Disagreement with the new style of execution of the retrieve exercises in the IPO regulations.
424 Comments
J
József Simon
9 years ago
Originaly it is a breed suitability test not needed to change it!.
K
Klaus Gravgaard
9 years ago
Fint som det er
A
Antonino Morabito
9 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
9 years ago
Please reevaluate this change
A
Angie Tennant
9 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
9 years ago
I'm against that rule, this must be done better
B
Brad stout
9 years ago
I am against the rule change.
S
Skvarilova Elena
9 years ago
I wonnt no Stuard!!!!!
S
Sarah Beamer
9 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
9 years ago
Assinatura feita, sou contra.
J
Juan Messina
9 years ago
Please no changes in apport exercises......!
P
Patty
9 years ago
It's a retrieving exercise.
And what is the real reason for this change
S
Serge Pominville
9 years ago
It is a team work why change that part?
G
Gerald Guay
9 years ago
Member GSSCC
T
Tony Lanzo
9 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
9 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
9 years ago
Eu nao estou de acordo com as novas mudanças.
(Lingua portuguesa Brasil)
L
Leonel de Queiroz Santos
9 years ago
Sou contra a mudança
P
Per Mortensen
9 years ago
Sign thepetition
E
Eduardo alexandre recchia
9 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