The Beginning Of The End

[Erny]

Merry Christmas BD!

With the information I've been pursuing and gathering, I tend to agree with you.

I've been reading through this thread with interest. I have one of the breeds that IPO / Schutzhund was originally put together for as a 'fit for breeding' tool. In Germany the recognised breeds in this sport cannot achieve their champion status without a SchI Title. I thoroughly believe that this should have been made the case here in Australia and if it were our breed would be in a much better place at the present time.

FCI (not sure what the initials stand for) is the main body over in Germany and my understanding is that ANKC is affiliated with that group. So wouldn't that mean that the certain of the breeds recognised in this sport ARE bound to the Codes of the FCI?

You may all bag the 'government' for taking the law to its extent in this degree but you all must realise that this club and these people find themselves in this position due to another 'opposition' club / person dobbing them in. They are proving themselves to be worse than the damn show scene.

As I understand it certain "opposition club/person/s" would prefer to see Sch out of the way so they don't have to achieve Sch status to achieve the Champion "fit for breeding" status you speak of? How 'correct' that is I don't yet know, but if it is right, and if that 'group' has been behind the push to eliminate Sch Training, it's a pretty low and cheap act.

UNTIL THE CANINE FRATERNITY IN AUSTRALIA GET OVER THEMSELVES, STOP THE DAMN INFIGHTING AND BACKSTABBING AND START WORKING TOGETHER TRULY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL DOGS, ALL BREEDS AND ALL SPORTS IN THIS COUNTRY THE ANIMAL LIBBERS WILL SLOWLY CARVE US, OUR BREEDS AND ALL OF OUR CHOSEN SPORTS UP INTO LITTLE PIECES. THEY ARE VERY PATIENT, VERY PERSISTENT AND EXTREMELY UNRELENTING IN THEIR PURSUIT OF THEIR GOALS. THEY WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THEY GET THEIR WAY - UNLESS WE FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS - AS ONE.

Yes - Groups need to group, not divide. They divide only in their own blindness to their own demise. Competition should be healthy, not disease ridden.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Erny

[Just Midol]

Merry Christmas BD!

With the information I've been pursuing and gathering, I tend to agree with you.

I've been reading through this thread with interest. I have one of the breeds that IPO / Schutzhund was originally put together for as a 'fit for breeding' tool. In Germany the recognised breeds in this sport cannot achieve their champion status without a SchI Title. I thoroughly believe that this should have been made the case here in Australia and if it were our breed would be in a much better place at the present time.

FCI (not sure what the initials stand for) is the main body over in Germany and my understanding is that ANKC is affiliated with that group. So wouldn't that mean that the certain of the breeds recognised in this sport ARE bound to the Codes of the FCI?

The ANKC doesn't support IPO/Sch. They would probably support a country-wide ban on it.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Lord Midol

[MonElite]

FCI (not sure what the initials stand for)

Fédération Cynologique Internationale

http://www.fci.be/home.asp?lang=en

[Jed]

Even if you are not a Sch. enthusiast, the actions taken against the people from Southern Cross K9 should worry you.

No matter what your chosen sport, under the current wording of this legislation, there is nothing stopping the authorities from targetting you, or your dog club, if the chosen method of training is to use a tug as reward. Or if you train your dog in Herding

I know SFA about Sch, but the constant inroads to our hobby alarm me. As everyone knows!! As far as I know Sch dogs are not going out randomly attacking people or causing mayhem in the community.

I very much doubt that the ANKC had anything to do with the law. Probably wouldn't care.

I do think, however, it might be a good idea to find out where the impetus came from to lobby politicians to pass the law. They sure didn't dream it up themselves. I would think a certain "welfare" group might have been the driving factor. but it is handy to know, you know who you are fighting then, and what their ethos is.

There would have been little point in trying to prevent the legislation being enacted. My experience is that once they have decided, it happens.

A very easy one to get through ----" all those dogs being trained to bite people ---- would have done it.

It is almost impossible to have a law changed, but it might be possible to have it modified so that dogs which were part of accredited clubs were exempt.

I am happy to lend support, if I can, although I cannot donate. If you need numbers, or a signature on a petition, count me in.

You need a good barrister to study the law, and to see where it might be possible to have the court case return at least a reasonable outcome.

[Just Midol]

"I very much doubt that the ANKC had anything to do with the law. Probably wouldn't care. "

Sure they care, they openly declare that they don't support schuhtzhund. I bet if it was put to them they'd support a ban on it. ANKC members can have their membership revoked for participating.

[Jed]

"I very much doubt that the ANKC had anything to do with the law. Probably wouldn't care. "

Sure they care, they openly declare that they don't support schuhtzhund. I bet if it was put to them they'd support a ban on it. ANKC members can have their membership revoked for participating.

You never have been, and are not now a member of the ANKC, you know nothing about them, yet you presume to speak for them.

You have NFI whether they care or not, and you are not likely to find out whether they care or not yet you are once again spouting off about something you have no knowledge or understanding of. And probably wouldn't understand even if was explained to you using small words or not more than 5 letters.

I doubt the ANKC would support a ban, unless they were put in a position where they needed to support it. You wont understand that either, but others here will.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

very good post rhapsodical78, very touched on what you have said!!!!!

I was the one that posted the following

is anyone on this discussion topic currently active in schutzhund?

has anyone on this current thread seen or followed a green dog trained from bh,sch1,sch2 and sch3???

sorry for all the questions, just curious

Reason for this post was not to find out who was doing the sport so that they can be crucified, i just wanted to see how many on the thread at that time! were active in the sport to comment on it, i for one do not like commenting or judging on anything without fully understanding it in and out. As many people were putting their 2 cents worth in and just seeing the bite work part of it only and do not see the other aspects of the sport like you have mentioned.

I believe that if anyone gets the opportunity to see one of these special dogs trained from a green dog trained to a sch3 level or even a mere bh level you would understand how much work goes into it and how dedicated the handler and dog needs to be. Sorry if i came across like i was trying to bluff people with my questions but was only trying to make a point. I will stand up and say that i have been active in the sport for the last 6 years and that 99% of the people that i have met in that time would be the most responsible dog owners that i have ever met

cheers

Are you in Victoria? If you are, I cannot imagine how devastated you must be.

And you are right. Anyone who is dedicated enough to training to reach SCH III has to be a responsible dog owner.

[Just Midol]

"I very much doubt that the ANKC had anything to do with the law. Probably wouldn't care. "

Sure they care, they openly declare that they don't support schuhtzhund. I bet if it was put to them they'd support a ban on it. ANKC members can have their membership revoked for participating.

You never have been, and are not now a member of the ANKC, you know nothing about them, yet you presume to speak for them.

You have NFI whether they care or not, and you are not likely to find out whether they care or not yet you are once again spouting off about something you have no knowledge or understanding of. And probably wouldn't understand even if was explained to you using small words or not more than 5 letters.

I doubt the ANKC would support a ban, unless they were put in a position where they needed to support it. You wont understand that either, but others here will.

Here ya go:

1.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 Bodies Regulations

2.The Australian National Kennel Council and its Member Bodies encourage and support the interaction and mutual enjoyment of man and dog in all sporting activities catered for by the many disciplines encompassed within their jurisdiction.We believe that dogs should be properly cared for, humanely trained and not pushed beyond reasonable limits, for the respective breed's capabilities, whilst competing in the various disciplines.

http://www.ankc.org.au/home/inner.asp?pageid=53&mainid=2

RE: Attack Training and Sports.

[Luke W]

A thought that crossed my mind..

On the issue of tug toys.

It's arguable that they aren't 'attached' or 'worn'.

Is something that is held in the hand 'attached'?

[Steve]

A thought that crossed my mind..

On the issue of tug toys.

It's arguable that they aren't 'attached' or 'worn'.

Is something that is held in the hand 'attached'?

Yep - seems to me that someone reads it differently to me. Same with the ANKC stuff - is training a dog to attack a sleeve training them to attack a human? If the intent in the training isnt to teach them to attack a human but rather as a demo of their ability to do what they are bred to do via grabbing clothing - is it the same thing ?

[Erny]

LukeW .... I have some links to Victorian Govt Act (along with some directions as to how to navigate through it along with the 'notes' that go with it - typically Govt, not so easy to find your way through it) that I have yet to investigate in relation to this. Supposedly it more clearly shows that the intention of the Act is NOT to prohibit or penalise the game of "tug" - but that's what I've been informed, I need to check it out to confirm.

Christmas and the forthcoming New Year's celebrations haven't seen me with enough clarity of head to get into it, however was only thinking last night about it so will attempt to apply myself towards it soon. Perhaps it will clarify ......... but then again as I have found from the stepping stones that lead to one section of an Act to another section of an Act, perhaps it will serve to confuse even more! .

I'll be back to this as soon as I can be, if that's of any assistance. But have appointments to attend to for the better part of today.

[Steve]

Problem is most of it comes back to what we think.

We need someone who knows how to decipher this legal stuff to take a good look at it and tell us exactly what the hell we can and cannot do legally. Its only then we know what we should be doing not to be prosectuted but also what we can go after by way of trying to have the thing ammended.

We also need to get the ANKC to answer IN WRITING their policy specifically on Schutzhund as a sport in difference to anyone training their dogs to attack humans for crimminal intent. Then we know what we need to do to put pressure on them to re word their policy or to change their views.

In my opinion if the ANKC are going to stand against this as a sport they are stupid it would make them guilty of doing to Schutzhund what ARights are trying to do to them, however if they are then there are ways to approach it to help them to see the error of their ways without getting their members off side.

This arm chair lawyer stuff ,gueswork and speculation isnt going to take us anywhere fast enough and there's no time to waste.

[Erny]

Problem is most of it comes back to what we think.

We need someone who knows how to decipher this legal stuff to take a good look at it and tell us exactly what the hell we can and cannot do legally. Its only then we know what we should be doing not to be prosectuted but also what we can go after by way of trying to have the thing ammended.

The 'notes' to the Act I'm referring to might provide answer there.

We also need to get the ANKC to answer IN WRITING their policy specifically on Schutzhund as a sport in difference to anyone training their dogs to attack humans for crimminal intent. Then we know what we need to do to put pressure on them to re word their policy or to change their views.

In my opinion if the ANKC are going to stand against this as a sport they are stupid it would make them guilty of doing to Schutzhund what ARights are trying to do to them, however if they are then there are ways to approach it to help them to see the error of their ways without getting their members off side.

Good point.

This arm chair lawyer stuff ,gueswork and speculation isnt going to take us anywhere fast enough and there's no time to waste.

Sorry - I'm pleading guilty of being lax. I'll see what I can do over the next 24 hours. Not that I'm saying I'm a lawyer or as good as one. Just that I've sat on the "Act" stuff for too long and should have been into it well before now.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Erny

[Jed]

"I very much doubt that the ANKC had anything to do with the law. Probably wouldn't care. "

Sure they care, they openly declare that they don't support schuhtzhund. I bet if it was put to them they'd support a ban on it. ANKC members can have their membership revoked for participating.

You never have been, and are not now a member of the ANKC, you know nothing about them, yet you presume to speak for them.

You have NFI whether they care or not, and you are not likely to find out whether they care or not yet you are once again spouting off about something you have no knowledge or understanding of. And probably wouldn't understand even if was explained to you using small words or not more than 5 letters.

I doubt the ANKC would support a ban, unless they were put in a position where they needed to support it. You wont understand that either, but others here will.

Here ya go:

1.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 Bodies Regulations

2.The Australian National Kennel Council and its Member Bodies encourage and support the interaction and mutual enjoyment of man and dog in all sporting activities catered for by the many disciplines encompassed within their jurisdiction.We believe that dogs should be properly cared for, humanely trained and not pushed beyond reasonable limits, for the respective breed's capabilities, whilst competing in the various disciplines.

http://www.ankc.org.au/home/inner.asp?pageid=53&mainid=2

RE: Attack Training and Sports.

What has that got to do with what I said

[Steve]

Sorry - I'm pleading guilty of being lax. I'll see what I can do over the next 24 hours. Not that I'm saying I'm a lawyer or as good as one. Just that I've sat on the "Act" stuff for too long and should have been into it well before now.

I dont think you've been lax - or anyone for that matter. I just think its time to get it all clarified and spelt out to us based on

what legal people have to say so we know rather than think we know. - Make sense?

[jesomil]

1.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 Bodies Regulations

LM, can you please clarify where it says that ANKC doesnt support schutzhund?

The above paragraph says that training dogs to attack people or other animals is opposed, but I dont see the sport of schutzhund mentioned.

[Nekhbet]

from the GSD council of Australia

GSDCA Policy on Schutzhund Training.

The German Shepherd Dog Council of Australia fully supports the position as adopted (after consultation with its Member Bodies) by the ANKC regarding Schutzhund as follows :

* All previous resolutions regarding Schutzhund up to and including May 1994 are rescinded.

* ANKC will not take responsibility for the management nor control of Schutzhund in Australia. Also, the ANKC will not recognize any Schutzhund titles awarded in Australia or to any dog awarded a title resident in Australia.

* No Member body of the ANKC shall recognize or approve Schutzhund training activity or conduct Schutzhund Trial competition and any member taking part risks disqualification.

ANKC Member Bodies consider Schutzhund training is not in the best interests of their activities.

[jesomil]

Well, that certainly clarifies it.

What a disgrace.

[arawnhaus]

from the GSD council of Australia

GSDCA Policy on Schutzhund Training.

The German Shepherd Dog Council of Australia fully supports the position as adopted (after consultation with its Member Bodies) by the ANKC regarding Schutzhund as follows :

* All previous resolutions regarding Schutzhund up to and including May 1994 are rescinded.

* ANKC will not take responsibility for the management nor control of Schutzhund in Australia. Also, the ANKC will not recognize any Schutzhund titles awarded in Australia or to any dog awarded a title resident in Australia.

* No Member body of the ANKC shall recognize or approve Schutzhund training activity or conduct Schutzhund Trial competition and any member taking part risks disqualification.

ANKC Member Bodies consider Schutzhund training is not in the best interests of their activities.

Beat me to it, I was reading this only last night writing out a response in my head to jed.

[Erny]

from the GSD council of Australia

GSDCA Policy on Schutzhund Training.

The German Shepherd Dog Council of Australia fully supports the position as adopted (after consultation with its Member Bodies) by the ANKC regarding Schutzhund as follows :

* All previous resolutions regarding Schutzhund up to and including May 1994 are rescinded.

* ANKC will not take responsibility for the management nor control of Schutzhund in Australia. Also, the ANKC will not recognize any Schutzhund titles awarded in Australia or to any dog awarded a title resident in Australia.

* No Member body of the ANKC shall recognize or approve Schutzhund training activity or conduct Schutzhund Trial competition and any member taking part risks disqualification.

ANKC Member Bodies consider Schutzhund training is not in the best interests of their activities.

My highlights.

Wonder what they mean by "not in the best interests of [the ANKC's] activities" ? I'd like to know their reasoning behind this. Are they politically based? Or are they based in some dog-welfare issue? If so, how? How does Sch impact on the ANKC's "activities"?

Also - this is the GSDCA's policy. The GSDCA are telling us what the ANKC's stance on it is. I'd like to see in writing the ANKC's stance written in their own words - along with some reasoning for it if indeed it is as expressed by the GSDCA. I'd like to know when the ANKC developed negative policy against Schutzhund and I'd like to be able to read the minutes of their meeting or some other notes they might have which might give their explanation for their stance. Do we have a right to ask for those things?

Edited December 29, 2008 by Erny