The Beginning Of The End

[Nekhbet]

Can the GSD Club assist me with Schutzhund or Protection training for my puppy/dog ?

No ! - The GSDCA affiliated Clubs do not support the training of Schutzhund, or any form of Protection training and do not believe this form of training is necessary. It is a requirement of Victorian law that any dog that is trained to attack a person or animal must be reported to the authorities and will probably be declared a dangerous dog.

also from the GSDC website. So the ANKC sees Schutzhund as attack dog training and hence it falls under the quote from the the ANKC website:

The Australian National Kennel Council and its Member Bodies totally and unequivocally oppose the practice of training of a dog to attack humans or any other animals, or of causing dogs to fight. We totally support any State or Federal laws that would outlaw this practice. Such practice is an offence against Member Bodiesí Regulations.

IE we dont know what it is so we wont agree with it. Fabbo.

[Erny]

Can the GSD Club assist me with Schutzhund or Protection training for my puppy/dog ?

No ! - The GSDCA affiliated Clubs do not support the training of Schutzhund, or any form of Protection training and do not believe this form of training is necessary. It is a requirement of Victorian law that any dog that is trained to attack a person or animal must be reported to the authorities and will probably be declared a dangerous dog.

also from the GSDC website. So the ANKC sees Schutzhund as attack dog training and hence it falls under the quote from the the ANKC website:

The Australian National Kennel Council and its Member Bodies totally and unequivocally oppose the practice of training of a dog to attack humans or any other animals, or of causing dogs to fight. We totally support any State or Federal laws that would outlaw this practice. Such practice is an offence against Member Bodiesí Regulations.

IE we dont know what it is so we wont agree with it. Fabbo.

But both of those quotes make reference to "attacking a person or animal". Sch does neither. IMO, the ANKC's policy on it is unclear and they could chose to swing either way. I'd still like to read their actual stance on Schutzhund along with some explanation so that we can see they understand what the training is about. Also their explanation on how the sport impact's the ANKC's "activities".

[Nekhbet]

Schutzhund has the bitework component which is the dog biting the sleeve. By victorian law that is a big no no and schutzhund dogs can be dual purpose - both competition and security trained.

I dont see why they would not agree with either of the persuits since its what dogs were bred for. ANKC, Dogs Vic etc has released nothing up until now on this have they?

[Erny]

Schutzhund has the bitework component which is the dog biting the sleeve. By victorian law that is a big no no and schutzhund dogs can be dual purpose - both competition and security trained.

Yeah - perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, and I don't even know if it matters or makes any difference, but ......

We can easily see what Vic Law states.

But Sch trains to not attack humans, but to go for the sleeve (please correct me if I'm wrong ..... I'm only part way familiar with Sch). You would have read HR's post where it was shown the dog going for the sleeve (item) and when the decoy slipped it and ran off, the dog paid no attention to the decoy - only the sleeve that was left behind.

So by ANKC's words, it doesn't agree with training dogs to attack humans or other dogs. It supports Vic Law that prohibits that (ie the training to attack humans or other dogs). It does not state its stance on the training of dogs to bite something worn or attached to a person. Therefore the way I see it, the ANKC have not expressed their stance on Sch training in their policy. And if they do, I'd like to hear their explanation on the impact to its own "activities" that training a dog to bit an item worn or attached to a human would have.

As I said ..... I have no idea whether the small nuance I'm focusing on here makes an iota of difference to the situation or not.

I dont see why they would not agree with either of the persuits since its what dogs were bred for. ANKC, Dogs Vic etc has released nothing up until now on this have they?

I don't see why either.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Erny

[Erny]

Haven't found anything (yet) on the explanation to exclude "tug" as ever possibly being taken to task over, but did find this in Victorian Parliamentary Hansard Second Reading - November 2000

""The bill also addresses guard dogs.

Honourable members have all seen guard dogs in places such as wrecking yards. "

"Currently those dogs have their own yard or enclosure or pen prescribed, but the outside fence around the yard is not prescribed. That will also be done in the bill. It will be achieved by calling those dogs dangerous dogs, which are already subject to appropriate controls. " "Mr Stoney referred to dogs that rush or chase people. I suspect that more than half the time no damage is done. I have seen dogs gallop up to people and chase them, especially kids, and it is a bit of a game. I used to have a dog called Bob and he used to race up and jump up to be caught. He was a big dog so it was a bit awkward catching him when he ran up. He certainly would not have bitten anyone. However, people can be frightened and the situation can get out of hand. The situation can become worse if a dog has a nip or two at the start of the game, which can lead to more serious activity. " "If the council or the courts become aware of such activity they can declare the dog a menace so that when it is off the owner's premises it needs to be leashed or muzzled. If the dog continues to be a nuisance the rule of 'three strikes and you're out' applies -- that is, two more strikes and the dog can be declared to be dangerous and further restrictions can be imposed. It is a good idea. It is not too restrictive and it is reasonable because it stops the real problem before it gets to the extreme end where it could be dangerous. "

"While the bill was between houses the Deputy Leader of the National Party was contacted by a gentleman named David Hynd, the president of the German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria. The club wanted an amendment to provide exemption for the Victorian Canine Association for imported German Shepherd dogs from some restrictions. "

"I understand that these dogs are trained overseas, and the request from the club was that they be exempt from the dangerous dog classification at training grounds and show events to allow the dogs to be unmuzzled and not leashed. "

"I noted in the correspondence that with regard to blood line dogs called Schutzhund dogs, all adult breeding stock imported to Australia must obtain a current Schutzhund title in their country of origin prior to export. I am advised that currently there are 10 to 12 of these dogs in Victoria, and 30 in Australia. I understand that there is some dissent from the Victorian Canine Association on this issue resulting from insurance concerns. "

"We understand the concern of the German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria led by Mr Hynd, but the timing makes it impossible for any amendments to be moved now because the lower house has risen. "

"The minister has assessed the amendments, and the National Party would be happy to pick up the issues next sessional period for Mr Hynd and his dog club. "

Edited December 29, 2008 by Erny

[Steve]

Id say there's enough evidence to support the idea that the ANKC do not support this activity and its my opinion that they have actively made comments and policy statement to portray a perception that its an activity which shouldnt be able to be considered good for the dogs or good for society. Any law makers would at least take this into consideration.

You surely have a huge battle on your hands. Sad because at the end of the day it will see dog people who should be united stand against each other. Divided we fall.

[Nekhbet]

Yeah - perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, and I don't even know if it matters or makes any difference, but ......

We can easily see what Vic Law states.

But Sch trains to not attack humans, but to go for the sleeve (please correct me if I'm wrong ..... I'm only part way familiar with Sch). You would have read HR's post where it was shown the dog going for the sleeve (item) and when the decoy slipped it and ran off, the dog paid no attention to the decoy - only the sleeve that was left behind.

So by ANKC's words, it doesn't agree with training dogs to attack humans or other dogs. It supports Vic Law that prohibits that (ie the training to attack humans or other dogs). It does not state its stance on the training of dogs to bite something worn or attached to a person. Therefore the way I see it, the ANKC have not expressed their stance on Sch training in their policy. And if they do, I'd like to hear their explanation on the impact to its own "activities" that training a dog to bit an item worn or attached to a human would have.

As I said ..... I have no idea whether the small nuance I'm focusing on here makes an iota of difference to the situation or not.

Erny security dogs too are taught with a sleeve, then bite suit etc. Of course they will be considered one and the same even though there are glaring differences to anyone who pays attention. Schutzhund is a sport that is sleeve focussed and not training dogs that will do security work. Whether that dog goes on to do it or does both is nothing to do with Sch but you can see how the lines can become blurred. ANKC will not support it in any way, shape or form because it is seen as encouraging a dog to go onto attack a person - which is utter utter rubbish.

The fact is the main governing body of dogs in Australia are not to be relied on for help in this matter, and neither is the GSDCA or its members. Such a pity. I've seen some GSD breeders have these quotes on their website too as not to encourage people to purchase their puppies for security, schutzhund or other such persuits.

[Shinners Regal]

The GSD club legislation and constitution is not the ANKC legislation or constitution!!! They are a club entirely on there own merit....I would suggest that if you were disqualified based on participating in the sport in Qld for say then you would have a fine case for descrimination... Go Dirty Dog for standing tall!!! I am only a beginner but have seen dogs from pup-BH and sch 1-2 and 2-3 and think the trainers deserve respect and applause!! The ANKC states that attack work on men is not permitted, in QLD IPO is not attack work, nor security, it is toy based prey drive work so would not even come under that heading...at least so far QLD law is making sense!!

[Just Midol]

The GSD club legislation and constitution is not the ANKC legislation or constitution!!! They are a club entirely on there own merit....I would suggest that if you were disqualified based on participating in the sport in Qld for say then you would have a fine case for descrimination... Go Dirty Dog for standing tall!!! I am only a beginner but have seen dogs from pup-BH and sch 1-2 and 2-3 and think the trainers deserve respect and applause!! The ANKC states that attack work on men is not permitted, in QLD IPO is not attack work, nor security, it is toy based prey drive work so would not even come under that heading...at least so far QLD law is making sense!!

It's not really about what it says, it's the intent of what it says.

People can deny it all they like, but the ANKC opposes Schuhtzhund and IPO. The fact that they won't recognise SCH or IPO titles should be enough evidence.

[Shinners Regal]

The GSD club legislation and constitution is not the ANKC legislation or constitution!!! They are a club entirely on there own merit....I would suggest that if you were disqualified based on participating in the sport in Qld for say then you would have a fine case for descrimination... Go Dirty Dog for standing tall!!! I am only a beginner but have seen dogs from pup-BH and sch 1-2 and 2-3 and think the trainers deserve respect and applause!! The ANKC states that attack work on men is not permitted, in QLD IPO is not attack work, nor security, it is toy based prey drive work so would not even come under that heading...at least so far QLD law is making sense!!

It's not really about what it says, it's the intent of what it says.

People can deny it all they like, but the ANKC opposes Schuhtzhund and IPO. The fact that they won't recognise SCH or IPO titles should be enough evidence.

That maybe so i would have no idea, but until they put it into writing or a representative puts it to paper and make it part of their constitution, we will not be made to feel like we have to hide being involved with sportdog clubs.....we are proud!!!

People saying what ANKC does or does not support would want to be careful themselves....The fact they do not YET validate titles is not a stand on all members and deligates opinions...it may just a matter of time as with all new sports whom wish to be recognised. I can only forsee all this public awareness being raised about the sport as a positive should the court cases outcome be in the favour of the sport dog memebers....i have already seen new memebers appearing, and members returning to clubs who have not been for along time based on the information out there now and smart people actually wanting to see it for themselves and make educated opinions for themselves, not just on heresay.

ANKC title or not a SCH3, AUSC or SA Affiliated titled dog is still titled in my eyes, as it is with alot of the public, so although i would love it to recognised the fact that it isn't does not at all put me off spending my valuable time and effort into the sport. I do it for the love and joy of the sport and to most of the sport dog enthusiasts i know thats what it is all about THE LOVE OF THE SPORT BETWEEN HANDLER AND FRIEND...titles are great but not what its totally all about...its knowing for yourself if your dog can or can't do it!!!

[Guest rhapsodical78]

So, what are we going to do and how can I help?

[Erny]

I'm not sure Rhaps. HR might be able to come in with some of his ideas, but I'm thinking a rough sketch plan would involve :

• Collating written and video information well explaining Sch training activities and goals.
  
• Writing to ANKC and asking on what basis (the current regulations aside) it disapproves of the Sch Sport (assuming that it does)
  
• Writing to the Govt (including the supportive written & video info) and explaining why the Regulation is wrong; the impact of the Regulation; and why it should be changed.
  
• Arranging a petition to indicate the level of support the Sch sport has.
  

I think all of this needs to be 'headed' by someone who is capable of demonstrating good PR skills and who possesses a good level of understanding of the sport, consideration to the concerns (founded or not) of others and an absence of bias, or at least a sense of fairness. Being able to acknowledge other pov's (that's not to say having to completely agree with them) is also important.