# Big Vendors and Dog Sports



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

It seems like within the past few weeks, I've heard of a couple big companies that seem to be trying to capitalize on sport venues. I'm not sure if it's because they see dollars signs and are trying to mimic the success that trainers like Ivan Balabanov and Bart Bellon have had marketing to sport trainers or if there is some other reason that might actually benefit the sports. I can't imagine that the owners/CEOs of these companies actually care intimately about dog sports, so I'm trying to understand the motivation behind these moves. The only positive result I can see for sport venues will be having access to better facilities and more resources. However, I wonder if overall this will be good or bad for sport in general.

I am wondering, in the past, have any dog sports benefitted from large companies getting involved (and not just on a sponsorship level, but actually creating clubs and organizations and becoming intimately involved in the sport)? I know there are many people on here who have been involved in Schutzhund, ring and other sports that have been around much longer than the sport I currently compete in (PSA) who may be able to provide some insight so I am hoping they might chime in.

Here’s my opinion …and I’m sure it will ruffle some feathers, but maybe someone can change my mind with some healthy debate:

I've seen products from these companies that have been provided to our military and government and have to say I've almost always been disappointed. Whether it's because they accept substandard dogs, rush them through training or don't have high enough expectations, it's appalling to me that these companies would allow these dogs into hands of people whose lives depend on the dogs' proficiency. I understand that every dog can't be a superstar and because training is never complete, at some point, the dogs must be considered “good enough” and sent off to do their job. But, from what I’ve seen, dogs that many sport trainers wouldn’t accept (ones with bad nerves, lousy odor recognition, inconsistent or no final response, weak grips, environmental issues, etc.) are being certified and sent off to do pretty important jobs. It’s something that’s always bothered me …as a handler and in all the years since then working for the military and government in other capacities. It often seems like a case of the emperor’s new clothes. Handlers either don’t have the experience to know what a good dog is or don’t want to admit that their buddy isn’t all he should be. Supervisors or program managers either don’t know as well or just don’t care enough to go through the trouble to ensure quality. People like me who speak up (as I have in the past) are usually hushed or put somewhere that they can’t create too many waves. No one wants to admit there’s a fatal flaw in this system. It’s easy to get a dog from these big vendors. They are the McDonald’s of working dogs. Dogs come quick and cheap …but it’s not hard to build a better burger if you can put some time and effort in. I believe there’s a reason that the individuals or units who need solid, reliable dogs don’t get them from the big vendors.

I’ve accepted that there are some things I can’t change. But, I have to admit, it makes me angry to now see these companies infringing upon something that should be out of their reach. I do sport because I can pick whatever dog I want and work as hard as I want to succeed. Those of us who work harder and demand perfection have great success. Those who don’t want to put as much effort in can still do well, but realize they won’t be competing at upper levels or taking home trophies. I think it’s a good system that rewards hard work and ability. Of course, standards will always vary based on sport, but at least we know the criteria we are training for and can choose to what level we will train. How will getting big companies involved better dog sports when all they have done is lower standards in other working dog venues? 

I’ve seen how other organizations are affected by growing too large, allowing groups instead of individuals to control things or by letting politics get involved (the AKC, for one). I’m all for the sport I compete in (PSA) growing and improving …I just can’t see how big companies will facilitate that. Will they employ the best decoys, help people find better dogs and basically just be a normal sport club run by a big company? Maybe I’m missing something but I just don’t see how this can be profitable to a big company but also beneficial to the sport. Money has got to be involved somewhere …I’m trying to understand where. The only saving grace is that people who actually care about the sport and not just money are involved. Maybe they can point things in the right direction.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

who are the big vendors your talking about Ariel? What sport are they involved in and what are they doing?


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

As vendor you can create market for yourself by starting clubs, so you can buy american (partly) trained dogs instead of importing them. Kinda like the system of the members of knpv clubs who sell dogs to venors/ police/ security.

I really can see the advantages business like and for the geowing of dogsport in the US, more clubs, less travelling, more people participating etc.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Brian Anderson said:


> who are the big vendors your talking about Ariel? What sport are they involved in and what are they doing?


I assume von liche kennels who is starting a program.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I cant really see a problem with it. Gives people more options to enter the sport. I dont know a vendor out there now that would not sell one of their dogs to a sport person for the right price.

If they are offering training to someone that wants to pay for it..more power to them. The best trainer and dogs are still going to win and if you can buy your way to the podium..well I guess those that cant are going to have to step up their game.


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

And possibly, will lobby against those looking to ban breeds and sport dogs.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Ariel I am not sure how this would lower the standards of the sport. Can you elaborate? Are you thinking they would influence organizations and judges to lower the standards or caste a blind eye towards dogs from that vendor?


----------



## Wade Morrell (Jan 5, 2009)

Figured I would cross post my reply from the PSA Forum....

Ariel, first off I too have a great deal of respect for you as a trainer. I have enjoyed trialing against you as a decoy and have watched you have amazing performances on the field that were absolutely deserving. I would hope that you and anyone else who reads this understands that VLKS (Vohne Liche Kennels Sport) has no underlining motivation here. I do have a close relationship with VLK as I have been the decoy instructor there for the last 3 years. With that said we are not attempting to corner the sport market in any way. My intentions are simple and for the betterment of the sports that I choose to train in. I am starting this on the thought that you posted about the positive result of this. We will have a new training field for my club members to trial and train at. Another nice aspect of this is that I can provide housing/rooms at discounted rates as well as camping for my "sport" people. This I hope will save the competitor or seminar attendee money as I know how expensive things get when traveling to trial or attend a seminar/training. I plan on running VLKS as a regular club. There is not going to be any outrageous member fees nor will the entry fee for trials be any different than that of a regular club.I am really hoping to provide a positive environment to the sport people (remember I am one too) that everyone can enjoy. 

Ariel, please dont take VLKS as something that is going to infringe on your sport. Remember I too am a member of PSA and love the sport as well as the people involved in it. We are not going to be training mass numbers of "sport" dogs to sell to people. Yes we will have dogs available for sale if someone wishes but that is not what this is designed to do. Really this is going to be a sport club training company that he average person can join and enjoy the benefits of being funded and owned by a large company.

I dont think your being offensive when you mention the products that you have seen from these companies. You have an opinion and yes you speak your mind. I respect that, but VLKS will not be lowering any standard. I think my reputation for hard work and dedication to the sport world and mostly the decoy world speaks for its self. If anything I would hope that my club members enjoy success at high levels and we both know that the only way to get there is by working hard.  

You also mentioned that "The only saving grace is that people who truly care about the sport and not just money are involved. Maybe they can point things in the right direction." I am the director of VLKS. I have never had any money and still wont, but I am lucky enough to have a fantastic place to train/trial my sport dogs and share the benefits with those involved. 

I hope I have started to change your thinking about my large company and how it will be involved in the "sport" world. 

Best Regards

Wade


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> It seems like within the past few weeks, I've heard of a couple big companies that seem to be trying to capitalize on sport venues. I'm not sure if it's because they see dollars signs and are trying to mimic the success that trainers like Ivan Balabanov and Bart Bellon have had marketing to sport trainers or if there is some other reason that might actually benefit the sports. I can't imagine that the owners/CEOs of these companies actually care intimately about dog sports, so I'm trying to understand the motivation behind these moves. The only positive result I can see for sport venues will be having access to better facilities and more resources. However, I wonder if overall this will be good or bad for sport in general.
> 
> I am wondering, in the past, have any dog sports benefitted from large companies getting involved (and not just on a sponsorship level, but actually creating clubs and organizations and becoming intimately involved in the sport)? I know there are many people on here who have been involved in Schutzhund, ring and other sports that have been around much longer than the sport I currently compete in (PSA) who may be able to provide some insight so I am hoping they might chime in.
> 
> ...


NOT MEANT BAD TOWARDS PSA OR TARHEEL FOLKS ( just an example being used ) : You talk of this and PSA being your sport, but your friends at tarheel have been selling to all walks of life, Jerry and them sell police dogs. and have started to now for awhile now vendor alot of selling to govt. But on the otherhand raises and produces pups as well, and sells adult for there sport being PSA in which they hold executive roles. Along with most other vendors out there. Such as metrodade k9, alderhorst, logan haus, etc..... the list gos on. This is nothing new but actually old old old.

I for one see nothing wrong with it and like others have said hope to see it continue in the hopes that someday we will have more clubs to choose and go to, just my .02


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Brian Anderson said:


> who are the big vendors your talking about Ariel? What sport are they involved in and what are they doing?


I would like to know as well myself if ya dont mind, thanks in advance.:-k


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I really don't see a negative here. Regarding "lowering standards", the local clubs, whether businesses or otherwise, don't control the standards of the sport. The national organization controls those standards through the rules, their judges, decoys, etc. 

If a sport club is being run as a business, that is nothing new. There are clubs that are run as true clubs, with elections for their boards, membership dues that go into a club bank account to be used for club expenses, etc and there are clubs that are private businesses with one or a small group of people controlling everything, money going into individual's pockets, etc. but still being called a club. This has been going on for as long as the sports have been around.

The biggest difference I see is if a bigger business gets involved they have a bankroll to start with that many smaller groups won't have, meaning quicker access to things that cost money like fields, buildings, etc. A business also has the ability to attract decoys with a full time position, who are then available to the club for the few hours a week most clubs are training. Most clubs aren't in a position to attract decoys with offers of full time work.

As far as selling dogs to people goes, once again nothing new. There are many clubs out there where a large percent of the dogs in the club come from just one or two sources, a breeder, importer, stud dog owner, etc who is a member of the club or runs the club. There are even clubs out there where if you want to train with them, you should probably buy a dog from them. If the vendor is selling dogs to club members, they are just following in the footsteps of many other people.

If there are negatives to this, IMO they are negatives that already exist in the sport world, it's not like "big business" is bringing anything new.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Ariel I am not sure how this would lower the standards of the sport. Can you elaborate? Are you thinking they would influence organizations and judges to lower the standards or caste a blind eye towards dogs from that vendor?


Susan,

The reason for my post was because I wasn't really sure if a situation like this would have a positive or negative effect on dog sports. The things you mentioned were some of the things I had considered. Mostly, I can understand how some smaller businesses with employees interested in a sport could benefit from having a club. Harry mentioned Tarheel K9 and I think that's a good example. They cater to a variety of clients but also have employees who participate in sports as well as an owner who founded PSA. But even Tarheel stopped having regular club training sessions because of time constraints. Decoys and employees had to stay late on club nights and profits from the club weren't enough to cover associated costs. It just didn't make sense from a business perspective. Instead of continuing to charge people to attend club training and perhaps having to rush through training, they decided to focus on the working dog business. Things may have changed in recent months and perhaps they've been able to fit club training back into their schedule ...I can't really speak on that because I haven't been down there in a while. 

I just have a hard time seeing how club training can be profitable to a business and also beneficial to a sport. Wade's post helped me to see where this might be going and how it could help dog sports. If the businesses understand that having a sport club will probably not mean substantial profits for them, I'm okay with that. I just assume when it comes to the larger dog vendors out there, most things are a business move and they must have seen dollar signs in order to invest time, money and personnel into running a sport club. To hire people, designate training facilities and offer resources to support a sport (or anything for that matter) there must be some profit on the horizon in their mind and I was just wondering if the situation could be win-win for everyone. 

Most clubs I've been involved in have collected dues to help with costs associated with equipment, trials or seminars. Honestly, I've stopped training with clubs that I felt were charging too much because I can just as easily gather with my friends, get better training and work together to achieve our goals and to help defray associated training costs. The only benefit to being an actual sanctioned "club" is that we can hold trials. I suppose if I didn't have a group of people who were all willing to work equally as hard to help each other train, I would have to go to a club. I know friends of mine who are decoys in other areas complain because they get used and abused and never get to work their own dogs because members aren't willing to suit up for them or don't have the ability to do so. So, I guess it all depends on availability of resources and if a club run by a big business will just help more people be involved or if it's just an attempt to exploit dog sport participants and make another buck. If these companies can afford to pay trainers and decoys (like Wade) and make enough to cover additional associated costs while still keeping costs low for members, that seems like a good deal. Time will tell, I suppose.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I really don't see a negative here. Regarding "lowering standards", the local clubs, whether businesses or otherwise, don't control the standards of the sport. The national organization controls those standards through the rules, their judges, decoys, etc.
> 
> If a sport club is being run as a business, that is nothing new. There are clubs that are run as true clubs, with elections for their boards, membership dues that go into a club bank account to be used for club expenses, etc and there are clubs that are private businesses with one or a small group of people controlling everything, money going into individual's pockets, etc. but still being called a club. This has been going on for as long as the sports have been around.
> 
> ...


And this is why I threw the question out there. I tend to always be a skeptic and assume things are going to go wrong. Perhaps a bigger bankroll and more resources will help our sports out. Or perhaps it has no effect at all. I just worried that more money invested would be mean more influence and also more interest in turning a profit eventually. I've only been involved in small clubs and training groups, so I've not seen the side that you talk about, Kadi. I like getting together with friends who have similar passion and experience and spending a whole day accomplishing a lot instead of waiting around for my turn to work my dog for 5 minutes to try to get my $25 worth. But, I'm lucky to have people like that to train with. Not all are as lucky as me.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

And if dog sport is ruined...So what. I will find a new hobby. People act like Dog sport is something holy...like football.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

of course where i am here is WAY away from the activities you guys are writing about, and maybe off topic,,,,

...but what i CAN see from here is what i consider some pretty outrageous costs being advertised to attend seminars and short "training" sessions with the "famous international trainers", as well as equally high prices just to sit in the peanut gallery and "audit" :-(
- and the sessions seem to fill up fast so somebody is willing to pay 

- hopefully that may have inspired some of these "companies" to maybe offer more hands on at lower prices, with only the "celebrity" factor missing, ..... which would be a good thing, imo


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

I'd hazard a guess that if anything changes it wil only be whose opinion separates the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

all I can ask is what is a fair price for a decoy that wants to get compensated for his time and effort, and risk, and injuries?

too many times I have heard people call a decoy that wants to get paid a nominal fee, shady....

I understand some people dont want anything...and others try to make a living off of training dogs...but what really pisses me off is the people that blame the decoys for their dogs failures, and the others that do not have any respect for the decoys, or other people at the training sessions/club meetings...

I am fortunate enough to be able to trade work here and there...but have no problems paying 20-35 bucks for a good session with an experienced decoy, either.


----------



## 2170 (Jan 10, 2008)

Fenrir is hosting a trial at AK9Is facility. the company does not want a penny for it we think dog sports are a great time for the dogs and people and would like to see more people in the area get more involved with their dogs. the decoys that participate will be paid for their time and skill as well as others. they dont have to be an employee of the company to be paid. At the tria they are providing a service and with all sports should be paid. The trial is being held for free to bring more people out to see what the sport world is all about. Ak9i does not have a club but Fenrir has a nice club and are very supportive of the sport and the growth of the sport. I grew up around dog sports, Mostly Schutzhund and I loved getting out on the field at 7 am with a group of people and training and talking and relxing with everyone. I miss those days but I dont see that anymore. To us this is not about making a buck but more about trying to create an amazing time for all dog trainers and all sport competitors on all levels just my .02


----------



## Jason Davis (Oct 12, 2009)

I also don't see a problem with this and realize it is nothing new. I myself charge all my FR clients. There is a club, but all the payments go into my company account. It's how I choose to run things and if people don't like it, they don't have to train with me. If VLK wants to start a club for different venues of dog sports, then I think it's a great thing. I think they've been in business long enough to know that it's not going to make massive profit, and the person heading it up, I feel has a true passion and love for the sports, and it's not about money. Yes, there is shady stuff going on out there by large vendors. For example, I had a dog in my place, ignorantly bought from a greedy vendor, who would rip your head off when taking a toy from him, but wouldn't push through a stick for the bite or would also come off the bite when you touched his feet or put too much pressure on him. For the amount of money that was spent on him, he should of been fine with that as well as making me breakfast every morning. My $800 dog is a million times the dog that piece of crap was. That's the stuff you should really be concerned about vendors doing. Not that one is starting a club.


----------



## Paul R. Konschak (Jun 10, 2010)

How is it a club in the sense that someone has to pay the decoy to work a dog? That is a business not a club. If it is a club, then all income would go to the club and the club would decide on how to spend that money. I am a decoy also and I know that this scenario happens all the time. In my opinion, this is why dog sport has not grown in this country because over half of the clubs operate with the pay the decoy system. I believe that if the decoy is a member of the club and they are training on official training days that no one should be paying the decoy. If they would like to train outside of these days in private with the decoy, then should pay if they have an agreement. 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club 



I personally do not mind paying to attend or spectate at a seminar. Every seminar that I have attended, I have felt like I learned some new training methods that could help me. I also do not think people understand the cost associated with flying people in from Europe, lodging them, feeding them, and also paying them for their time


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

I agree with you. If the decoy is using all his own equipment then I think he can expect to have the wear and tear of his equipment paid for by those using it. 
Promoting a dog sport and in a club enviroment to gain financially is wrong in my book.
If it is outside a club and you offer your services for a cost thats all cool. 


Paul R. Konschak said:


> How is it a club in the sense that someone has to pay the decoy to work a dog? That is a business not a club. If it is a club, then all income would go to the club and the club would decide on how to spend that money. I am a decoy also and I know that this scenario happens all the time. In my opinion, this is why dog sport has not grown in this country because over half of the clubs operate with the pay the decoy system. I believe that if the decoy is a member of the club and they are training on official training days that no one should be paying the decoy. If they would like to train outside of these days in private with the decoy, then should pay if they have an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jason Davis (Oct 12, 2009)

Paul R. Konschak said:


> How is it a club in the sense that someone has to pay the decoy to work a dog? That is a business not a club. If it is a club, then all income would go to the club and the club would decide on how to spend that money. I am a decoy also and I know that this scenario happens all the time. In my opinion, this is why dog sport has not grown in this country because over half of the clubs operate with the pay the decoy system. I believe that if the decoy is a member of the club and they are training on official training days that no one should be paying the decoy. If they would like to train outside of these days in private with the decoy, then should pay if they have an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me rephrase my statement. I have a group of people who all meet on particular training days. They are all clients of mine. Some choose to trial under a "club" name because they would prefer not to trial as an independent. It is not ran like a club though. I personally don't like "clubs", as I've been in them before and chose not to do that anymore. It works for us because the people who train with me don't like the club scene either. My fee is a fraction to what my pet obedience clients fee is, so it's not like I'm making a killing off of FR. I'd also like to point out that my training days are packed from morning to night so I don't see how I'm preventing the sport from growing. People who are serious about competing, have no problems with my fees, and those are the people who I want training with me anyways. 
I'm not sure how it's going to be ran at VLK, but all I was saying is if they charge clients to play the sport with them, that's nothing new and I have no problem with that. If they choose to run it like a "club", that's great for them too. I just thought hating on the idea was strange as vendors are doing far worse things than starting dog sport clubs.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Paul R. Konschak said:


> How is it a club in the sense that someone has to pay the decoy to work a dog? That is a business not a club. If it is a club, then all income would go to the club and the club would decide on how to spend that money. I am a decoy also and I know that this scenario happens all the time. In my opinion, this is why dog sport has not grown in this country because over half of the clubs operate with the pay the decoy system. I believe that if the decoy is a member of the club and they are training on official training days that no one should be paying the decoy. If they would like to train outside of these days in private with the decoy, then should pay if they have an agreement.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club
> 
> I personally do not mind paying to attend or spectate at a seminar. Every seminar that I have attended, I have felt like I learned some new training methods that could help me. I also do not think people understand the cost associated with flying people in from Europe, lodging them, feeding them, and also paying them for their time


I agree with this. I'm not a fan of the business model in sports, but it's been around forever, and I don't see that changing. What I really don't like is when a business tries to masquerade as a club.

Also, while I don't see the business model hurting the sports, I don't actually see it growing the sports. It makes it too expensive for most people to participate, and that IMO is one of the biggest issues sports have in this country in terms of growth. Look at what sports in the US are the biggest, obedience, agility, conformation and look at which ones are the smallest, the protection sports. Also look at the membership numbers in the sports, I believe over the last 15-20 years the numbers have grown smaller in almost all the sports. And the number of businesses has grown.

I can do an 8 week obedience or agility class for 85.00. I don't do conformation but the people I know are paying about the same for an 8 week class, or 5-10 per drop in session. And there are classes all over the place, most people drive 30 minutes at most for a class. Then look at the business model protection sport groups. 35-50.00 per session, plus in some cases there are field fees on top of this. That's 280-400 for 8 sessions, just for the training fees. Add in travel time since most of the people I know throughout the country are traveling a hour or more for training, and it ends up being 4-500 a month to train. Try doing multiple sports, at one point I was paying over 1000.00 per month in training/travel fees.

The number one reason I hear from people who are leaving protection sports, other than "I'm sick of the politics" is "I just can't afford it anymore". 

The other issue I see with the business model is there isn't any emphasis on growth past a certain point. In the club model, when a club gets to big to be able to train all the dogs in a reasonable timeframe, the logical choice is to split into two clubs, who are now able to accept even more people, grow, split, etc. In the business model there is no reason to grow past a certain point, once the person being paid has reached the maximum number of dogs they can work with in the allowed time frame, they just start turning people away. Doesn't make sense for them to create other training opportunities for those people with other trainers, since then they are creating their own competition, and potentially loosing money.

Do I think the business model is negative, not in terms of actually causing damage to the sports. It does give some people a place to train, and possibly trial. But I don't think it's as positive for the sports as the true club model. And if a club is being replaced by a business, then yes, I do think the business is actually a negative.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Here, it's all club. Fees depending from 10-50 euro/month I presume. At our club we're with 3 persons (Dick, me, our decoy). 

Dick and I pay for the land fee (rented from the local city), electricity, water and repairs on the suit. We rent out the field to 2 companies and that covers the biggest part of our expenses. One company stops renting 1/1/2012, so more out of our own pocket, I'm afraid.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Paul R. Konschak said:


> How is it a club in the sense that someone has to pay the decoy to work a dog? That is a business not a club. If it is a club, then all income would go to the club and the club would decide on how to spend that money. I am a decoy also and I know that this scenario happens all the time. In my opinion, this is why dog sport has not grown in this country because over half of the clubs operate with the pay the decoy system. I believe that if the decoy is a member of the club and they are training on official training days that no one should be paying the decoy. If they would like to train outside of these days in private with the decoy, then should pay if they have an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My exposure to clubs is pretty limited, officially. Mostly informal training groups. or visiting formal clubs.

There are a couple formal clubs here that have NO decoys as members, they pay people to come in...

The funny thing is this though, there is one club that is rumored to have around 50 grand in its club coffers, but the club members are still expected to pay the decoy fees out of pocket....


----------



## Darryl Richey (Jul 3, 2006)

Also, while I don't see the business model hurting the sports, I don't actually see it growing the sports. It makes it too expensive for most people to participate, and that IMO is one of the biggest issues sports have in this country in terms of growth. Look at what sports in the US are the biggest, obedience, agility, conformation and look at which ones are the smallest, the protection sports. Also look at the membership numbers in the sports, I believe over the last 15-20 years the numbers have grown smaller in almost all the sports. And the number of businesses has grown.

Kadi,
A big reason for these sports having bigger numbers is two part. One, more dogs are capable of doing these disciplines and not the bite work, and two I don't thin the vast majority of those people are interested in bite work.
I run my training more like Jason. The fees go to me. I own the property, the equipment, and I'm giving the direction as well as doing the decoy work. I'm the one that pays the medical when I get bit and such also. I also charge a very minimal fee. I learned a long time ago that people treat things that are free just as that......having no value.
If people choose to do there thing as a club, great, I also have no issue with the business model. They both do bring in people to the dog world. There are shady people in both factions.

Darryl


----------



## Darryl Richey (Jul 3, 2006)

On a side note how the heck do you make the quotes come up in a "quote box"? I'm obviously doing something wrong.

Darryl


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Darryl Richey said:


> A big reason for these sports having bigger numbers is two part. One, more dogs are capable of doing these disciplines and not the bite work, and two I don't thin the vast majority of those people are interested in bite work.


I agree about more dogs being capable, but I also know people who have left bite sports to go play in other venues because of cost/accessibility so ...



Darryl Richey said:


> On a side note how the heck do you make the quotes come up in a "quote box"? I'm obviously doing something wrong.


 
When you want to quote someone's reply, click the Quote button on the right. It copies their post into your reply box, and puts special codes around it that look like


Kadi Thingvall;1234 said:


> . At the end of their post there will be a


 You can modify anything between the QUOTEs, but don't remove them, that's what makes the quote box around the text.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I had to stop doing herding for a while partially because it was 45 minutes each way plus lessons were $25 each. I just couldn't afford it. Now I can trade lessons for vet work and it works out okay. I don't want to begrudge my instructor, who is very good and an AKC herding judge, money that goes into upkeep for the sheep, fencing, supplies, and so on, but it was getting to be too costly along with trying to do PSA (my first priority), which is over an hour drive each way and sometimes twice that depending on where we train. 

I've always thought that in a protection sport club, you pay less than private lessons, but you are also expected to do more and help out more, like setting up equipment, putting on a trial, seminar, or social events and helping new folks. You might not be catching dogs, but you need to pull a little weight. You're also expected to show up relatively on time (I say this as I accidentally overslept last weekend for our last training session of the year ) and not leave as soon as your dog is done every week. For private or group sessions where all the funds go directly to the decoy/TD, I think it can be a little bit different dynamic. You're paying more, but not much is as expected of you. You can show up for your scheduled time and leave when you're done, or stick around if you want. Maybe the trouble comes in when there's a hybrid of the two and misunderstanding between the work put in by the decoy, the price of dues, and social expectations arise (BTDT in more than one club).

So I guess what I'm trying to say is...any good decoys want to come work my dog for free vet work? :-D


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Jason Davis said:


> I also don't see a problem with this and realize it is nothing new. I myself charge all my FR clients. There is a club, but all the payments go into my company account. It's how I choose to run things and if people don't like it, they don't have to train with me. If VLK wants to start a club for different venues of dog sports, then I think it's a great thing. I think they've been in business long enough to know that it's not going to make massive profit, and the person heading it up, I feel has a true passion and love for the sports, and it's not about money. Yes, there is shady stuff going on out there by large vendors. For example, I had a dog in my place, ignorantly bought from a greedy vendor, who would rip your head off when taking a toy from him, but wouldn't push through a stick for the bite or would also come off the bite when you touched his feet or put too much pressure on him. For the amount of money that was spent on him, he should of been fine with that as well as making me breakfast every morning. My $800 dog is a million times the dog that piece of crap was. That's the stuff you should really be concerned about vendors doing. Not that one is starting a club.


Mostly, what concerns me the most about what some vendors are doing is seeing substandard dogs walking in front of our military men and women. Sure, not every dog is cut out for every discipline. A dog that may be an excellent police dog may not be our cup of tea as a sport dog. But, at least sport handlers have the opportunity to evaluate and purchase a dog based upon their own criteria and purpose. Many inexperienced military/police handlers are handed a dog and find out when it's too late that the dog is broken. Smaller clubs often don't have the agenda that I think a club associated with a larger business will have. Someone bringing an outside dog to a smaller club will have a system of checks and balances. The training director or decoy will be more objective and hopefully not biased depending on where the dog came from. I know that will always happen. If a training director has preconceived feelings about a particular breeder or vendor, of course the dog probably won't have a fair chance. But I think a club run as a business has a greater motivation to wash out dogs that didn't come from the parent business and try to sell a replacement from within.

Regardless of where the dogs come from, I think these 1,000 lb gorillas want to have their hands in everything they see a profit in. I just don't believe they train and sell dogs for the love of the trade any longer. Perhaps it began as a passion, but if they can lower their standards to increase productivity and exploit what they love to get rich, I don't believe their hearts can really be in it anymore. If it was that easy to sell out and stop caring about the working dog business, would their hearts really be in running a dog sport club properly?

I just wish everyone involved in training, selling or competing with working dogs was involved for the right reasons. Sure, if this is your profession,you need to make a living. I understand this firsthand. But, I think it's possible to offer a service and still maintain ethics and standards. Perhaps this thread just gave me an opportunity to express my personal feelings about things I have seen. I left the military and have distanced myself from a lot of the things I don't agree with and have tried to get myself into a position to either make a difference where I can or be able to turn a blind eye to what I can't change. And then to see the things I've tried to stay away from start working their way into dog sports too just irritated me a bit.

Maybe those things shouldn't matter ...motivation, ethics, standards. Maybe it's just important to get as many dogs out there as possible and hope that some of them do something good. Maybe it's the same with sports (although quite a bit less important). Maybe it doesn't matter who is involved or why. Maybe it's just important that the sports grow and more people become involved. If judges uphold the same standards and can remain objective and if boards or directors aren't influenced by where the money comes from, then it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

The problem isnt with the vendor its with the buyer.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> The problem isnt with the vendor its with the buyer.


I think both can be held responsible. Should the vendor not be held responsible for knowingly selling crap? I guess having a conscience, ethics and standards is a thing of the past. 

Sure, the procurement systems are faulty because paper pushers often make decisions based upon how things look on paper. Procurement doesn't care what the end users are getting because it doesn't affect them. Vendors can get away will selling a lower quality product because no one savvy enough to know any better is evaluating their products. The end user suffers because their voice isn't loud enough to make a difference.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Your second paragraph was spot on. educate the buyer and the shady vendor starves and disappears.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I think both can be held responsible. Should the vendor not be held responsible for knowingly selling crap? I guess having a conscience, ethics and standards is a thing of the past.
> 
> Sure, the procurement systems are faulty because paper pushers often make decisions based upon how things look on paper. Procurement doesn't care what the end users are getting because it doesn't affect them. Vendors can get away will selling a lower quality product because no one savvy enough to know any better is evaluating their products. The end user suffers because their voice isn't loud enough to make a difference.


yes yes


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> Your second paragraph was spot on. educate the buyer and the shady vendor starves and disappears.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk


The trouble is who can educate the buyers? Often, they don't even know anything is wrong. The systems just sucks. Personal responsibility has gone out the window and the handlers are the ones who suffer.


----------



## Jason Davis (Oct 12, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> The problem isnt with the vendor its with the buyer.


Military and police, I'd agree with this statement 100%!! By now, they should have the test down pat and know exactly the type of dog to purchase. Inexperienced private buyers, another story. In my case, the dog that was bought wasn't by me, nor was it tested by me before purchasing. It was bought by an inexperienced handler who believed whatever they were told and the vendor took advantage of that. When the dog was brought to me, I ran it through some test and it failed miserably. It wasn't able to handle the decoy pressure, and also had minimal hunt and ball drive. It wouldn't even jump on the counter for it's ball. The dog was outrageously priced. Fortunately, I was able to sell it back to the vendors business partner but we took a loss on the dog. The vendor was aware of these problems, but still sold the dog to a person with no clue. These are the ethics people should be worried about. Who cares that VLK is starting a sport club. I think that certain people should look a little closer to home, fix those problems, before worrying what other people are doing.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Jason Davis said:


> Military and police, I'd agree with this statement 100%!! By now, they should have the test down pat and know exactly the type of dog to purchase. Inexperienced private buyers, another story. In my case, the dog that was bought wasn't by me, nor was it tested by me before purchasing. It was bought by an inexperienced handler who believed whatever they were told and the vendor took advantage of that. When the dog was brought to me, I ran it through some test and it failed miserably. It wasn't able to handle the decoy pressure, and also had minimal hunt and ball drive. It wouldn't even jump on the counter for it's ball. The dog was outrageously priced. Fortunately, I was able to sell it back to the vendors business partner but we took a loss on the dog. The vendor was aware of these problems, but still sold the dog to a person with no clue. These are the ethics people should be worried about. Who cares that VLK is starting a sport club. I think that certain people should look a little closer to home, fix those problems, before worrying what other people are doing.


I don't think you're referring to the same procurement system I'm referring to. The dogs that are purchased for the mainstream MWD program are tested and selected individually by personnel from Lackland. I don't necessarily think their test is adequate or that they select the best dogs available, but given budget restraints and the experience level of the handlers, I suppose they do the best they can. That can surely be improved, but at least the dogs are being tested and selected by trainers appointed by the military.

What I am more referring to are the newer MWD capabilities that are currently contracted out. Often times, dogs are not tested until the contract has already been awarded and the dogs are deemed ready to deploy ...if they are tested at all. At that point, the dog teams are either pushed through certification because they are slotted to deploy or, in rare instances where someone is willing to deal with all the red tape, teams aren't certified and the contract is delayed or the company loses the contract.

If you'd like to discuss the situation you're referring to, feel free to send me a PM. I suspect I know what you're hinting at and the dog you're speaking of. Funny how that dog wasn't good enough for you, but passed one of the toughest selection tests I've seen with flying colors (and this isn't a case of me believing what I'm told - I stood there and watched the test first hand). I imagine your problem wasn't with the dog, but where the dog came from.


----------



## Paul R. Konschak (Jun 10, 2010)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Do I think the business model is negative, not in terms of actually causing damage to the sports. It does give some people a place to train, and possibly trial. But I don't think it's as positive for the sports as the true club model. And if a club is being replaced by a business, then yes, I do think the business is actually a negative.


 
It is not causing damage but as you stated only well off people can compete. How can you encourage non wealthy people to compete if you are charging these fees. That is why dog sport is not growing. There is very little youth and most clubs I have been do discourage children from attending training. This is why I travel two hour to a club instead of training with a club closer to my home. I want my children and other club member's children to enjoy training days so hopefully one day they may want to train dogs and also want to come to training day with their parents


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> The trouble is who can educate the buyers? Often, they don't even know anything is wrong. The systems just sucks. Personal responsibility has gone out the window and the handlers are the ones who suffer.


We can educate the buyers when they come to the board, forums and FB, come to clubs, etc...... but most unfortunately will learn as many of us have when we first started and thats the hard way, I was one of the lucky I guess you could say that was taught the right from wrong, so if I can try to return the favor if the folks are open minded to listening, some are not though and I guess want to learn the hard way and so be it if they are not willing to be open minded. Its not the handlers that suffer as much as the dogs do from inexperience or greedy handlers / owners.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> What I am more referring to are the newer MWD capabilities that are currently contracted out. Often times, dogs are not tested until the contract has already been awarded and the dogs are deemed ready to deploy ...if they are tested at all. At that point, the dog teams are either pushed through certification because they are slotted to deploy or, in rare instances where someone is willing to deal with all the red tape, teams aren't certified and the contract is delayed or the company loses the contract.
> 
> .


 
Is this in reference to VLK's 11 million dollar contract for dogs and training for the handlers?


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Yea going on and off of some other folks here clubs are generally a one time or semi annual fee at least what I see here in the USA, that money gos into a general fund that is usually controlled by a person part of that club that is nominated, money gos back to equipment used for the club as a whole or to individuals that use there personal equipment day in and day out for the club to get it fixed or replaced, same gos for jumps,walls, etc..... But at any time any club member can request a brake down of the account expenditures. It sometimes gos to food,drinks,snacks,annual parties, as well land up keeps charges. Just what I have seen and talked with folks over the years that I have participated in or have visited.

But like someone else said if you have a set up on a business level where you get paid everytime or every so many weeks or months that thats cool too and to each there own ( not my cup of tea though ), I rather pay semi or annualy a couple of hundred then somebody 25,50,100 every week or so.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> Is this in reference to VLK's 11 million dollar contract for dogs and training for the handlers?


I wasn't specifically referencing any contract in particular.


----------



## Jason Davis (Oct 12, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I don't think you're referring to the same procurement system I'm referring to. The dogs that are purchased for the mainstream MWD program are tested and selected individually by personnel from Lackland. I don't necessarily think their test is adequate or that they select the best dogs available, but given budget restraints and the experience level of the handlers, I suppose they do the best they can. That can surely be improved, but at least the dogs are being tested and selected by trainers appointed by the military.
> 
> What I am more referring to are the newer MWD capabilities that are currently contracted out. Often times, dogs are not tested until the contract has already been awarded and the dogs are deemed ready to deploy ...if they are tested at all. At that point, the dog teams are either pushed through certification because they are slotted to deploy or, in rare instances where someone is willing to deal with all the red tape, teams aren't certified and the contract is delayed or the company loses the contract.
> 
> If you'd like to discuss the situation you're referring to, feel free to send me a PM. I suspect I know what you're hinting at and the dog you're speaking of. Funny how that dog wasn't good enough for you, but passed one of the toughest selection tests I've seen with flying colors (and this isn't a case of me believing what I'm told - I stood there and watched the test first hand). I imagine your problem wasn't with the dog, but where the dog came from.


Well actually I have a puppy from the same place that I LOVE, so there goes your theory that it wasn't the dog, but where it came from. Not going to waste my time arguing it, as I have nothing to prove. The dog wasn't worth the money that was spent on it. Case closed. This is getting way off topic. VLK is starting dog sport clubs. In my opinion, it's a great thing. Happy holidays everyone!


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Military or Police bosses bare the burden of the quality of the tools they get their troops.


People are in business to make money..bottom line.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> Military or Police bosses bare the burden of the quality of the tools they get their troops.
> 
> 
> People are in business to make money..bottom line.


The bosses often don't bear quite the same burden when the handler's life is on the line. 

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe profit and quality are mutually exclusive. It is possible to have both.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Jason Davis said:


> Well actually I have a puppy from the same place that I LOVE, so there goes your theory that it wasn't the dog, but where it came from. Not going to waste my time arguing it, as I have nothing to prove. The dog wasn't worth the money that was spent on it. Case closed. This is getting way off topic. VLK is starting dog sport clubs. In my opinion, it's a great thing. Happy holidays everyone!


True, maybe it wasn't where the dog came from but the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the dog. Obviously, you thought the example of this dog was relevant enough to mention, so why is it now a waste of time?

Perhaps VLK starting a dog sport club will be a great thing. I just hope this isn't an attempt to find yet another thing for the business men to capitalize on and corrupt. Hopefully, Wade and others like him will be the heart of the operation and can instill their passion in the members.


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

Kadi I have to completely disagree with you about the protection sports vs agility thing, at least the way it is over here. I would say that the reason bite sports are not nearly as popular is because people either do not know they exist, they have no interest in getting involved in what they perceive as a violent sport, or they outright think it is abusive and mean to dogs. NOT because protection sports are more expensive to participate in (definitely not the case over here). Agility, flyball, rally-o, or plain oh' vanilla obedience are so much more easier to access because there is a bigger demand for them by the average pet owner. They are far more socially acceptable within the average pet owners community. I mean you can buy crappy agility starter kits at the local pet store, ask them about schutzhund sleeve and they'll probably think you're talking in a different language. 

I can join a local schutzhund club that meets 3 times a week for a few hundred bux for the year. If I get into a club that charges $500 for the year and meets 3 times per week, I'm paying about $3 per training day/evening. The biggest cost associated would be the cost of the dog and the cost of gas to get to the club and trials. In my case the average club is about an hour away and ends up costing me about $40 in gas per trip in my blood sucking truck. If you drive some thing more gas efficient, your cost goes down even more. Let's say I even buy myself lunch and the cost of a training day is $50. 

Agility is far more accessible to me but it really isn't cheaper, it's actually more expensive. There are no agility clubs, only private lessons or group classes. A private 1h session will cost me about $60 plus possibly the cost of renting a hall (we're lucky to have one in the city and the cost is about $60/h just to rent the space, so it would cost me $120/h to train there with a private trainer, if I invite others the hall charges a higher rate per person so there is no way to save). If I want to do classes, those are about $220 for 6, almost $40 per class and means I'm sharing my 1h in a group environment with 6 other people, depending on how the class is structured I get either 15min minutes realistically of quality time with the trainer or an hour of group chaos competing for the trainer's attention. Probably about a 3rd of all pet obedience schools and trainers in this city offer some sort of an agility course. It might not get you prepped to win a world level competition as the class might only be in a church basement but it sure gets the bug planted and you can then seek out the better trainers who are about an hour out of the city (and charge very similar class fees). If I want to train it myself, I would have to buy all the equipment which can easily cost a couple or few grand depending on the quality, not to mention I need the space to put it. 

Every major pet event, every major pet festival has some sort of an agility or flyball presentation. Only one show had schutzhund presentations and they were very very limited and by no means on the centre stage for all to see, more like tucked away in their booth. I could train agility in the local park and people would gather to watch, if I try to organize a protection dog training session in the same spot some one will probably call the cops. Social stigmas are holding back progress of bite sports more then any thing else. 

If any business wants to move into my town and make some money while offering training protection sports go right ahead!! 

...and OP, you want to question motives based on profit? Do you think any of the agility places around here would promote the sport if they weren't getting paid for it? I am yet to come across anything similar to the non-profit bite sport club idea in the agility community. Do you think all the doggy daycares around here that offer agility classes in the evenings are immoral because they do it so that they can make money and pay their rent. If you told any of the agility trainers they should teach for free and only for the love of the sport you would get laughed out of the building! I certainly don't see their desire to make money off their sport causing agility to disappear. If a facility ends up offering a lesser quality training experience that likely has more to do with the quality of trainers available to them then with some desire to sabotage their clients. If some one wants to see results they will eventually clue in and move on to a place with better training techniques. Look at Susan Gerrett! She's awesome at what she does, gets results, and sure charges for her training! If any thing, the ability to make money by offering proven or improved results is a great motivator to make sure your clients do great. 

Plus if I'm a total newb and looking at starting in a sport, just to try and see if I will like it and my options are 6 classes of agility 20minutes from home or a full year membership to a club 1h drive from home which do you think might win Joe Shmoe over even if they are open minded?

I think it's a little naive (in the example of a newbie buying a dog) that only people belonging to small intimate clubs some how benefit from good advice. The quality of the advice depends on the quality of the person giving it, not whether they are making money. There is no shortage of free crappy advice out there. 










Kadi Thingvall said:


> Also, while I don't see the business model hurting the sports, I don't actually see it growing the sports. It makes it too expensive for most people to participate, and that IMO is one of the biggest issues sports have in this country in terms of growth. Look at what sports in the US are the biggest, obedience, agility, conformation and look at which ones are the smallest, the protection sports. Also look at the membership numbers in the sports, I believe over the last 15-20 years the numbers have grown smaller in almost all the sports. And the number of businesses has grown.
> 
> I can do an 8 week obedience or agility class for 85.00. I don't do conformation but the people I know are paying about the same for an 8 week class, or 5-10 per drop in session. And there are classes all over the place, most people drive 30 minutes at most for a class. Then look at the business model protection sport groups. 35-50.00 per session, plus in some cases there are field fees on top of this. That's 280-400 for 8 sessions, just for the training fees. Add in travel time since most of the people I know throughout the country are traveling a hour or more for training, and it ends up being 4-500 a month to train. Try doing multiple sports, at one point I was paying over 1000.00 per month in training/travel fees.
> 
> ...


----------



## Charles Guyer (Nov 6, 2009)

I work for a major vendor with like three other sport folks. We train together. If they'd offer to sponsor a club, I'd accept.


----------



## Charles Guyer (Nov 6, 2009)

Charles Guyer said:


> I work for a major vendor with like three other sport folks. We train together. If they'd offer to sponsor a club, I'd accept.


P.S. There's a bunch of military and le guys that work with us with no interest in sport.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> Kadi I have to completely disagree with you about the protection sports vs agility thing, at least the way it is over here. I would say that the reason bite sports are not nearly as popular is because people either do not know they exist, they have no interest in getting involved in what they perceive as a violent sport, or they outright think it is abusive and mean to dogs.


I'm not disagreeing that this also comes into play for many people. But I know enough people who have left protection sports for agility, obedience, etc because of costs to know that at least here, that's also an issues.



> I can join a local schutzhund club that meets 3 times a week for a few hundred bux for the year. If I get into a club that charges $500 for the year and meets 3 times per week, I'm paying about $3 per training day/evening.


Can I train with you? LOL There is a local Sch club to me that is a club, elections, club bank account, etc etc. They charge 100.00 a month for club dues. I'm not sure if there are any that are cheaper in the area, but that's the cheapest one I'm aware of. That covers 2 days a week, unless the field is being used for something else and training has to be cancelled. I think there is also a yearly fee, but I don't remember, I've trained with them as a guest, but never joined.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Can I train with you? LOL There is a local Sch club to me that is a club, elections, club bank account, etc etc. They charge 100.00 a month for club dues. I'm not sure if there are any that are cheaper in the area, but that's the cheapest one I'm aware of. That covers 2 days a week, unless the field is being used for something else and training has to be cancelled. I think there is also a yearly fee, but I don't remember, I've trained with them as a guest, but never joined.


HI Kadi

$100/month for club dues is ridiculous. In the majority of clubs I've trained with over the years, dues are to buy or replace equipment and to pay for insurance or expenses. Members donate equipment and time and experience. NO ONE gets paid or supplements their income by being a club member.
I was taken aback by someone saying that one club had $50K
in their Treasury, but with some of the training fees and dues being mentioned I guess it isn't all that hard :-(
Makes you wonder what an audit of a few of the bigger/older
clubs would reveal?


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> HI Kadi
> 
> $100/month for club dues is ridiculous.


It's not my club, but to my understanding, $100 gets you obedience time on the very nice, well-lighted field with spotters willing to help, and work with the helper two times a week each month. That's eight sessions for $100. Oh, and I also heard it's not per dog, it's as many dogs as you own...but I could be totally wrong on that.

Guests pay $25 for helper work and if you only want to use the field for obedience, guests pay $15.

You have to remember, it's Southern California. I know how much that club pays for rent since we rent the same field. It's a really good deal but it's definitely not free. 

Laura


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Thomas Barriano said:


> $100/month for club dues is ridiculous.


I'm not sure exactly what their normal monthly expenses are, but I know they have to pay to lease the field they use, plus insurance, the club also pays for equipment out of club funds and pays some other stuff. OK, I know more specifics than I'm going to get into on a public forum  Let's just say 100.00 a month isn't building them a huge bank account, they have enough to pay the bills, host a few events (trials or seminars) each year, and still have a little bit of a cushion in the account. 




Thomas Barriano said:


> In the majority of clubs I've trained with over the years, dues are to buy or replace equipment and to pay for insurance or expenses. Members donate equipment and time and experience. NO ONE gets paid or supplements their income by being a club member.


This IMO is what a real club is, the rest are businesses masquerading as clubs, or just outright businesses. I have less issue with the outright businesses; at least they are honest about what they are.




Thomas Barriano said:


> I was taken aback by someone saying that one club had $50K





Thomas Barriano said:


> in their Treasury, but with some of the training fees and dues being mentioned I guess it isn't all that hard
> Makes you wonder what an audit of a few of the bigger/older clubs would reveal?


Would probably be quite interesting, I suspect people would be surprised just where their dues are going.


----------



## Dana McMahan (Apr 5, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Can I train with you? LOL There is a local Sch club to me that is a club, elections, club bank account, etc etc. They charge 100.00 a month for club dues. I'm not sure if there are any that are cheaper in the area, but that's the cheapest one I'm aware of. That covers 2 days a week, unless the field is being used for something else and training has to be cancelled. I think there is also a yearly fee, but I don't remember, I've trained with them as a guest, but never joined.



Wow, what club is that?!! Apparently I haven't trained with them. Most of the clubs I have been do have a yearly dues of $300-400 per year. Some of those are bites for bucks, most are not. So I would say that club is one of the more expensive ones in the area.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Dana Williams said:


> Wow, what club is that?!!


Sorry, not "going there" on the forum, don't think the who is really relevant to the conversation. If you want to know though you can PM me.



> Most of the clubs I have been do have a yearly dues of $300-400 per year. Some of those are bites for bucks, most are not. So I would say that club is one of the more expensive ones in the area.


By the time you get done paying both "club" dues and the bites for bucks fees though, what are you averaging per month? I'd bet its at least the 100.00/month that club charges, so in the end they are probably actually cheaper per session.


----------

