
This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Aqua on 01 May 2008 - 23:05
In one of the threads about the Sieger show there was an excellent post listing the VA and V dogs's catalog numbers and describing their performance (or lack thereof) in the You Tube videos. I don't remember who wrote it and in which thread it was. Could osmeone please point me in the right direction? It was an excellent summary!

by mnm on 02 May 2008 - 01:05
Was this one it?
"The handler should, after the attack, leash their dog without physical restraint (such as, grabbing the dog to prevent re-grip). The dog may receive an extra command to out to put the leash on the dog with no penalty; however, the dog that must be physically restrained or taken off of the sleeve physically will be disqualified. Once the dog is secured on lead, this exercise is over."
Many dogs had problems with the out and did have to be physically restrained to get the leash on...according to the rules, they should have been DQ'ed.
Then look at all of these:
The VA1 and VA8 dog came off the sleeve. The VA3 dog was constantly dirty on the sleeve after the out. The VA5 dog was very slow to out and re-bit. The VA9 dog required 4 fuss commands to the attack out of blind and was dirty after the out. The VA10 had slow outs.
"2. Dogs that continue to bump or re-grip after the "out" will be placed at the end of whatever conformation rating they would achieve. "
According to this rule, the VA3, VA5 and VA9 dogs should have all been placed at the end of their respective ratings (VA8, 9, and 10).
If we are truly wanting what is best for the breed, then most of these dogs should have failed. Am I jealous, NO. I happen to like many of these dogs. It's not about, liking or dis-liking the dog, owner, handler. It's about the quality of work that these dogs are required to do in order to advance into the conformation ring for the final stand and selection. That is why they have the working portion first. Most of these dogs were titled to SchH3. They should have all been able to perform the excercises correctly. And yes, any dog can have a bad day, but most of them? I do not think so.
The placements at a Sieger Show should mean that those dogs are the best of the best. In this case, it was just a big joke. Certainly not something that, as a member of the organization, I am proud of. And frankly, even those that own these dogs who did such a poor job should also be disgusted. First in that their dogs did so poorly in the work, and secondly, that the Judge was clearly not following the rules as they are written, and therefore, not looking out for the best interest of the GSD Breed.
It's time to send a clear message to the Organization.... "We will not tolerate this any longer!!"
Marsha Seck

by mnm on 02 May 2008 - 01:05
Or perhaps this one,
Looking at quite a few of the video's, I saw only a handful of dogs that I thought did correct work and would have been able to pass in a real trial. Going back again and looking at the video's of the top 10, this is what I see:
VA1 - came off the sleeve,
VA2 - good work,
VA3 - constantly dirty on the sleeve,
VA4 - good work,
VA5 - slow outs and then dirty,
VA6 - nice work but the grip on the attack out of the blind was poor,
VA7 - very good work,
VA8 - came off the sleeve,
VA9 - 4 fuss commands on heeling and dirty,
VA10 - very slow outs.
Out of these 'top' 10, 4 were bred in the US - VA1, VA3, VA5, and VA9. This is not something we should be proud of.
This isn't about show vs working lines....it's about the dog being able to do the work for which it was trained and titled, by who it doesn't matter. The males in the working class are titled....but many looked as if they didn't have a clue. This was a national event. If someone is going to bring a dog to participate, then it should be prepared and capable of doing the work. If it doesn't perform the work correctly, then it doesn't go into the ring...doesn't matter if it has a progeny group or not.
The only way to get the working ability back is to demand it and accept no less. JMHO
Marsha Seck
by Aqua on 02 May 2008 - 12:05
Thanks Marsha! It was the second one. I appreciate your help.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top