USA BOI findings - Page 3

hodie, You have stated very well what I believe is a sensible view of the situation. I am not sure why it is so touchy for some people. Best wishes.

jdh, Yes, I read Hodie’s post and I did not say all trainers are corrupt. But I do not see a need to encourage people not to train and title their own dogs. The idea that in some cases there are dogs with titles that never earned them is sickening. If you are willing to look the other way then you are part of the problem. The strict limitation on entries per handler is not here in the US, it is based on the VDH rules. The DVG does not allow more than 2, are they also obsessed with trying to catch people who cheat? Anyone who is not willing to work with their dog and learn as a team should reconsider having a German Shepherd as a companion. As I previously mentioned, you are obviously one of those people who is content to look the other way. That says you are a coward or you are part of the problem. And yes that does touch a nerve, I despise people who look the other way to avoid seeing the truth. And as far as OG Westconn goes, you can check E-Ballot #7-03. C. Wilkins

c.wilkins, I am not interested in looking the other way, nor do I see any legitimate value in a dog with faked titles. I have heard stories as I'm sure we all have, and this is why I believe we need tough standards on breed show courage tests, etc. I do not believe that the number of dogs a person brings to trial has much relationship to their legitimacy or lack thereof. As stated previously I am not against enforcement, and believe that this statute is being cited to punish fraud that the members believe occurred, but can not prove. I know why people cheat. I think it highly unlikely that the club was involved. However, since they were responsible for the trial they take the heat. I am with you on stopping corruption. I just don't think that the number of dogs is that important. By the way I would be interested to know the details of #7-03

Dajkzo & jdh I think you both have strong points and corruption is unfortunely found in a lot of sports with K9s' or not. The fact is that we all will have to see what happens to this case in question, I am sure there is another side to it as well , wrong or right. You both need a glass of wine and chill......

A couple of things – first, and I could be TOTALLY wrong here - but it would seem to me that the rule was put in place to prevent the professional from showing up at a club trial with a trailer full of dogs - therefore limiting the number of hobbyist handler entries. I know for a fact that the number of dogs permitted per trial is limited - so this would make a lot of sense from that perspective. I believe that 3 dogs is between 20 to 25% of the total number of entrants permitted to be judged in a single day – therefore I think this is a good rule for the "Average Joe." Honestly, how many none professional handlers have even 2 dogs to trial on a single given day? I would think rarely. Personally, my take on the UScA and AWDF is that they are a club first for the hobbyist. That an industry or even the opportunity to make money from professional handling *could* exist means nothing to me - I want to be able to trial my dog with out being concerned that some "pro" has tied up all of the entry slots. Sorry if that hurts professional trainers – but that’s life. I pay my national and club dues to be able to trial my dog, not support someone making money off trialing someone else’s. Possibly at the higher levels (national and maybe regional) professionals could be given a few more opportunities to handle dogs as it makes a little more sense at that level at least… Second, as to the "punishment" - I'm a little mystified - seems more like a reward to me – at least to the club – and does nothing to the violator, club officers or the judge who all obviously and blatantly ignored the rules. Trials are a lot work to put on. They cost money - usually born on the back of the host club members, at least initially. Not having a trial, yet being able to still go to trials elsewhere within a clubs region punishes no one – EXCEPT for the other clubs in the area who now have less options available to trial their dogs - since there are 12-15 less openings next calendar year due to the “punished” clubs members having to go elsewhere. So in the end, the club doesn’t lose (arguably wins not having the trouble of putting on the annual required trial) even though their secretary and president allowed this inappropriate behavior. The handler wins, he gets to keep the ill gotten titles therefore keeping his earnings also – even after blatantly ignoring rules that are very well known. The judge (I wonder if this was an import) is permitted to continue making money from work as a judge even though if such questionable behaviors are permitted in the light of day who knows what else might be going on behind the scenes. Seems to me only the “little guy” (aka. Average Joe) looses – but that’s just how I see things. I would think a more appropriate punishment would be: 1. Strip the ill gotten titles – the rules are the rules. The handler should have known better. Let him choose which 3 he’d like to keep. 2. Put the judge on some sort of probation or outright suspend HIM for a year. 3. Suspend the *officers* of the club from titling any dogs during the upcoming year. -Calvin

I was wondering how this ruling will effect the USA Sieger Show in 2007. They are co-hosting it. Am I correct or is this ruling only for trials. Mike

“The whole purpose of a limit to ensure that people do not circumvent the purpose of a trial under a licensed judge.” I am sorry but I am not getting this. Are you implying that trialing more than 2 or 3 dogs automatically equals any wrong doing on the part of the handler? More dogs do not automatically mean any corners are being cut. As Hodie has put so well. If someone wanted to they could cut corners with a single dog just as well as with several. The judge has other things to do then to see who is handling the dog and how often the handler appears. He judges what is put in front of him. Always fascinating how people on this board have this need to get out the tar and feathers right away. The obvious problem is overlooked here. That there are too few trials in the US. People are literally forced to enter as many dogs as they can when the rare opportunity of a trial presents itself. Be it private owners or pro trainers. With the need of putting on BH, AD, diverse SchH titles getting more dogs together than the limit can very quickly be met by anyone who owns 3 or more dogs of different ages. You really canot compare SV rules as they are in Germany, where you can go to another trial the following weekend, or even on the same weekend (on the right weekend you could attend 3 different trials at 3 different locations (Fri/Sat/Sun), 6 dogs taken care of, 2 trials (Sat/Sun) are more common). In Germany a private owner may not mind ot wait a week or a month to trial the other dog. Enough opportunities there. The limit is a problem for any pro trainer. In Germany the only answer is to add handlers to the staff and trial as often as possible. Luckily in Germany we can do that. We have the trials, and we have more people that can work in this field. Apples and oranges. In the US the sport is growing, breeding according to SV rules is growing, the need for more events is growing but this growth is obviously not being met. These BOI findings may appear to have fixed a symptom but do little about the cause.

To me, this issue with the BOI finding is not whether the rule is good or not, it's that someone broke it. It's clearly spelled out in the rules how many dogs one handler can take into a trial, and someone handled more - double the amount, actually. I think they are taking issue with the fact that someone broke the written rule. Should the rule be changed? That would be a different matter. To me it seems that limiting the # of dogs that one handler can handle in a single trial helps ensure that trials do not become private matters, where 1 person with a slew of dogs can privately meet with a judge and title them all....????????? Not to mention the possibility that a pro could monopolize the available spots at a local trial. USA spells out their rules, and when you enter a USA trial you should know them. If you don't, or ignore them, you might wind up with someone taking issue with your actions. Just because you don't know, or choose to ignore the speed limit doesn't mean that you won't get a ticket - regardless of whether the posted speed is what you think is 'right' for the area you're driving in. The flip side of DH's post is that I hear all the time of trials getting cancelled because of low entries. I don't know how many clubs are in the area where this occurred, but if people are paying you to title their dogs, pros should pack up and trial where there are trials offered. A pro should know the rules and not risk getting a title stripped over something silly. God knows the show people travel all over campaigning their dogs..... :) Just my opinion.

Good post,D.H. and part of my point. Not to be forgotten is the geographic factor in the U.S. On the side I see no reason why a person bringing more dogs and knowing the rules would not have a "friend" or associate work with some and handle them in trial.

<<<>>> Actually the club can stil host club trials and show, just not Regional or National level.