Funny man, you missed the whole point of my comment. Besides that, the fact about the attack under gunfire came from a Schutzhund book sitting here right in front of me. You can complain to the author if you feel the need, just don't cry ok, lmfao. And the 100yrs was only an approximation, lol. I figured you'd realize that, but now I know you like to nit-pick any little thing you can from my posts that you can whine about, not even bothering to read the rest. I'll just look at that as something to expect. Maybe I should call you the "expert".

You don't like what I post? Start moderating and stop b---hing.

Robert, Mike and All

Though you may disagree and debate, we peeons enjoy the interesting and enlighten subject matter don't make up keep your own oppinons that what makes this board interesting. It gives us so much more to explorer and understand.

Complex creatures we humans are. I'm enjoying the topic study. I think Robert knows and enjoys being an A$%, but he's a Smart Ass. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Exactly. If we all agreed, there wouldn't be a discussion at all. I'm pretty new to the world of dog training and I'll admit there's a LOT to learn. But bashing always gets way off topic, so keep the personal knocking in the PM box.

I think I am on topic, we are talking about changes in Schutzhund. . .and you brought up the differences between Schutzhund then and now. I had hoped that you actually knew what those differences are beings that it seems you are basing your opinion of "rules should stay the way they are" on what appears now to be a misinformed idea of what Shutzhund used to be like.


As for the book you referenced, Barwig's Schutzhund Theory and Training Methods. . .

If you read the caption at the bottom of the photograph is states clearly that it is a photo of "Early German Service dog trials". And as I said SH was not standardized, other than the four parts of the protection trial I mentioned. There were other things, such as an attack under gunfire, but that would have been something trial specific, not a mandatory part of SH. Attack under gunfire was a part of the PH and KrH tests, so I think Barwig is kinda clumping some different things together as German service trials or early Schutzhund. (which might be the correct way to do it without going into pages of detail) When Schutzhund became standarized, it did not include an attack under gunfire.

Originally posted by Deanna Thompson:
I do not see where that alone will be the downfall of the future of SchH. I guess that was my point. If there were NO frontal attacks on the dog, only run aways, then yes... I think there would be something to question.

Rules change. Fact of the matter is that the current rules are bent on occasion to suit the club anyway, so if people really are h#ll bent on breeding a crappy dog they can still do it. I do not see it alone as the downfall, or if there will ever be a downfall. My point is that I have seen in training and in trials many dogs that the attack out of the blind on a new helper has folded the weaker dogs, or at the least unnerved them that the grips were very shallow, and weak. It can be trained as any other part of the routine, but I think it is a bit harder to cover up for the average Joe, or Fido. Another point being that in Sch the first bite is the attack out of the blind, which some dogs view as a threat, not a prey bite. There is something to be said for giving a weaker dog an easy prey bite, before pressuring it, then to start right from the get-go with drives etc. I have seen and worked a dog that had a problem with the attack out of the blind, and it messed up the rest of the routine, but when the dog went for the 2 had no trouble.
The real problem with weaker dogs lies with crooked judges, and weak decoys. I like in DVG where the dogs are yelled at on the long bite. I have worked a few dogs that were not condtioned to this type of thing, and you could see the brakes coming on. Small things do make a difference.

I do agree that the rules are bent now in some cases, but I still feel that it is a worth while test of a dogs protection. But such is life.

Do titles mean very much to you guys? To me, they say a lot about the handler and very little about the dog, and that's a problem. I think when that's the case(when titles don't do a dog any justice), then there's something at the core that needs work, and that meaning the sport. So yeah, I feel there are lots improvements to be made in the sport of Schutzhund, to a point where a title actually means something. After all, may the best dogs breed.

Originally posted by Mike Sanchez:
Do titles mean very much to you guys? To me, they say a lot about the handler and very little about the dog, and that's a problem. I think when that's the case(when titles don't do a dog any justice), then there's something at the core that needs work, and that meaning the sport. So yeah, I feel there are lots improvements to be made in the sport of Schutzhund, to a point where a title actually means something. After all, may the best dogs breed. Over the last few years I have seen a trend in people that run titles down etc.

A title does not show everything about a dog, and it is true that a good handler/trainer can get a less the stellar dog through a trial. But what I don't agree with is people that breed litter after litter and never title any offspring, and promote thier dogs as top future sport dogs. Prove it. There is really no problem with breeding untitled dogs in America as long as the person doing it, really has a feel for working dogs. It is my feeling that too many untitled dogs that have the potential to be bred never get bred, and thier quality is by far better then most titled dogs; this is a shame as they are left out of the gene pool. But the flip-side of the coin is that you get people that use that reasoning breeding everything and anything.

The size of America or Canada does not permit the type of breeding practices that you see in Germany. The travelling is just too much for most.

Schutzhund is a great sport. I do not think that the problem lies within the rules of the sport, but the way in which they are implied in certain cases. I really would not want to change a thing. While for sure you need to be a great trainer to get to the top, you also need a great dog.

Originally posted by Mike Sanchez:
Do titles mean very much to you guys? To me, they say a lot about the handler and very little about the dog, and that's a problem. ... After all, may the best dogs breed. Now, that’s an interesting point of view. Maybe we should attach titles to a handler instead of a dog? Don’t know how that’s gonna improve the *canine* breeding program, but maybe Mike will enlighten us? Yep, I kinda like that. Renee Felknor, SchH III.

Is DVG also going to the IPO rules?

You misunderstood me Renee. But you can always put that in the suggestion box.