This is a placeholder text
Group text
by 123lyn45 on 30 July 2013 - 09:07
Hi everyone, seeing a lot on face book from David Payne (Judge in England) regarding many changes to SV SHOWING RULES does anyone have all the details....
VA DOGS MUST BE 3 1/2 YEARS OLD TO BE VA
MUST HAVE PROGENY CLASS TO BE VA
18-24 MONTHS when judged ScH H and IPO status must not influence their placement too much pressure put on Trainers and Owners and young dogs....
Hair colour samples to be taken TESTING FOR COLOURIZATION ...
Considerations will be given to a "Championship Class"
Dogs with N/Z can not receive VA
Size to be set to mandatory within size regulations 5 year amnesty for dogs measuring oversize
Hips scores to be scrutenised and overhaul of HD
Can anyone add to this would like to hear from those in the no....
VA DOGS MUST BE 3 1/2 YEARS OLD TO BE VA
MUST HAVE PROGENY CLASS TO BE VA
18-24 MONTHS when judged ScH H and IPO status must not influence their placement too much pressure put on Trainers and Owners and young dogs....
Hair colour samples to be taken TESTING FOR COLOURIZATION ...
Considerations will be given to a "Championship Class"
Dogs with N/Z can not receive VA
Size to be set to mandatory within size regulations 5 year amnesty for dogs measuring oversize
Hips scores to be scrutenised and overhaul of HD
Can anyone add to this would like to hear from those in the no....
by SitasMom on 30 July 2013 - 12:07
rumors about this in the works too.
No dog to be graded VA under the age of Three & Half years old.
No dog to be graded VA without a progeny group.
In the 18 - 24 month classes a Sch/IPO qualification should not influence the judging. It places too much pressure on dogs and owners and trainers to achieve these qualifications at a young age.
The Hip Scheme as with all health related matters for the GSD requires close scrutiny and changes along with developments.
Considerations will be given to a "Champions Class".
Size of the GSD - for three years the SV has been strenuously tackling the problem of over-size. NOW the SV must rigidly adhere to the correct size for our breed standard. (there will be a 5 year "amnesty" on existing adult dogs that have been measured within the correct size and are now measured as oversize under this "essential accurate measuring policy").
No dog to be graded VA under the age of Three & Half years old.
No dog to be graded VA without a progeny group.
In the 18 - 24 month classes a Sch/IPO qualification should not influence the judging. It places too much pressure on dogs and owners and trainers to achieve these qualifications at a young age.
The Hip Scheme as with all health related matters for the GSD requires close scrutiny and changes along with developments.
Considerations will be given to a "Champions Class".
Size of the GSD - for three years the SV has been strenuously tackling the problem of over-size. NOW the SV must rigidly adhere to the correct size for our breed standard. (there will be a 5 year "amnesty" on existing adult dogs that have been measured within the correct size and are now measured as oversize under this "essential accurate measuring policy").
by Dog1 on 30 July 2013 - 12:07
Keep this list along with the other changes over the years the next time some fool posts BS about the SV ruining the breed. Very constructive changes. Perfect? By no means perfect. However it shows the SV is aware of some shortcomings and is willing/able to make changes.
Some obviously good, color and size. Some seemingly good changes although they limit. Very few will argue better than NZ to be VA. 3.5 years for VA,,,,,this may eliminate some 3.4 year old dogs that are better than a 3.5 year old dog by virtue of the day of the show rather than the value of the genetics and ability of the dog to produce. I'm generally against legislating placements and letting dogs show what they have to offer without placements being decided by who owns them or the day they were born.
IPO accomplishments in the 18 to 24 class affecting placement? Didn't think it really did. In 2004 I had a really talented VA Farina Noriswand daughter. She was brilliant, super to train, heart of a Marine, and excellent temperament to boot. She titled easily with an excellent trainer and was SchH2 in the 18 to 24 class at the sieger show. This dog was actually in front of (soon to be VA) Chakira Osterberger-land for about half the class at a local show.
Anyway, she had two sisters in the sieger show if equal quality. Of the 3, mine was actually the best as the results in the working class would reveal. The sisters were not titled going into the 18 to 24 class. Results; mine with SchH2 was SG119, sisters were SG63 and SG102.
My reaction to this SV concept is a little different. Rather than discount the abilities of others and worry about pressure being put on a dog. Do away with the easy trials, raise/standardize the bar. You can't train a dog with pressure that will not accept or endure pressure and I'm not convinced the techniques that produce the best results are pressure to a young dog. My thoughts are; increase awareness in good training techniques, (especially with the conformation lines). Reward the handler trainer teams that keep the dogs with the better working abilities that naturally take to the training and thrive on it. Reward these dogs with an ADVANTAGE in the 18-24 class and not hold them back for the weaker specimens to prevail.
Must have a progeny class to go VA? On the fence with this one. The top young males may not have the resources or backing to accomplish this. Those without the resources will need to sell, give, or otherwise involve someone (hired gun, judge, etc.) with the eye, connections to the right females, access to multiple breeders who can raise, train, show, the promising offspring. What this does is potentially elevate the requirements to compete beyond those of the average GSD enthusiast fortunate to have a promising young male. Take a look at some of those top dogs that didn't quite make it and you'll see what I mean. Yes, those that went to China too early.
What will really be interesting is to see how these changes affect the rest of the world. Typically whatever changes are implemented in German by the SV are also adopted in other countries. At least that's how it is in the US. If the US were to adopt these rules it would have a profound impact on the breed.
First and largest impact would be the VA criteria. The GSD community in the US is shrinking. Just throw another obstacle log on the fire and it may just be done. If the US adopts the requirement to present a group to be VA,,,,I can give you the list of the VA dogs, actually the list of their owners, for the next 10 years. Who wants to compete when the top spots are pre determined?
Some obviously good, color and size. Some seemingly good changes although they limit. Very few will argue better than NZ to be VA. 3.5 years for VA,,,,,this may eliminate some 3.4 year old dogs that are better than a 3.5 year old dog by virtue of the day of the show rather than the value of the genetics and ability of the dog to produce. I'm generally against legislating placements and letting dogs show what they have to offer without placements being decided by who owns them or the day they were born.
IPO accomplishments in the 18 to 24 class affecting placement? Didn't think it really did. In 2004 I had a really talented VA Farina Noriswand daughter. She was brilliant, super to train, heart of a Marine, and excellent temperament to boot. She titled easily with an excellent trainer and was SchH2 in the 18 to 24 class at the sieger show. This dog was actually in front of (soon to be VA) Chakira Osterberger-land for about half the class at a local show.
Anyway, she had two sisters in the sieger show if equal quality. Of the 3, mine was actually the best as the results in the working class would reveal. The sisters were not titled going into the 18 to 24 class. Results; mine with SchH2 was SG119, sisters were SG63 and SG102.
My reaction to this SV concept is a little different. Rather than discount the abilities of others and worry about pressure being put on a dog. Do away with the easy trials, raise/standardize the bar. You can't train a dog with pressure that will not accept or endure pressure and I'm not convinced the techniques that produce the best results are pressure to a young dog. My thoughts are; increase awareness in good training techniques, (especially with the conformation lines). Reward the handler trainer teams that keep the dogs with the better working abilities that naturally take to the training and thrive on it. Reward these dogs with an ADVANTAGE in the 18-24 class and not hold them back for the weaker specimens to prevail.
Must have a progeny class to go VA? On the fence with this one. The top young males may not have the resources or backing to accomplish this. Those without the resources will need to sell, give, or otherwise involve someone (hired gun, judge, etc.) with the eye, connections to the right females, access to multiple breeders who can raise, train, show, the promising offspring. What this does is potentially elevate the requirements to compete beyond those of the average GSD enthusiast fortunate to have a promising young male. Take a look at some of those top dogs that didn't quite make it and you'll see what I mean. Yes, those that went to China too early.
What will really be interesting is to see how these changes affect the rest of the world. Typically whatever changes are implemented in German by the SV are also adopted in other countries. At least that's how it is in the US. If the US were to adopt these rules it would have a profound impact on the breed.
First and largest impact would be the VA criteria. The GSD community in the US is shrinking. Just throw another obstacle log on the fire and it may just be done. If the US adopts the requirement to present a group to be VA,,,,I can give you the list of the VA dogs, actually the list of their owners, for the next 10 years. Who wants to compete when the top spots are pre determined?
by Hundmutter on 30 July 2013 - 13:07
I would think David has the full info of these changes on his website by now.
[UserSearch 'VIDEX'.]
The US, even the UK - and probably other European locations too - still retain the
attitude where 'some will, some won't' observe SV rules NOW, never mind whether
they will all wholeheartedly adopt new ones.
[UserSearch 'VIDEX'.]
The US, even the UK - and probably other European locations too - still retain the
attitude where 'some will, some won't' observe SV rules NOW, never mind whether
they will all wholeheartedly adopt new ones.
by 123lyn45 on 30 July 2013 - 19:07
Thanks Dog1, Hundmutter, I always appreciate your advice and opinions, I hope some of these changes are adopted and agree at least the SV appear to be taking a positive stance and are responding to many of the issues that we have ALL at sometime or another complained about - I applaud them.
I believe a VA dog, should possess the highest possible qualities. "betterment of the breed" > "cream of the crop" proven track record of producing better than themselves, VA dogs and bitches titled... which I believe is mandatory males SchH 3 (IPO 3) - females ScH 1 - I think this should be as is for females as it is for males -- Anatomically sound, I agree with the HD and ED - N/Z is certainly an issue for breeding,
The strong stand on size -This can only happen if the measuring tool is calibrated to be accurate - certificate produced , and the dog is measured strictly in accordance with the rules regarding, how and where the measuring tool is placed on a dog is adhered to - there are excellent documents that display this - why is it so hard to follow. A "level area on which the dog is to be measured" .....it fascinates me that in my own Country where we have 3 surveyors at each Survey, that 3 surveyors can put a measuring tool over a dog, and get 3 different results ---- so why would you believe any of them.....
I also believe in the age being higher for a VA - "breed worth" to me is a non-negotiable for a VA title - mainly due to the fact it is the VA dogs that are widely used in the breeding programmes and have a major part to play in what is being produced all around the world - limited progeny does not prove a dog's breed worth - when you need to find out the good and bad in anything whether it be dogs, laboratory testing, whatever, you must have considerable numbers to see a true picture of what is happening in an individual case.....as we all know, the results can be catastrophicif wrong and bad results start to show their heads.....
A young dog can not possible have the results on the board to achieve this....
We certainly need change, I believe also that females will only be able to have 3 litters over 24 months -- this I agree with also.
I hear what you are saying Dog 01 in regards to the smaller Kennels, but I would rather have a VA dog breed worthy than not - considerable progeny on the ground...
I hope our country do adopt these changes, they are in my opinion "for the betterment of the breed"
I believe a VA dog, should possess the highest possible qualities. "betterment of the breed" > "cream of the crop" proven track record of producing better than themselves, VA dogs and bitches titled... which I believe is mandatory males SchH 3 (IPO 3) - females ScH 1 - I think this should be as is for females as it is for males -- Anatomically sound, I agree with the HD and ED - N/Z is certainly an issue for breeding,
The strong stand on size -This can only happen if the measuring tool is calibrated to be accurate - certificate produced , and the dog is measured strictly in accordance with the rules regarding, how and where the measuring tool is placed on a dog is adhered to - there are excellent documents that display this - why is it so hard to follow. A "level area on which the dog is to be measured" .....it fascinates me that in my own Country where we have 3 surveyors at each Survey, that 3 surveyors can put a measuring tool over a dog, and get 3 different results ---- so why would you believe any of them.....
I also believe in the age being higher for a VA - "breed worth" to me is a non-negotiable for a VA title - mainly due to the fact it is the VA dogs that are widely used in the breeding programmes and have a major part to play in what is being produced all around the world - limited progeny does not prove a dog's breed worth - when you need to find out the good and bad in anything whether it be dogs, laboratory testing, whatever, you must have considerable numbers to see a true picture of what is happening in an individual case.....as we all know, the results can be catastrophicif wrong and bad results start to show their heads.....
A young dog can not possible have the results on the board to achieve this....
We certainly need change, I believe also that females will only be able to have 3 litters over 24 months -- this I agree with also.
I hear what you are saying Dog 01 in regards to the smaller Kennels, but I would rather have a VA dog breed worthy than not - considerable progeny on the ground...
I hope our country do adopt these changes, they are in my opinion "for the betterment of the breed"
by SitasMom on 31 July 2013 - 17:07
I'd love to see progeny groups for females!
Seeing the best of 3 litters would be very telling.
Seeing the best of 3 litters would be very telling.
by Hundmutter on 31 July 2013 - 17:07
SM Wouldn't it just ! That is an interesting, and quite revolutionary,
idea ... wonder if it will ever happen ?
idea ... wonder if it will ever happen ?
by Xeph on 31 July 2013 - 19:07
Progeny groups for bitches would be amazing!!!
by SitasMom on 31 July 2013 - 23:07
Such a group would prove the value of certain females, especially if the progeny were similar and from different sires.
by Dog1 on 07 August 2013 - 10:08
Follow up and observation:
The 3.5 year qualification sets up an interesting set of circumstances. As I mentioned before, my opinion is; legislating places rather than allowing the dogs to compete for places is not in the best interest of the breed.
Here's my example:
Mr. Quoll who will be judging the males recently placed Ballack in front of Quattro at a Regional show. Somewhat of a departure from tradition, buy, OK. Ballack is not old enough to be VA under the new change if implemented. So, what does the sieger show hold for Quattro and his group? If Ballack places in front of him at the sieger show as he recently did regionally, the VA group stops there and Quattro who was a very top placing dog at VA4 is out. Quite possibly any of the 10 VA dogs that placed behind Quattro. Look at the impact this could have. Right now there are 11 VA dogs whose career and progeny group are on the line. Should we go for the VA again, we have all the young dogs and working dogs in the group to show. Do we take the risk.
Rather than allow an upcoming young dog to make an entry into the VA group and allow a current VA to retain the VA rating, the placements have been legislated rather than based on the quality of the animal. Quattro and his group, all those that worked to build it fade away along with the much of the incentive to support a VA dog. A VA dog can be 'trumped' by a younger male compromising the effort to build and develop a group. This rule if implemented changes the whole dynamics of the VA group all the way to the very beginning of the VA quest. It adds criteria to the process unrelated to the quality of the dog and what it can produce. It interjects strategies to comply with a rule that may very well mask the intention of the rule.
Is it fair or in the best interest of the breed to hold back a promising young dog from achieving VA recognition by virtue of the day he was whelped?
The 3.5 year qualification sets up an interesting set of circumstances. As I mentioned before, my opinion is; legislating places rather than allowing the dogs to compete for places is not in the best interest of the breed.
Here's my example:
Mr. Quoll who will be judging the males recently placed Ballack in front of Quattro at a Regional show. Somewhat of a departure from tradition, buy, OK. Ballack is not old enough to be VA under the new change if implemented. So, what does the sieger show hold for Quattro and his group? If Ballack places in front of him at the sieger show as he recently did regionally, the VA group stops there and Quattro who was a very top placing dog at VA4 is out. Quite possibly any of the 10 VA dogs that placed behind Quattro. Look at the impact this could have. Right now there are 11 VA dogs whose career and progeny group are on the line. Should we go for the VA again, we have all the young dogs and working dogs in the group to show. Do we take the risk.
Rather than allow an upcoming young dog to make an entry into the VA group and allow a current VA to retain the VA rating, the placements have been legislated rather than based on the quality of the animal. Quattro and his group, all those that worked to build it fade away along with the much of the incentive to support a VA dog. A VA dog can be 'trumped' by a younger male compromising the effort to build and develop a group. This rule if implemented changes the whole dynamics of the VA group all the way to the very beginning of the VA quest. It adds criteria to the process unrelated to the quality of the dog and what it can produce. It interjects strategies to comply with a rule that may very well mask the intention of the rule.
Is it fair or in the best interest of the breed to hold back a promising young dog from achieving VA recognition by virtue of the day he was whelped?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top