USA BOI findings - Page 2

Ang, The handler does not have to be the owner. Most of the time the owner/handler is listed on the results as the result of the entry paperwork. The USA rules (and WDA) limit a person to handling three dogs in one trial. It is written and is published for the members. Without any knowledge of the judge and their background, it is quite possible the SV judge was not aware of the USA rules. But the handler is responsible for their actions. All of this pertains to a Schutzhund trial, not with the breed show. I know it is improper to post an opinion without fact, anyone should be able to see this was a person handling more than three dogs in one trial and that is a violation and I hope they are suspended as well to serve as an example to those who would try this. Naren

gsdlvr2, I misread the posts. I meant to reply to your post.

Perhaps someone can shed some light as to why trialing more than 3 dogs is a problem. If a trainer has 6 dogs ready it would seem fair to give them their chance. It is possible that this is more a referendum on the charge of false documentation which cannot be proven but members likely find credible.

jdh, The USA rule book clearly states on page ii item number 4 “It is only allowed for any one handler to handle a maximum of 3 (three) dogs per trial” The current DVG/VDH rules “A handler may participate with no more than two dogs in a single trial” Do you mean to imply that the USA, and other governing bodies should give consideration to dog trainer who makes a living putting titles on dogs for people? The whole purpose of a limit to to ensure that people do not circumvent the purpose of a trial under a licensed judge. Are you really that naïve, or just plain stupid? C. Wilkins

<<<<>>>> You would think. It starts with the handler for having the nerve to show up with six entries to begin with. <<<,The USA rules (and WDA) limit a person to handling three dogs in one trial>>>> If you look at the last few WDA trial results you'll see that single handlers trial anywhere from 6 to 12 entries per trial. Rules are only as credible as what's enforced. If rules are selectily enforced then they hold NO merit. If rules are enforced with EVERYBODY that was responsible, then they have merit.

<<<<>>>> But as you can see each person was not punished, not the Judge for signing off on the scoresheets and not the handler for entering 6 dogs. Only the club. Just the club. While the hanlder and Judge get to move on to violate rules elswhere. Yep USA is firm.......Firm....Firm....Firm. Uwe

c.wilkins, Get over yourself. I am aware of the rule. The point I was making is that the purpose of a trial is to assess the ability of the dogs. If a person has put in the time to train several dogs, pays the fees, and shows up to trial it only seems fair. Politics are a load of B.S. as you surely know. I have no objection to enforcement of rules, I simply disagree with this particular rule, as I believe that it hampers growth of training in this country. I have considerable respect for a trainer or any person who strives for more, and contempt for those who would hamper progress out of jealousy or some other venal emotion. Last I checked the purpose of a trial under a licensed judge was to test dogs, not to exclude dogs that happened to be professionally trained. I believe that the rule is actually in place to prevent professional trainers from using up huge blocks of trial time thus inconveniencing owner/hobby trainers, a condition that is not likely in the U.S. hence the variance. Many excellent dogs never realize their potential because their owners are unable or do not have time to train,trial, and show them. Think of the breed. Give up your silly games.

I was one who pushed for the limit on number of dogs that could be trialed per trial, per handler to be raised. I did this simply because I run a business alone and my time to travel is limited. I also pushed for this because I train many dogs, and, at the moment I have 7 of my own dogs that I am training. While I may be an exception, I am not a cheater and I am not trying to make USA support me or my business. I can not travel the 8-10 hour drives required in our region if I miss the very few trials that are two hours away. And sometimes the closest trials are not convenient because I can not leave at 3 in the morning to meet for tracking and then be gone the entire day. I always find it interesting that USA always seemed, at least in the past, to make rules to get to the cheaters. While there are a few instances of cheating perhaps here or there, most people in this organization and others do it with their own dogs and do not cheat. People who do violate the rules should be sanctioned, but rules should not be made to punish the average member in any way. Sometimes USA does seem to act in a knee jerk fashion assuming a rule needs to be made to catch or prevent a cheater. Deal with people when they violate rules. Frankly I do not care if a given dog is trained by a "professional", whatever that is, or a normal hobby like person. I have trained several dogs for other people and trialed one. So what? And I have trained and trialed many of my own dogs. I do not cheat, and in fact, I hope the dogs I train are judged by competent judges who will judge fairly and according to the rules. Why should anyone care how many dogs I train and whether they are mine or someone elses? Personally, I think the rule limiting numbers of dogs per handler is unnecessary, but it is, at least, better than it used to be when the limit was two. I adhere to it because it is the rule, but it is irresponsible to consider that people who train multiple dogs want to cheat or are "professionals" or have some other sinister reason for doing so. Few people who have working dogs can do Schutzhund because it is so time consuming. Of course, there are lots of other reasons, such as cost, lack of helpers, clubs being too far away, politics etc. Personally, I think the more dogs being trained and trialed, where there is correct and proper judging, the better.

jdh, Your comments make it clear that you are an ignorant jack-ass. If you could read you would understand the following statement : “The whole purpose of a limit to ensure that people do not circumvent the purpose of a trial under a licensed judge.” The purpose has always been certifying a dog fit for breeding. A cottage industry based on putting titles on dogs is not what anyone envisioned. Are you one of those folks who do not title their own dogs and prefer to just pay someone and look the other way if they trim a few corners? So what else are you willing to justify? Let’s see “hampers the growth of training” Would that mean is it was easier for someone to train/title dogs as a business (professional does not always mean quality) it would be better for the breed? Or would trying to encourage people to train and title their own dogs and take pride in their accomplishments be detrimental in you view?

c.wiwkins, It seems we have touched on a sore spot. Perhaps you read hodie's post? I believe you will find that not all multi dog trainers are villains. I wonder why you are so heated up about an administrative issue. I also am gratified that my children have better manners than you. Good luck in therapy. You need it.