Disagreement with the new style of execution of the retrieve exercises in the IPO regulations.
424 Comments
J
József Simon
10 years ago
Originaly it is a breed suitability test not needed to change it!.
K
Klaus Gravgaard
10 years ago
Fint som det er
A
Antonino Morabito
10 years ago
There is no one motivation to justify periodic change of the rules. Probably the only one can be the wish someone's protagonism.
M
Martin Dahlberg
10 years ago
Please reevaluate this change
A
Angie Tennant
10 years ago
Not a good change. All three dumbells should stay in control of the handler from start to end of the exercises.
J
Jette Voergaard
10 years ago
I'm against that rule, this must be done better
B
Brad stout
10 years ago
I am against the rule change.
S
Skvarilova Elena
10 years ago
I wonnt no Stuard!!!!!
S
Sarah Beamer
10 years ago
Featured
The retrieve portion of the test shows a lot about a dogs ability to listen to its handler as it stays in position even when drive for the thrown retrieve item kicks in. It shows control and obedience, i dont know how placing the retrieve item there ahead of time can benefit anyone.
J
JOCELIA KICH DOS SANTOS
10 years ago
Assinatura feita, sou contra.
J
Juan Messina
10 years ago
Please no changes in apport exercises......!
P
Patty
10 years ago
It's a retrieving exercise.
And what is the real reason for this change
S
Serge Pominville
10 years ago
It is a team work why change that part?
G
Gerald Guay
10 years ago
Member GSSCC
T
Tony Lanzo
10 years ago
It has been well exposed the negative result that is to be obtained by this change. Exercise dog control judging, dynamics of the whole obedience phase, in between others are going to be lost taking us to the past. Sorry I cannot agree with these change just because some handlers are complaining of the double trhow or more or less the length of the retrieve.
P
Patricia Barich
10 years ago
Why make the retrieves not a retrieve? Don't see any good purpose for this proposes rule change. It will negate the whole purpose of OB testing the drives and obedience of the dogs, and be very slow and boring.
R
Rico Teixeira
10 years ago
Eu nao estou de acordo com as novas mudanças.
(Lingua portuguesa Brasil)
L
Leonel de Queiroz Santos
10 years ago
Sou contra a mudança
P
Per Mortensen
10 years ago
Sign thepetition
E
Eduardo alexandre recchia
10 years ago
Sou contra a modificação nas regras do halter de IPO
Originaly it is a breed suitability test not needed to change it!.
Fint som det er
There is no one motivation to justify periodic change of the rules. Probably the only one can be the wish someone's protagonism.
Please reevaluate this change
Not a good change. All three dumbells should stay in control of the handler from start to end of the exercises.
I'm against that rule, this must be done better
I am against the rule change.
I wonnt no Stuard!!!!!
The retrieve portion of the test shows a lot about a dogs ability to listen to its handler as it stays in position even when drive for the thrown retrieve item kicks in. It shows control and obedience, i dont know how placing the retrieve item there ahead of time can benefit anyone.
Assinatura feita, sou contra.
Please no changes in apport exercises......!
It's a retrieving exercise. And what is the real reason for this change
It is a team work why change that part?
Member GSSCC
It has been well exposed the negative result that is to be obtained by this change. Exercise dog control judging, dynamics of the whole obedience phase, in between others are going to be lost taking us to the past. Sorry I cannot agree with these change just because some handlers are complaining of the double trhow or more or less the length of the retrieve.
Why make the retrieves not a retrieve? Don't see any good purpose for this proposes rule change. It will negate the whole purpose of OB testing the drives and obedience of the dogs, and be very slow and boring.
Eu nao estou de acordo com as novas mudanças. (Lingua portuguesa Brasil)
Sou contra a mudança
Sign thepetition
Sou contra a modificação nas regras do halter de IPO