# new test for bulldogs opinions...



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I am not going to post my comments or opinion as I dont want to sway anyone lol... like that could happen.. ;-)

This is a test that will be posted to pedigrees for the AB... as a "prestigious test" 

Rules: http://www.abra1st.com/index.php/ab.../39-registration/181-guardians-utility-title:

video: http://youtu.be/u4Nb2Dupz3A

looking for all opinions good and bad or indifferent....


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

How does the bulldog hang off the decoy with all four feet off the ground? I guess it would have to be a pretty high bite, but the description seems to imply use of a sleeve. Is the decoy standing on a platform? Holding his arm over his head? Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

to me the video didn't quite match up to the requirements posted.....was the clip supposed to be a visual demonstrating the written requirements ?

Q : is there supposed to be a difference in "character" being displayed by a dog that will climb a short see thru fence to take multiple sleeves offered them as opposed to one that will do the same on a field with no barrier, with an "innocent" standing off to one side ??


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I was trying to envision a decoy being able to hold Lynda's Rook 4 feet off the ground. I've seen some really tall and a beefy decoy work him. Ya gotta watch the video. The decoy is standing on a step stool. Interesting that one kennel came up with this and surpising that Banuelos considered this valuable and prestigious. I vote not prestigious and not considered when looking at breeding a dog.

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Holden Sawyer said:


> How does the bulldog hang off the decoy with all four feet off the ground? I guess it would have to be a pretty high bite, but the description seems to imply use of a sleeve. Is the decoy standing on a platform? Holding his arm over his head? Maybe I'm missing something.


watch the video and yes it is supposed to be a dog passing the test... i think... at least an example of the test.


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

Youtube comment: "I gotta﻿ have one of these !!!"

](*,)


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Interesting no one has hit on my biggest issue with the "test"....


----------



## Dana McMahan (Apr 5, 2006)

Biggest problem I see is you can pass the test by sending in a video...?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

He's on a leash. There is no test of independence or neutrality to the innocent stranger. No obedience, control. There's tons wrong with this, I guess. Also, the references to contest, bull baiting etc. in the written rules are pretty ridiculous. Protection and hang time combined??? If they are hanging off a bull, he's usually trying to thrash them. The analogy now to the suburban backyard,etc. should be a breed embarrassment. Hard to take seriously. I can't believe the board agreed to it.

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

terresita you and I actually agree on this one ;-) lots of issues.. but what board do you mean? dana you also hit one....

Still one BIG issue I have with it..... terrisita you are pretty close...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

The registry-board, one kennel in control of it along with one judge, video- on and on. 

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

yeah... this is bulldogs... any person can call themselves a registry. ABRA the one that recognizes this, is not known for protection sports.


----------



## Holden Sawyer (Feb 22, 2011)

Well the guy could fall off the stool and really hurt himself.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Is this a test for junkyard dogs?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Oh yeah, and who says the decoy is a stranger. It could be an owner for all we know and its just a show. You can train and condition the dog to do this stuff with one particular person and send in a video.

T


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I thought Al Banuelous was a pretty knowledgeable and well respected bull dog guy?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

where do you start.

It is written based off of what that one guy called the "Pinta Drill", which is named after his dog Pinta...

it is obvious in the "Pinta" video that the guy is the dogs owner, and this is just some game he played with the dog...

so here is what I see wrong with the test as it is written and executed.

first off, there are very few 5.5 foot fences around.

there is no badguy..period...

there is no protection as there is no threat to the innocent lady, could do the same thing without the innocent person even there.

the dog does not spit the sleeve out, it goes after another sleeve.

the dog is not hanging off the ground, it is using the fence to hold itself up.

a whip is being used to stimulate the dog almost the entire time, aside from having the sleeve back there too...

aside from not having anything to do with what is stated it is supposed to be about, this whole setup seems highly dangerous..

it is done with chainlink fence, with nothing on the top, very easy for dog to get hung up, or pierced on the fence.

being chainlink, the dog uses it to hold it's weight, and it is pretty easy for a toe to get caught up with the jerking, or even for one of the dog's paws or legs to go through the fence.

they are allowing the dog to jump up over the top height of the fence, and are jerking him back...could catch his neck on the fence, or even make it mostly over, getting some other part hung up.

a dog could also break a tooth on the fence, or smash his face into the fence if he goes straight for the guy.

overall pretty unsafe for the dog all the way around, even though everything could go fine...

from a decoying standpoint it is not really safe at all either.

standing on a small chair on unlevel ground.could fall, and the chair does does not provide any base of stability. That is a small dog, using the fence to hold his weight and the guy almost falls over it, could have gotten himself hung up on the top of that fence.

5.5 is not high enough for me. some dogs can make it over that easy enough, and the guy puts his hands over the fence, could get grabbed, and the guy is basically relying on the handler to make sure that the dog does not make it over, with the leash.

that guy could no way hold up a 80-100 lb strong bulldog on that chair. and for decoys that are strong enough to hold up a bigger stronger dog like that, the chair is not stable enough, or big enough to provide a good base.

the whole thing is set up real stupidly in my opinion, and when implemented, does test anything that it implies, and has nothing to do with testing something close to bullbaiting.

i dont think there needs to be any neutrality test, as the "rules" state it is an innocent person to be protected, so one would assume it was someone the dog would protect, like a family member...I am just going by what is written, which is really crappy and incomplete for any type of advanced or prestigious test...LOL...doesnt say it needs all the other things suggested..maybe those are for the more advanced level II, and III... (which is stated they have)



aside from the other things already mentioned. that is what I come up with...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

meant to say "does NOT" test anything it implies...

plus the fence is not stable enough for the decoy to use..


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

It looks pretty silly to me just looking. Typical street corner dog training. Watch a few dupetube videos stir in a crackly whip some hip hop beat, a big dog some sleeves and whamooo your a bad ass dog trainer with a huge liability dragging you around town. I mean to each his own in the end but that's kind of embarrassing if its actually a test.


----------



## Jesus Alvarez (Feb 6, 2009)

There's so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start. ](*,)

[email protected]#$ like this is what has caused me to distance myself from most bulldog people. This is typical of the backyard hillbilly mentality that many AB owners have. Many of whom who would see this and think that's a "real" or "hard" dog. :roll:

The breed doesn't need it's own registry especially multiple ones that come up with some bullshit "test" like this one that's geared specifically towards ABs.

I'm skeptical to say the least that Al Banuelos helped come up with or used this to test any of his dogs or knowingly gave permission for them to attach his name to it. I think his name may have been added in the hopes of giving some validity.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Just watched the video. Did you know that Al is the decoy and the person talking st the end of the video?

I have huge respect for Al. He has helped me a lot with my own dogs. 

Laura


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Just watched the video. Did you know that Al is the decoy and the person talking st the end of the video?
> 
> I have huge respect for Al. He has helped me a lot with my own dogs.
> 
> Laura


if you know Al, ask him about this test, please...


----------



## Jesus Alvarez (Feb 6, 2009)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Just watched the video. Did you know that Al is the decoy and the person talking st the end of the video?
> 
> I have huge respect for Al. He has helped me a lot with my own dogs.
> 
> Laura


 I only know Al based upon his accomplishments with ABs and for which I have much respect for. 

I'd very interested to hear his reasoning for this test as well.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I think most have respect for Al.... Just not blindly to think this is any kind of test because he is backing it.... I would be curious to hear his side.

Lots of good responses, Joby excellent post you noted some things I haven't thought of or heard.

My big thing is the liability if it. Liability in public perception and the dangers that could come with such a test, especially for bulldogs. I can see the headlines growing. There is no control, no obedience, no temperament requirement or evaluation. You can simply train a dog to bite hands over the fence at the dogs own discretion... Send in a video and you have a "title". There is no respectable test that doesn't require the aforementioned or a trial environment. It is embarassing, you're right.


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> My big thing is the liability if it. Liability in public perception and the dangers that could come with such a test, especially for bulldogs. I can see the headlines growing.


Exactly. The comment says it all. 

I'm not a follower of ABs, but I can appreciate the dogs for what they are. I also saw safety of decoy as an issue, but wondered if that was my inexperience with more real world stuff. All it takes here is one slip/miss/miscalulation and that step stool is going out and even the decoy's neck could land on that shoddy fence. Not something I would be comfortable asking my decoys to risk.

I'm interested in the opinions of those regarded as respected.


----------



## andreas broqvist (Jun 2, 2009)

whats the difrens from just hang time? That its a seelve?


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

It's supposed to be the equivalent to modern day urban bullbaiting through protection of self/ property or something like that. This is supposed to prove or test a dog protecting by not allowing a bad guy in your yard. That is how I am understanding the responses from the originator. 

A quote from the originator " Okay let's brainstorm a little... What was the original utilization of the bulldogs of Victorian time? Does bull-baiting sound familiar? Now look at the GUT. No more bulls to be tenderized nowadays, but, like you said, there are plenty of bad guys we better stop at the fence. I hope you see the similarities between the bull-baiting of old and the GUT, a modern interpretation and application of what bulldogs were born for, plus an undeniable display of atletism, drive, tenacity and balance. Those are all distinctive traits of both the original bulldog and his evolution in America, the Farm Utility Bulldog. All the elements are there: CHARGE - JUMP - BITE - HANG - REPEAT....."


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

the OP asked for comments on the video and provided a link to a written test requirement ... this response will be connected to those two....i watched and read a few more times

- initially, what really jumped out at me was the fact that there was NO communication that i could see going on between the "innocent", who i guess was the lady standing around, and the dog...that dog coulda cared less whether she was there or not, so how could it be "protecting" her in any way ???
- it was CLEARLY a high drive agitated dog trained to willingly engage a decoy/sleeve being fed a sleeve a couple times by someone on a very short stepladder behind a fence, posted by a way too long drag line 
- of course an accident waiting to happen on many levels which has already been pointed out :-(

but the (well respected) guy said it ALL :
"the dog showed great power going in to the guarding of the FENCE" :-( 
... not a complete quote but that is basically what he said- nothing about guarding of innocents, which seems to be the overall goal of the rules

direct comparisons :

the way i read the "rules", as soon as the sleeve was slipped the dog shoulda been back on the decoy without needing ANY decoy action 

the requirements were STATED this way :
"The test implies sprinting around the “innocent” (the person to be protected)," 
*** THAT didn't happen at ALL imo and sprinting implies an OFF lead dog imo, but it doesn't state how or who sends the dog :-( (poorly written rules)

"jumping to bite the sleeve of a decoy positioned behind a 5 ½ feet, see-through fence, hanging from the sleeve (all feet off the ground)"
*** THAT happened, but after what i would consider over agitation by both guys involved, and the dog was already locked and loaded before the camera even rolled

"As the decoy releases the sleeve, spit it after landing on 4 feet, while remaining focused on the potential intruder"
*** THAT definitely didn't happen ... dog was busy killing the sleeve until the decoy brought the dog back into the action.... no "spitting" and remaining focused imo

"(patrolling as he/she moves along the fence)."
*** no comment (which he or she??....poorly written rule)

"The dog needs to show to want the decoy and will jump to try to bite even when the sleeve is not offered." 
***That happened, but the decoy was baiting and of course had a stick in addition to the sleeve.....the way i read the rule is the dog should be focused on the intruder only; not equipment......iow : spit the sleeve and refocus on the target

"The routine needs to be repeated twice to give proof of consistency."
*** don't know about this one ??? ....but i think there were three sleeves and i didn't see anything "repeated twice" 

so i would say a FAIL based on the written rules, 
** BUT-- in defense of the narrator, he made no mention of the rules, nor did he mention the word protection of an "innocent" in any way, so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt 
- i would imagine the "innocent" was just told to stay quiet and out of the way, which she did flawlessly 
- during the review, he started by saying "you've just seen a GUT trained dog", not a pass/fail test
- so i don't think he cared how the dog was agitated and whether the dog needed any stimulation to re engage or where the innocent needed to be or do, etc. or if anything had to be repeated "twice"
- and what the guy WAS talking about was gripping desire and fence GUARDING, not protection of innocents

- so maybe the OP is making an assumption this was a "test" connected to the link provided ?

anyway, if i was the judge and those were the rules - a fail for 2 reasons :
1. test not conducted properly
2. dog didn't perform to written standards
.....but i wasn't a judge so it don't matter 

btw, the owner of that dog would need a MUCH higher fence on their property 

the trainers may be great and the dog may be great but what REALLY bothers me is how he/they or WE somehow connect this to PROTECTION !!!

the most important aspect of a safe protection dog must be CONTROL
this dog had NONE, no control was exercised, and no one seems to notice or care about that major missing component, since : 
- the (well respected?) narrator, who clearly thinks this was a GREAT dog, only cares about drive and GRIP cause that's all he talks about](*,)
- "test specs" make NO mention of it](*,)

so..... somehow training a dog to guard/jump fences will somehow show potential or proof of a protection dog or GUARDIAN ?? 
it's a WARPED training philosophy imnsfho ](*,)](*,)


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> I think most have respect for Al.... Just not blindly to think this is any kind of test because he is backing it.... I would be curious to hear his side.


Where do you guys get that Al is "backing" this test?


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Rick you pretty much said everything I had said to the originator.. except I read hanging all four feet off the ground and saw a dog with his feet all over the fence lol.... Again BIG issue for me liability, creating a bunch of dogs biting hands over the fence and certifying them.

Yes that IS the test I just went to the webiste. It is located right under "succes" dog passed. http://www.miurabulldogs.com/GUT.htm


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Where do you guys get that Al is "backing" this test?


Good point, which us why I would love to hear a response from Al. His name is used a lot to bring validity to the test..

A few quotes from originator:

" , before hiring Al Banuelos to help me define the criteria..."

" the GUT was developed with the help of Al Banuelos, a legend among bulldoggers and a world renown SCH expert." 

" Al got involved with the GUT because he sees value in it."

And from the registries website " The titles are granted by Miurabulldogs Kennels, after a board of officials including legendary Al Banuelos, G.U.T. chief trainer, will evaluate a video clip," 

To be honest I wanted to stay away from al's name and focus on the test because I do respect him and he is a man to be respected.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i REALLY don't care how freaking LEGENDARY he is
1. there was NO control over the dog in his video of the dog he praised so highly (add a clip that shows it and maybe i'll change my mind)
2. HE SAID NOTHING about protection (which shows HIS priorities) and the test did NOT involve the freaking innocent
3. he specifically SAID ... the dog was guarding a FENCE (he got that right, but so what)


let him defend himself and the standard anyway he wants....would LOVE to hear that reasoning and especially how it was written up in the first place

i watched what he DID, and what he SAID about it, and if i didn't know he was "legendary" i would say he is a typical backyard bulldog trainer by that clip of a dog climbing a fence to get to a sleeve that would have jumped right over it if the anchor hadn't prevented it and praising the hell out of it ... AND by the way he summarized it in his OWN words

- i may live under a rock in the bulldog world but would anyone disagree with my simple minded analysis ??
.....if so speak up, especially those who respect this guy 
- at least i gave him credit for not referring to the "standard", but if he helped write it or judges it, i have NO respect for the guy 

if you're a friend tell him he's getting bashed and maybe he'll step up

bullbaiting eh ?? maybe that's why so many backyarders hang a spring pole.....to bring out those hidden genetics ??? // lol

i love these breeds but hate the way a lotta people train em and wear em like a macho decoration when they are out with em ](*,)](*,)
- thank god most of em have better temperaments than their owners


----------



## mike finn (Jan 5, 2011)

rick smith said:


> i REALLY don't care how freaking LEGENDARY he is
> 1. there was NO control over the dog in his video of the dog he praised so highly (add a clip that shows it and maybe i'll change my mind)
> 2. HE SAID NOTHING about protection (which shows HIS priorities) and the test did NOT involve the freaking innocent
> 3. he specifically SAID ... the dog was guarding a FENCE (he got that right, but so what)
> ...


 Is this test supposed to test for control, or the dogs natural drives or something?


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Just to add - the fence thing bothers me. My dogs and the neighbour's dogs go ballistic at each other through the fence that separates them. And yes, my DS was very close to going up and over the 6' fence one day before I got hold of her. No idea what she planned to do once she got into the yard with the two big dogs that live there, but she was good to go.

My dogs have been introduced to the dogs next door. Every one was very polite and no one wanted to start anything, but throw a fence up between them and they all turn into psycho dogs. 

Lots of dogs look pretty scary behind a fence. Not saying anything new... isn't that 'barrier aggression'?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Classic example of junk yard dog training without the beatings.


----------



## Chris Jones II (Mar 20, 2011)

This should be called "demonstration of barrier frustration" IMO this could be used as a training exercise for I don't know what. some as yet unheard of protection sport. urban ring or some shit. but it is not a test of anything substantial. you could do this with most breeds and get a similar response limited only by physical stature and leaping ability. waste of time and dangerous.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

THE DOG DOES NOT HANG AT ALL...he is on the fence.

this test is wrong on every level, in accomplishing what it says it is testing...

I understand the wants for the control and everything else, but that is besides the point, in my mind...this test does not even test what it is supposed to test...even for just a raw test of whatever, it sucks...


----------



## Amy Swaby (Jul 16, 2008)

What I want to know is how this is behaviour you want PERIOD. The dog is going ballistic before the guy does ANYTHING. Why would I want a dog that goes psycho at ANYONE walking along a fence? Must fences attach to other peoples yards and we have one that runs along a side walk. Could you imagine this dog unsupervised in the yard with just normal pedestrians walking by?

On an unrelated note that is the most godawful annoying bark I've heard out of any non toy dog.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"On an unrelated note that is the most godawful annoying bark I've heard out of any non toy dog."

Not untypical of a lot of the bully breeds.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Thanks to a fellow WDF member, I just spoke to Al and it sounds like he was misrepresented to an extent to bring validity to the test. He appeared to understand my concerns so we shall wait and see what happens from here. Thanks for all who responded.... I'll keep the board posted on any positive changes or........ not.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Tracey
glad you spoke to him and i'm not exactly trying to condemn the guy

but i don't care for third party relays so please cut/paste comments you feel apply and when i see them addressed in black and white from him i am certainly open minded enuff to consider his views too

"i said he said" is not exactly the same 
...but that's just me and all i saw was a few seconds of this


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Rick I dont care for third party he said/ she said or relaying anything. If he wants to come on here he can (alhtough I dont think he does www) or he can ask someone in particular to relay a public message for him. Im not going to put words in anyone's mouth in fear of getting it wrong. 

If anything comes of our conversation, I will post that. If something does or doesnt change, that should tell you everything you need to know. :-#

t


----------

