Another Attempt to Take Over the AWDF - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Christopher Smith on 27 January 2014 - 02:01

So USCA is at this nonsense again. They are trying, once again, to push an agenda that would give them control of the AWDF. Why? Why do they want to do this? The AWDF have given them EVERYTHING they have asked for in the last few years. So what will they do with this new power if we allow this proposal to go through? What more will they get that they are not getting now? How does anyone else gain anything other than USCA? The AWDF was created for the betterment of working dogs; not for the benefit of one greedy self-centered breed club. How does this help dogsport in America? Instead of protecting and building our dogsport community the AWDF is spending it's time on this crap. This truly shines a light on the lack of leadership within the AWDF.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the AWDF Exceutive Board:

The Executive Board has been studying possible changes in the voting structure and membership dues for AWDF. At this time in light of the economic times and not wanting to create a financial hardship for any of the member clubs, the Executive Committee would like to propose the following voting structure change only.
 
The current Dues Structure is $300.00 per club plus 0.75 per member. The Executive Committee is not proposing any changes in the dues structure.
 
Club - Membership - Dues
 
1) Federation of American Bulldog - 22 - $316.50
 
2) Wording Dutch Shepherd Association - 26 - $319.50
 
3) American Working Black Russian Terrier Association - 27 - $320.25
 
4) Working Riesenschaunzer Federation - 42 - $331.50
 
5) Working Pitbull Club of America - 45 - $333.75
 
6) North American Working Bouvier Association - 69 - $351.75
 
7) Hovawart Club of North America (Guest - Non Voting) - 109 - $381.75
 
8) United States Boxer Association - 121 - $390.75
 
9) American Herding Breed Association (Guest - Non Voting) - 135 - $401.25
 
10) United States Rottweiler Club - 140 - $405.00
 
11) United States Mondioring Association - 188 - $441.00
 
12) American Working Malinois Association - 216 - $462.00
 
13) Cane Corso Association of America (Guest - Non Voting) - 300 - $525.00
 
14) United Doberman Club - 324 - $543.00
 
15) LV\DVG America - 872 - $954.00
 
16) United Schutzhund Club of America - 3645 - $3,033.75
 
Total = 6281 - $9,510.75
 
The Executive Committee is proposing the voting structurebe changed to 1 vote for every 400 members. Below is a chart indicating the number of vote per total membership number.
 
 
0-400 1
401-800 2
801-1200 3
1201-1600 4
1601-2000 5
2001-2400 6
2401-2800 7
2801-3200 8
3201-3600 9
3601-4000 10
4001-4400 11
 
The following is the breakdown for votes at the current membership rate:
 
USCA = 10 Votes
DVG = 3 Votes
All remaining clubs would receive I vote =11 Votes
Directors at Large = 3 Votes
Executive Board = 4 Votes
 
Total Votes = 31

by Jim Engel on 27 January 2014 - 12:01

The real problem is that USCA is not in reality
an independent American organization.

It is in fact under German SV domination and control
as a client of the SV. http://www.angelplace.net/usca/Truth.htm
http://www.angelplace.net/usca/

by gsdstudent on 27 January 2014 - 13:01

if the Awdf is in the dog business, it must look closely at a disgruntled customer. If UScA is that customer, the AWDF must say do we need to apease this client/member or say we can move forward without you. Dialog to a mutual satisfing agreement is needed. Not finger pointing

Dog1

by Dog1 on 27 January 2014 - 14:01

Chris Jim,

Both of you are obviously passionate on the subject. I see facts and figures and read the articles. I'm not able to connect the dots. Is there some underlying issue that can be thrown out to tie this together?

by Jim Engel on 27 January 2014 - 14:01


"Is there some underlying issue that can be thrown out to tie this together?"

There is 40 years of history behind this, and as founding AWDF secretary I probably go back as far as anybody.

Read this for an introduction:
http://www.angelplace.net/usca/SV%20Empire.pdf

More:
http://www.angelplace.net/usca/

 

Dog1

by Dog1 on 27 January 2014 - 15:01

Jim.

Read it. It's a history lesson.

Take us from now forward. What's the issue?

by Jim Engel on 27 January 2014 - 15:01

What's the issue?

The real issue is who is going to control American working dog affairs,
Germans or Americans.

Working on a more general response for my mailing list, about 3000
people, but touching base with several people first.

 

by ramgsd on 27 January 2014 - 19:01

This seems to be the norm in most instances where there is a vote involving large numbers of people. One vote per X amount of people. No matter how you look at it UScA is going to have more votes. UScA has 1009 more members than all the rest of the clubs combined. So if AWDF gives 1 vote per person UScA still has more votes. Is it a perfect system? NO, but what is? As with most things in life the majority rules. It just so happens that they are the majority at this point in time. Please show me, if you can, in what scenario is everyone going to be happy?

by CMassGSD on 27 January 2014 - 19:01

I agree with Chris. UScA should not pay all that money in dues! Nor should they run over 200 trials a year that all AWDF members can enter! They shouldn't provide anymore judges either! I say let AWMA run it all! Let them pay over $3000 in dues! I'm sure they will do much better!! UScA will pay $300 and go to all of the other club members trials!!

by Christopher Smith on 27 January 2014 - 19:01

RamGSD, USCA does not give one vote per member within their own organization, do they? If your local USCA club as 10 members or 10,000 members, your club still only gets one vote. So if USCA thinks that the AWDF structure is unfair, why do they have the same structure within their own organization? 





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top