 |
USA Member News & InfoExecutive Ballots, Organization News, USA Office Announcements, USA General Board Meeting Information,USCA Organization NewsUSCA Teams with BSA For SARApril 16, 2013
April 28, 2013 has been deemed the “Day of the Search & Rescue Dog”. To honor this day and in view of our international involvement under the RH program, the United Schutzhund Clubs of America is now participating with the Boy Scouts of America, who have adopted the RH platform for training purposes. The first such training will take place with the Venturers in Philadelphia. This not only gives credibility to the RH program that other organizations find it beneficial, but also for giving USCA exposure on a global basis. The Cradle of Liberty Council Boy Scouts of America will be hosting a themed weekend for Venturers in the Philadelphia metro area. The Venturing program serves coed youth ages 14 -20. The weekend will be hosted at one of the Council's camp properties in Montgomery County. As a way to showcase scouting's relationship with the Search and Rescue Community, the scouts will get to learn about Search and Rescue through demonstrations. The scouts will also have an opportunity to ask questions of those involved in Search and Rescue, perhaps even building a lifelong interest in the activity. Please see: www.rescue-dog-day.orgTo learn more about RH titles, see Rulebook Correction - Completion/Disarm CommandsUpdated April 9, 2013
USCA Members,
There has been a correction to the USCA Rule Book effecting the section Completion / Disarm on standard size book on pages 56, 61, 62, 67, 69 and on the Small size book on pages 84, 92, 94, 102, 105. At no time is the handler allowed to use the command "Platz / Down" in the protection work other than to position the dog for the escape. Use of the command "platz/down" to keep the dog with the helper, during pick up of the dog or any time other than to position for the escape will be cause for Disqualification (DQ). In the event the dog goes into a down on his own during guarding, on picking up the dog by the handler the dog must come to "basic" position with a "sit / sitz" command. Use of "platz/down" will result in DQ. Please reprint or make the correction in your copy of the rules. Thank youNathaniel Roque
Director of Judges - United Schutzhund Clubs of America (USCA)
USCA - Working / Performance Dog Judge # 30, USCA / SV - SV Licensed Trial Judge X-Rays for SV HD/ED evaluationsMarch 29, 2013
***EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY***If submitting x-rays to the USCA office for processing of the HD/ED evaluations, a letter from your veterinarian on his/her letterhead stating the following, is now required.
**If the above information is not provided along with the HD/ED x-rays, they can not be processed** Please (click) on the attached form letter to present to your veterinarian.USCA 2012 National ChampionshipFebruary 9, 2013
Photo of the 2012 National Championship winners -- From left to right —
All three teams were HOT - Handler-Owner Trained. Griff is BHOT (Breeder owned and Trained) Photo provided by Sue Dicero. See the complete results at www.USANationalChampionship.comGSDCA/WDAMarch 1, 2013
As I wrote in my last email, we have been in negotiations with GSDCA/WDA concerning the acceptance of the GSDCA/WDA scorebooks and members in USCA trials. Negotiations temporarily stalled when information was sent to the WUSV/SV by the WDA that was untrue. USCA has and will continue to strive to always comply with the WUSV Constitution. The WDA has long wanted to use the services of USCA - our judges, our trials, our helpers, etc. Resistance in the past has been based on a handful of issues, most prominently that WDA is not a WUSV member. USCA has continued to request direct instruction from the WUSV/SV. Until this morning, we have not received that instruction. This morning's communication is clear. ( Click here to read the SV Letter) USCA is to accept the scorebooks and titles from any WDA member with any GSDCA/WDA scorebook that enters our USCA club trials. Our relationship with the SV and membership in the WUSV is an important one. USCA, as a member, bound by the WUSV Constitution, would never willfully violate this Constitution. We have maintained and will continue to maintain relationships with the WUSV/SV based on mutual respect and understanding. Our objective with this issue has been to gather factual information, provide that information to the membership, and act accordingly. I would like to thank all of you for your patience with regard to this issue and the members of the USCA executive board who have diligently worked in search of honest, clear communication from the WUSV/SV. Sincerely,Jim Alloway United Schutzhund Clubs of America 2012 WUSV TeamNovember 18, 2012
From left to right — Sean O'Kane, Charlie Meszaros Tommy Gillies Jim Alloway Rhonda Southern Sigrid Riess-Mundy Mike Diehl Clement Dang The United States team and a good outing at the 2012 Championships. Sean O'Kane and MAx ze Stribrneho kamene was high-scoring team member with 280 point. This was good for 14th overall. Other scores included
Sean O'Kane (USCA) - Max ze Stribrmeho kamene Clement Dang (USCA)- Fox van't Enclavehof Tommy Gillies (USCA) - Figo vom Fuchsgraben Rhonda Southern (GSDCA) - Bac von der Siebengebirgsperle Sigrid Riess-Mundry (GSDCA) - Ayro vom Vogelbergblick Alternate: Mike Diehl (USCA) - Irmus Galag Nalag 2012 Results E-Mail Updates to MembershipDecember 9, 2012
Jim Alloway and the Executive officers recently sent an email message to each USCA member who has an e-mail address on file. Unfortunately, a number of those bounced due to address errors. If you didn't get this message, please email Debbie in the USCA office at Accounting@GermanShepherdDog.com. Using email rather than phoning ensures we get your correct email address. The Executive Officers will use this means of communication periodically to update the membership on important issues. If you are using spam filtering software or other methods of screening unwanted emails, please make certain that UnitedSchutzhundClubsOfAmerica@gmail.com is on your accepted senders list. This list is also called a white-list. If you do not wish to receive these communications, there is a opt-out link at the bottom of each message that is sent to your email address. For those who may have missed the message …
Thank you for your membership in the United Schutzhund Clubs of America. I'm honored to be serving as your President. Further, I'm proud to be part of an executive board that is excited about the future of our organization. Please join me in welcoming Frank Phillips (VP), Karen MacIntyre (NBW), Michele Scarberry (Secretary), Mike Diehl (DAL), Claudia Romard (DAL), and Deb Krsnich (DAL). Thank you to Lyle Roetemeyer, Craig Groh, Tim Burke, Al Govednik, Johannes Grewe, and Marsha Asbury for your years of service. Your accomplishments and dedication will not be forgotten. The EB has been meeting/communicating regularly since the election. We will continue to work for you and always prioritize our German Shepherd dog, the sport of IPO, and our members. There are exciting times ahead! This is the first of many emails to come. In the weeks/months ahead I will be communicating regularly via email to the membership. I will strive to communicate all relevant/pertinent information so that you are well-informed. If you did not receive this email directly, the office likely has the incorrect or no email on file. Please contact Debbie Sweeney via email to add/change your email address. Have a great weekend and good luck with your training! Yours in the sport,Jim Alloway — United Schutzhund Clubs of America 2012 ElectionsNovember 1, 2012
This is a partial list of un-official results.
Congratulations to all the electees — may your hard work be appreciated by all! 2012 GBM Agenda PostedSeptember 29, 2012
Marsha Ashbury, USCA Interim Secretary, has posted the Agenda for the 2012 General Board Meeting. Click on the link below to view the PDF document. 2012 Youth Scholarship Winners!July 23, 2012
CONGRATULATIONS 2012 Youth SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTSBoth student athletes are gifted and present impeccable characteristics and we are proud to present them as representatives of our youth program — Lyle Roetemeyer - USCA PresidentCraig Groh, James Honda, Michele Scarberry - USCA Youth Scholarship Committee Andrea HashimotoAndrea’s grades are impressive; her extracurricular activities include competitive gymnastics, tennis, swimming and dog training, which keep her very busy. She has achieved numerous awards and recognition in athletics. Andrea’s community service was volunteering at a veterinary clinic and SPCA wildlife center. She has been accepted at the University of California, Santa Barbara and will major in pre-med. Andrea reflects in her essay that Schutzhund training presents an opportunity to teach and to learn that common language between dogs and humans, through this unique language, a special bond is forged, and an unforgettable journey begins. Together, Andrea and Henk worked through tough times as well as good times, they were presented challenges and opportunities, and created an incomparable team. Andrea displays superb sportsmanship, and is an ideal representative of our youth program Dominic Scarberry
Dominic is a four-year varsity athlete, All American wrestler, and a four-year honors Latin major. His community service included volunteering for the Lorain County Office of Aging. He has been accepted at West Virginia University and will major in civil engineering. Dominic reflected in his essay, “If you become content with the best you have done, you will never be the best you can be.” He applies the same principles to Schutzhund training, as he does with life. Setting goals, self-discipline, perseverance, and preparation. In addition to his credentials as a dog trainer, competitor, and helper, he has made an impression with his passion for those things that he has prioritized family, faith, vocation, and sport. World Universal Sieger CompetitionJune 18, 2012
The USA Team has done well in the conformation phase of the competition in Slovenia. The trial portion of the competition was completed on Saturday and Sunday. The combined USA team had a strong showing withe Erin O'Shea and Zambo taking first place. USCA's Kevin Nance and Katharina Oster placed fifth and seventh respectively. Thom Payne and Zastin were the third place team in the working phase. Kris Taylor and Gordon placed eighth in the working phase. This year's USCA Universal Seiger Team (shown below from left to right) is … 
Vandal vom Mittelwest with Kevin Nance,
Crok vonder Mordersdell with Katharina Oster,
Zastin Eqidius with Thom Payne,
Gordon vom Fuchsgraben with Kris Taylor
Final Results
USCA Team Member in Bold-face type Click here for the complete listing of the final results Trial Results Event Website WUSV Team Selection ResultsJune 10, 2012
Average of Judge's scores listedUSCA members are in Bold-Faced type. The WUSV team consists of the top five finishers plus one alternate. A great job by all the competitors! Judges were USCA, USCA/SV Judge Craig Groh and GSCDA/WDA Judge M. West. WUSV Team
WUSV Qualifier TeamJune 4, 2012
Please join me in wishing the very best of luck to our USCA member teams that will be competing at the WUSV Qualification Trial on June 9th and 10th in Spring Green, Wisconsin. The trial will be held at:
River Valley High School
660 Varsity Blvd. Spring Green, WI 53588 GO USCA! Lyle Roetemeyer — USCA President List of USCA Qualifying Teams
2012 Sieger and SiegerinMay 24, 2012
Left: Edward Calderon with handler Kristoffer Rorbaek. Right: Birgit Neuhaus
We wrapped another outstanding USCA National event with the crowning of this year's Sieger — Odin vom Mittlewest II (left) and Siegerin (right) — Putz von der Dunieschenke
Long Coat Sieger - Bosco vom Bardouille Haus with his owner, Mario Bardouille and SV Judge Frank Goldlust
2012 Universal SiegerMay 24 3, 2012
Vandal vom Mittelwest with Kevin Nance (left) have repeated as this years Universal Sieger Champions. They and the rest of the team will continue on to the competition with the GSDCA group and hopeully on to Slovenia for this year's World Universal Sieger Championship. This year's USCA Universal Seiger Team (shown below from left to right) is …
Sieger Show Photos by Roanna Banduci.
Click to visit website.
2012 Working Dog ChampionshipApril 23, 2012
This past weekend in Columbus, Ohio, the Mid-Ohio Schutzhund club wrapped up a cool, rainy spring weekend hosting the 2012 Working Dog Championships. With a strong entry fielding over 70 dogs, we saw many of the top teams in the country if not the world. By all accounts, Mid-Ohio did an outstanding job of hosting this event. Thanks to all club members who worked so hard to make this event run well. Our two youth handlers — Dominic Scarberry and Andrea Hashimoto also scored well with their IPO3 dogs. Dominic with Bo von Diamant Grenze finshed with 272 points. Andrea with Henk Vom Hufeisenberg wound up with 263. Here are some of the trophy winners from this event. For a complete wrapup of the scores, see the event website at 2012 WDC Championships  High IPO3 ChampsLeft to Right
 HOT ChampsLeft to Right
 FH ChampsLeft to Right
Photos courtesy of Clifton Strommel, Clifton Strommel Photography New EU Travel RequirementsUPDATED April 9, 2012
There have been a lot of questions in regards to what was originally posted on our website. What we posted refers to "IF" you are checking your dog as "cargo", this does not apply if you are checking your dog as baggage. Click on the link below. Once it opens, scroll down to "Pets" under that category click on where it lists "dogs, cats, ferrets (movement of no more than 5 non-commercial pets) There are (2) of these options, make sure you choose the one that was posted February 2012. It's going to open a (6) page EU/Veterinary Certificate, scroll down to page 4 "notes" letter (e), the certificate that has been issued for your dog, again, if checking it in as baggage will be valid for 10 days. President's MessageMarch 11, 2012
Spring is trying to arrive early throughout the USA. As we enter the spring trial season, let us all remember to be mindful of the changes to the IPO Rules that are now in effect but let us also be mindful of good sportsmanship by showing respect to all of those around us. Let’s show the world that those that would belittle or demean others are not the norm in our organization and that we should speak up against those that would stoop to those levels. I wish all of you success with your training in the months ahead and also remember to respect your dogs and be fair with your dogs in all aspects of training. The countdown to our National events is well under way. The USCA Working Dog Championships will be held in Grove City, OH on April 19-22. Mid Ohio Schutzhund has been working hard to prepare a venue that is pleasing to competitor teams and spectators as well. The USCA Sieger Show will be held in Indianapolis, IN on May 18-20. OG Indianapolis Polizei and Schutzhund is providing an outstanding venue for our premier show event. The host hotel is filling up very fast so please make your reservations soon. The first deadline for entries is April 3. The AWDF IPO Championship will also be held in the Indianapolis area on May 9-13. It is being hosted by USCA club OG Landshark. Links to all of these event websites can be found on the front page of www.GermanShepherdDog.com The second annual WUSV Team Qualifier will be hosted by the GSDCA this year in Spring Green, WI on June 8-10. June 8th will be the only practice day for the competitors and the draw will also be held that evening. The actual competition days will be June 9th and 10th. USCA will have Johannes Grewe serving as co-trial secretary; USCA/SV Judge Craig Groh will be one of the judges for the event along with SV Judge Dieter Schmale for this trial which uses Olympic style scoring. There will be more information posted on this trial in the near future. As always, I wish to express my sincere thanks to each and every member for their continued support and their spirit of camaraderie in furthering the goals of the United Schutzhund Clubs of America. For more than thirty-six years, the efforts of our membership to protect and preserve the German shepherd dog through the use of our breed evaluations have continued to ensure that our future generations will be able to experience the joy of owning a German shepherd dog with true working temperament. I wish each of you happiness and success with your dogs in all walks of your life! Lyle RoetemeyerPresident —United Schutzhund Clubs of America 2012 NE Region Training SeminarFebruary 3, 2012
In spite of the warming effects of La Nina, it would not be a schutzhund day without some adverse weather! Twenty seven people from in and around the northeast region gathered at the Greater Philadelphia club’s field in Spring City, Pennsylvania for a seminar featuring internationally accomplished trainers, John Soares and T. Floyd. Handlers and trainers endured snow and dropping temperatures to participate in the day’s events. The session was divided with obedience work in the morning, a lunch break, and then the protection phase to complete the day. Common themes throughout the day were to train from the HEART and TEACH your dog what command you expect. We must look at ourselves as handlers and evaluate, are we truly conveying to the dog what learning we want to accomplish? Brandon Jensen and Olu Floyd rounded out the Helper corps during the protection phase when ever John and T would give them a chance. We were fortunate to see start up dogs up to competition caliber animals withT and John bringing a few of their own dogs out to demonstrate. The Northeast Region would like to thank John, T, Brandon and Olu for contributing their time and efforts for a productive educational experience as well as the Greater Philadelphia Club and Spring City National Guard Armory for the field. Get involved and evolve! See more photos at Click here to see more photos!Candiates WantedFebruary 3, 2012
Members with the correct temperament and team spirit to serve in several Officer and Committee positions arising this year. This is your opportunity to take a more active role in how the USCA carries out its mission and to help shape the future of the organization. Available Positions Include …
The Nominating Committee is currently contacting the incumbents to determine their interest in continuing. This, notwithstanding, our role is to include in the slate of candidates, person/persons with the requisite credentials and aptitude for the position. The ultimate decision will, however, be with the membership voting at the General Meeting. If you need any clarification or are interested in any position, please contact any member of the Nominating Committee or its Chair, Rifky Mackeen at either rifkyn@hotmail.com or at 201-477-8260 (EST). All applications must be received on or before May 31, 2012.
"
New EU Travel RequirementsFebruary 3, 2012
New EU forms and outlines for required documentation when traveling with or shipping pets has now become effective as of March 1, 2012 One of the MOST critical points is that anyone leaving the States for the EU is that the health certificate is only valid for 24 hours. This means that a person will have to go to a vet in Europe to get their dog another health certificate to return back to the States!!! Stephanie Dunion states that she is currently working with PAC in Atlanta and with a company in Germany to clarify if this will go before the parliament in Brussel – where these rules are sanctioned - to see if this will be changed. This may take months, the way protocol dictates. Our members planning to travel to the EU are urged to immediately contact Pet Air Carrier in Atlanta for assistance. PAC is in direct contact with the USDA and they can assist our members,who have a need to know the new rules effective immediately! www.PetAirCarrier.com Lyle RoetemeyerUSCA President
"
FCI Judge's MeetingJanuary 9, 2012
Photo provided by Frank Phillips from a Serbian judge
SV Judge Guenther Diegel reviews the new IPO rule changes.
The following is a brief report from the 2011 FCI Judges Meeting regarding the new IPO Rules. Click on the link below for the full report from the FCI Judge's meeting in Breda, Holland. (156K PDF document)
December 9-10 FCI Judge's Meeting As expected, there are some slight changes in the interpretation of these new rules and they are being addressed. I would caution all members to be flexible in their interpretation of the current posted FCI Rules as this first year may have more changes. The most specific things that are now defined for differently are ...
As always I will continue to try to share all information as it is available. My thanks to USCA Judge Frank Phillips for submitting this report. With a great deal of help from Ivana and Craig, I have been able to post the new trial and judge's sheets as well as a new BH test. The new rule book is underway and I hope to have it completed by February. Until then, the English version of the FCI rules are what we will be following. Nathaniel Roque - USCA Director of Judges
USCA National Champions!!November 6, 2011
USCA National Champions - (L to R): Kristen Oberholtzer and Banga von Floyd Haus (2nd, 288 pts) — Sean O'Kane and Max ze Stribrneho Kamene (1st, 289 pts) — T. Floyd and Ulrich vom Hammerbachthal (3rd, 288 pts) The 2011 USCA National Championships wrapped up Sunday afternoon. The top few places were separated by only a few points. Sean O'Kane and Max won the Championship with a 289. Kristen Oberholtzer and Banga von Floyd Haus and T. Floyd and Ulrich vom Hammerbachthal tied in total points with 288 -- the tie-breaker was Banga's 95 point protection performance that narrowly edged out Ulrich's 94. They tied in obedience and were again only separated by a point on tracking. Krista's 98 point track was only bested by Kandice Jacopino and H'Doc vom Rex Lupus with a high in trial 99 point track. Mike Diehl followed in fourth place with 287 point total featuring a high in trial 99 point protection routine. Bob Cook and Akki vom Haus Enhrenreich rounded out the top 5 places with a 285. Kevin Nance and Vandal vom Mittelwest won Universal Seiger honors. Click here to view compete resultsThanks to the folks at Tornado Alley for putting on a great championship!RH Rules PostedApril 26, 2011
RH RulesClick to view the RH RulesUSCA is underway with developing its RH program as the only United States member of the IRO. President Roetmeyer has appointed an RH Committee chaired by EB Member Jim Alloway and they will be working to further develop this new and exciting test for our working dogs. USCA Member Stef Dunion is and has been a direct liaison to the IRO and USCA Judge Karen Macintyre have both attended IRO meetings and represented USCA as well as both of these members have successfully earned RH titles here in the United States. The attached link is to the current IRO RH Rules and these rules will be included in the 2012 USCA Revision of the Working Trials Rule Book that will also include the 2012 IPO Rules. Currently there are only a few USCA Judges that may award the RH 1 tilte so if you are considering offering the RH1 please be sure that your club has selected a Judge with those credentials. Best of Luck With Your Training and Trialing !
Nathaniel Roque
Director of Judges - United Schutzhund Clubs of America (USCA) 2012 Trial RulesNovember 19, 2011
The WUSV have confirmed that they will accept and use the 2012 IPO rules. The correct name for the new rules for WUSV member Clubs is “WUSV Regulations” So under the WUSV Regulations we will follow the 2012 FCI IPO Trial Rules. At his time it appears that the posted rules on the FCI website are our best interpretation please go to www.fci.be/circulaires/55-2011-annex-en.pdf USCA will be moving ahead with our own version of this rule book. Effective 1/2012 the only authorized titles that will be available at USCA Trials are
Please continue to look for updates here and in the magazine. Best of Luck with your training and trialingNathaniel Roque 2011 CandidatesAugust 17, 2011
The Nominating Committee has decided on the following candidates for the vacancies arising this year. Judges Committee – 2 positions
National Events Committee – 4 positions
Nominating Committee – 5 positions
Rifky Mackeen Chair - Nominating Committee USCA Nationals Frequently Asked QuestionsAugust 17, 2011
Some questions that office are often asked about entering the USCA Nationals …
WUSV Qualification Trial ResultsJune 6, 2011
The WUSV Team Selection was held in Verona, KY this weekend, June 4 and 5. USCA members Keven Lanouette, Dan Cox, Clement Dang, and Jason Wiggins will represent the USA at this year's WUSV competition. GSDCA's Eric Eisenberg will also be on the team. GSDCA's Rob Kochan will be the alternate. Click on the link below for the complete results. Complete resultsUSCASean O'Kane with Max ze Stribrneho KameneDan Cox with Chuck vom Dorneburger Bach Katie Gillies with Maya vom Gilbach Jason Wiggins with Nick del Lupo Nero Clement Dang with Fox van't Enclavehof Kevin Lanouette with Wum von der Adelegg John Horan with Cholo del Valle de la Luna Andrea Hashimoto with Henk vom Hufeisenberg Gary D'Hue with Charlie Kampftrieb Carolyn Daniel with Grantz Diehlomov GSDCACarl Smith with Bodo vom FlutgrabenRob Kochan with Grem du Triangle Magique Fernando Stanford with Hustler Dreadlocks Hater Proff Rhonda Southern with Bac v.d. Siebengebirgsperle Eric Eisenberg with Chash v.d. Suderholmer Strasse Krista Wade with Berllin vom Gluecklichen Tal Wallace Payne with Packo aus Agrigento Haley Bogner with Orchard Knob Arros Congratulation class of 2011
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Glyn with her dog, Hessy
| Name | A | B | C | Total |
| Karoly Meszaros | 89 | 82 | 89 | 260 |
| Peter Kovach | 95 | 90 | 91 | 276 |
| Dana Palumbo Pulled - Dog Injured in "C" |
88 | -- | -- | — |
| Dan Cox | 98 | 92 | 91 | 281 |
| Mike Diehl | 95 | 87 | 96 | 278 |
| Alternate: Lisa Jacquin | ||||
| Full WUSV Results | ||||
As you read this, the USA team is returning from this year's WUSV competition.
From the USA this year, we have Mike Diehl, Dan Cox and Lisa Jacquin (Alternate). We will post some photos as they come in.
(L to R) Dan Cox, Mike Diehl and Lisa Jacquin at the 2009 USA Working Dog Championships
Photos courtesy of Action Photo Sports
Nathaniel Roque Elected as Interim Director of Judges
I am pleased to announce that the Executive Board has unanimously elected Nathaniel Roque to serve as our interim Director of Judges.
The USA Judges College was polled for their input prior to the nominations for this election and they are fully supportive of the Executive Board’s selection. The General Board will be asked to ratify the Executive Board’s selection at the 2009 General Board Meeting this November.
I wish Nathaniel great success in his role as USA’s Director of Judges and feel certain that the entire membership shares my feelings.
Lyle RoetemeyerPresident
United Schutzhund Clubs of America
2008 WUSV Judge's Meeting
USA Director of Judges, Mark Przybylski, attended the 2008 WUSV Judge's Meeting in Darmstadt, Germany. There were 59 Judges there from 30 different countries. The emphasis on the meeting was strongly geared to rules applications, evaluation of exercises, and point assessment based on quality of work, training, and behaviors. This meeting emphasized proper judging in accordance with the current rules.
The following is a summary of issues discussed at the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT OF A DOG
In order to clearly evaluate a dog, a brief synopsis was given regarding development of the dog which would help understand the learning and training processes. This was broken down into three categories; Pre-natal, neo-natal, and juvenile.
Pre-Natal was described as the first 2 weeks after birth. It is here were the puppy is introduced to stress and stimulus.
Neo-Natal was described as the period from 4-14 weeks. During this time the dog learns fear and aggression and the handler should try to have these two elements work in harmony. The dog must learn to win and learn to lose. It is during this time the dog(s) should be introduced to all types of stimuli and environment.
Juvenile Phase was described starting at around 5-8 months of age. It is here were the dog learns body language, interacts with people, and learns the body language of people and helpers, and establishing a harmonious working relationship with its owner. The dog should be exposed to all environments and learn to self explore these environments. It is during these phases in particular that dogs learning what are harmful, and what is not. What is to fear, and what is not to fear. Teaching should be in an active manner to overcome these fears.
WHAT MAKES THE “V” PERFORMANCE
One of the problems that has developed over the past few years, is the rating of “excellent” is given far too often. This seems to be more common as it relates to dogs of less character and genetics. In statistics gathered through Europe, dogs are given an “excellent” rating about 40% of the time. As compared to 10 plus years ago the number was 4% to 10%. Part of this is judges are not following the guidelines, not understanding the rules, and not having a clear understanding of character, temperament and genetics. All dogs, no matter what the breed, no matter of breed versus show, must be evaluated the same.
The dog’s temperament must be tested throughout. It starts at the beginning. It is strongly recommended that we use many of the adjective descriptors available to us to note what the animal demonstrates from the onset. This will help place the dog in the appropriate category and rating. In order for the dog to receive an “excellent” rating he must demonstrate the following;
- Must be happy
- Must be free
- Must be correct in all parts of an exercise
- Must be well trained
- Must show harmony between dog and handler
- Must show drive (temperament and character)
- Must show balance in drives
IMPLEMNTATION OF TRIAL RULES
We basically have three different sets of trial rules; VDH, WUSV, and the FCI (IPO) rules. The VDH outlines the performance for all the titles; starting with the BH and through Schutzhund Three and other titles as currently outlined. The WUSV rules were discussed as the ultimate application of rules, as to ensure that no matter what country the judge is from, that the handler will show with the same expectation of assessment for their handling and showing.
For example: Here in the USA we can judge 36 portions. A judge from Germany may only be able to judge 30 portions. The judge cannot alter his/her rules from his/her country to apply them here. That judge must follow the rules from that country as dictated by his VDH rules.
DISQUALIFICATION
Again the topic of disqualification was covered. It was reported that in Germany that the number of “disqualifications” has increased. If a person is disqualified, then in most cases, all points and rating are lost as well. Disqualification and can occur for the following reasons;
- Poor sportsmanship
- Breaking of the rules
- Temperament
- Animal cruelty
- Common decency
- Possession of motivation object during a trial
- Lack of control
- Fails to out after 2 commands
- Fails to control after 3 command
TRACKING
Not much new here. I will bullet the highlights and then give some clarifications on rules enforcement/interpretation.
- Land should be as uniform as possible, but not required
- Judge orders the track order and pattern
- Each pattern should be different
- Must have a start flag
- Must have a draw for tracking
- Flag must be directly to the left of the scent pad (not 1m)
- Tracks must laid in normal, as well as the corners
- Level 2 & 3 dogs, dogs and handler must be out of sight
- If the dog reaches the last leg within time frame, must allow dog to finish the track
- No time requirement or limit for start
- No minimum size for article dictated
- No help from tracklayer if terrain changes
Specific questions were asked regarding the following situations.
Reporting In
“..handler must report ready for tracking”. The tracking leash must be laid out so that the judge can see the length. The line may be attached to the collar. It does not have to under the leg or attached to the harness when reporting in.
Article Indication
The handler must indicate that the article will either be pointed out or picked up. If the handler reports that the dog will pick up he can do the following option; pick up and sit at the article location, pickup and stand at the article location or pickup and retrieve to the handler. The dog cannot lie down and pick up the article. The speed of the indication may by in-line with the speed of the dogs track. For example; if the dog track slow, the article indication does not have to be extremely fast. As longs as the indication is sure and with purpose a slow indication may not be faulty when considering the dog’s temperament and character.
Praise
At the article praise can be before or after but not both. The handler cannot praise the dog as the handler picks up the article. If praise comes prior to showing the article, there must be a clear pause between the two. Praise the dog, stand up/break from the dog, then retrieve the article. Once the handler has followed the dog after the start(s) and after the corner and the handler is clearly in the leg, the slight verbal praise is allowed.
Working of the Track
The dog from the time he reports in should show no pressure. The start is part of the evaluation for the first leg. During the track the dog must demonstrate self reliance, harmonious relationship with handler and environment, consistent in the work, intensive, active in searching, temperament and character of the dog are relevant in the rating. If a dog is tracking, and makes a check off to the side without leaving the track, this may not be faulty. This is the same with the corners. A dog that takes a corner cleanly may be evaluated the same as the dog that stop to determine the track direction, then proceeds. But the action of the second dog must be quick and convincing. A dog that changes its pace because of difficulty or terrain change should not be faulted. Environment and ground conditions can be taken into consideration as part of the overall evaluation.
FH1 and FH2
The FH1 must have a street and changes of terrain. Going from one dirt field to another is not a change of terrain. However, in grass field, there may changes of terrain in that field and could be considered sufficient. But there has to be a clear change in terrain. For the FH2, a road may not be required, but there must be another type of difficulty (fence, ditch, tree line etc).
Evaluating the Track
In evaluating the team, there are several factors to be considered. These should be kept in mind during the entire tracking, corners, and article indication. Also the judge must in position at all times to see the dog’s work and article indication. If the tracks are laid in high vegetation (1m), the judge must be close enough to see the dog and approach close enough to verify the indication of the article.
- Tempo must be constant
- Tempo can change with terrain changes
- Tempo can change with change in difficulty
- Nature of the soil and terrain
- Humidity, temperature, and wind
- Height of vegetation
- Contamination
- Superficial behaviors
- Dog must make 100% of the decisions
- The dog is in the tracking phase from the moment they walk onto the field, and after they leave the field. Any rewards given prior to the completion of any critique, is grounds for “disqualification”
- The dog can sit or stand when placing the line underneath, but not down and no obedience commands may be given when preparing the dog with the line
- Dogs temperament and character or part of the evaluation
- Line can be held in either hand or in both hands during the track
- At the start, the dog may be brought in from any direction. However, if the dog is brought in from where the tracklayer walked, and the dog’s tracks through the start, it may be faulty. But remember, part of the evaluation is that no time limit is required for the start.
OBEDIENCE
There were not many questions regarding obedience. It was again stressed that the dog’s temperament and drives should be clearly explained to the handler and spectators. Here are a few bulleted items;
- Judge tells when to begin each exercise
- Handler is responsible for the content of each exercise
- Commands can be given in any language, but must be consistent
- 3 commands are allowed to perform an exercise, then it results in severe points loss to disqualification
- If a dog does not finish an exercise, the highest rating is insufficient
- If a dog does not come into basic position after three commands, 6 points off
- In the send out, it is broken down into 2 five point parts; basic positions, build up, send out, and distance. The second part is the down and pickup. If 2 commands given, the rating is good, if three commands are given it is high insufficient
- The basic position can only be taken one time. If the handler adjust more than one time, points are taken
- The handler must display three seconds between parts of the exercises, and does not have to wait for the judges signal to finish.
During the heeling exercises the following items were noted;
- Dog must be free from pressure
- Must be straight and at handlers knee
- Errors in the Basic Position is part of the overall evaluation for that exercise
- Watch the 3 second rule
- Pickups can be from either side
- Giving a command to heel, then waiting 3 seconds or notable pause to start is faulty. The handler and dog must move at, or directly after the command to heel is given
- Must be a clear distinction in evaluations and describe the dogs; concentration, activity to work, freeness, temperament, association with the handler, and recognize the difference between correct and not correct, and temperament and lack of temperament
- No motivation between exercises
- No motivation with the dumbbell
- Handler must go directly to the position for the retrieves
For the retrieves we must check the equipment for proper height and safety. At a trial, only the dumbbells provided by the hosting club can be used. Spitting on or rubbing on the dumbbell is faulty. No reposition is allowed. One interesting point was on the 1 meter jump and the dog should knock the jump over. In this case, the jump is repositioned and the handler is allowed to throw the dumbbell again; however, the only portion that is evaluated is the return jump. All other portions; initial jump, pickup, sit in front, hold, and finish have already been evaluated. If on the second jump the jump is knocked over again, then the jump is rated as no return. Other general rules are as follows;
- Handlers must walk in a normal manner and normal pace
- Walking too slow is faulty during the normal pace
- Dog must clearly demonstrate a change of paces
- About turns must be on the same line
- Slowing or increasing speeds is not part of the counted steps
- Depending on the layout, it may be permissible for the club to demonstrate two left turns as opposed to 2 right turns
- Dog must be clear headed
- Not natural for the dog to look 100 percent at the handler’s eyes, this is based on the physical makeup and flexibility of the dog. But the dog must be attentive and show relationship to the handler
- The jumps should be direct and powerful
- If the handler moves after the dog is sent, the highest rating is high insufficient
For the sit exercise, the dog must sit with concentration and purpose. Looking around may not be faulty if the dog with strong temperament is being aware of the environment. The same applies to the down/recall and the stand in motion.
PROTECTION
This area is generally discussed by spectators more that the other parts of the exercises. It is critically important that we are clear in our critiques to ensure that the reason for the rating is that the dog displayed/possessed certain traits or characteristics. We must describe the drives, balance of drives, power and temperament. We must also describe in each exercise how the dog attempts to stop the helper, and reacts to the pressure and the stick hits. We must make it clear for example; comparing a dog with good speed, adequate power and faultless mechanics can not be rated as high as compared to a dog with power, balance in drives, and this dog may make slight fault in portions of the exercise. The dogs with superior traits and training must be recognized. A dog lacking character and intensity in the work cannot receive a “v” rating. A dog that is consistent in behavior but is lacking throughout can only received a “good” rating.
Basic rules for disqualification were covered;
- Lack of temperament
- Lack of control
- Biting the helper other than the sleeve
- No out
In describing the part regarding biting the helper, a dog that nips is not to have considered biting the helper. This is referring to the dog that fully engages and grips the helper on other parts outside the sleeve. No changes from out current evaluation on how the grip is evaluated under our current program.
Blind Search
The commands given by the handler should be made while walking in motion down the field. The dog should run in front of the handler. However, if a dog of strong character runs behind the handler one time only, this should not be faulted. However, if a dog runs behind a second time, the highest rating should be a “g”. It is not important that we see the eyes of the dog looking into the blind, but more importantly recognize the behavior and the posture of the dog at the blind. These signs would be able to demonstrate to the judge that the blind was searched convincingly. No criteria were set on how wide the dog is allowed to run the blind. In videos that we watched, it was more typical of a dog with lesser character to run fast and lacking purpose to run the blinds wide. The rules describe a close and tight search, but there may be some allowance for a very fast dog (only if his character is strong).
HOLD AND BARK
This was an interesting discussion on some points. The first point was that the guard must 100% towards the helper, then followed by a statement that “…a dog of strong character, showing aggression, self assuredness, and balance in drives, may not be faulted if the dog detects a movement and quickly checks and then returns to the helper”. The position was stated that we do not want a robotic dog. It would be negligent to take away the dog’s natural being during an exercise. Here are some other points;
- Dog must be active and attentive
- Must be powerful and demonstrate balance in drives
- Must be self assured
- The hold and bark duration is 20 seconds
- In IPO, there is a call back in IPO1 (no pick up)
- Helper must observe the dog and movements
- Helper does not have to make direct eye contact
- Weak barking is minimum of high good
- Strong guard and no bark, minus 5 points
- If a dog leaves the blind or is going to be sent a second time, the handler cannot call the dog back into the basic position and resend. If the handler does this, this is cause for disqualification
- If a dog comes back prematurely on the call back, the highest rating is only high in the high insufficient
During disarming exercises, the helper can step back one step if requested. However, at higher events, judge can set the standard so that all dogs are shown the same.
The next point of discussion was three exercises because the dog receives different penalties for the same behavior. If the dog is disobedient in the blind during the hold and bark, and bites, up to 9 points is taken. The handler cannot say "out".
During the back transport, if the dog breaks and engages the helper before the handler can gain control, this is mandatory disqualification for “out of control”.
During the back transport, if the dog breaks and engages the helper before the handler can gain control, this is mandatory disqualification for “out of control”.
OVERALL PROTECTION EVALUATION
It was stressed that during the evaluation that the judge must clearly describe the behaviors, temperaments, drives, and hardness of the dog. It is the hope then when faced with dogs of different character/temperament, that when explaining to the public why a dog showing a fault can be rated higher over a dog of less power and temperament with better technical skills.
In all phases, the dog must be watchful towards the helper.
RULE CHANGERS
There are no current rule changes. There will be some rule changes in 2010. Here are some items currently being discussed. These are only items being discussed and nothing is yet been determined.
- In tracking the point assessment will change for articles so that if a dog misses all the article the dog cannot pass
- In obedience the climbing wall may eliminated for Sch 1
- On the climbing wall, the dog must touch certain area of the wall to get full points, jumping high and off the wall would be faulty
- Heeling on leash may be back in Sch 1. This would incorporate the BH and Sch 1 in one and same showing
- Required mandatory commands in certain phases
- Required command in transports would be “transport”
- Point allocation and dismissal would be closer or the same if the dog makes the same mistake in different parts of the protection
- Big pressure to eliminate the long bite and the sticks hits. Currently the vast majority do not want to eliminate either
- If the long grip is eliminated, it would follow the DPO call off, then a hold and bark, and re-attack
- Talks regarding attack out of the blind in lieu of escape and defense
- Under WUSV rules, the current would not change
USA Rulebook Changes
USA Director of Judges Mark Przybylski has released the updates for the rules at trials.
Many different interpretations of the rule changes had been implemented and distributed by the SV and we did try and make sure that we had the most complete before we attempted to put them in force. We also wanted to wait until the FCI Judges meeting to make sure that we were also in agreement with them due to the increased usage of FCI judges at USA trials.
Actual handing down of rules occurs as follows: FCI to the AZG which then goes to the VDH which of course relays to the SV, each country may still decide to adopt or not adopt a specific rule or create a variance as to its’ interpretation which is usually where the confusion starts to set in.
The actual first draft of them was delayed because of unforeseen factors, but the rules were still being meted out as the USA judges attempted to make them known, I hope that you will bear with me for the time frame being as extensive as it was.
TRACKING
There were a few changes that became evident here. Head checks on the track with a dog that tracks consistently are not subject to the penalties that may have been marked in the past, also, the vegetation, wind and the temperature are also taken into consideration when scoring and evaluating the track.
When the track is laid, there is to be more of a natural pace while actually laying the track. Heavy stepping while laying the track is not allowed and the laying of the scent pad must not be heavy, although there may be some extra time (slight stepping) here.
Also, the articles on the SchH1 track will be as the articles on the SchH2 track - first article on the second leg and last article at the end of the track. It is no longer the choice of the handler as to article placement in SchH1.
Praising at the articles may be before or after you show the article to the judge, which means, when you go to your dog upon an article indication, you may praise (such as petting or verbal praise) before you pick up the article to show it to the judge or you may do it after you show the article to the judge. You may not praise while you are picking up the article and/or showing it to the judge.
The start of the track has not changed greatly other than the complete omission of any obedience commands in your approach to the scent pad. After reporting in to the judge be prepared for tracking with the lead played out so the judge may observe the lead, you may stop three meters (approximately nine feet ) before the scent pad to re-position your lead, such as, under the dog’s leg without any type of obedience command (no sit or down). You may also do this while moving towards the scent pad. The dog then should go to the scent pad with the handler, while under control and be given the track command at the scent pad. The handler’s hands may not go below their knee in setting the dog into the track initially and at the re-starts at the articles. The handler may also not go to the scent pad to survey the lay of the track before the beginning of the track.
The leash may be tight or loose, but the handler must be 33 feet behind the dog and must not change pace unless the actual terrain would dictate it.
The indication of articles should be presented in the same manner as the actual tracking of the dog, such as, a dog that tracks with much enthusiasm and drive should not be slow at the articles to the point where it creates a wholly different picture from the overall track.
The dog should also take a good scent pad, not rushing through it from avoidance or nerves, although there is not a set time that the dog must remain at the scent pad that would result in point deduction.
There is still encouragement of the dog allowed on the track but may not be extreme and the “such” command may only be used at the scent pad and at the re-starts on the articles.
BOETCHER HARNESS- You can clip the leash to the metal ring underneath the dog on the harness
- You can clip the leash to the collar and have the leash go through the metal ring on a BOETCHER harness underneath the dog.
The FH1 and the FH2 now have the same start, as in the FH1.
Obedience
The union between dog and handler is important and will be one of the criteria whereby the judge evaluates obedience. The dog does not necessarily have to have constant eye contact with the handler or always looking up but must show attention to the handler throughout the obedience phase.
The left about turn and the military international about turn are both correct, but are performed as a pivot move (traveling back over the same ground) and not a curve back, the same about turn must be utilized throughout the whole routine.
The handler must make sure they do the correct heeling pattern in obedience.
The handler is also responsible for taking the correct number of steps in all buildups and in exercises where the dog is left in place. One example, in the buildup of the exercise, 10 to 15 steps. Point deduction for failure in this part of an exercise could range from ½ to 1 point.
At local trials, the handler may still decide in what direction they wish to do the jump exercises. At national events, all handlers will follow the same direction. The same dumbbells are used by all handlers at all events. The handler may not prepare the dumbbell in any way such as, rubbing it before throwing and may not use it as an incentive for the dog. Upon completion of the retrieve exercise, the dumbbell must be held at the right side calmly and along the leg.
The dumbbell must be thrown at least ten paces (approximately 20 to 30 feet) from the handler. If the handler is unable to make the distance, the judge may help the handler with the throw.
Touching the jump may result in a ½ to two point deduction in both directions.
During any part of an exercise where running is required there must be a noticeable change of pace.
Training vests are allowed in local trials but may not be worn in Regional or National events at any time during competition.
PROTECTION
There is still much discussion and different interpretations among some of the foreign judges about the helper being allowed to move back one step before the search or transport. This is still under discussion although almost all foreign judges allow it, some do not, but all are told to adopt this interpretation, the consensus of the majority was that the helper may be instructed to step back one step.
If the dog returns to the handler as he approaches the “live blind”, a deduction of three to four points may be taken.
A dog that goes into the blind and bites the helper, can only receive a “fuss” command to regain control. If the handler gives an “out” command, the team is disqualified.
Call out of the blind is “ Hier, Fuss “.
Heavy gripping of the sleeve after the “out“ may result in up to a 9 point deduction.
If a dog holds onto the sleeve before the “out“, this is not considered faulty.
There is only a small deduction for a shallow grip that changes to a full grip at the dog’s first opportunity in an exercise.
The handler must wait for the judge’s signal to release their dog on the “courage test” and the handler must remain at the point of release until the judge’s signal to come forward to pick up their dog.
The new title of STP (Stobenprufun ) Article Search is covered in the new printing of the rulebook.
Many of the rules or interpretations described above are not new, just more clearly defined than in the past.
SV Breed Surveys and Elbows
USA Breed Warden, Tim Burke announced that the SV has mandated that all dogs born after January 1, 2004 (regardless of country of origin) must have elbows certified by the SV if they want an SV breed survey. They will not accept OFA elbows.
Tim is meeting with the SV office the first week of March to establish procedures so the USA office can assist members in obtaining SV elbow certification similar to the USA “a” stamp program.
We do not have this requirement yet for USA breed surveys. The Breed Advisory Committee will take this under advisement after the Sieger show to discuss if we want to implement this rule for USA breed surveys.
Trial Secretary Tutorial
Your club has a trial coming and they need a trial secretary. What are you gonna do?
Gail Kendall from the Phoenix Schutzhund Club has distilled her long experience into a 30 minute tutorial on how to handle that task. From setting up the entry forms, the judge's sheet and the final listing of the scores and titles, this outstanding presentation covers it all!
Getting the paperwork completed correctly is a huge task in the USA office. Chasing down corrections on the forms is a major effort. If all the forms came in correct and complete, it would free a significant amount of resources to better serve the USA membership.
The tutorial is about 30 minutes long. You will need to have the Flash plug-in available on your computer to play it. Most browsers already have this installed.
Is Your Event Using a Correctly Classified Helper?
This is a reminder from the USA Helper Committee regarding the proper use of Helpers in all authorized USA Events. There has been some confusion regarding the level of helpers to work events.
The guidelines are:
- All helpers working a USA Event must be current USA members and have a Helper Book with a classification noted in the book of Basic or higher.
- Entry level helpers may not work events. These are helpers that are USA Members and have purchased a book, but not attended and passed a seminar/classification.
- Basic level helpers may only work club level events — not regional championships or nationals.
- Club level helpers may work club level events and be considered for selection at regional level events.
- Regional level Helpers may work club and regional events and be considered for national events.
- National level helpers may work any event.
- Teaching helpers may teach as well as work any level of event that they are selected to work.
The current helper classifications are listed on the USA website. Click here to view the helper classification list. However, the most recent classification noted in the helper's book will be the determining one when selecting a helper for trial work.
In the event that a club does not have a "classified" helper available to work an event they should contact the Helper Program Director to request a special circumstances waiver to allow the event to proceed.
It is the Trial Secretary and, secondly, it is the judge's job to verify that the helper is properly "Classified" to work the event. It is also the helper's responsibility to know what level event they are allowed to work.
Failure to follow the program rules may lead to unsportsmanlike conduct charges, revocation of the Helper's book or charges against the club.
The goal and mission of the helper program is to improve the quality , education and performance of trial helper work at all levels of events. Our committee is here to help and we will support helpers and clubs in any way to promote the proper progress of the scheduled event.
Thanks for your continued support of the Helper Program
Chair of National Helper Committee
Previous Year's Executive Ballots
Executive Board Ballots
(Click on the link above to view the completed ballots.)
Note
Executive Ballots that involve Board of Inquiry cases are not published until the balloting process has been completed.E-Ballot #21-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to accept the entry from Tanna Ragan for the 2010 GSD National Championship.
Background: This member obtained a qualifying score at a USA trial and then attempted to compete at the Pacific Northwest Regional Championship, but her dog was ill. When she checked in for a phase of the event with the judge, she was excused due to the dog being ill. She asked at the time if she needed to show the dog to meet the qualifying requirements for the GSD National Championship and was told by the three judges and the regional director in attendance that she had fulfilled the requirements to enter the GSD National Championship. In interviewing two of the judges at the event, they both stated that the dog was sick but could have started the phase of the competition if needed; but they did not think it was necessary and that it was better to excuse it at check in than after a couple of exercises.
The USA Regional Policy clearly states that the dog must enter and show to include starting in at least one phase of the event and that a dog that is previously injured or sick does not qualify. USA Regional Policy: “To qualify for participation, the handler/dog team at a minimum must begin one or more phases of the trial. If while participating the dog is pulled due to injury or illness, the process outlined under Section D “Pulling a Dog from a Trial” under General Rules and Regulations in the USA Trial Rules will apply. A notation in the scorebook of “terminated (or discontinued) because of injury or illness” is acceptable to qualify for participation. A handler/dog team that cannot attempt the exercises or achieve a partial score due to a pre-existing injury is not qualified as having participated. Disqualification for unsportsmanlike conduct does not qualify as participation.”
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 11/3/2010
E-Ballot #20-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Frank Phillips, to accept the late entry for Meridith Vallillo to enter and handle her husband’s dog "Orion" in the 2010 GSD National Championship.
Background:This handler/member qualified this dog by handling him to obtain a qualifying score and entering him in the Northeastern Regional Championship. The entry was accidentally sent to the USA Office two days late due to personal problems.
Meridith’s husband, Gary D’Hue, who was the original handler/owner of the dog, has been hospitalized with Stage 4 lymphoma and had asked Meridith to show the dog for him at the GSD National Championship. In all of the stress and confusion of Gary's illness, Meridith thought that Gary had mailed the entry and did not realize it was not sent until after the deadline. This handler already had tickets and lodging reservations and is doing this at her husband’s request. The entry has been sent to the USA Office and is postmarked two days post closing date.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 11/3/2010
E-Ballot #19-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to approve Joe Brockington to replace Clark Niemetalo as one of the preselected helpers for the 2010 USA-GSD National Championship.
Background: Clark Niemetalo notified Helper Committee Chairman, Dennis Vander Linde, that he would not be able to work the event due to personal reasons. The Helper Committee reviewed the existing short list of helpers for this event and voted to invite Joe Brockington to replace Clark Niemetalo for the event.
No - (0)
Abstain - (2) - Sean O’Kane, Frank Phillips
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 10/17/10
E-Ballot #18-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to grant a waiver of the GSD National Championship regional participation requirement to Beth Bradley. Beth had just finished practice at the Northeast Regional Championship on Friday when she received a call saying her father was gravely ill, and she left the championship to join him (who was a three-hour drive away). Her father did not survive, and passed away half an hour after she arrive.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0)
No Response -(0)
Motion carried 10/9/10
E-Ballot #17-10
Motion by David Witmer, seconded by Jeff Govednik, to accept the determination/recommendation of the Board of Inquiry in the case of Mathew Levin v. Grewe/Phillips/Roetemeyer/Wallick with the exception of charges #4 and #5. As the Board of inquiry failed to reach a decision for charges #4 and #5 as mandated by the USA Bylaws, and as the period for declining to consider the allegations had passed, the Executive Board agrees with the dissenting opinion and modifies the determination/recommendation for charges #4 and #5 as not sustained. Also, the appeal of the BOI determination in this case submitted by the accuser has been denied by the Directors at Large.
BOI DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION
Listing of charges provided by USA Secretary:"You have filed charges against four USA members (which requires a $200 deposit for each charge), and you have filed additional allegations against both Johannes Grewe and Frank Phillips (which requires a deposit of $50 for each additional allegation.)"
Upon addressing the listed charges above, the Board of Inquiry (BOI) determined that the additional charge against Mr. Phillips is superfluous. Mr. Phillips is charged with voting in favor of a motion and later in the document is listed a second time for voting at the General Board meeting (GBM), which we believe lead to the interpretation of an additional charge. In the BOI's opinion, Mr. Phillips should only be charged one time for voting at the GBM.
- Charge #1:
Mr. Grewe is charged with violating USA's bylaws when he rose at the GBM in Iowa and presented several motions to the voting members for discussion and vote.
- Charge #2:
Mr. Roetemeyer is charged with violating USA's bylaws when he recognized Mr. Grewe and gave him the floor to present his aforementioned motions.
- Charge #3:
Ms. Wallick is charged with violating USA's bylaws when she counted the votes for the motion presented by Mr. Grewe for consideration at the GBM.
- Charge #4:
Mr. Phillips is charged with violating USA's bylaws when he voted in favor of Article IV, Section 2 motion that Mr. Grewe presented for a vote at the GBM.
- Charge #5:
Mr. Grewe further violated USA's bylaws by voting in favor of the motions he presented.
- Dismiss the additional charge placed on Mr. Phillips and return the $50 deposit to Mr. Levin
- The BOI does not find willful violation on the part of the defendants and does not recommend disciplinary action, unanimously
- Charges #1-3 are not sustained, unanimously.
- Charges #4-5 received four votes of "non-decision" and one vote of "not sustained"
All members agree that the bylaws with regard to the voting rights of the Directors at Large are ambiguous. Parliamentarian opinion was rendered in this case and specifically addressed the ambiguity.
The four votes of "non-decision" are in agreement with the Parliamentarian opinion that interpreting and rendering a decision on this bylaw ambiguity is not within the scope of this Board. Bylaw and Constitution matters should be discussed properly through either the Bylaws Committee or before the GBM. Policy-making matters (i.e., determining Director at Large voting rights) require the input of the general membership and should be decided by the GBM. The majority BOI on this vote was placed with the specific intent of not labeling the recommendation as "sustained" or "not sustained" in order to remain non-influential in any subsequent motions or actions arising from this ambiguity.
The "not sustained" vote is in agreement with the Parliamentarian opinion that challenging voting rights is to be completed before the last vote is cast.
- It is the recommendation of this BOI that USA hire a professional parliamentarian and/or attorney before the next general board meeting, and annually thereafter, to examine the bylaws as they are written and recommend changes to alleviate any ambiguities in the future.
- It is the recommendation of this Board of Inquiry that USA investigate the matter of how the defendants' response document was made available to parties outside of the BOI, the defendants, and council.
During the course of these proceedings, information presented itself that would indicate a breach of confidentiality in that the defendants' response document was made available to parties outside of the BOI, the defendants, and council. However, the BOI agreed unanimously that the unsolicited information was not admissible and would not be taken into consideration in the case.
No - (0)
Abstain - (4) - Lyle Roetemeyer, Sara Wallick, Johannes Grewe, Frank Phillips
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 10/01/2010
E-Ballot #16-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to approve the USA Judges Committee’s recommended slate of judges for the 2010 USA-GSD National Championship:
Tracking – Carla Griffith (USA, USA/SV)Obedience – Al Govednik (USA, FCI)
Protection – Mike Hamilton (USA, USA/SV)
IPO FH – Ann Marie Chaffin (USA, FCI, USA/SV) and Carla Griffith (USA, USA/SV)
Assisting will be:
Ann Marie Chaffin (USA, FCI, USA/SV) – Long down judge
Andrea Duggan (USA Probationary Performance Judge) – Tattoo and line check at tracking
No - (0)
Abstain - (3)
No Response -(0)
Motion carried 9/21/2010 -
E-Ballot #15-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Al Govednik, to accept a 270 or greater IPO, VPG, or SchH score as a qualifying score for the USA-GSD National Championship. The current rules state SchH and do not specify an IPO or VPG is acceptable.
Background: In the past, IPO scores were not accepted because IPO rules prior to the 2004 rule changes were different in some of the exercises than SchH. Since the IPO rule changes, and with the upcoming integration of IPO, VPG, and SchH into one common name; it is and will be more correct to allow a score of 270 or greater at a USA event from the IPO, VPG, or SchH to be accepted for entry in the USA-GSD National Championship. We have had members who have earned an IPO3 with 270 or greater and assumed they are qualified for the USA-GSD National Championship (this happened to me in 2001 with my dog Saber -- Al Govednik); and then when the entry opened they were forced to scramble for a SchH trial to try to qualify. With the IPO, VPG, and SchH virtually the same, this motion would only help to close an oversight from past differences in the rules.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 9/14/2010
E-Ballot #14-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Craig Groh, to approve the USA Judges Committee recommendation to institute a Competitor Dress Code for National Events:
COMPETITOR DRESS CODE FOR USA NATIONAL EVENTS
All competitors entered in any USA national event — (Sieger Show, Working Dog Championship, GSD National Championship), must adhere to a basic dress code:
Dress code for stadium phases (obedience, protection, show ring, protection test, and awards ceremony):- Collared shirt (examples are button shirts or polo shirts [no t-shirts]).
- Pants (examples are khakis, BDU, or Dockers [no jeans]).
- Jackets, windbreakers, or rain suits are acceptable if required by the weather.
- Team or competitor uniforms are acceptable in the form of a workout suit, athletic outfit, etc
- Jeans or Levis are acceptable if necessary due to conditions; suggested attire is the same as the stadium phases.
At all times the competitor must make every effort to maintain a clean and presentable image for the organization.
Background When the United Schutzhund Clubs of America hosts national events, these events are the showcase of our organization. Competitors in these events are featured in photographs in our magazine and represent our organization. Because of this, the USA Judges Committee proposes adopting a basic dress code for national events.
No - (2) - Johannes Grewe, Mark Scarberry
Needs Further Discussion - (16) - Lyle Roetemeyer, Sara Wallick, Sean O’Kane, Tim Burke, Al Govednik, Terry Macias, Frank Phillips, Jennifer Acevedo, Pia Blackwell, Arthur Collins, Jeff Govednik, Pedro Jimenez, Warren Jones, Dena McGowan, Thom Payne, David Witmer
Motion failed 9/1/2010
E-Ballot 12-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to allow any authorized judge for a USA performance trial/breed show/breed survey/seminar to add one (1) additional day of travel expense at the approved rate (currently $100) for his/her return travel day if that day is scheduled on a non-event day (day after the trial/show/survey/seminar). Travel expense may only be charged if the travel takes place on a day when there is no event being conducted. A judge may only charge the approved rate per day to include either judging fees or travel expense.
Background: An example of the use of this charge would be when a judge is scheduled to work a Saturday and Sunday event and travel is scheduled for arrival on Friday and departure on Monday. At the judge’s discretion, he/she may charge for one day of travel to arrive and one day of travel to depart plus the two days of the event.
No - (1) - Dena McGowan
Needs Further Discussion - (1) - Mark Scarberry
Abstain - (3) - Craig Groh, Frank Phillips, Warren Jones
Motion carried 8/14/2010
E-Ballot 11-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to approve the USA Helper Committee’s recommended slate of helpers for the 2010 GSD National Championship:
- Patrick Davis
- Clark Niemetalo
- Steve Romard
- Don Yelle
Final selection will be determined by helper tryouts on the Wednesday preceding the event as outlined in the USA Helper Program.
No - (0)
Abstain - (1) - Sean O’Kane
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 8/13/2010
E-Ballot #10-10
Motion by Sean O’Kane, seconded by Craig Groh, to approve the fiscal year 2011 budget with total income $573,510, total expenses $544,695, income tax expense $11,500, and net income $17,315. ( Click here to view Budget).
Background from Treasurer Sean O’Kane: With the downturn in the economy, the loss of corporate sponsorship, and a decrease in income in other areas, including membership, we are faced with a budget that in order to balance will require either a dramatic decrease in expenses and services or an increase in income. While expenses have been cut in many areas, the only way to balance this budget and keep services that we are all used to is by increasing our dues. We are faced with antiquated equipment and software at the USA Office and a website in desperate need of replacement.
All these needs cost money. This budget is the first step toward upgrading USA’s infrastructure. This budget is the first step toward insuring USA’s future is secure so we can not only provide the members with services they have become accustomed to, but provide them with additional services that are badly needed. A new website to increase communications to all members, provide a members area to view our magazine, update their contact information, and even renew their membership will be a part of the upgrade. This database-driven website will also replace the current software used at the USA Office to keep track of trial results, membership, and dog registration information.
With this dues increase, which must be voted on in a bylaw change at our General Board meeting in Reno, we will have a net income of approximately $17,000. This money and reserve funds will be used to make these much-needed upgrades.
Background from Vice President Craig Groh: While this year may not be the best time to increase our organization’s dues for various reasons, it is long overdue. USCA has not increased our dues in the last 14 years, since 1996. Inflation alone has reduced the buying power of the US dollar from 1996 to 2010 by almost 40%. The average item that cost you $60.00 in 1996 now costs you $83.50. Essentially, the cost of running the organization has increased by 40% over the last 14 years, while our revenue has remained flat. We have been able to accomplish this by “doing more with less.” While we have been able to improve the efficiency of the organization, and will continue to do so, the well is running dry.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 6/30/2010
E-Ballot #9-10
Motion by Sean O’Kane, seconded by Sara Wallick, to select Machtig Strom SchH Verein as the co-host club for the 2011 USA Working Dog Championship from one bid submitted to the National Events Committee
No - (0)
Needs Further Discussion - (1) - Craig Groh Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(1) - Pia Blackwell
Motion carried 6/10/2010
E-Ballot #08-10
Motion by Mark Scarberry, seconded by Nathaniel Roque, to increase the price of USA Helper Books to $10 and to charge $15 for replacement books in order to bring the costs more in line with that of USA Scorebooks.
Background: Helper books currently cost $5, and no fee is charged for replacement books; while scorebooks currently cost $10, and a fee of $12.50 is charged for replacement books. The USA Helper Committee believes that charging $10 for helper books and $15 for replacements is reasonable.
No - (3) Arthur Collins, Warren Jones, David Witmer
Abstain - (0)
No Response -(0)
Needs Further Discussion - (1) Dena McGowan
Motion carried 5/3/2010
E-Ballot #07-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to approve Sean Murphy to replace Marcus Hampton as one of the three preselected helpers for the 2010 Working Dog Championships.
Background: Marcus Hampton has been involved in an automobile accident and is recovering from injuries sustained in that accident, but will not be fit to work this event.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 4/2/2010
E-Ballot #06-10
Motion by Mark Scarberry, seconded by Sean O’Kane, to amend the 2009–2010 budget under the National Events line item for the Working Dog Championships in the amount of $19,500.
Background: With the change in the administration of our Working Dog Championships and GSD National Championship, money must be allocated for the WDC. The original budget allowed $5,500 for each of these events. We are asking for a total of $25,000 for each event. This includes a change in income and expenses for our current 2009–2010 budget. This process is a work in progress and needs to remain dynamic as we try to put on national events we can all be proud of. Included below is the language from the vote at the 2009 General Board meeting:
Amended motion by Craig Groh that USA will be the primary host for all working dog National Events adhering to the following policies:
- The USA President will appoint an event chairperson for each event. The chairperson will be responsible for the organization and administration of the event while adhering to the USA National Events Manual.
- USA as the primary host of the event will bear any financial loss the event may incur.
- USA as the primary host of the event will receive 70%, and the local host club will receive 30% of any net profit the event may generate.
- A National Events Protocol will be developed and become part of the USA National Events Manual. This protocol will detail the regulations the event chairperson must follow. The USA Executive Board will approve this protocol no later than January 30, 2010.
- A budget will be developed and adhered to for each event. The USA Treasurer will process all financial transactions for the event.
- The event chairperson and the USA Treasurer will approve all contracts for the event.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 3/27/2010
E-Ballot #5-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to approve the United Schutzhund Clubs of America’s application to become a member of the Internationale Rettungshunde Organisation (IRO).
BackgroundIRO is the international organization that is developing and governing the search and rescue programs and certification specifically for USA. This is the organization that sets the rules and standards for the RH title.
It is important for USA to continue to develop and maintain all working aspects of the GSD, and one of these is in the working evaluation of the dogs’ search and rescue ability. The RH title is a valid and internationally accepted test to determine this ability in our dogs.
At this time we already have a number of our USA judges who are approved to judge this title, and we have had a growing interest by our membership and number of RH titles awarded in the United States.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 3/19/2010
E-Ballot #4-10
Selection of host club for 2010 USA-GSD National Championship from two bids submitted to the National Events Committee
Bids submitted by:- Blue Tahoe Schutzhund Club (Reno, NV)
- Mid-Ohio Schutzhund Club (Columbus, OH)
Mid-Ohio Schutzhund Club - (7) - Sean O’Kane, Frank Phillips, Jennifer Acevedo, Pia Blackwell, Arthur Collins, Pedro Jimenez, Mark Scarberry
Abstain - (1) - Tim Burke
No Response - (0) -
Blue Tahoe Schutzhund Club Selected 3/16/2010
E-Ballot #3-10
Motion by Frank Phillips, seconded by Al Govednik, to approve the revised USA Sports Medal Program.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) -
No Response -() -
Motion carried 3/9/2010
E-Ballot #2-10
Motion by Tim Burke, seconded by Craig Groh, to approve the updated USA Breed Show Regulations as proposed by the Breed Advisory Committee.
BackGround This is an update to add long stock coat classes and for clarifications, grammatical changes, renumbering, and organizational changes.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) - M
No Response -(1) - Pedro Jimenez
Motion carried 3/4/2010
E-Ballot #1-10
Motion by Nathaniel Roque, seconded by Sara Wallick, to approve the USA Helper Committee’s recommended slate of helpers for the 2010 USA Working Dog Championships:
- Marcus Hampton
- Lionel Madden
- Don Yelle
The final selection and placement of the helpers will be determined by a helper tryout prior to the start of the event as outlined in the USA Helper Program.
No - (0)
Abstain - (0) - M
No Response -(0) -
Motion carried 2/9/2010
|
 |
|