Jump to content
BC Boards

Bev's Proposal


Recommended Posts

>

 

Nancy, I hope other people with better memories than mine will chime in to answer you, but here's a little bit of background.

 

In the olden days, you qualified for the Open Finals by placing one time in the top 20% at a sanctioned open trial. By 1997, there were just too many dogs qualifying under this system, to the point where putting on the finals was becoming a logistical nightmare. Everybody thought the qualifying system needed to be changed, but there were different ideas about how to change it. The problem was magnified (as so many problems within the HA are) by the fact that the qualification system is part of the By-Laws, and the HA By-Laws can be changed only at the annual meeting by a 2/3 vote of all members voting in person or by proxy.

 

In 1997, an attempt was made to change the qualification method, but it failed because neither of the two proposals could get a sufficient vote. An attempt was also made to change the By-Laws to set up a committee which would have the power to regulate qualification for the finals. That also failed.

 

In 1998, everybody got serious. There were three proposals for change: go to a points system, go to a regional finals, tighten up the existing "top 20%" placement rule. Each system had its passionate partisans. A straw vote was held in advance of the finals, with the then-President begging people to unite behind the proposal that got the most votes in the straw vote, when the time came to vote for real at the annual meeting.

 

The straw vote was very close, especially between the point system proposal and the regional finals proposal. I believe the regional finals proposal actually came out on top. But in the final vote, the one that counted at the AGM, the point system won. The major objections made to regionals, as I recall, were (1) making advancement to the finals dependent on a single trial could exclude top dogs who just had a bad day, a bad draw, or other bad luck; (2) in the hotter regions of the US, regional finals would have to be in the winter, six months or more ahead of the finals; and (3) putting on a regional trial would be a burden on many districts, and attending both a regional trial and a finals would be a burden on many handlers.

 

The whole process was very grueling, and after it was over, there wasn't much enthusiasm for revisiting the issue. However, some of the strongest proponents of the regional system (such as Jack and Kathy Knox) just quietly went ahead and set up regional trials (e.g., the Mid-West Regionals, the North-West regionals) to show that it could be done and perhaps to accustom people to the idea for some future time when the issue might come to the fore again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Robin's idea, too. Remembering back to when I first got into this, I would be happy with ONE free magazine that was a year old or more! That would have been enough to hook me.

 

I emphatically do NOT want to see the novice classes sanctioned. If I want novice trials to always be the same, I could go to AKC trials.

 

I think we need to spend our energy on getting more revenue to the HA, and to providing benefits for the revenue. Remember, those benefits can be *perceived* benefits. It doesn't necessarily have to be something tangible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the magazine idea too. Elegant and there's precedent with the ISDS as Andrea said.

 

I also like the idea of a closer alliance between ABCA and the HA.

 

There's some good discussion coming from this. I'm enjoying watching it. I'm hoping the HA leadership maintains this level of communication. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a problem with me. Some dog sports folks are my best friends. Sometimes they are me.

 

I only have a problem with the ones who breed dogs for purposes other than working livestock. But many dog sport folks are just as passionate about preserving the working stockdog as the trial contingency. Heck, I can name several who are BIGGER hardliners than many trialers I know, trialers who dual register, sell to conformation folks, stud out their dogs to conformation and sport bitches, shall I continue?

 

Obviously, there will have to be some way to ensure that everyone who has a say in how the trials are run, share the same values. There would have to be a line somewhere. Everyone in the "other" big registry agrees, by association, that Border Collies are defined by the conformation standard (whether they admit it or not). Some similiar defining mission would have to unite the registry, the HA, and maybe even (shall I say it?) the club - or I can forsee these difficulties will overshadow our efforts to preserve the breed.

 

What about this? A tiered membership and association - starting with the club, which offers general services, then the registry, which offers, well, just what it's been doing so well, and finally the HA with access to the Finals (maybe the sanctioned trials, too?). People would only join what they needed and the seperate orgs would continue to administer the services they always have, with only those at that "level" making decisions. Resources would be shared to fulfil the overall mission of the "triumvirate" org. It would be complicated to set up but heck, we're smart people - we own Border Collies, don't we? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Amy. However, speaking as a lawyer, we can structure the organization so that critical provisions are part of the by-laws and require, say, 3/4 majority to amend. Or, we can have two classes of membership that carry different voting rights. To draw an analogy, public companies can be efficiently run in this manner even though the vast majority of the shareholders know little or nothing about the operational needs of the company.

A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Becca and Andrea are on the right track. I believe merging the ABCA and the USBCHA would certainly be a benefit to both organizations and to the working border collie as well, given the caveats stated above to ensure that the working-bred dog is the focus of the new merged organization.

 

As for the issue of sanctioning novice classes, I am completely against it. I think it's one step on a slippery slope to keeping points and the de facto awarding of novice championships. If there really is a need to gain members (and I don't doubt there is) perhaps the USBCHA should consider making membership more appealing to open handlers first--I know many folks who trial at the open level who don't bother to join because they know they will be unable to partake of the one benefit the HA does offer--a national finals. I certainly would try to get these folks on board before going after the novice contingent, especially considering that both groups are asking the same question: what's in it for me?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'll leave specifics and/or corrections to others with actual experience to draw from, but I've always had the impression that the Western States Regionals have been very successful. I'd sure like to have a good enough dog and be a good enough handler to get there someday.

 

charlie torre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen, Don McCaig and I had a lively discussion a couple of years ago at Sturgis about ABCA membership; our topic was dual registration at the time, but I can recall many ABCA AGMs in the past where it was pointed out that HA members (read: trialers) represent a tiny fraction of the ABCA membership overall.

 

That said, I don't oppose a merger willy-nilly. I just wouldn't leap into it, and I doubt the powers that be in the two organizations will either.

 

About the Regionals concept: Our Western States Regionals gets better every year; this year will be the sixth one. It is an issue that the trial itself does not count for USBCHA points, but then neither does the National Finals. IF the Regionals were to become THE gateway to the Finals, then you bet the trials would be a very big deal indeed.

 

I get so annoyed about people complaining that if the Regionals were the ticket to the finals, you'd run the risk of getting shut out because of one bad draw. Sure, it could happen...but you could also drive all the way across the country and get a bad draw in your Finals preliminary run. You may have run in the Finals, but nobody will know you were there :rolleyes: Besides, it's not supposed to be EASY to make it to the Nationals!

 

A properly constituted Regionals will have at least two qualifying runs and a top X Finals. The WSRC allows each year's hosts the freedom to determine how they will select their finalists, so some years it's been the top 10 cumulative scores, and some have taken the top 4 cumulative, and the top 4 unique finishers on the 2 qualifying days for a total of 12. In our first Regionals in 2000 we had 2 days of qualifying, then a semifinals, and the three scores were added together to make the top 10 finalists (which is how the National Finals USED to be...rewarding the consistent dog). So, it is possible to set it up to be at least as fair a selection tool as a points system which clearly favors people with access to many large-entry trials.

 

I like the Regionals concept for all the reasons that I dislike Bev's (who else was on that Committee, by the way?) Novice proposal: Regionals preserve local control, allow for local promotion of the working Border Collie, and offer a showcase for some great dogs and handlers who may not for many reasons be able to travel to the Finals. They eliminate the Eastern dominance seen in the current system, and allow teams from even the smallest regions a chance at the Nationals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

 

Amy, of course it's true that trialers are a tiny fraction of the overall ABCA membership, but it doesn't follow that "the bulk of the 9000 ABCA members are sportsdog people," which was what you said. I'm sure sportsdog people are a tiny fraction of the ABCA membership also. If your concern is sportsdog influence within the ABCA, I think a look at who the elected directors are and where its money goes would be reassuring.

 

Also, I listed the arguments against having regionals as the method of qualifying for the finals because NancyO asked why people didn't want to go that route. Personally, I have always favored regional finals, and I admire the folks who went ahead and showed how it could be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen,

 

I AM reassured by the current makeup of the ABCA board, and I will grant you that I don't know who indeed makes up the bulk of the 9000 ABCA members....do you? I do know it's not USBCHA members. Knowing the demographics of the membership might be very informative for all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...