IPO 2050 .. What Must Change ..Tracking - Page 10

Momo, there are more different dog sports than I´m even able to memorize, something for everybody who wants to have fun with a dog.
In the United States German Shepherds don´t need to achieve ANY title prior to breeding, so why do you want to change breeding requirements you are not even involved in? You can do whatever you want - flyball, agility, dogdancing, nothing - AKC doesn´t care.
In Europe we are involved, we HAVE TO trial our dogs, but we just do it, we don´t want to change the standards, so why do you, far away from daily routine,  want to do so?

@susie,  I come from a family of folks who used to breed schutzhund dogs.  I'm not currently doing it, but that doesn't mean I don't try to keep up with things in that world.  I don't have a plan now, so I'm not going to willy nilly do AKC breedings like my other club members are.  They also seem to have no trouble selling them either.  But thats not my point.

Let me rephrase, I don't think the schutzhund title should have been diluted in the first place, I think the old style SchH 3 titles should still exist and be in the rules, BUT, from the way I understand it certain portions of the old title are illegal in the parts of the EU. So, rather than stop allowing clubs to offer the title they should have allowed SchH and IPO to coexist on the books. 

Say for example, if you live in country that limits portions of the SchH, you do IPO instead, but if you live in the USA you could still do the SchH and folks in the EU could choose to fly in from Europe to trial here if they wanted to do the real thing.  But for those who could not afford to fly to the USA, they could do the IPO 1-3 in country, but the classic version would still be available elsewhere.  Now to take this argument further, since tracking appears on the surface to have some "accessibility issues" within the continental United States, there should be an IPO 1-3(B) that allows the STp to be substituted for the Tr/Fr 1-3.  There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about this recommendation.  People act like the STp is easy and not analogous to the Tr, it most certainly is.

@Bob McKown, the only explanation I can think of, is that your state provides protections and provisions on insurance claims that I am not aware of.  Lucky you, I guess.  Your situation with the underwriter substituting "performance dog" with "schutzhund" wouldn't fly in any State I have lived in and even if they did write it that way, no adjuster is going to let that kind of dog bite claim go through without a good fight on your part.

We can do the AWD Titles here in the U.S. they are judged the same as the old schutzhund titles.

Momo, IPO and SchH in fact is mostly the same for a lot of years now.
SchH / IPO / VPG = the same trial named differently.
We had to change the name, but we didn´t change the rules in itself, not yet...and we will not be in need to change the tracking phase...
A country not allowing SchH neither does allow IPO, no difference.
"Schutzhund" became "IPO" out of 2 reasons:

• the name wasn´t politically correct any longer
• IPO sounds international, and the same rules named the same worldwide is way easier to judge and to compare - think global

Which part of the SchH trial do you want back? What is the "classic" SchH trial? The rules of 1960 / 1980 / 2000 ?
Most people talking about the "good old times" mostly don´t even know what they are talking about, almost none native Americans in your country ( 60 maybe ? 100 ? even more? ) even participated in Schutzhund trials when there still was a wall in obedience.
The good old times ?!?
Why should FCI "invent" a new trial for people who don´t like tracking? There is a trial called IPO A, formerly SchH A, for decades now. Participate in it, no big deal.Just not good enough for breeding in Germany, but good enough for everybody who wants to have fun, but doesn´t like tracking.
The average American isn´t interested in IPO not because of tracking, but because it´s not only a lot of work, money, and time, but because it´s not necessary for breeding and getting pedigrees. As long as there is an easy way, most ( not all ) people will go the easy route.
Do you believe any person on this planet would go to driving school, pay a lot of money, and make a driver licence, if he is not forced to do so?

 

@susie, I know you understood what I meant, I have not once mentioned "likes" or "dislikes" in regard to tracking.  I said to add more variation & substitutions in the titles in order to accommodate those dealing with limited participation opportunities, due to arbitrary codes and ordinances where they live.  I am looking for participation GROWTH in this sport within the continental United States and adding titles with revised requirements is certainly an effective way to do that.  Bob McKown mentions the AWD titles which are different from the standard IPO, I have always been under the impression that the old SchH 1-3 titles from the 1970's and 1980's were more like the current AWD title.  I was just a kid then, so I'm going by what relatives have mentioned to me and yes, I remember a wall in obedience when I watched as a kid.

Where I Iive, opportunities to track with a training group are so limited within the IPO community that they are coming to my AKC group and asking for help.  We are getting bombarded with emails and "walk-ins" dropping by our training to see what we are doing.  There is a mini-crisis going on around here in regard to tracking training.  As far as I can see there will be point where very few are getting the IPO1, not because the dog isn't ready for the other phases, but because there are few places to practice tracking and even less IPO folks with knowledge helping people get started.  Being able to substitute the STp would give folks some options to move forward in IPO without lowering the bar.

Simple & easy = more people lower quality more money


hard = excusive less people high quality.

which is best...... i don't know.

so, let me see if I have this right,

an employee that gives you permission to be on a property isn't really permission, though owners are liable for their employees decisions in every other aspect in employment law, unless it concerns an IPO dog?

Golf courses are a big no, no, though for quite a few years the owners did in fact ask us to come out and pay particular attention around the ponds?

No landowners will give you permission to track because they're too afraid of getting sued, though i don't know if anybody has ever told me no before, but I'll take your word for it, they really didn't want me there.  I was probably just given double secret permission that would be revoked by the landowners wife's attorney if they found out I had an IPO dog?

and there isn't any place to do IPO tracking and IPO is dying, but they're coming in droves to AKC trackers to track where AKC people track because apparently there's only enough land for AKC tracking and not IPO tracking?

I have an idea, how about everyone has fun in the sport they choose ??  Just an idea.  and if we fail and the sport dies, you can come back and laugh and shove it in our faces with all the told you so's in the world, until then you STFU about things you don't even do?  Deal?

@zdog, thats a pretty hostile response and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for writing it.

You said earlier that you use schools when training and I also said I use schools for training.  I simply clarified that where I live, its easier to get a K-12 school to agree to let you use the grounds as opposed to a private property owner.  If the private owners are friendlier to your needs, more power to you, but dogs clubs don't get that kind of welcome wagon from private owners where I live.  Things are different all over the country, no need to fret about how your experience is different than mine, thats expected. 

Golf course owners around here will not grant permission to dog clubs or individuals to use their property for anything else other than golf or dining events and for good reason.  First, they think the dogs may damage their expensive grass and second, if there is daylight, there is likely some golfing happening on the site, unless of course you are in a area with harsh weather at certain times of the year.  They make money from golf, they don't need you potentially twisting your ankle on the property and raising their insurance premiums in the process or messing up the grass costing them more in labor wages, fixing and tidying it up when you leave.

So what, the property owners that let you use their space were ignorant, as were their employees.  Good for you, bad for them.  However, it doesn't make my points any less valid in the end.  KNOWLEDGEABLE property owners DO worry about the following, when their property is being used for anything other than its intended purpose, such as golf, retail, restaurant, etc:

"implied right to continue to using the property" (no owner wants to deal with this long term, so permission is granted sparingly and with stipulations when possible)

and

"did the property owner know about a dangerous condition" (this is relevant when an employee gives consent without the owners knowledge)

 

So to the next point, why are IPO folks coming to an AKC group to do tracking?  Simple, because we have permits from multiple cities and written permission from multiple owners to have dogs off leash in designated areas.  Fact is, their clubs don't have either in place and where they do, they do not have areas large enough to lay tracks for 4-8 people at one time.  We do, so they come.  Example, just last week we were training and someone not in the training group had a dog off leash in the park.  The sheriff, who patrols the area regularly and knows about us, asked if that person and their dog were in our training group under the permit.  We said no and that dog owner got a ticket. 

zdog, if you don't like facts, thats fine.  But your advice in these above situations, sucks, so I'll be here, to set the record straight.  So people can then make informed decisions about how to proceed when in a similar situation.

Finally as for your comment about "things you don't even do".  I have admitted here before on the forum that I don't train for bitework or protection because I am involved in activities where such is prohibited by contract.  I also have insurance provided by those organizations, whom I do these activities for.  That supplied insurance also prohibits bitework and protection training. 

Have I done OB and titled? Yes.

Have I done FH tracking and titled? Yes.

Have I done HGH and STp? Yes and am I currently working on training my first RH dog.  Not including the time when I was with my uncles doing SchH and breeding in the 70's and 80's.

Sure I don't do every phase like you do in IPO, but I know something about it all and whether you like it or not, FH, HGH and RH are a part of YOUR sport.  You can choose to ignore them, but they exist and matter regardless of how you personally feel.  So what, I do AKC tracking, herding and obedience as well and a few other non-AKC venues when the training is transferable.  You may be an "expert" in IPO, but it seems to me you know squat about the many other dog venues out there.  Which highlights your ingrained position, when given here on the forum, as far less exposed to the larger dog training world.

But all this is besides the point, at the end of the day.  We are both GSD owners and face the same discrimination from regulators and uninformed members of the public.  In the end, you and I are on the same team.  I want IPO to survive, even if it means creating new titles that are lesser in scope to the classic SchH or the current IPO.  But what you fail to see, is that the traditional more difficult titles can still co-exist with newly created lesser titles.  Accommodations will be made at some point in the IPO world because 90 years olds can't prop membership up indefinitely.

We don't agree and thats fine, but at the same time you don't get to belittle my involvement in the larger dog competition world.

Umm, Momo, it was Zdog, not VK4 dear....

My mistake.  Thanks Hired Dog, corrected it.