# Discussing New IPO rules



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

As many know the new IPO rues have taken affect. While I'm not finding many major changes, it certainly has some changes.

I've watched the Power Point Presentation on USCA's website http://www.germanshepherddog.com/docume ... Orules.ppt 
and read the account from USCA's Director of Judges Nathaniel Roque in the latest edition of USCA's magazine 
(Online version here http://www.germanshepherddog.com/documents/IPO_2012.pdf)

In the latest edition of USCA magazine they had a Q&A with Frans Jansen, Al Grovednik and Nathaniel Roque.

One question in that interview that was not the usual political BS question was: "Is this a dumbing down for existing members of the rules or is it a way to get titles for show dogs or, as you said, is it just for more uniformity?

It also seems that the rule changes are emphasizing a free spirited dog, one without showing pressure in OB for instance. A pressured dog will not be able to achieve a "V" in OB.

Thoughts on these rule changes and the above excerpts please.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"One question in that interview that was not the usual political BS question was: "Is this a dumbing down for existing members of the rules or is it a way to get titles for show dogs or, as you said, is it just for more uniformity?"


Was there an answer to that question? Curious to know how PC they tried to make it. :grin:


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

All of them said it was for uniformity.  You know, since Schutzhund doesn't exist and we're all under one rulebook now.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Not in entireity of any of the responses, but what I feel are the most important.

Frans: Uniformity, in Europe they still are required to obtain a SchH 1 for breed acceptance.

Al: Evolution, takes a village, no real significant changes, but clairification. No pressure to be allowed during competition, huge.

Nathaniel Roque: Support certain breed characteristics and working temperments of all breeds. More uniformity, hopes to promote more balanced dog. May be easier to obtain basic levels (BH) but changes emphasis in protection on power and intensity of guarding for instance. A V should be reserved for a dog that shows power and intensity, jugde's job. Still difficult to make a SG or V.

Nathaniels response was more detailed and harder to paraphrase. I also feel it was the most important as the Director of Judges. I know him and he's a good guy, I don't think he falls into the PC crowd of the USCA.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"Nathaniels response was more detailed and harder to paraphrase. I also feel it was the most important as the Director of Judges. I know him and he's a good guy, I don't think he falls into the PC crowd of the USCA. __________________'


Hopefully not.
The down side to the V ratings is still the ease with which they are given out. All the phony, usless V ratings at the SV show Nats would gag a maggot. Same with "Pronounced".


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

I don't understand the need for a stranger = Judge to touch my dog or any other dog. Now if it was a breed survey or conformation show.....I would expect this. Or of course a visit to the vet - but then my vet is not a stranger to them. So is a working/sport dog that will* tolerate* people and dogs in very close proximity, but does not allow STRANGERS (fine with people they know) to touch them a dog with a faulty temperament or is it just part of their individual personality? I know some people are face talkers...they feel the need to get within 2 inches of you to speak and/or are the touchy feely type. I prefer people to remain an arms length away from me = out of my personal space, perhaps this is something that has become instilled in me from USMC DI days or all the years spent as an LEO - I'm not sure. I don't like strangers to touch me either. Guess I have a temperament problem as well 

As for a dog being happy - perception is in the eye of the beholder. I currently have a GSD that loves to play ball - her favorite past time and will do it for hours. As much as she enjoys doing this - she rarely wags her tail and most of the time it is straight down. She pushes me to do obedience, but rarely do you see her tail wag during obedience or tracking - her tail is down. To me she is concentrating on what she wants or what she is doing as I have known her since she was whelped, but I wonder how many would think she is unhappy in her ball play or work just because she is not wagging her tail or showing alot of animation?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree about touching the dogs. I think that was a part of the reason for starting the BH in Schutzhund. It shows your dog can be social. WTF! I don't think social was any part of the original testing. 
If someone had to hold the dog to have it's tattoo examined by the judge so be it. 
Todays AKC Utility stand for exam is more invasive to the dogs space then the Schutzhund/IPO exam.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> "Nathaniels response was more detailed and harder to paraphrase. I also feel it was the most important as the Director of Judges. I know him and he's a good guy, I don't think he falls into the PC crowd of the USCA. __________________'
> 
> 
> Hopefully not.
> The down side to the V ratings is still the ease with which they are given out. All the phony, usless V ratings at the SV show Nats would gag a maggot. Same with "Pronounced".


I've only been involved in IPO for 5 years or so. I've just recenty watched a conformation show. What a trip! Thanks, but unless I was breeding a GSD, I dout I'd have any interest. Seemed a bit silly.

But anyway a lot depends on which Judge. Also club trial or regional / national. I also believe they are slowly tighting up on the ratings. The new rules tighten it a bit more. It will take some time to make it right, but I feel they are at least going in the right direction.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I did the conformation thing with different terriers for a number of years and got into a LOT of heated discussion on what makes a good dog. I expected ALL my dogs to function as a terrier should but that in itself wasn't pc. :roll: 
If you were breeding GSDs it would have to be a show line GSD or you wouldn't make it in the ring. Show and working are two DIFFERENT breeds in my and many others' opinions.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> I did the conformation thing with different terriers for a number of years and got into a LOT of heated discussion on what makes a good dog. I expected ALL my dogs to function as a terrier should but that in itself wasn't pc. :roll:
> If you were breeding GSDs it would have to be a show line GSD or you wouldn't make it in the ring. Show and working are two DIFFERENT breeds in my and many others' opinions.


Ya I've heard it all before, but I can only go by my experience, I had a show dog, if he had a better, more experience handler he could have gone far, not your typical SL by any means. But I've also seen what most working line people vision when they think show dog. Anyway if I had a WL GSD and wanted to breed, I may get involve in conformation just to get a KKL rating etc., not to win the show.

I hear you guys about touching the dog etc., I have mixed feelings on it. On one hand knowone should be touching your dog without permission. On the other hand what if in a crowd and someone reaches out to touch/pet your dog, kid runs up, etc. The dog should be OK with it, or at least not have a strong reaction to it. Now if the dog is working LE etc. that a bit different. But a strong sport dog should be able to handle it with some conditioning. I think they are saying a dog with a good temperment would allow some light touching without reacting in a calm enviroment.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

I also have some problems with dogs being touched. I think you can see what you need to see about a dog just being close to them.

And this goes along the lines with "Aggressive dog policy". A dog, whom I will keep from stating the name of the dog" Was doing a BH and the judge could see the dog was edgy, and then opted to use his judges power and pushed the dog a little further, and I heard he touched the dog. and the dog bit him....Now, I am good with the dog getting failed. But the dog also was subjected to the aggressive dog policy. Now the judge, In a trial situation that is used to test the temperment of the dog....recongized a dog that was nervous and did not like it. So, he in attempt to see if the dog would show more of this, and on purpose tried to evoke more and he got it. Now that seems to be a bit of some bullshit there to use admistrative discpline in a situation like that. The dog did not attack unprovoked. He was provoked. Faulty temperment yes, aggressive dog? sure. But that's the point of the ****ing test. Now not only do have to worry about failing a BH...but you could face discplinary actions for it. And this the exact the point of the test... Just seems kind screwey to me.

Also, an aggressive dog policy in Sch seems kind of like an oxymoron. Later that day...many dogs were complimented for thier aggressiveness in Protection...or critizied for a lack of it. WTF?


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

In your example I find the judges methods concerning, that's for sure. 

Was the BH dog a SL by any chance?

Pehaps appropriate aggression would be a better term?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I attended one of Nathaniel's new rules seminars. 

The rule giving judges the authority to touch dogs during trials came about because of more than one issue with aggressive, problem dogs at FCI World Championships. This is about faulty temperment.

So this is now a procedure to use if a judge feels a particular dog is displaying unstable temperament issues, he/she can approach you and ask you if he/she may touch your dog. You can say no, but the judge still has the authority to touch your dog. As the judge approaches the dog, he/she will be watching for typical signs of unstable aggression (growling, hair up, etc..). At that point the judge can choose to dismiss your dog, the judge doesn't have to get bit first. 

My point is, according to what Nathaniel said at the seminar I attended, the judge's are supposed to do this fairly, not bum rush anyone's dog, and not push anyone's dog unfairly, and not running around willy nilly touching everyone's dog.

At this point I can only believe that this is the way the "touching" rule will be applied, but of course, we will have to see how everything, all the new rules, play out over the course of this new impementation year.


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Well to me this is BS. My Rottie I work now is pretty social so I'm not worried but my Riesenschnauzer does not like to be touched by strangers...period end of story. She will back away if you try to pet her and she will tag you if you pushed into her space to much so any plans for an FH are pretty much out the window because knowing my luck I'll have a judge wanting to test the limits.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Keith Jenkins said:


> Well to me this is BS. My Rottie I work now is pretty social so I'm not worried but my Riesenschnauzer does not like to be touched by strangers...period end of story. She will back away if you try to pet her and she will tag you if you pushed into her space to much so any plans for an FH are pretty much out the window because knowing my luck I'll have a judge wanting to test the limits.


Keith the "touching" as it was explained to me, seems a lot less "pushy" than the traffic portion of the current/old BH. Again, it's a tool to use on dogs that are displaying faulty temperment. If your dog is sound enough to pass a BH, it should be able to handle this too. 

I'm adopting the old "wait and see" attitude - better for my health!!!!!
:lol::lol:


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Keith the "touching" as it was explained to me, seems a lot less "pushy" than the traffic portion of the current/old BH. Again, it's a tool to use on dogs that are displaying faulty temperment. If your dog is sound enough to pass a BH, it should be able to handle this too.
> 
> I'm adopting the old "wait and see" attitude - better for my health!!!!!
> :lol::lol:


When we all find out more, it will probably just be something that we can all incorporate into the training at club (or elsewhere).


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Skip Morgart said:


> When we all find out more, it will probably just be something that we can all incorporate into the training at club (or elsewhere).


I think so too.
:smile:


----------



## Charles Wrenn (Apr 22, 2008)

I agree with all who disagree with the touching of the dog scenario....I can see training a puppy to allow this but what about the dogs that are older....And for the record I disagree with any stranger touching my dog. I dont think this will prove anything...Bad decision on part of the rule makers...I suppose it will come down to the judge and his preference. I spoke with one judge about this and he stated he had no interest in touching anyones dogs....I guess the rule makers continue to cave in to the pressures of the complainers who protest the mere existence of the sport or any dog sport that is.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

It easy to look at any new rule and say they are caving into pressure of the no bite work crowd. It's much harder to look for the real reason. I find it hard to believe the FCI sat around and said "The no bite groups want to be able to touch our dogs" or "We should have a new rule that allows judges to touch dogs to please the no bite work crowd", etc. etc.

I think it can be trained for any dog with a good temperment. It will be harder for older dogs no dout, but it can be done.


----------



## Charles Wrenn (Apr 22, 2008)

I believe the e-collar is banned in Europe...I feel the same pressure that banned the e-collar is changing the rules of Schutzhund...Or I guess now its IPO...I could be wrong!


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

I don't know for sure, I wasn't there. But I feel that much of the pressure that the bite sport groups feel is from it's own members complaining about these no - bite crowd ghost's. But I could be wrong. Would love to have some proof either way though.


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

Edward we would be nieve to think that some rules as well as name changes ie., stick hits, Schutzhund=protection dog did not come about to appease those groups that are against working/sporting dogs. I think I can understand the logic behind certain changes to appease these people or have them not target the sport = better to have the sport, then be targeted and have no sport. Non-sport people far out number those that do the sport - I think unification is a good thing. I just wonder where the line will be drawn....


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Charles Wrenn said:


> I believe the e-collar is banned in Europe...I feel the same pressure that banned the e-collar is changing the rules of Schutzhund...Or I guess now its IPO...I could be wrong!


parts of Europe for sure, but not all, that is for sure...


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

I agree but is it really pressure from the non working dog crowd or is it a unjustly percieved pressure from within the bite sport crowd?

I've never heard of protests at any major events for instance. Maybe it has happen?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I can see the theory of outside influence in the sport, might be valid, but I would bet that most of the general public does not have a clue what the sport is...at least that is how it is here in the US..you can ask 100 people about a dog sport, most never even heard of it.

I can work dogs 50 times, and depending where it is, someone might call an complain about "abusing dogs" that is ignorant of what is being done. But once it is explained to them, by the police, in some cases, they do not continue to call, or object...except a nut or two...that has happened, the police finally told her to stop calling them...

I have no doubt that maybe PETA is against it, but I think their determination to make changes is probably very low..

I have never heard of any crusade against dog sports here in the US, directed at the US official organizations, not saying it has not happened, just never heard of it..

I agree with Ed on this one, most of the influence is most likely coming from within the sports....


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

susan tuck said:


> Keith the "touching" as it was explained to me, seems a lot less "pushy" than the traffic portion of the current/old BH. Again, it's a tool to use on dogs that are displaying faulty temperment. If your dog is sound enough to pass a BH, it should be able to handle this too.
> 
> I'm adopting the old "wait and see" attitude - better for my health!!!!!
> :lol::lol:


I didn't have to worry about the judge touching my dog in the old BH. My dog's are neutral and that's all I require. If I wanted a dog who thought everyone was the ice-cream man I would have gotten a Golden Retriever.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Keith Jenkins said:


> I didn't have to worry about the judge touching my dog in the old BH. My dog's are neutral and that's all I require. If I wanted a dog who thought everyone was the ice-cream man I would have gotten a Golden Retriever.


That might not have helped you Keith...there are a lot of fear-biter goldens biting people and making the news now.


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

There are several PETA people on the GSD Pedigree Database forum that complain about this or that in the dog sports. I also believe that one of the countries actually banned stick hits in the sport. Given all the laws that are attempting to be put in place by various cities, counties and state in the USA in regards to "protection dogs" etc - I would say that rather then wait until they are targeted by protesters, those that make the laws and the like......they (all the countries involved in the FCI and WUSV) are taking a pro-active approach.

I actually don't have a problem with any of the other rules....or name changes. I also don't have a problem with a judge testing a dog that shows an obvious temperament problem....my past observations at trials is what concerns me. It is always about how a judge perceives the rules/rule changes.....someone brought up a few examples and I have a seen more then a few myself. 

As for teaching a dog to accept strangers touching them...I'm sure it can be done with most dogs, but with some dogs, I just don't think it can be done with cookies and a clicker so it leaves you to wonder if the end justifies the means? Do you risk bringing out a dog that will tolerate people and other dogs in close proximity and does not show an obvious temperament problem and hope that the judge perceives the "rule" as others have explained it?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I'm pretty sure that's all that a dog has to be - neutral. In my mind at least, a neutral dog is indifferent. A neutral dog is not the dog that the judge is going to question, the dog the judge is going to be wanting to question is the dog who is NOT neutral, NOT normal. The dog who is acting aggressive. A neutral dog is not acting aggressive. 

Look, over a year ago when I first heard about the new rule requiring the handler give a release command at the escape exercise I got my panties up in a twist. Now I know I was upset for no reason whatsoever, since the command comes at the same time the helper moves, the judges aren't looking for any change in the dogs behaviour, as far as when he "goes". 

When I heard about the new rule about tracking, handlers must remain within the track even at turns I was a little concerned becuase my dog tracks with a taunt line, but I remembered how I got upset over what turned out to be nothing regarding the change in the escape exercise so I decided to wait and see what the rule change was actually going to be. Turns out you don't have to stay within the track, all it is is that they don't want people telegraphing the turn by swinging out prior to the point the dog has committed to the turn - no problem.

So people, I just think the wiser course of action is to first find out exactly what the dealio is going to be about this touching stuff BEFORE getting upset about it. I don't think they are trying to turn our dogs into poodles, so let's see how it shakes out before getting our collective panties in a twist?


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Lacey Vessell said:


> Edward we would be nieve to think that some rules as well as name changes ie., stick hits, Schutzhund=protection dog did not come about to appease those groups that are against working/sporting dogs. I think I can understand the logic behind certain changes to appease these people or have them not target the sport = better to have the sport, then be targeted and have no sport. Non-sport people far out number those that do the sport - I think unification is a good thing. I just wonder where the line will be drawn....


I always thought Shutzhund was a dumb name for this sport, but it had lots of tradition, so be it. The change to VPG and now IPO is even more ridiculous IMHO. So you out training your dog and someone stops to watch. later asking you what you train for, answer IPO. So WTF is IPO? As opposed to AKC, I train for Obedience, or I train for herding, either being much more understandable and therefore memorable to the laymen. It's the old concept, if I don't understand it, it must be bad!

As far as "stick hits" I agree, it was done to appease the nonworking dog people. But why?

Again, are we appeasing a real influence or just a perceived influence?


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

I think Spain outlawed biting sport all together. I remember posting an article to that affect a long time ago.

But look were Spain is now! Could it be that these same type of people that pressured their government into banning bite sports are also the one's who collectively screwed that county over?


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

A bit off topic but......I believe they were also attempting to outlaw the sport in Austria but from what I understand the SchH organization there put on a demo for government officials. They used a malinois that was very very equipment oriented to show that the focus in the sport was on the prey object (sleeve) and not the man. They tossed the sleeve from one helper to another and of course this dog left one helper to go to the helper the sleeve was thrown to, showed how the dog did a bark and hold with the helper with the sleeve then showed the dog doing the same bark and hold when the helper was just holding a ball They did several other demo's with this dog as well to "prove" that the sport was not teaching dogs to attack man or protect man.

Now some would say this is not how they would like the sport to be presented or seen, but my hat is off to them for doing that demo with THAT DOG and portraying the sport in that light to the powers that be. The next day they still had the sport to enjoy, had they not used an equipment oriented dog things might have went differently. No different then when we were required to do demo's with our PSD's to the public- of course we use the dogs on the team that are best for that particular venue - gotta keep the public happy

Back on topic: Susan I'm with you on the wait and see.....I'll let others put their dogs out there and be the test subjects


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I'm not sure what the issue is with a judge touching a dog, but then again we've had judges touching dogs in Ring sport for years.

I've heard enough stories about judges being bit by dogs in competitions, dog is walking up with the handler to check in and nails the judge, that type of thing, that I could see them deciding to push the dogs who appear to have questionable temperaments a little harder. 

I seriously doubt a judge is going to grab a dog and start making kissy face at it. I can see a judge looking in their ear at a tattoo, or scanning them for a chip, or lightly touching them on the head or back. And at the big events it's my understanding the males must have both testicles, how is that to be verified if the judge or a helper can't touch the dog? If they were willing to take the handler's word for it, they wouldn't need to check them at all.

A dog doesn't have to be friendly to allow this, just under control. And frankly, if a handler can't train their dog to tolerate very minor touching from a stranger when commanded to, maybe they shouldn't have the dog out there until they can.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Kadi I agree, and while a few dogs may never be able to be touch, regardless of the training applied, it most likely will be the exception. And if you have such a dog, wait and see what judges are touchy feelly and which are not, trial accordingly.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Kadi said;
"A dog doesn't have to be friendly to allow this, just under control. And frankly, if a handler can't train their dog to tolerate very minor touching from a stranger when commanded to, maybe they shouldn't have the dog out there until they can."


BINGO!


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

That's may be fine and dandy if someone so chooses to do that with a puppy from scratch good for them but there are going to be more than a few people out there with older dogs that it's just not going to happen. 

I've never worried about it because it wasn't necessary to move forward in the sport. I've seen some of the bone headed things some judges have done in the past when it came to "testing" a dog that really didn't fall anywhere within the rules. In fact one of them jokingly referred to one part as the "old Rottweiler test". So while you may take the wait and see attitude I have no doubts some will try and push that envelope even further.


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

Edward Egan said:


> I think Spain outlawed biting sport all together. I remember posting an article to that affect a long time ago.
> 
> But look were Spain is now! Could it be that these same type of people that pressured their government into banning bite sports are also the one's who collectively screwed that county over?


For real? Not allowed to train dog sports but they still cheer bull fighting??? What kind of backwards logic is that?


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Jackie Lockard said:


> For real? Not allowed to train dog sports but they still cheer bull fighting??? What kind of backwards logic is that?


I think they should have to report in with the bull on leash and let the judge touch it.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Jackie Lockard said:


> For real? Not allowed to train dog sports but they still cheer bull fighting??? What kind of backwards logic is that?


I believe the key fraze is biting sports are not permitted.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jackie Lockard said:


> For real? Not allowed to train dog sports but they still cheer bull fighting??? What kind of backwards logic is that?


I bought some dogs from Spain that were used to fight 3/4 steer
they also have a big ole dogfight after the steer competition is over.

probably not legal nationally, but a big part of the local culture...


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

*"And frankly, if a handler can't train their dog to tolerate very minor touching from a stranger when commanded to, maybe they shouldn't have the dog out there until they can."
*

Hmmmm did not know that you can give a command before the judge touches...thought it would be like the other part of the temperament test where no commands and a loose leash is required...


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

I doubt there's a command allowed, but when I train my future dog greeting the judge, I'll be expecting my dog to allow touching, tattoo check, microchip check, etc. Maybe even an occasional random touch or pet. I don't really think it will effect a dogs overall threshold concerning a threat.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Lacey Vessell said:


> *"And frankly, if a handler can't train their dog to tolerate very minor touching from a stranger when commanded to, maybe they shouldn't have the dog out there until they can."*
> 
> 
> Hmmmm did not know that you can give a command before the judge touches...thought it would be like the other part of the temperament test where no commands and a loose leash is required...


I would think you could, whether the touching is prefaced by a request from the judge or incorporated into the temperment test that has always been a part of every trial.

I am unaware of anything that says you can't give your dog a command (EXCEPT a formal "heel" command) as you are walking up to participate in the loose lead temperment test. In fact basically everyone I know already does this as they are walking up whether it be "langsam" or "let's go" or whatever their chosen key word is.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I'm not sure what the issue is with a judge touching a dog, but then again we've had judges touching dogs in Ring sport for years.
> 
> I've heard enough stories about judges being bit by dogs in competitions, dog is walking up with the handler to check in and nails the judge, that type of thing, that I could see them deciding to push the dogs who appear to have questionable temperaments a little harder.
> 
> ...


I think it goes to what they consider acceptable/desirable temperament for protection breeds and for participation in the sport. Neutral, aloof is fine. When is a bite justified? Threat? Is being petted by a stranger threatening behavior? Maybe they don't think it should be. As for the dog mentioned in Downey's post, maybe the judge was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt--if I can touch him and he doesn't react, I'll pass him even if he is edgy. I thought the whole purpose of the BH was to weed out the dog that will bite without acceptable provocation. As was said, neutral to stranger contact does not equal golden retriever or friendly. 

T


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Lacey Vessell said:


> *"And frankly, if a handler can't train their dog to tolerate very minor touching from a stranger when commanded to, maybe they shouldn't have the dog out there until they can."*
> 
> 
> Hmmmm did not know that you can give a command before the judge touches...thought it would be like the other part of the temperament test where no commands and a loose leash is required...


Now quite sure how your comment ties in with mine, but for years, longer than the 20 I've been involved in the sport, FR judges have checked tattoos and testicles on dogs after the Brevet. I've never heard of a judge who told a competitor they couldn't talk to their dog during this. 

If you are talking about the CSAU that is different, but it's also only been in place in the US for about 2 years. But, yes, it has upped the anti of what will be expected in terms of temperament from new dogs coming into the sport now.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

This is pretty odd must admit.But in a sport that talks about having control and beautiful training why would anyone be against it.I mean no dog should just tag someone cause its nervy or aggressive, biting only when instructed should be what is important.

I hate the akc stand for examination the dog looses points for each time it moves its foot and from memory no more then 4 steps are allowed so the dog must be solid in temprement and well trained.I dont dislike it cause of poor temprement but because my dogs get so excited when someone pats them they are hard to stay stil.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

The touch thing has yet to be played out for the most part. As someone mentioned certain judges will not touch, some will always, and some will if the feel it's warranted. We just have to wait and see if it becomes a problem. As competitors the most we can do is not enter a trial if we feel the judge is touchy feely. Changing the rule, from what I understand will not happen for at least five years (next scheduled rule change). I'm not opposed to the rule, but I'm going to wait and see how it's carried out.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

If you look at the USCA home page, judge Frank Philips just came back from a meeting that further explains the rules. One thing that was mentioned is the OB pattern is the same as always. But if you read the explaination from Nathaniel Roque the OB pattern now has two left turns.

I was always confused by this. The rule book has the crowd of people placed north east of the start flag. So the handler is supose to foos the dog back to the start flag the turn left 45degrees toward the group. But what I've been told and is practiced is the handler makes the first left turn then toward the crowd which is positioned south east of the flag. So I'm not sure, but they may be both correct, just that they now want the crowd to be positioned per the rules at the north east position. Or???


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Edward Egan said:


> If you look at the USCA home page, judge Frank Philips just came back from a meeting that further explains the rules. One thing that was mentioned is the OB pattern is the same as always. But if you read the explaination from Nathaniel Roque the OB pattern now has two left turns.
> 
> I was always confused by this. The rule book has the crowd of people placed north east of the start flag. So the handler is supose to foos the dog back to the start flag the turn left 45degrees toward the group. But what I've been told and is practiced is the handler makes the first left turn then toward the crowd which is positioned south east of the flag. So I'm not sure, but they may be both correct, just that they now want the crowd to be positioned per the rules at the north east position. Or???


The 2nd left turn into the group has been removed per Nathaniel at the rules seminar I attended. Some of us have always done the 2nd left turn into the group and will continue to do so, which Nathaniel said is also fine. We heel down past the group make a left turn, then when even with the group turn left towards the group.


----------



## Anita Griffing (Aug 8, 2009)

Heeling pattern stays the same.
Kadi - Excellent post. Tell the dog to sit. Sit means sit.
Lacey - I think you mean Australia not Austria?

I hope the judges do not get crazy about touching dogs. I didn't even like it
when the BH became mandatory actually. I saw a judge ask to touch a dog
years ago in the 90s. The man said 'no'. The judge asked if any one there
could touch the dog. Everyone, even the training director, said "no". It was
excused later as bit a passer by in the leg after the first phase. 

I would be disappointed in my own training if I had a dog I told to sit, and he
spooked away from someone's hand.

Anita


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Ed

Look at the UScA website again. NOW they're saying there will not be a 2nd left turn. All these changes are supposed to be so all
Schutzhund/IPO/VPG tiles are the same. However UScA will NOT be offering the ZTP or the Protection only titles and are picking and choosing how they interpret the rest of the "mandatory" changes. (I'm not sure how DVG is interpreting the new rules)
I don't see a big difference in how things have been done in the past? We're supposed to wait till next month for the new UScA rule book and then figure out how to train for them?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Ed
> 
> Look at the UScA website again. NOW they're saying there will not be a 2nd left turn. All these changes are supposed to be so all
> Schutzhund/IPO/VPG tiles are the same. However UScA will NOT be offering the ZTP or the Protection only titles and are picking and choosing how they interpret the rest of the "mandatory" changes. (I'm not sure how DVG is interpreting the new rules)
> I don't see a big difference in how things have been done in the past? We're supposed to wait till next month for the new UScA rule book and then figure out how to train for them?


Hi Thomas: Are you saying UScA isn't implementing all the mandatory changes or isn't interpreting them correctly? Which ones?

It's my understanding all the recent changes come from the FCI Judges meeting, not from UScA.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

People worry too much about the rules, every year that a rule change comes out...the ho and the hums about rule changes... we all seem to adapt. Maybe its time to start taking advantage of the other titles we have had for a few years and start using them....AWDF titles.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> Hi Thomas: Are you saying UScA isn't implementing all the mandatory changes or isn't interpreting them correctly? Which ones?
> 
> It's my understanding all the recent changes come from the FCI Judges meeting, not from UScA.


HI Susan

Neither UScA or DVG America are going to offer the Protection only titles. UScA is not offering the ZTP (not sure about DVG)
The extra left turn in the traffic pattern is one example of one of the new rules that isn't being implemented. Is the pause on the motion exercises a slight hesitation or a full stop? I don't see much sense in discussing (or training for) all the new rules if we don't know how or if either UScA or DVG is going to implement then?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> HI Susan
> 
> Neither UScA or DVG America are going to offer the Protection only titles. UScA is not offering the ZTP (not sure about DVG)
> The extra left turn in the traffic pattern is one example of one of the new rules that isn't being implemented. Is the pause on the motion exercises a slight hesitation or a full stop? I don't see much sense in discussing (or training for) all the new rules if we don't know how or if either UScA or DVG is going to implement then?


 
According to the meeting I attended, the new rules in fact have been implemented and all trials will be judged accordingly. Case in point, upcoming SW Regional Championship (end of January) will be judged according to the new rules. 

Thomas here is a link to the notes from the FCI Judges meeting that took place in Holland in December, perhaps this will help:

http://www.germanshepherddog.com/documents/2012_FCI_JudgesMeeting.pdf

"Robert Markschlager then discussed the rule changes for the obedience phase."

4. There is NO CHANGE to the free heeling pattern - all levels



I think all the other changes are outlined in the link above, at least as I recall all the ones mentioned at the meeting off the top of my head anyway.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> HI don't see much sense in discussing (or training for) all the new rules if we don't know how or if either UScA or DVG is going to implement then?


I'm happy the USCA isn't going to offer protection only titles. It's nice to have an "out" as a Schutzhund club (oops, IPO club) to say that our members and guests must be training in all phases of the sport. Not that we have too many "bite for a buck" yahoos that want to do bitey bitey only anymore without a sport in mind. 

I don't see what the big deal is about "training for" the new rules...the biggest challenge facing most of us is going to be not to move your feet when throwing the dumbbell and remembering to say something when the helper leaves on the escape.

Laura


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Ed
> 
> Look at the UScA website again. NOW they're saying there will not be a 2nd left turn. All these changes are supposed to be so all
> Schutzhund/IPO/VPG tiles are the same. However UScA will NOT be offering the ZTP or the Protection only titles and are picking and choosing how they interpret the rest of the "mandatory" changes. (I'm not sure how DVG is interpreting the new rules)
> I don't see a big difference in how things have been done in the past? We're supposed to wait till next month for the new UScA rule book and then figure out how to train for them?


Thomas, re-read my post again, I covered misinformation about the heeling quite well I thought.

USCA has the right to not adopt or modify the rules from the FCI in part. I am also glad the denied protection only titles for the same reason as already stated.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

AWMA will be offering all available titles.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Mario Fernandez said:


> People worry too much about the rules, every year that a rule change comes out...the ho and the hums about rule changes... we all seem to adapt. Maybe its time to start taking advantage of the other titles we have had for a few years and start using them....AWDF titles.



I agree, would love to see more AWDF titles offered up.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Susan, any word on the leash rule change? The PPP contradicts itself. Presentation vs the FAQ. From what I understand it progressive based on title, IPO 1 takes leash off at basic, IPO 2 takes leash off after reporting in, IPO 3 takes it off before entering field. Is this correct?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> AWMA will be offering all available titles.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


Including the ZTP and Protection only?


----------



## Anita Griffing (Aug 8, 2009)

Edward Egan said:


> Susan, any word on the leash rule change? The PPP contradicts itself. Presentation vs the FAQ. From what I understand it progressive based on title, IPO 1 takes leash off at basic, IPO 2 takes leash off after reporting in, IPO 3 takes it off before entering field. Is this correct?


Yes for protection. 

*Check In at all levels (Progressive).*
–*IPO 1 on leash to Judge and then to Set-Up position where leash is removed.*
–*IPO 2 on leash to Judge, off leash and free heel to Set-Up position.*
–*IPO 3 off leash to Judge, off leash to Set-Up position.*​


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> I'm happy the USCA isn't going to offer protection only titles. It's nice to have an "out" as a Schutzhund club (oops, IPO club) to say that our members and guests must be training in all phases of the sport. Not that we have too many "bite for a buck" yahoos that want to do bitey bitey only anymore without a sport in mind.
> 
> I don't see what the big deal is about "training for" the new rules...the biggest challenge facing most of us is going to be not to move your feet when throwing the dumbbell and remembering to say something when the helper leaves on the escape.
> 
> Laura


You are not allowed to do Protection ONLY... you must also do OB or TR single titles at the same level and to get there you must have your BH.

DVG has been offering these for a while... Thomas are you sure they are no longer going to allow them?


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Anita Griffing said:


> Yes for protection.
> 
> *Check In at all levels (Progressive).*
> –*IPO 1 on leash to Judge and then to Set-Up position where leash is removed.*
> ...


Are you saying this is for protection only?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> You are not allowed to do Protection ONLY... you must also do OB or TR single titles at the same level and to get there you must have your BH.
> 
> DVG has been offering these for a while... Thomas are you sure they are no longer going to allow them?


Tracey: FCI is now offering protection only titles, but UScA is not going to be offering those titles. I don't t know whether or not any other organization will take advantage of the new Protection ONly titles because the meeting I attended was with UScA judges only.

Both UScA and DVG and FCI and other organizations have offered TR1,2,3, and OB1,2,3 for a long time. The difference is the names of these existing titles have changed and there are also new combination titles. 

Edward: Yes those procedures outlined by Anita are in regards to the new policy of checking in with the judge prior to protection.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I"m going to bow out of this discussion because I am a little bit uncomfortable since I am not the authority on the changes, I just attended a meeting, and would hate to give anyone incorrect information, or lead anyone down a false path. 

My suggestion would be to contact the appropriate party of whichever organization you belong if you have questions about the new rules.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Tracey: FCI is now offering protection only titles, but UScA is not going to be offering those titles. I don't t know whether or not any other organization will take advantage of the new Protection ONly titles because the meeting I attended was with UScA judges only.
> 
> Both UScA and DVG and FCI and other organizations have offered TR1,2,3, and OB1,2,3 for a long time. The difference is the names of these existing titles have changed and there are also new combination titles.
> 
> Edward: Yes those procedures outlined by Anita are in regards to the new policy of checking in with the judge prior to protection.



Im very well aware of the difference in the names... again DVG has been offering them for a while now, again per FCI rules you can not do a Protection Only title, you MUST do the ob or tracking as well.


From the newest FCI rules...



> Tracking 1 – 3 (FPr 1 – 3)
> 
> Obedience 1 – 3 (UPr 1 – 3)
> 
> ...


What I am trying to find out is if DVG is no longer going to offer them....


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

"trails in only phase "C" are not allowed"

Taken entirely out of context, this to me says you can't hold a trial that only offers the protection phase.

Laura


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

Not worried about my dog spooking away from someones hand, not at all, I think that would be an easier "fix" for me if that was my problem. My concern is one of my dogs just does not like to be touched by strangers, never had a reason to change this part of his personality before as the things we do together out and about in public never entailed a stranger touching him to include SchH and other training that we do. I personally don't have a problem with him not wanting to be touched by strangers because I don't like to be touched by them either. You can stand an inch from him and he is tolerant...one judge placed his hand a couple of inches from his nose (did this to all the dogs) and he had NO problem with that, you can put another dog an inch from him...walk him through a huge crowd and he has no problems with people bumping against him in that crowd, I take him on base alot and we constantly have platoons of Marines running past, screaming etc., he's heard everything from a cap gun to a howitzer round being fired and could care less. He has no reaction to cars, tanks, helicopters, etc. 

He is fine being touched by those he knows (friends, family and vet) but he just does not like strangers touching him. As I stated, I'm sure that I can teach him...with time - he's just* not* going to be one of those dogs that I can use cookies and clicker to teach this. So now I'm at the point where I have to ask myself if the end (him permitting strangers to touch him) justifies the means (the method I know I will have to use to teach him this)...he could care less about a title.

I was suppose to trial this weekend, to say that I'm disappointed that I am unable to now is an understatement. It's been a long time since I've been well enough to train and compete ...and I honestly don't know how long I'll be this blessed. In good conscience, I cannot place my dog in a situation where he might or might not be touched by a judge - not fair to the judge and not fair to my dog.

I'm personally not into choosing a specific judge to trial under - if my dog can't trial under any judge in the sport (albeit one, as I have no respect at all for this particular judge) then I should not be doing the sport and would not. 

Props to UScA for not offering the protection only titles - Most clubs that I've been to will not permit people to train in protection only...thank goodness.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> "trails in only phase "C" are not allowed"
> 
> Taken entirely out of context, this to me says you can't hold a trial that only offers the protection phase.
> 
> Laura


Yes it was taken out of context... here is the rest.. Exactly what it states for each of the three....



> They can be carried out as a supplement of the number of participants, if at least 4 participants will start in the sections BH-VT/ IPO or tracking. The handler is free to choose in which level he will show his/her dog. A title valid for breeding, show breed survey or placement for an exhibition of a FCI member organization is not awarded


So what you are saying is already covered... yet this is the only "single" title that specifically adds


> Remark: trails in only phase „C“ are not allowed


What I am saying is how DVG is and has been interpreting it, so right or wrong, it is how it is interpreted under DVG... Im not here to argue this lol I just want to know if they are still offering them... geez](*,)

t


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

I am glad that USCA is not offering Protection only titles. Too many grip and go's. ZTP, I would think why the FCI would offer these titles, when majority of Breed Clubs already offer a breed title, like a Korung, BST, ZTP. 

I would think that people/clubs who have any confusion about the rules contact their regional Director so they can arrange a presentation/get a judge to explain the rules.

Mario


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> What I am saying is how DVG is and has been interpreting it, so right or wrong, it is how it is interpreted under DVG... Im not here to argue this lol I just want to know if they are still offering them... geez](*,)
> 
> t


then ask the DVG. do they have a board? Reps? Directors? a website? Go to the source. I'm not arguing at all about anything, I'm just glad USCA doesn't offer protection-only titles.

Laura


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Thomas said they didnt, I wanted to know where he is getting this from... it was a simple question that wasnt supposed to get this involved lol

I personally like them, although I havent done one myself... They can get clubs extra entries by bringing in folks who may only have 2/3 phases together... JMO again its not like you dont have to have a BH first or do phase A/B to enter C... at least not in DVG... IF they still offer them . If folks could just come in and do C only... I wouldnt like them either.

t


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Oh, simple answer: From the slide show presentation available to view at the USA website.

Laura


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

lol... no for DVG,... man this has turned into quite the "project"... forget I asked :lol: ;-)


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I too am really glad that unlike the new protection only titles offered by the FCI, UScA will NOT be allowing people to trial their dogs for protection only titles.
:wink:


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> You are not allowed to do Protection ONLY... you must also do OB or TR single titles at the same level and to get there you must have your BH.
> 
> DVG has been offering these for a while... Thomas are you sure they are no longer going to allow them?


Tracey,

The new IPO rules say you can do any title (Protection, Tracking and Obedience) as a stand alone. I understand the rational for not wanting to offer Protection only titles but that's not adopting the new rules. I don't see the supposed unification of Schutzhund IPO and VPG as being a reality if 
everyone gets to pick and choose what rules they recognize and how they enforce them?


----------



## Dana McMahan (Apr 5, 2006)

AWMA voted to accept all the titles, including the ZtP and protection only per the vote on August 25, 2011. The motion read as follows:

"Motion to accept all the titles as described in the 2012 FCI Guidelines. This includes the new titles; IPO-VO, SPr, UPr, FPr, and the IPO-ZTP. Motion: Christopher Smith second: Warren Jones

Explanation: The new FCI rules will go into effect January 1, 2011. The AWMA could choose to adopt the rules as written or with caveats. The board has discussed the options and will vote on accepting the rules as is."


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

HI Dana

Thanks for the information about the AWMA recognizing all the new FCI rules. Now if there was a AWMA club/trial in Colorado


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Tracey,
> 
> The new IPO rules say you can do any title (Protection, Tracking and Obedience) as a stand alone. I understand the rational for not wanting to offer Protection only titles but that's not adopting the new rules. I don't see the supposed unification of Schutzhund IPO and VPG as being a reality if
> everyone gets to pick and choose what rules they recognize and how they enforce them?


OK great, thanks for sharing your opinion I'm aware of the rules and I agree there would be a lack if unification but that still doesn't tell me if they are or aren't...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Tracey,
> 
> The new IPO rules say you can do any title (Protection, Tracking and Obedience) as a stand alone. I understand the rational for not wanting to offer Protection only titles but that's not adopting the new rules. I don't see the supposed unification of Schutzhund IPO and VPG as being a reality if
> everyone gets to pick and choose what rules they recognize and how they enforce them?


Maybe it's potato/potato tomato/tomato, or splitting hairs, but to my way of thinking, not offering every title available is different than not adopting the new rules. Also dont forget different countries can get variances for their particular situations and needs. Number of dog that can be handled by one handler is one variance that comes to mind, and I know there are others for other countries.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

http://dvgamerica.com/LRO.html

Here DVG America states we do not have the final rules translated yet and what we are reading has mistakes... I have a hard time believing a sport that fears legislation as much as they do, who continually adds rules to ease the political pressures ie the touching of the dog, would allow a protection only title.... Jmo of course.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

I can buy "Stick Hits" to "Stick Pressure" being PC, maybe even the renaming it to IPO, but not the touching, I believe that came about from judges and others getting bit by dogs with unstable temperments.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Proving the dogs are stable is all part of it... Sticks hits is more if ab "animal rights" angle... That wasn't the political/ legislative aspect I was referring to.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> Proving the dogs are stable is all part of it... Sticks hits is more if ab "animal rights" angle... That wasn't the political/ legislative aspect I was referring to.


I may try and guess what you mean, then again maybe not......................


----------



## Shelly Timmerman (Apr 5, 2009)

Tracey, DVG LV/America will NOT be allowing only PR titles. They will still need to be combined with Ob or TR. This was announced at the GM meeting last October at Nationals.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Shelly Timmerman said:


> Tracey, DVG LV/America will NOT be allowing only PR titles. They will still need to be combined with Ob or TR. This was announced at the GM meeting last October at Nationals.


Excellent what wanted to know... So no changes! I wasnt asking so much about protection only (as in no A/B) as I dont believe that is the intent of the FCI rules anyway, I just wanted to know if the three individual titles were going to be offered... and they are.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Edward Egan said:


> I may try and guess what you mean, then again maybe not......................


Sorry... Public perception of teaching dogs to bite is fear and this fear, or attempts to ease it, has led to rule changes in the past. We can no longer say packen, we can no longer call it schutzhund, we have to do a BH before protection etc... This is why I do not believe the intent is to offer a protection only title... without A/B, it just doesn't fit with past moves. Jmo


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> Sorry... Public perception of teaching dogs to bite is fear and this fear, or attempts to ease it, has led to rule changes in the past. We can no longer say packen, we can no longer call it schutzhund, we have to do a BH before protection etc... This is why I do not believe the intent is to offer a protection only title... without A/B, it just doesn't fit with past moves. Jmo


OK, thanks, I understand what you meant now.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> Sorry... Public perception of teaching dogs to bite is fear and this fear, or attempts to ease it, has led to rule changes in the past. We can no longer say packen, we can no longer call it schutzhund, we have to do a BH before protection etc... This is why I do not believe the intent is to offer a protection only title... without A/B, it just doesn't fit with past moves. Jmo


can't say Packen?

what do people say now???


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> can't say Packen?
> 
> what do people say now???



I use "Go"
Some people use "Voran"


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

According to the new FCI rules the command is "defend" but then in the text description it also says "in one command "go on and hold"" so I'm not entirely clear and maybe best to wait for final translation. I have always said "go"... Really youre holding the collar so you could probably not say a thing and just release most dogs.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> can't say Packen?
> 
> what do people say now???


Not saying "Packen" has been the rule for awhile. Nothing new here. The only time a command is said is on the "Attack on the dog out of motion" AKA long bite, commands such as "Go On" or "Voran" in place of "pack Ihn" stupid, I know, especially in USA, like how many people know what "Pack Ihn" means?

A new rule is a added command to the escape "Go On" at the moment the helper/dog moves, which is no big deal, like the dog doesn't need a command, but whatever.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I just say "yes" to mark and reward "ANY" behavior I want rewarded....and no, I've never had a yes in everyday conversation even slightly be mistaken for a marker. I think the dogs are smart enough to understand that.
In heeling for a bite, the courage bite, simple ob, any asked for, rewardable behavior is marked with a "yes" with my dogs.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Interesting discussion.

I haven't gone through the new rules with a fine tooth comb yet so cannot add anything worthwhile.

However, for many years now, we have had the "Befangenheit Test", i.e. when reporting to the judge, most come up and shake your hand, introduce themselves, and wish you good luck. 

A lot of people are very frustrated by the events lately. To obtain a score book, one has to attend a course to learn how to "bring up your dog", pay Swiss Francs 150 for it and present the proof document when applying for the score book which costs over Swiss Francs 100 in any case. Without it, no score book, without score book, no trialling.

Dog handlers with many years' experience of handling and bringing up their pups to become reliable dogs in public are omplaining that people involved in dog sports are being penalised for being so. After all, who is going to check up on Farmer Giles up on a secluded hill?

Our Utility Dogs 3-year Delegates General Meeting is in April next. I guess it will be a pretty long meeting.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Hi All...Sorry late to this discussion....

A lot of incorrect information flying around as usual.

I will try to cover some here and if there are more questions...it's a long thread so I might miss some.

Touching the dog during temperment test... This is not a big deal where as ALL dogs must be identified with either tattoo or microchip, so you approach the judge and show him tattoo or microchip and then the judge "may" reach out and touch the dog... For me I have done it by mistake a few times just because I like dogs.... It is not a testicle check or anything like that , just look at tattoo and then pat him on the head before you walk away...a neutral dog will have no problem....This was done because there was a dog biting his handler on the podium at the world championships last year and it has happened too many times in the past for public perception.

USCA is NOT choosing to follow which rules to follow and which not. The rules IN the trial are the rules and USCA follows them exactly....USCA has variences to the overall titles offered and trial requirements (like most orgs worldwide) and they are choosing NOT to offer the ZTP, Being a WUSV member org we are following what the SV is doing here. What we are offering now for PR titles is the APr1-3, which is like the old SchHA but for all 3 levels, Obed and Prot together and I think that is responsible. Another variences that USCA does is a Handler can show 3 dogs in a trial (FCI rules 2) because our country is so big that people don't have as many trial opportunities....

The reason for the confusion about the heeling pattern and swinging wide on the corners in tracking was... When we had the USCA Judges meeting, that was the information given to us at the time. So the Powerpoint presentation was made and shown at the Nationals in Nov. It was then put on the website and in the que for the Magazine. In Dec I attended the FCI Judges meeting in Holland and at that meeting it was clearified that the heeling pattern did NOT change and that swinging wide on the corners was more about handler help, if the handler swings as soon as the dog is at the corner, it is handler help to the dog, either for making the corner or for helping the dog top maintain speed. It was futher clearified that the dog must make the corner for 2-3 meters before the handler swings wide to ensure the dog made the corner and maintained speed on his own...

For the escape grip...the USCA powerpoint says commands like "voran", "hold", "go" are acceptable, no bite commands...


Hope this cleared up some of the confussion here...any other questions I will try to answer...


----------



## Tracey Hughes (Jul 13, 2007)

Thanks Frank. Appreciate you taking the time out to explain things to us.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification. I went to the rules seminar Nathaniel and Craig did a couple weeks ago and was wondering why the change in info re the tracking and the two lefts into the group.

I just wanted to comment that during the rules seminar I went to, it was said that the commands given to the dog throughout need to stay consistent within the same language. Thus, "GO" was not acceptable if you use German commands. But it was in the slideshow, we said. The answer was, well, yeah, but "GO" in the language you're using. For German it would be "geh." Pronounced "Gay." Or you can use voran, ya (sp?), whatever, as long as it's not a bite command and consistent language. 

Laura


----------



## Kat Hunsecker (Oct 23, 2009)

thank you for claryfying the rules, it helps a lot.

i read inbetween the BH is percieved to be something that is just in the IPO or related to Schutzhund. It is not!
The BH is the Begleithundepruefung and this one is required for attending almost all dogsport venues in Germany. And it is a title most dogowners strive for, just to learn to control the dog and have a safe dog. And this is not only done on the field and pattern trained.... It is a personal training goal, not exclusive for working dogs. also it is now used for BSL dogs to be able to remain with the owner.
The pattern even in the USCA rulebook (of the BH) allready had two left turns, we were confused at our affiliation trail that the group was set up different then in the diagram shown, so if you trained for the diagram in the rulebook, this should be fine....

As of the command for the Escape... Well I am confused...
I don't know where "packen" is any different then "hold", German is my native language...
As one other person said "Pack Ihn" could be percioeved a bit different.
But packen??? This is what i always said, and braking a habit will take a long time....
But for people who want to know what "packen" really means:
to pack, to seize,to clutch,to clench,to grabbl,e to grasp, to grip etc etc etc.....

and by all means it does not give any translation in the dictionary that says:" it tells the dog to bite"

-sorry this is just a personal beef I have with it....

And on a funny side note, if I go by the slide show on the USCA webside,... I still can use "paCKen" cause according to this slideshow you cannot use "paCHen" ;o)

Well most rules are subject to interpretion. I just dearly hope these leeways in the rules are used as intended and not to give room for personal prefernces and wiggle things some peoples ways. I hope the sport stays fair, not only to the competators, but to the breeds competing.
The other titles i think are nice, because people that may bnot have interest in all three but enjoy one or two still can go and have fun.....
I hope the sport still tests for the breedsutability as these tests were intended- and not a new sport extreme....


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thanks Frank, sure appreciate your coming on here and clearing up stuff for us all. 
:smile:


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Hi Frank, thanks for clarifying some of the new rules.

Can you explain the new leash rule?

Does it only apply to "C" or any/all check in's etc.

Have you seen were the new rule PPP contradicts itself in the FAQ "IPO 1 and 2 have the same leash rules" or something like that.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Hi Ed


I have looked at the PPT and the thing you have to remember is: That was created for a "presentation" at the Nationals and it was a Guide that accompanied a verbal presentation also. The members present asked USCA to post it on the website so they could go back and reference the PPT file again. Now people are trying to read just that and completely understand it without the verbal presentation to go along with it.


As for the "On/Off leash" issues.

To me the PPT file does not contradict itself and is correct. Maybe it is just confusing because you are missing the verbal portion....

About Obedience:

From PPT Presentation:

" IPO-1 will report in to the judge on leash. IPO2 & 3 remove the leash before entering the field and report in off leash"

From FCI Rules:

Page 53: "For Level IPO-1 the handler appears with his dog on leash, reports in the basic position and then unleashes his dog."

Page 73: "For Level IPO-2 the handler appears with his dog off leash, reports in the basic position to the judge."

Page 95: "For Level IPO-3 the handler appears with his dog on leash, reports in the basic position to the judge"


For Protection:

From PPT Presentation:

"Check In at all levels (Progressive).
IPO 1 on leash to Judge and then to Set-Up position where leash is removed.
IPO 2 on leash to Judge, off leash and free heel to Set-Up position.
IPO 3 off leash to Judge, off leash to Set-Up position."


_For IPO2 the leash is removed after you check into the judge _
_but before you start to heel out to the start position._


From FCI rules:


Page 61: (IPO1) "a) The handler reports in with his dog on leash 
b) Thereafter he takes the dog to the start position for the “revere”
exercise. The dog is taken off leash at this point."

Page 81: (IPO2) "a) The handler reports in with his dog on leash 
b) Thereafter he takes the dog to the start position for the “revere”
exercise.

Page 103: (IPO3) " The handler reports in with his dog off leash"


Hope this makes it clearer....


Frank


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Frank, this was taken directly from the PPP FAQ's
" 
•*IPO 1 will report in to the judge on leash. IPO2 & 3 remove*

* the leash before entering the field and report in off leash**.*


*This is what I was refering too. Does this not contridict what preceeded it it the PPP?*

*I'm just pointing it out so that if in correct, it could be corrected.*

*Also could you please answer the question about this reporting in proceedure only being for "C"?*

*Thanks, Eddie*​


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Edward Egan said:


> Frank, this was taken directly from the PPP FAQ's
> "
> •*IPO 1 will report in to the judge on leash. IPO2 & 3 remove*​
> *the leash before entering the field and report in off leash**.*​
> ...


 
Hi Eddie

Look at my post again...I have in my post exactly what you just wrote...Yes, this is in the FAQ, but under the "Obedience" section and it is correct and matches what is in the FCI rules.

here is what it says in the FCI rules: 

"Page 53: "For Level IPO-1 the handler appears with his dog on leash, reports in the basic position and then unleashes his dog."

Page 73: "For Level IPO-2 the handler appears with his dog off leash, reports in the basic position to the judge."

Page 95: "For Level IPO-3 the handler appears with his dog on leash, reports in the basic position to the judge"


They both say the same thing, IPO1 reports in ON leash and IPO2&3 do not for obedience....


Then my post above also covers protection.


It is different for Obedience and Protection but both have some on and some off leash at check in....

Hope this helps clear things up for you...

Frank


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Ok, thanks, I didn't catch one was for OB, and one for protection.

Eddie


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

OK good...as long as it is clear now......


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

We just started training the escape according to the new rules. Definitely harder as compared to previous method. Very interesting though, I am enjoying it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Faisal Khan said:


> We just started training the escape according to the new rules. Definitely harder as compared to previous method. Very interesting though, I am enjoying it.


Is the command given before, after, or concurrently with, the helper moving?


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> Is the command given before, after, or concurrently with, the helper moving?


After the helper moves. You start with having the helper take a slow step away while dog is downed, command when helpers foot touches the ground and build on it till you have dog remain in down while helper runs and dog gets released on command by handler. We have done a few sessions with the helper walking away and releasing as soon as his left foot touches the ground. Will replace the walk with run in the next few sessions.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Faisal Khan said:


> After the helper moves. You start with having the helper take a slow step away while dog is downed, command when helpers foot touches the ground and build on it till you have dog remain in down while helper runs and dog gets released on command by handler. We have done a few sessions with the helper walking away and releasing as soon as his left foot touches the ground. Will replace the walk with run in the next few sessions.


 
This is NOT correct....

The handler goes to the blind just as before and watches the judge. When the judge signals the helper to run the handler gives the command to go at the same time.....In reality the dog will go when the helper moves and that is fine, but if the handler does not give a command then it is a 1 point deduction.

There is NO hesitation between the helper moving and the dog going....


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Thanks for clearing that up Frank! So essentially nothing changes except the handler giving a command simultaneously with the judge signalling the helper to go!


----------



## Dana McMahan (Apr 5, 2006)

I just trialed for IPO3 last weekend under the new rules with an SV Judge. The judge told us to give the command when he signaled the helper. I asked what if the helper doesn't move and he basically said that is the helpers problem


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

Frank Phillips said:


> This is NOT correct....
> 
> The handler goes to the blind just as before and watches the judge. When the judge signals the helper to run the handler gives the command to go at the same time.....In reality the dog will go when the helper moves and that is fine, but if the handler does not give a command then it is a 1 point deduction.
> 
> There is NO hesitation between the helper moving and the dog going....


I have heard that and that is my understanding of the rule, but also was told that that's how it is going to be this year. But in the future there will be a pause expected between the signal for the helper to run and the signal to command your dog. But they were giving leeway for the near future to make it easier for dogs that were trained one way and a chance to train correctly for younger dogs coming up. any truth to this?


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Dana McMahan said:


> I asked what if the helper doesn't move and he basically said that is the helpers problem


That' what I'm talking about!


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Faisal Khan said:


> Thanks for clearing that up Frank! So essentially nothing changes except the handler giving a command simultaneously with the judge signalling the helper to go!


Exactly....:-D


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Eric Read said:


> I have heard that and that is my understanding of the rule, but also was told that that's how it is going to be this year. But in the future there will be a pause expected between the signal for the helper to run and the signal to command your dog. But they were giving leeway for the near future to make it easier for dogs that were trained one way and a chance to train correctly for younger dogs coming up. any truth to this?


 I asked that EXACT question to 3 of the people who wrote the rules and I was told the same thing by all 3. That is NOT the plan, this was done so that the dog is not biting a person running away without being told to....


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Frank Phillips said:


> Exactly....:-D


Cool, now I can work on the real issues as opposed to spending time on something not called for!


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

http://germanshepherddog.com/faq_newrules.htm

Here is a couple of questions answered. Incl a reference to tracey's DVG. 

Laura


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

That site brought up another good question.. ONE scorebook... kinda defeats the point of the AWDF having everything in one book (health, titles, etc) if I HAVE to use my DVG scorebook as a DVG member trialing in a DVG trial?

Just bitchin... :-({|=


----------



## Anita Griffing (Aug 8, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> That site brought up another good question.. ONE scorebook... kinda defeats the point of the AWDF having everything in one book (health, titles, etc) if I HAVE to use my DVG scorebook as a DVG member trialing in a DVG trial?
> 
> Just bitchin... :-({|=


I suppose since DVG is a sport only organization it is not necessary to keep those kind of records 
available. 
Anita


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

Frank Phillips said:


> I asked that EXACT question to 3 of the people who wrote the rules and I was told the same thing by all 3. That is NOT the plan, this was done so that the dog is not biting a person running away without being told to....


ok, thanks


----------



## Kat Hunsecker (Oct 23, 2009)

Dana McMahan said:


> I just trialed for IPO3 last weekend under the new rules with an SV Judge. The judge told us to give the command when he signaled the helper. I asked what if the helper doesn't move and he basically said that is the helpers problem


 Love that statement...!!!. Did you trail at Daniubus.... ??


----------



## Sue Calkins (Nov 5, 2009)

Frank, was there a reason given for penalizing moving (taking a step back) to throw the dumbbell? Just curious.


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Sue Calkins said:


> Frank, was there a reason given for penalizing moving (taking a step back) to throw the dumbbell? Just curious.


 yes.... the rules have ALWAYS said that you are allowed to take one basic position, once you take that basic position in the retrieves it states that if the handler moves from the basic position then the highest rating possible is "high insufficient".... Just now they are saying that if someone does move a foot to assist in the throw but returns to the basic imediately and it is of no help to the dog then it is not imediately insufficient, but it can NOT be full points....so there will be some deduction....This is just enforcing rules that have been in effect for a long time.

That was the reasoning I was told when I asked that question....

As everyone's training gets better they have us enforce the rules more and more......a "V" score 10 years ago is probably a "G" now.....

Hope this helps


Frank


----------



## Sue Calkins (Nov 5, 2009)

Yes, it does clarify. So what about women who have a hard time throwing the SchH3 dumbbell the proper distance? Will most judges allow some leeway, within reason and depending on the trial level (club, reg, etc.)?
Sue


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Sue Calkins said:


> Yes, it does clarify. So what about women who have a hard time throwing the SchH3 dumbbell the proper distance? Will most judges allow some leeway, within reason and depending on the trial level (club, reg, etc.)?
> Sue


 
according to the rules...NO

If you move your foot to throw and the rest is perfect, then maybe it is only 1/2 or 1 pt deduction....But according to the rules and the explaination at the FCI meeting, it can NOT be full points....But they also said the dumbbell could only go 6-7 meters and be fine...Most could roll it that far


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Sue Calkins said:


> Yes, it does clarify. So what about women who have a hard time throwing the SchH3 dumbbell the proper distance? Will most judges allow some leeway, within reason and depending on the trial level (club, reg, etc.)?
> Sue


IMHO, it has more to do with technic than strength. Practice, practice, practice :razz:


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Frank, are they going to be cracking down on "Kick in the tracks"?


----------



## Sue Calkins (Nov 5, 2009)

Okay, so for some reason (I guess I better read again!) I was thinking 10 meters. No problem.
Sue


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Edward Egan said:


> Frank, are they going to be cracking down on "Kick in the tracks"?


 
I hope they do. I have recently been experimenting with how hard I step in tracks. It seems the dogs have an easier time pinpointing a small amount of scent, and a large amount is a bit harder. 

I started my new dog at 8 weeks old on scent circles that were just stepped in, 4 hours old and the dog learned extremely quick. His concentration also was employed more. At a year old, he traces the dam tracks, I have a hard time challenging him now....I know it's all BS till hits a trial field, but I am extremely happy with the results.

I hate when guys come back winking at you saying...."I really kicked that one in"....can't be mad at anyone for trying to help. But less is more in tracking.


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

I agree James. Seems if my dog doesn't have a walk in the park he actually tracks better. I think for the most part the only thing that is helped by the *hacking in* is the handler being able to see the track. I think that being able to see is a blessing and curse. Sure we know where the track is going but how much do we then influence our dog? Like comfort food. Not always good for you but makes you feel better. :lol:


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Edward Egan said:


> Frank, are they going to be cracking down on "Kick in the tracks"?


 
The rules are very specific, no scuffing, kicking in, must be a natural walk....It is my understanding that YES, this will be enforced....(and should be in my opinion)

Now if the terrain is horrible in a club trial, will the judge let you scuff a little because it is so hard???maybe...( I wouldn't see a problem with this in a club trial)


I also train with only a natural walk.... The hardest thing for me to do was the "NO stopping" at the artciles...dropping the articles behind me in the track as I continue forward, sometimes they bounce and I had to train my dog to indicate even if it is 3-4 inches off the track because of a bounce....I have not seen it bounce more then a few inches in any of the tracks I had laid, and some have been in howling wind.....

Frank


----------



## Sue Calkins (Nov 5, 2009)

James Downey said:


> I hope they do. I have recently been experimenting with how hard I step in tracks. It seems the dogs have an easier time pinpointing a small amount of scent, and a large amount is a bit harder.
> 
> I hate when guys come back winking at you saying...."I really kicked that one in"....can't be mad at anyone for trying to help. But less is more in tracking.


As we've been told by our TD, a former K9 handler


----------



## Patty Pignataro (Jan 21, 2011)

...I suppose it will come down to the judge and his preference. I spoke with one judge about this and he stated he had no interest in touching anyones dogs....I guess the rule makers continue to cave in to the pressures of the complainers who protest the mere existence of the sport or any dog sport that is.

I would like to know who the judges are that have no intentions of touching anyones dogs are and I will be sure to show under them,,  Names Please.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

*BH motion exercises*

Frank,

Do you have to hesitate or is it optional?
I read somewhere that some judges think it is a 3 second hesitation. At this point it ceases to be a motion exercise IMO


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

*Re: BH motion exercises*



Thomas Barriano said:


> Frank,
> 
> Do you have to hesitate or is it optional?
> I read somewhere that some judges think it is a 3 second hesitation. At this point it ceases to be a motion exercise IMO


 I was told that is what Canada is interpreting it as, up to a 3 second pause....

I am with you, then it is not an "In-motion" exercise at all....

At the FCI Judges meeting they said a "slight pause/hesitation"... What they are saying is all the heavy handler help we always see in a BH anyway, is now OK.....:grin:

The rules say to do it so yes there will be a deduction if you don't (for an incorrect buildup) But like you, I train for IPO3 and will just take the Hit...take the 1/2 pt if you want.....I am sure it won't cause you to fail.....But with it pas/fail... for me as a handler, I don't care....


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

I was at an informal discussion of the rules today by Lance Collins (Canadian Judge). In his view a lot of the rule changes were more about clarifying the intent of the rules (at least how I interpreted what he had to say). 

For example it clearly states now that the dog must be convincing in the guarding phases. So weak guarding (like a silent guard with the dog sitting there with it's mouth open, tongue hanging out waiting for the ball look ) will be clearly stated as resulting in point deductions. 

In the escape bite, it is now stated it is not mandatory that the dog have a full grip. The way he explained it there has been an overemphasis on "full grips" so that is what everyone trained for. This overemphasis caused many dogs who couldn't crush an egg to get full points by too many judges. The emphasis on the escape bite is more on a hard grip and hindering (stopping) the helper rather than just getting a full bite and hanging on for dear life. Also they want to see the dog going straight at the helper. He added that when he judged at the worlds, the helper was so fast that the first 6 dogs were disqualified after being outrun by the helper. He said it was close to impossible to get a full bite. He followed the rules as written and wanted to see a direct pursuit on the helper. Dogs who bit hard, hindered the helper, and made a direct line approach were rewarded more than dogs that did not bite hard, or hinder the helper but had a full grip. He said the boos in the audience did not bother him. 

Another change is that on transports the handler has to use the equivalent of "transport" command. In the past the rules said the handler had to use a fus command. This was in conflict with intent of the fus command that the dog remain completely focused on the handler.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Edward Egan said:


> I think Spain outlawed biting sport all together. I remember posting an article to that affect a long time ago.
> 
> But look were Spain is now! Could it be that these same type of people that pressured their government into banning bite sports are also the one's who collectively screwed that county over?


 I don't know about the past but Schutzhund is not illegal in Spain. As a matter of fact the WUSV was held there in 2010. I am reminded of it every time I go to the club because 3 of the 5 team members on Team Canada that year were from my club and their competition vests are hanging on the wall.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Steve Burger said:


> Another change is that on transports the handler has to use the equivalent of "transport" command. In the past the rules said the handler had to use a fus command. This was in conflict with intent of the fus command that the dog remain completely focused on the handler.


It would be real nice if judges would focus more on what the dog does then dictating the exact words the handler has to use.
There is only one TRANSPORT (the back transport) the rest are
ESCORTS. When I get next to the decoy I say ESCORT when we walk to the judge


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Steve Burger said:


> I don't know about the past but Schutzhund is not illegal in Spain. As a matter of fact the WUSV was held there in 2010. I am reminded of it every time I go to the club because 3 of the 5 team members on Team Canada that year were from my club and their competition vests are hanging on the wall.


I stand corrected. It was Italy, I found my old post, but the link to the article no longer works.


----------



## Kat Hunsecker (Oct 23, 2009)

In the old rules we found a judge can judge 36 phases a day, but an FCI/ SV judge only 30. Is this still holding true for the new rulebook from the USCA- does anyone know?
Also in conjunction with the IRO- where a judge period is able to judge 36 phases. we have found no other rule, but in a combination trail, how would you count it? is it 30 or 36 if you do RH stuff,too?


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Kat Hunsecker said:


> In the old rules we found a judge can judge 36 phases a day, but an FCI/ SV judge only 30. Is this still holding true for the new rulebook from the USCA- does anyone know?
> Also in conjunction with the IRO- where a judge period is able to judge 36 phases. we have found no other rule, but in a combination trail, how would you count it? is it 30 or 36 if you do RH stuff,too?


New FCI IPO rules a judge can judge 36 phases per day....


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

Steve Burger said:


> I was at an informal discussion of the rules today by Lance Collins (Canadian Judge). In his view a lot of the rule changes were more about clarifying the intent of the rules (at least how I interpreted what he had to say).
> 
> For example it clearly states now that the dog must be convincing in the guarding phases. So weak guarding (like a silent guard with the dog sitting there with it's mouth open, tongue hanging out waiting for the ball look ) will be clearly stated as resulting in point deductions.
> 
> ...


The issue in Krefeld was that the helper was not tall, was very fast and some of the dogs were not used to it, as well as the set up for the dog was not great (by the handler). The dogs that did well were dogs that were set up and used to working on faster helpers.

This was an issue at the Nationals. Don Yelle is a good, quick and tall helper. The 1st couple of dogs could not catch him and were disqualified due to not getting to the helper within the required paces. You could tell dogs that worked on quick helpers and ones that did not.


----------



## Kat Hunsecker (Oct 23, 2009)

Frank Phillips said:


> New FCI IPO rules a judge can judge 36 phases per day....


Thank you!!!


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Sue DiCero said:


> The issue in Krefeld was that the helper was not tall, was very fast and some of the dogs were not used to it, as well as the set up for the dog was not great (by the handler). The dogs that did well were dogs that were set up and used to working on faster helpers.
> 
> This was an issue at the Nationals. Don Yelle is a good, quick and tall helper. The 1st couple of dogs could not catch him and were disqualified due to not getting to the helper within the required paces. You could tell dogs that worked on quick helpers and ones that did not.


This was discussed the other day. Lance described it as where some of the dogs were downed and the exact direction they were facing made it even more difficult for them to engage the helper. He also said he was one of the fastest helpers he had ever seen (actually he described it in a little more colorful fashion but I won't go into that here).


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

How people place their dogs for the escape bite always amazed me. Unless you're the first dog, you should know where the decoy is running to and how he presents the sleeve. You should also know how your dog strikes and how fast he is. The contortions some dogs have to go through to get up and running. It's no wonder they miss the bite :-(


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> How people place their dogs for the escape bite always amazed me. Unless you're the first dog, you should know where the decoy is running to and how he presents the sleeve. You should also know how your dog strikes and how fast he is. The contortions some dogs have to go through to get up and running. It's no wonder they miss the bite :-(


What do you mean "present the sleeve"? The helper is just supposed to run. He certainly did not "present" the sleeve at the WUSV. The dogs were downed in a manner consistent with where you might place them with a helper with normal speed. That was the problem. The dogs were placed in a position where you would expect them to catch a normal man. He was long gone from where that spot would be.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I've seen decoys that tuck the sleeve in front of them and some that have their hand on their hip making a nice target.
It would be nice if all decoys "presented" the sleeve in a consistent manner. A couple of years ago Ivan's dog had a problem with a decoy who hid the sleeve. I had a friend go to the Worlds who's Malinois bit the decoy on the back because the sleeve wasn't available Still most escape bite problems are caused by poor placement and a dog not paying attention to the decoy (the new mandatory command could help with that?)


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Steve Burger said:


> What do you mean "present the sleeve"? The helper is just supposed to run. He certainly did not "present" the sleeve at the WUSV. The dogs were downed in a manner consistent with where you might place them with a helper with normal speed. That was the problem. The dogs were placed in a position where you would expect them to catch a normal man. He was long gone from where that spot would be.


Here are the rules for the helper:

Under the direction of the judge, the helper escapes in a quick and assertive pace in a straight line, without running an uncontrolled or exaggerated manner. The sleeve must remain steady and the dog
should be given an optimal grip possibility. The helper may not turn to face the dog at any time, but can keep the dog in his/her field of vision. The helper must refrain from pulling the sleeve away. Once the dog has gripped, the helper continues to run in a straight direction, and while running pulls the sleeve in tight to his/her body.

That's a bit more discription that *just run*. You're not supposed to fish for the dog but you are to give the dog an target that they can actually grip.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

OT...my 0.2 the 2009 WUSV helper work. You would think the dogs would be able to catch the front half helper (Vincenzo Magnati). The week before the WUSV he did the front half helper work at the BSP (120+ dogs) and then four days later worked another 150+dogs at the WUSV.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Keith Jenkins said:


> Here are the rules for the helper:
> 
> Under the direction of the judge, the helper escapes in a quick and assertive pace in a straight line, without running an uncontrolled or exaggerated manner. The sleeve must remain steady and the dog
> should be given an optimal grip possibility. The helper may not turn to face the dog at any time, but can keep the dog in his/her field of vision. The helper must refrain from pulling the sleeve away. Once the dog has gripped, the helper continues to run in a straight direction, and while running pulls the sleeve in tight to his/her body.
> ...


My choice of words was not great. The helper is not supposed to hide the sleeve but he is also not supposed to turn the sleeve toward the dog (like you often see and what I think most people think of as "present the sleeve", and basically say here it is...


----------



## Donna DeYoung (Jan 29, 2010)

what did you mean the dogs didn't catch the helper? did he disappear or something? run behind a fence? I can't imagine a helper outrunning my dog.:-k


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Donna DeYoung said:


> what did you mean the dogs didn't catch the helper? did he disappear or something? run behind a fence? I can't imagine a helper outrunning my dog.:-k


Ha, ha, funny stuff.

I believe the dog has to catch/engauge the helper within 15 or 20 paces.


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

Steve Burger said:


> What do you mean "present the sleeve"? The helper is just supposed to run. He certainly did not "present" the sleeve at the WUSV. The dogs were downed in a manner consistent with where you might place them with a helper with normal speed. That was the problem. The dogs were placed in a position where you would expect them to catch a normal man. He was long gone from where that spot would be.


The positioning was on a lot of dogs. It was interesting to see from the vantage of the 6th blind. Combo of set up, FAST helper AND dogs not used to working on such a fast helper.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

I won't mention what Lance said about him other than, at 6 in the morning of the first day the first 6 dogs were outrun. He said that he thought to himself this is going to be long day.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

If the first six dogs are out run at the World Championship. The decoy is running too fast. Next thing you know they'll want a set of starting blocks.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> If the first six dogs are out run at the World Championship. The decoy is running too fast. Next thing you know they'll want a set of starting blocks.


You gotta be shit'in me? Too fast?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Christopher Smith said:


> You gotta be shit'in me? Too fast?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


Chris

I wouldn't shit you ........................................



you're too big of a turd ;-)


Seriously, this was the GSD World Championship, not some club trial. One or two dogs not paying attention maybe they get out run. SIX in a row? Yeah the helper was too fast.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Chris
> 
> was the GSD World Championship, not some club trial. One or two dogs not paying attention maybe they get out run. SIX in a row? Yeah the helper was too fast.


As the trial progressed, did as many dogs get outrun? or did the lucky people who didn't get the first flight run out and do some training?

Laura


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> As the trial progressed, did as many dogs get outrun? or did the lucky people who didn't get the first flight run out and do some training?
> 
> Laura


Don't know, maybe the decoy just slowed down after x number of dogs? Maybe there were so many complaints he was told to slow down?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Chris
> 
> I wouldn't shit you ........................................
> 
> ...


Your a big enough asshole to pass any turd.


Did you ever stop to think that the dogs might be* too slow* or have *poor training* or a combination of the two? The dogs that consistently score well didn't seem to have a problem. They caught the helper within 5 or 6 steps. Why couldn't some dogs catch the helper in 15 or 20? The average human can run 15mph and the average dog runs at twice that speed. There is simply no way that a *healthy* GSD shouldn't catch a helper, wearing all of his equipment, within several steps.


But fundamentally I think your idea of a helper being "too fast" does not help the dogs. These are supposed to be working dogs. They have to be able to catch a bad guy or a sheep. If they can't they are no longer working dogs. It just that simple.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Fair enough. I'll admit to being an asshole if you admit to being a big turd ;-)

We're talking about six dogs IN A ROW not 6 out of 100.
It would be interesting to clock the decoy on the first 6 and on the 60-65th dogs or the last six to see if he was consistent.
We're not talking so much speed as acceleration.
Telephone pole to telephone pole (for those old enough to remember what those are) a human can out run a 12 second street race car.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Don't know, maybe the decoy just slowed down after x number of dogs? Maybe there were so many complaints he was told to slow down?


 With Gunther Diegel and Lance Collins, being in charge..Not a f$%$ing chance. I think handlers paid more attention to positioning and instant reaction. More dogs did fail though throughout the competition on the escape bite.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Your a big enough asshole to pass any turd.
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that the dogs might be* too slow* or have *poor training* or a combination of the two? The dogs that consistently score well didn't seem to have a problem. They caught the helper within 5 or 6 steps. Why couldn't some dogs catch the helper in 15 or 20? The average human can run 15mph and the average dog runs at twice that speed. There is simply no way that a *healthy* GSD shouldn't catch a helper, wearing all of his equipment, within several steps.
> ...


 There was a certain hanlder that has won the WUSV more than once whose dog barely made it. We are talking about an extremely quick starting and fast helper!


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Frank Phillips said:


> .In reality the dog will go when the helper moves and that is fine, but if the handler does not give a command then it is a 1 point deduction.
> ...


Sorry to jump in now that the thread shifted gears, but I accidentally hit the wrong button and started reading this old part of the thread and it reminded me of something. 

The minus one point thing is consistent with what we were told before by USA judges. I went to a rules seminar given by an SV judge and he said the deduction for failing to say an escape command is one level deduction. If the exercise was a V and you failed to give a command, it's now an SG and so on. 

So if the escape is a ten-point exercise I guess it's around a point still, but it just struck me as a different way to say it. Maybe the difference between point counter and picture judging. 

Laura


----------



## Frank Phillips (Jan 8, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Sorry to jump in now that the thread shifted gears, but I accidentally hit the wrong button and started reading this old part of the thread and it reminded me of something.
> 
> The minus one point thing is consistent with what we were told before by USA judges. I went to a rules seminar given by an SV judge and he said the deduction for failing to say an escape command is one level deduction. If the exercise was a V and you failed to give a command, it's now an SG and so on.
> 
> ...


 
Actually if it was one catagory then it could be 1/2 point if the rest was perfect in that senario...But at the FCI Judges meeting it was stated as a 1 point deduction. I think the SV judge misunderstood. I have the powerpoint presentaion from FCI meeting and it is 1 point. 


Frank


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Well, even if he misunderstood, that's how he's out there judging it. He judged a trial the next day here in Southern California. I wasn't there so I don't know if anybody forgot to say it. I think everybody that was in the trial was at the rules seminar, so maybe they were all scared straight 

Laura


----------

