (as she should), but that isn't always in AWDF or UScA's
best interest. That is not underhanded or disreputable, it is her staying true to
her beliefs. IMO
Anita


----------



## tracey schneider

Anita Griffing said:


> I agree with you totally. I think Carole is a class act. Period. I do think that she looks
> after the best interest of DVG (as she should), but that isn't always in AWDF or UScA's
> best interest. That is not underhanded or disreputable, it is her staying true to
> her beliefs. IMO
> Anita


And this right here is the EXACT reason each club should have no more than one vote... no other club is going to look after the best interest of another... they are going to take care of their own first and foremost... and they should... that is why it should never be more than 1 vote per club.


----------



## Wendy Schmitt

tracey delin said:


> And this right here is the EXACT reason each club should have no more than one vote... no other club is going to look after the best interest of another... they are going to take care of their own first and foremost... and they should... that is why it should never be more than 1 vote per club.


Thank You!!!


Wendy


----------



## Anita Griffing

Wendy Schmitt said:


> I would just like to state you do not have to be a member to get a Dobermann scorebook from the UDC. So not all clubs force you to be members to get a score book.
> 
> People lets please get off this score book issue your beating a dead horse. This thread was and is about UScA trying to get control of AWDF and that we need to keep it balanced for ALL breeds and not to favor any.
> 
> Wendy


Wendy: That is not totally true. This thread started with the UScA 'taking over'
and trying to control its members and money and it is not true. 
History:
1) Scorebook the way it was.
2) New AWDF scorebooks for ONLY breed clubs that don't have any.
3) Change to: every breed club having AWDF scorebooks and 
 AWDF getting a kick back so AWDF can raise funds.
4) AWMA delegate at AWDF bringing forth that UScA can't give scorebooks to pure
 bred non gsds to help growth for little breed clubs (understaind or notunderstanding
 that people could by pass all this and go DVG).
5) UScA getting grief from nongsd people that they hate UScA because UScA doesn't
 want us.
6) UScA issuing scorebooks for members that would rather stay in UScA even IF
 it says mixed breed on the scorebook While some are calling UScA "out for
 just the money"
7) People that don't know the history, complaining to UScA that they have a UScA only
 book but they pay the same dues as all other UScA members.

I don't see the blame being placed on the people that brought the scorebook thing
up AT AWDF in the first place. I see some people putting all the blame on UScA.
And then when some of the facts come out then they are beating a dead horse,
so stop. I appreciate Thomas' input and Keith's input and am glad this didn't 
disintegrate into name calling. Thank you. 
Anita


----------



## Anita Griffing

tracey delin said:


> And this right here is the EXACT reason each club should have no more than one vote... no other club is going to look after the best interest of another... they are going to take care of their own first and foremost... and they should... that is why it should never be more than 1 vote per club.


Then AWDF needs to make the money the same for all. Because 2 member clubs having
so much power over a 3600 member club is unfair. And you can see by this thread
and others that as long as the fatted calf (UScA) is fat they want a piece, soon as UScA
has had enough and tries to protect its members...BAD UScA. And you are absolutely
wrong, UScA (because of its history) has many of its members look after the other clubs
for the betterment of the whole, hence, AWDF in the first place. Who supported all the
AWDF events in the first ten years? Who judged them? Who hosted them? 
I believe UScA, was in a lot of 'control' of AWDF when they
changed the rules of FCI Champ teams so that not the highest point dogs went 
(because that would mean too many GSDs) they changed it so other breed clubs could take
priority even if they have less scores or competed at a 2 dog championship. (I don't know what 
the rules are now) But, I can't see how you can say UScA hasn't pulled its weight in the help department. 
Anita


----------



## Anita Griffing

It did post below sorry


----------



## tracey schneider

Anita Griffing said:


> Then AWDF needs to make the money the same for all. Because 2 member clubs having
> so much power over a 3600 member club is unfair. And you can see by this thread
> and others that as long as the fatted calf (UScA) is fat they want a piece, soon as UScA
> has had enough and tries to protect its members...BAD UScA. And you are absolutely
> wrong, UScA (because of its history) has many of its members look after the other clubs
> for the betterment of the whole, hence, AWDF in the first place. Who supported all the
> AWDF events in the first ten years? Who judged them? Who hosted them?
> I believe UScA, was in a lot of 'control' of AWDF when they
> changed the rules of FCI Champ teams so that not the highest point dogs went
> (because that would mean too many GSDs) they changed it so other breed clubs could take
> priority even if they have less scores or competed at a 2 dog championship. (I don't know what
> the rules are now) But, I can't see how you can say UScA hasn't pulled its weight in the help department.
> Anita


Im not gonna debate or argue the details of that, it all sounds dandy, but it doesnt mean a whole heck of alot as it is not something anyone could *guarantee* would happen... no matter what club we are talking about.... For me its not so much an USCA issue, Id feel the same about any organization having more votes than another.... 

again the dues are offset by each member... I could see the set club fee being waived if membership is over a certain amount, like a min. overall club dues must be met, if its kept in mind that some of these smaller clubs dont have much income. 

t


----------



## tracey schneider

Wendy Schmitt said:


> I would just like to state you do not have to be a member to get a Dobermann scorebook from the UDC. So not all clubs force you to be members to get a score book.


Well that is an interesting twist... would it be within the rules to have two membership types.. a full AWDF membership and a breed club membership for those who only want to do the breed clubs events, not to include IPO? Probably a bunch of holes in this thought... but spitting it out anyway.


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> again the dues are offset by each member... I could see the set club fee being waived if membership is over a certain amount, like a min. overall club dues must be met, if its kept in mind that some of these smaller clubs dont have much income.
> 
> t


 No it is NOT...The dues are set by number members of each member org....The "members" of the AWDF are the clubs NOT the individuals in each club......


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> Well that is an interesting twist... would it be within the rules to have two membership types.. a full AWDF membership and a breed club membership for those who only want to do the breed clubs events, not to include IPO? Probably a bunch of holes in this thought... but spitting it out anyway.


 Again, there are NO individual memberships within AWDF...ONLY the CLUBS are members......


----------



## tracey schneider

Frank Phillips said:


> No it is NOT...The dues are set by number members of each member org....The "members" of the AWDF are the clubs NOT the individuals in each club......


that doesnt even make sense... if the clubs arent charging each member for their additional cost of the overall AWDF dues, that each member adds, then that club needs to rethink their accounting... :-\"


----------



## tracey schneider

Frank Phillips said:


> Again, there are NO individual memberships within AWDF...ONLY the CLUBS are members......


I disagree based on how the by laws are written, but for sake rehashing the same argument over and over, AWDF is charging for each member of that club...


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

3200 for AWDF dues seems like a lot (200 base fee and 3000 for members) for UScA, until you do some math. Based on some of the numbers in this thread, this is the yearly income from membership dues for some of the clubs mentioned

UScA 4000 members x 100 dues = 400,000.00 Yes, that comma is in the right spot.
AWMA 200 members x 35 dues = 7,000 And I'm not sure if they even have 200 members, that's an estimate
USRC 100 x 55 dues = 5,500 based on this thread I don't think the USRC has even close to 100 members
NARA 200 members x 85 dues = 17,000 And this isn't a Sch group, so they pay the same rates as everyone else but aren't effected/benefited by a large percent of what they are paying for
USMRA 150 members x 60 dues = 9,000 Like NARA not a Sch group, so paying but not getting the same benefits

DVG??? Anyone know what a membership costs, I thought a friend recently told me 60.00 but I don't know if that was for a full year or not. Any idea what their membership base is?

That's just a few of the clubs and I estimated high on most of the memberships, except for the numbers given here in the thread. 

I think saying "the club" is paying more is deflecting a little. It's the membership's money that is being used to pay the AWDF membership. The club is writing the check, but every club is passing that bill off to their members as part of their dues, big ones and little ones. 3200 sounds like a lot for UScA, but it's a small percentage of their actual income from memberships. Less than 1% (0.8%). NARA has the next highest income, and just the 200.00 base fee is 1.18% of their membership fees. Add in the per member cost and it's 2%. Looking at the smaller clubs, the AWDF fees can be 5 and even 10% of their membership dues.

Looking at this I really can't feel that the membership fee is "unfair" to any of the AWDF clubs. If a club feels overly burdened by the fee, they can always raise their dues 1.00 a year, then they make an extra .25 per member. And other than thinking "56 is a really weird membership fee" I don't think the members are going to care.


----------



## Dana McMahan

Membership in AWMA is $30/year and we just added them up to pay dues for AWDF and we had 168 members. Some of those are family memberships so it doesn't total out to a straight $30/member but according to our financial statement for 2011, our total membership dues intake was $5642. 

When I was a DVG member several years ago it was over $100. 

I tried to find meeting minutes for some of the other AWDF clubs but could not find them on the website. Perhaps some of the other members of those clubs who have access to the meeting minutes can post the numbers for comparison. 

From USA's 2011 GBM Minutes:
Income: $369,927
Expenses: $253,651


From AWMA's Financial Statement:
Income: $14,361.94
Expenses: $14,013.55

USMRA Financial Summary:
Income: $29,233.33
Expenses: $11,107.82


----------



## Dana McMahan

Anita Griffing said:


> 4) AWMA delegate at AWDF bringing forth that UScA can't give scorebooks to pure
> bred non gsds to help growth for little breed clubs (understaind or notunderstanding
> that people could by pass all this and go DVG).


From the 2009 AWDF Annual Meeting Minutes:
AWDF Score books
Anne Camper (AWMA) began by saying that it is important to allow the smaller clubs under AWDF to develop and grow. AWDF scorebooks should all be assigned by the breed clubs only, with the exception of the Mondio and LV/DVG
clubs. The Issue is the identification of the breed of dog by the other clubs. What constitutes the official identification of a dogs breed? How can another club verify breed classification without knowing what is the accepted registration for that AWDF breed club?

Paige Shriver of Fed AB states that she agrees with Anne Camper. AB owners are getting their books from USA with their bred listed. How does USA-GSD verify that the specific dog’s pedigree is what is accepted by Fed AB? The USA-GSD should list the breed as mix specifically for that reason. She continues that with the present process as it stands it is not allowing the other breed clubs to have a financial addition and actually prevents the clubs from retaining members thus inhibits growth. She clearly wanted the USA-GSD club to know that they still have means to make their money on stamping the
books as they have always done even allowing other breeds to purchase from them but would prefer that the score book be filled out in the breed ID as a MIX BREED unless the AWDF Score book is acquired from the specific breed club. The members can acquire their AWDF books from the appropriate club then send them in to be stamped by USA-GSD
Glenn Stephenson asks why USA-GSD even assigns books to other breeds. Lyle states it has been USA-GSD procedure for quite some time and they will not relinquish the allowance of anyone obtaining a score book from their club.

Paige Shriver of Fed AB made this motion:
All AWDF score books must be acquired from their specific AWDF member sport/breed club with the exception of the sporting clubs (Mondioring, LV/DVG, etc) in order to retain the breed identification in the AWDF score book, otherwise
the breed ID will be listed in the AWDF score book as MIX BREED.

The motion was seconded by Johaness Grewe & Anne Camper

All were in favor – none opposed.

Motion passed.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Kadi Thingvall said:


> 3200 for AWDF dues seems like a lot (200 base fee and 3000 for members) for UScA, until you do some math. Based on some of the numbers in this thread, this is the yearly income from membership dues for some of the clubs mentioned
> 
> UScA 4000 members x 100 dues = 400,000.00 Yes, that comma is in the right spot.
> AWMA 200 members x 35 dues = 7,000 And I'm not sure if they even have 200 members, that's an estimate
> USRC 100 x 55 dues = 5,500 based on this thread I don't think the USRC has even close to 100 members
> NARA 200 members x 85 dues = 17,000 And this isn't a Sch group, so they pay the same rates as everyone else but aren't effected/benefited by a large percent of what they are paying for
> USMRA 150 members x 60 dues = 9,000 Like NARA not a Sch group, so paying but not getting the same benefits
> 
> DVG??? Anyone know what a membership costs, I thought a friend recently told me 60.00 but I don't know if that was for a full year or not. Any idea what their membership base is?
> 
> That's just a few of the clubs and I estimated high on most of the memberships, except for the numbers given here in the thread.
> 
> I think saying "the club" is paying more is deflecting a little. It's the membership's money that is being used to pay the AWDF membership. The club is writing the check, but every club is passing that bill off to their members as part of their dues, big ones and little ones. 3200 sounds like a lot for UScA, but it's a small percentage of their actual income from memberships. Less than 1% (0.8%). NARA has the next highest income, and just the 200.00 base fee is 1.18% of their membership fees. Add in the per member cost and it's 2%. Looking at the smaller clubs, the AWDF fees can be 5 and even 10% of their membership dues.
> 
> Looking at this I really can't feel that the membership fee is "unfair" to any of the AWDF clubs. If a club feels overly burdened by the fee, they can always raise their dues 1.00 a year, then they make an extra .25 per member. And other than thinking "56 is a really weird membership fee" I don't think the members are going to care.


again I am sorry if you can not understand my position that you can't have it both ways...If you want to say that the membership fees are fair, OK, Then how, in the same breath, do you think that 4000 members represented by 1 vote, 200 members represented by 1 vote, 100 members represented by 1 vote, and as little as 5 members represented by 1 vote is fair to ALL members (including USCA members).....

You want it both ways but to me (and again only my opinion) That isn't fair! Either base it on member numbers or don't you can't keep switching everytime it makes it better for everyone but USCA.


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> I disagree based on how the by laws are written, but for sake rehashing the same argument over and over, AWDF is charging for each member of that club...


 
Tell you what...Try to join AWDF as an individual and let us know how you make out....You Can't! ONLY clubs can become members.
Try to enter the AWDF Championship as a individual.....You Can't!!! You have to enter THROUGH YOUR CLUB, that is a member.....


----------



## tracey schneider

Frank Phillips said:


> Tell you what...Try to join AWDF as an individual and let us know how you make out....You Can't! ONLY clubs can become members.
> Try to enter the AWDF Championship as a individual.....You Can't!!! You have to enter THROUGH YOUR CLUB, that is a member.....


I don't know what else to say lol In the same section it states INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS must exercise their rights through a club member..... So I'm already aware. It does not under the definition of the two membership types refer to these clubs as "memberships", there is an "EXCEPTION" to "INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS exercising rights through a club..." which would NOT be a necessary clause unless.... INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS are the 1 of 2 types of membership. It REPEATEDLY states INDIVIDUAL. I don't care what the intent is, was, or wants to be ... The by laws repeatedly refer to INDIVIDUALS under the definition of membership types. If its worded wrong then maybe someone should bring it up next meeting. . My first thought is maybe part b is supposed to list the club aspect but it CLEARLY states MULTI BREED.

"Article III. Membership in the Association. A. There are TWO TYPES of membership in the organization.

a. INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, WHO ARE INDIVIDUALS and members in good standing of a Club Member as that term is defined in Subsection 2 of this Article III. The rights, privileges and authority of any INDIVIDUAL MEMBER may be exercised only through that member’s membership in a Member Club, EXCEPT where otherwise provided in these by-laws.

b. MULTI-BREED CLUBS based in the United States whose purpose is to support and advance a specific SERVICE OR SPORT program, including obedience, VPG, IPO, ring sport, law enforcement and military, search and rescue, herding, agility, and hunting. Multi-breed clubs must be less than one half of total AWDF club memberships."


----------



## James Downey

It's not about fair. It's about control. Always has been always will. But the system is flawed, and allows for the rich to dominate the weak....or at least try to leverage them into it. But Money should not equal votes, especially in what's suppose to be an all breed club. 

But I do have an idea. It would encourage clubs to grow. It also would reward the large clubs for having large memberships. it also will get rid of the dreaded scorebook issue. 

Here it is:

The AWDF is the club. It becomes a club of individual members. You pay dues only to the AWDF. you have to designate a breed club you wish to belong to (if you want multiple ones....that will have to be figured out, but it's minor so stay with me) Each breed club is paid per member that joins thier club. Each club only gets one vote. But they are rewarded for bringing more members to the AWDF with money. Basically, I think we may have it backwards. If it was run like this, UScA perception would change from the being the largest supporter...to the largest beneficator....nothing has changed, except which way the dough flows.


----------



## Danny Craig

Frank Phillips said:


> again I am sorry if you can not understand my position that you can't have it both ways...If you want to say that the membership fees are fair, OK, Then how, in the same breath, do you think that 4000 members represented by 1 vote, 200 members represented by 1 vote, 100 members represented by 1 vote, and as little as 5 members represented by 1 vote is fair to ALL members (including USCA members).....
> 
> You want it both ways but to me (and again only my opinion) That isn't fair! Either base it on member numbers or don't you can't keep switching everytime it makes it better for everyone but USCA.


This is precisely the problem our Founders faced when rewriting our Constitution. Big states wanted representation based on population (proportional representation - Virginia Plan). Small states wanted representation based on statehood, one state one vote (equal representation - New Jersey Plan). To settle the dispute we created a bicameral (2 house) legislature with the House of Representatives based on state population and the Senate with two votes per state - regardless of the size of the state. How's that working these days?:razz:

The bigger question for me that I have not seen an answer to is: Supposing UScA took over. What might they do that would affect me (a Rottweiler and Malinois owner) adversely?

I've been competing in UScA events with 'alternate breeds' for getting close to twenty years now and I don't get what everyone is so exercised about. 

I understand the principle that we don't want power concentrated in the hands of a few but that presupposes that the UScA thinks with one mind. Really? This is a Dog Organization and the only thing two members can generally agree on is that a third member can't train worth a lick. 

So, once again, if UScA became THE BOSS, how would that affect an alternate breed owner (remember UScA still wants my money)?

I'm reminded of the last line of the Who's iconic song 'Won't get fooled again.' "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."


----------



## Frank Phillips

tracey delin said:


> I don't know what else to say lol In the same section it states INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS must exercise their rights through a club member.....


 
Well I don't know what to say either....I spoke to AWDF president last night and asked him straight up, "Can an individual join AWDF?" Answer: NO.

The 2 types of memberships are 1. Breed Clubs 2. All Breed sport Clubs.

I understand that the by-laws are written confusing but this is the reality....

Did you go through ALL the GBM minutes to see if the By-laws were ever changed or rewritten? 

I didn't and won't because it is not that important to me, I know how AWDF operates....


----------



## Keith Jenkins

You want a quote? 

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absoultely"


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Frank Phillips said:


> again I am sorry if you can not understand my position


Never said I don't understand your position, I just don't happen to agree with it.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Never said I don't understand your position, I just don't happen to agree with it.


So you are saying you think that 4000 members represented by 1 vote, 200 members represented by 1 vote, 100 members represented by 1 vote, and as little as 5 members represented by 1 vote is fair to ALL members (including USCA members).....


----------



## Anita Griffing

Frank Phillips said:


> So you are saying you think that 4000 members represented by 1 vote, 200 members represented by 1 vote, 100 members represented by 1 vote, and as little as 5 members represented by 1 vote is fair to ALL members (including USCA members).....


Wendy isn't the price of the scorebook about the same as membership dues
for UDC or is it just 10 dollars?

Unfortunately, Frank, I think some people do not want to agree because
it doesn't suit their personal agenda or breed club. I truly believe that 
it is not in the best interest of UScA to be in AWDF. If the membership
of UScA really read through the AWDF minutes they would not think it
is in their best interest. For what? One world FH Champ that is hard to fill competitors
for, and one world Championship open to one or two GSDs. 
UScA is already a member of the WUSV
that offers two World events at this time. If AWDF wants to make UScA
force its non gsd members to get membership or buy scorebooks from other
breed clubs it is in essence kicking them out...then members of UScA get angry
and then up the fees for trials, judges, etc., and then some AWDF breed
club members get mad back when their plan didn't work. It really boils down in
MANY instances to being just plain mad at UScA for whatever reason. From
the minutes provided THREE NON UScA members decided to push a motion
that is detrimental to UScA ONLY. Hello.... Big bad UScA.. 
Anita


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Frank Phillips said:


> So you are saying you think that 4000 members represented by 1 vote, 200 members represented by 1 vote, 100 members represented by 1 vote, and as little as 5 members represented by 1 vote is fair to ALL members (including USCA members).....


Frank,

It's even less fair for UScA Officials and judges to form "paper" breed clubs that do nothing and whose main purpose is to gain extra AWDF votes for UScA ;-)
My wife has a Wire Haired Pointing Griffon if I get four other
WHPG owners together can we form a Working WHPG club and join AWDF? There are over 200 AKC breed clubs. How many would qualify for AWDF membership?


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> Frank,
> 
> It's even less fair for UScA Officials and judges to form "paper" breed clubs that do nothing and whose main purpose is to gain extra AWDF votes for UScA ;-)
> My wife has a Wire Haired Pointing Griffon if I get four other
> WHPG owners together can we form a Working WHPG club and join AWDF? There are over 200 AKC breed clubs. How many would qualify for AWDF membership?


again, change the subject to bash USCA at ALL costs...it's sad really Thomas, just quit if you hate USCA that much and go to another club.....


Do you have any PROOF that that is what the clubs are? Probably not....as usual....

My wife trains and competes with Dobermans. So she belongs to UDC, if there weren't that many members in that club would you say the same about them...Of course you would...MG had airdales long before she met AG, AMC is helping her friend Patty who wanted to get the BRT club started....so do you think that no one related or friends with an official or judge of another org should be allowed to start or be invovled with a start up breed club......just because you have every excuse in the world why you can't get invovled, doesn't mean others can't or shouldn't.....

The thing I like about you Thomas, You never let FACTS get in the way of you having an opinion....


----------



## Anita Griffing

Thomas Barriano said:


> Frank,
> 
> It's even less fair for UScA Officials and judges to form "paper" breed clubs that do nothing and whose main purpose is to gain extra AWDF votes for UScA ;-)
> My wife has a Wire Haired Pointing Griffon if I get four other
> WHPG owners together can we form a Working WHPG club and join AWDF? There are over 200 AKC breed clubs. How many would qualify for AWDF membership?


 
Thomas, that is a little pompous to insinuate that any club is just a paper club. Why
look at the negative? Maybe it is just starting or there isn't a lot of interest for now.
Clubs go up and down all the time. Every club has to start somewhere. How many
Airedales in the sport of schutzhund? Hovawart? The dutch shepherd club isn't
that big, and dutchies are good at it? How big can the club be?
I would rather say thank you to the UScA members that are helping get clubs started,
and not look forthe negative. 
Anita


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Frank Phillips said:


> So you are saying you think that 4000 members represented by 1 vote, 200 members represented by 1 vote, 100 members represented by 1 vote, and as little as 5 members represented by 1 vote is fair to ALL members (including USCA members).....


If it's a club of clubs, and that's how it was set up, and that's how it was when each club joined, then I don't have a problem with it. As a club of clubs, not a club of individuals, it makes sense to me each club has a single vote, since the CLUBS are members of AWDF, not the individuals.

Is it "fair", there are probably parts of it that aren't fair, but there are other things about AWDF that aren't fair to other clubs that are members. Such as the majority of focus being on Sch when not all the clubs that are members are Sch clubs. Not fair to the non-Sch clubs who are paying the same base rate and per member dues as other clubs, but they knew that going in, and decided there were benefits to the club to be a member, so ... Same as UScA. Is it "fair" that a member of some AWDF breed clubs have to pay more to UScA to get their book stamped then their breed club membership or scorebook even cost, when UScA could just as easily record that book as USRC2931? Is it fair they have to then pay an extra fee to enter any trials on top of that? Some people are going to say "no". I'm not a fan of it, but if you knew that's how it worked going in, then ...

Life ain't fair, each club just has to decide if being a member of AWDF brings more positives then negatives to their club, and if the negatives out weigh the positives, leave, or try to change things. If this is really about money, then address that issue. If this is about trying to gain more votes and control of the club, don't be surprised when other clubs object. Just saying "but it's not fair" isn't going to sway the other clubs to vote UScA's way, it's not in their best interests.

And no, before anyone goes there, I don't hate UScA. I don't care about UScA one way or another. I've been a member in the past, may be a member in the future, since I don't own GSD my only interest in UScA is if I'm trialing in Sch (currently not) and if all their non-member fees added up to a membership for me. If not, then I'd save the money and join elsewhere, then pay their fees when I had to.


----------



## Anita Griffing

Kadi Thingvall;322226
And no said:


> Kadi that is the point you care about where the money is less and most beneficial for
> you. That is fine. So when UScA doesn't agree with AWDF for UScA members or
> the UScA itself because of loss of membership or money or both they shouldn't be
> bashed unfairly. And, to beat a dead horse, I totally disagree that UScA should
> pay more with no extra vote to benefit the people that "don't care about UscA".
> DVG just sits back and laughs all the way to the bank. And I think the malinois gets
> plenty of votes through AWMA, NARA, Mondio Ring as that seems to be the breed
> of choice for NARA and Mondio Ring. UDC has 1 club vote that holds Dobie lovers. lolol
> Anita
> (dobie lover)


----------



## Keith Jenkins

I'm on 3 different AWDF rosters, the two biggest and one of the now smaller ones. I pay dues to all three and as an individual I don't get a vote in any club and I have no problem with the way things are now in reference to AWDF votes. I like DVG but I don't think they should garner more votes than any other club either and they too would benefit from this being changed. I didn't realize the DVG was rolling in the bucks since the score-book issue. Any real change in membership numbers I attribute to the USCA's policy on belonging to the WDA and USA simultaneously.

Personally I don't think there is enough support to change the way things are now.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Danny Craig said:


> The bigger question for me that I have not seen an answer to is: Supposing UScA took over. What might they do that would affect me (a Rottweiler and Malinois owner) adversely?


Anything that they want.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Anita Griffing said:


> Kadi that is the point you care about where the money is less and most beneficial for
> you. That is fine. So when UScA doesn't agree with AWDF for UScA members or
> the UScA itself because of loss of membership or money or both they shouldn't be
> bashed unfairly.


I don't recall bashing UScA. I have seen people who disagree with certain stances repeatedly be accused of bashing, hating UScA, etc. which is why I pointed out that while I disagree, it's not because I'm a "UScA hater". I never said I don't get UScA or it's supporters point of view. I get where you are coming from, and the motivations behind it. As I've said before though, I just don't happen to agree with it. Has nothing to do with UScA, I would have the same attitude if AWMA, USMRA, UDC, or whoever had the largest membership numbers. It's a club of clubs, IMO each club should have equal say. It's just that simple.



> And, to beat a dead horse, I totally disagree that UScA should
> pay more with no extra vote to benefit the people that "don't care about UscA".
> DVG just sits back and laughs all the way to the bank. And I think the malinois gets
> plenty of votes through AWMA, NARA, Mondio Ring as that seems to be the breed
> of choice for NARA and Mondio Ring. UDC has 1 club vote that holds Dobie lovers. lolol
> Anita
> (dobie lover)


I don't think "the Malinois" gets more votes. The AWMA has a vote, the only Malinois club in AWDF. Just like USRC, UDC, etc have a vote. NARA has a vote, USMRA has a vote, but they are both all breed organizations, with membership that own almost all the working breeds. I'm pretty comfortable saying neither of them is focused on the Malinois when they vote, they are focused on what is best for their organization.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Anita Griffing said:


> Thomas, that is a little pompous to insinuate that any club is just a paper club. Why
> look at the negative? Maybe it is just starting or there isn't a lot of interest for now.
> Clubs go up and down all the time. Every club has to start somewhere. How many
> Airedales in the sport of schutzhund? Hovawart? The dutch shepherd club isn't
> that big, and dutchies are good at it? How big can the club be?
> I would rather say thank you to the UScA members that are helping get clubs started,
> and not look forthe negative.


Anita, It's not about the size of the club at all. It's about what these clubs do and don't do. The purpose of the AWDF is to promote working breeds in the US. These clubs are not doing that. Have the BRT or the Airdaled held an event of any kind in the past few years? How about a seminar? The Dutchie club is very small too but they are active in the promotion of the working dog and hold events. 

If they are not promoting the working dog they should be removed so that another group that wishes to fulfill the ideals of the AWDF can take their place.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Keith Jenkins said:


> .
> 
> Personally I don't think there is enough support to change the way things are now.


 And in reality there is nothing to vote on to change.....It is "up for discussion" at the next conference call...Not on the GBM for a vote yet....


----------



## Christopher Smith

Anita Griffing said:


> And I think the malinois gets
> plenty of votes through AWMA, NARA, Mondio Ring as that seems to be the breed
> of choice for NARA and Mondio Ring.


So what you are saying is that because most of the folks in USMRC, NARA and AWMA have Malinois we share the same goals, needs and desires for the Malinois? Do you really believe that or are you just throwning out nonsense and seeing what sticks?


----------



## Paige Shriver

Frank Phillips said:


> And in reality there is nothing to vote on to change.....It is "up for discussion" at the next conference call...Not on the GBM for a vote yet....


I had a feeling that it wouldn't be up for a vote until the GBM. Do you think they're hoping some clubs won't be able to send a Delegate? You betcha!!!!!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Anita Griffing said:


> Thomas, that is a little pompous to insinuate that any club is just a paper club. Why
> look at the negative? Maybe it is just starting or there isn't a lot of interest for now.
> Clubs go up and down all the time. Every club has to start somewhere. How many
> Airedales in the sport of schutzhund? Hovawart? The dutch shepherd club isn't
> that big, and dutchies are good at it? How big can the club be?
> I would rather say thank you to the UScA members that are helping get clubs started,
> and not look forthe negative.
> Anita


You only have to look at how many members, Officers and Breed Survey judges actually own the breed in question and see
how many (if any) working titles there are for ALL the dogs in the club. There should be a requirement for a minimum number of a specific breed before you get to claim you represent the breed.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Paige Shriver said:


> I had a feeling that it wouldn't be up for a vote until the GBM. Do you think they're hoping some clubs won't be able to send a Delegate? You betcha!!!!!


Don't you think if they (not sure who you think "they" are) wanted that they would NOT have put it on the public agenda for the conference call, months in advance of the GBM......Paranoid much????


----------



## James Downey

After reading all this. Rational thought has returned. 

It's a dog training, and a dog club. Again... Not worth the effort. Save my juices for a real cause. And I believe natural order always wins. I have faith in that.

But some would like you to believe this is the scene we are in, and the gravity no less severe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff5DlpZiMZ0


----------



## Paige Shriver

The secretary of AWDF does her job. She is required to post the agenda for the next teleconference. Paranoid - NO! Aware - YES! And I'm positive that I asked about when the vote would take place earlier in this thread, as we were discussing the Treasurer and when he was officially resigning supposedly before his biased vote.


----------



## Frank Phillips

Paige Shriver said:


> The secretary of AWDF does her job. She is required to post the agenda for the next teleconference. Paranoid - NO! Aware - YES! And I'm positive that I asked about when the vote would take place earlier in this thread, as we were discussing the Treasurer and when he was officially resigning supposedly before his biased vote.


WOW...well, Things do NOT have to be on the agenda to be "discussed" on a conference call, There is new business on the call where anything can be brought up and discussed, thus "they" did not have to put it on the agenda....If "they" wanted to slip this through with clubs not sending delegates why wouldn't they keep it quiet until the last minute when it is required.....

Ok not paranoid...Conspiracy Theorist....


----------



## Anita Griffing

Thomas Barriano said:


> You only have to look at how many members, Officers and Breed Survey judges actually own the breed in question and see
> how many (if any) working titles there are for ALL the dogs in the club. There should be a requirement for a minimum number of a specific breed before you get to claim you represent the breed.


Thanks for keeping this informational, Thomas. 
It is hard enough to get people to come to meetings or get involved in the minutia of
paperwork, organizing, databasing and supporting any of the breed clubs to start putting 
stringent conditions on officers or members. Just because you own the breed doesn't
make someone an expert on it. Conversely, just because you don't own the breed doesn't mean
you are not an expert on it. I think the first judges of anything were just hand picked.
Chicken egg thing. If someone starts a new title, say, the Doberman's FFB; the first judge
that judged the FFB wouldn't have had one.
Anita


----------



## Gretta Welsh

I have known Marcia for years. The have something called an Airefest every other year. The last one a few years ago had 2 SchH3 dogs, a couple of SchH1's and a few BH entries. I think that's pretty good for a 20 member club. A lot of the so called main line SchH clubs have a hard time getting one or two entries into their championship as well. I know she has shown in at least 2 AWDF championships and perhaps 3. A lot of years many breeds are missed at the championship as well. Maybe each breed club should be responsable for a certain number of entries into the championship each year based on their size. Then if the club doesn't meet the entry requirement for the championship, they should loose their voting rights until the next years event.

Gretta Welsh


----------



## Christopher Smith

I think this has to do with the AWDF being able to sanction individuals that are in AWDF clubs. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Smith said:


> I think this has to do with the AWDF being able to sanction individuals that are in AWDF clubs.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


It usually comes down to power and control?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Often it is, but I don't think so in this case. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Thomas Barriano

I see it as real easy for someone to get involved in a personality conflict with their breed or sport club and being railroaded with
fake charges out of the club and effectively being banned from all
protection dog sports. Since everyone is an AWDF member club now. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"


----------



## Keith Jenkins

My membership agreement is with said club and unless it's rules, by-laws and membership TOS mentions that little tidbit they aren't going to be able to legally enforce a sanction from another club regardless of how many times AWDF says it.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Keith

I hope you're right, but I'm a little more skeptical then you.
I see NO reason for AWDF to have anything to say about the internal disciplinary procedures of its member clubs


----------



## Frank Phillips

Thomas Barriano said:


> Keith
> 
> I hope you're right, but I'm a little more skeptical then you.
> I see NO reason for AWDF to have anything to say about the internal disciplinary procedures of its member clubs


 
I don't think AWDF can sanction anyone...But I thought there was an agreement between all AWDF clubs to honor other members diciplinary actions....I could be wrong, but that is what I thought it was....IE...If AWMA suspends someone for a year, I think all AWDF member orgs are suppose to honor that suspension as well....But like I said, I could be wrong....


----------



## Keith Jenkins

I think that's what the aim is for but I think there has been some re-thinking. Simply agreeing to the idea without individual clubs putting a mechanism in place to won't make it valid.

Let's use the USRC for example. We cannot simply deny a member in good standing within the USRC entry into a USRC event simply because another AWDF member club suspended someone. Our current by-laws do now allow anyone to be denied entry and/or attend a USRC event without going through a USRC BOI. 

Take a hard look in the USCA by-laws also. As long as you are still a member in good standing within the USCA there is nothing in place to deny entry unless you have gone through the BOI process and been found guilty. 

Now I suppose if I wasn't a member of a particular organization and they denied me entry due to be suspended from another there wouldn't be much I could do about it. 

As Thomas said there is way too much wiggle room in the idea that allows for personal vendettas to manifest.


----------



## James Downey

Keith Jenkins said:


> I think that's what the aim is for but I think there has been some re-thinking. Simply agreeing to the idea without individual clubs putting a mechanism in place to won't make it valid.
> 
> Let's use the USRC for example. We cannot simply deny a member in good standing within the USRC entry into a USRC event simply because another AWDF member club suspended someone. Our current by-laws do now allow anyone to be denied entry and/or attend a USRC event without going through a USRC BOI.
> 
> Take a hard look in the USCA by-laws also. As long as you are still a member in good standing within the USCA there is nothing in place to deny entry unless you have gone through the BOI process and been found guilty.
> 
> Now I suppose if I wasn't a member of a particular organization and they denied me entry due to be suspended from another there wouldn't be much I could do about it.
> 
> As Thomas said there is way too much wiggle room in the idea that allows for personal vendettas to manifest.


That's correct also. But USRC is not obligated to give someone a membership. Frank is right there is an agreement amongst the clubs to uphold each other's BOI sanction. So If AWMA denies someone membership due to a BOI sanction. USRC has agreed to do the same. So, they will not be member of USRC. Now there is also nothing making USRC uphold thier end of the agreement.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

What they decided in a teleconference doesn't supersede it's own by-laws or an individual member club's own by-laws. No where in the AWDF by-laws are member clubs required to honor sanctions. Read the Discipline section of the AWDF by-laws :

E. Suggested sanctions may include suspension from AWDF activities,
expulsion from AWDF, or other appropriate sanctions. The Board of
Inquiry must submit its report to the Secretary within three months
of receiving the charge.

Now someone could file BOI through the AWDF and if charges are substained it could prohibit a person from entering say the AWDF Championship or another AWDF linked event. 

I'm not sure exactly where you got the part about agreeing to deny membership between clubs.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

What happened at the February Conference call? 
Was this motion voted on or dropped because of the backlash?


----------



## James Downey

Keith Jenkins said:


> What they decided in a teleconference doesn't supersede it's own by-laws or an individual member club's own by-laws. No where in the AWDF by-laws are member clubs required to honor sanctions. Read the Discipline section of the AWDF by-laws :
> 
> E. Suggested sanctions may include suspension from AWDF activities,
> expulsion from AWDF, or other appropriate sanctions. The Board of
> Inquiry must submit its report to the Secretary within three months
> of receiving the charge.
> 
> Now someone could file BOI through the AWDF and if charges are substained it could prohibit a person from entering say the AWDF Championship or another AWDF linked event.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly where you got the part about agreeing to deny membership between clubs.


Your right, There is no requirement. But there is a verbal agreement to honor each others BOI sanctions. I guess a club could be shitty, and not honor it. 

And I got it, because I was a board member of a club during a BOI and all the other clubs honored my club's sanctions on the ex-member. Which one of the sanctions was explusion from the club for 5 years.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

I understand there is an agreement but that doesn't make it binding unless it's actually is put into the by-laws somewhere which it is not. 

My point is what is written down on a cocktail napkin at the hotel bar doesn't make it legally binding. 

There are many people I'm sure who have multiple memberships with different clubs within the AWDF and unless each club has a mechanism in place to honor sanctions between clubs in their membership agreements and/or by-laws said club(s) will not be able to arbitrarily deny participation without that person going through it's process as long as they are a member in good standing with that club. I belong to 3 different clubs and as I stated before nothing is covered in their membership agreements and/or by-laws.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Thomas Barriano said:


> What happened at the February Conference call?
> Was this motion voted on or dropped because of the backlash?


Not dropped but it wasn't voted upon either.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Keith Jenkins said:


> Not dropped but it wasn't voted upon either.


Tabled or referred for further study?


----------



## Jim Engel

*As one present at the creation....*

I was present at the founding meeting of the AWDF, served a number of years as the
founding Secretary, wrote most of the original documents, supported it through my
Dog Sports column and had extensive contact with Paul Meloy through this process.

I know that Paul's working dog involvement did not end well, but I remember
him as a friend and a good man. Paul legitimately did want to provide a good
way of the "other" breeds to prosper, and he also needed the FCI affiliation.

The last section of this document explains a lot of this:

http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch14.pdf

I was a USCA member for thirty years, and only left because it is no longer
a working dog organization, but one by and for show breeders; but we can
discuss that another day. Read about this here:
http://www.angelplace.net/usca/

When you step back and look at the big picture, the problem is not that
the GSD organization is so large and powerful, but that the other breed
organizations have withered on the vine. This is a world wide problem
and not one that could have been overcome in in America, but it is a fact.

It was a bad decision to have the President, Vice President and Treasurer
of the AWDF come from USCA, for reasons of appearance if nothing else.

This of course presents a question of financial integrity and transparency,
and is likely to alter depending on the outcome of the Govednick scandal,
but it represents unwise use of power rather than literal abuse of power.

USCA has the power because it has the members, the active competitors
and the money, and nothing can change this.

Only the GSD, Malinois and Dutch Shepherd are eligible for US military
patrol dog service, and with a couple of odd ball situations have become
the universal police dogs.

The secondary breeds, including my own, are disappearing as serious
patrol level dogs, and this can not be changed by political manipulation.

It is a fact of life. It is a sad fact, but a fact nevertheless.

IPO is the Pussified version of Schutzhund, and it will continue to degrade
because the real power is in the hands of show breeders, including the show
breeders in control of the SV. It will continue to degrade.

These are our real problems, not who controls the AWDF.


----------

