Friday, March 19, 2010

Good Dog Agility - Team Gamblers

Uh, yeah. There was a nice, steady rain the evening before, and the ring was muddy. Judge Martin Gadsby changed the obstacles locations. The rules were as follows:

  1. Same opening and closing times.
  2. Closing points are doubled if you cross the finish jump before the buzzer.
  3. Back-to-Back contacts ok
  4. No consecutive contacts (e.g. teeter to A-frame)
Hey! A straight time gamble!

Normally, I'd go for 16-17 magic points in a 30-second opening with Scout. However, given the MUD (and she slid out of a tunnel in snooker on her belly), I thought 15 was more fair. It was a 1-3-5-7 system with no 7-point obstacle, no consecutive contacts, back-to-back contacts okay. When you watch the video, you'll find that the teeter is near the finish jump. The teeter was an ideal obstacle to take twice and get the heck out because of this, and it was worth 20 points (5 pts x taken twice x multiplier of 2 for closing). This video demonstrates a PERFECTLY TIMED gamble using magic points (point-time estimation).

This was a 4th place and LAA Q run.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010


Okay, so everyone loses interest in things.  It happens.  To everyone. 

I lost interest in some agility venues. 

For the most part, I have been quiet about my displeasure, and just slowly faded off into the sunset.  I owe no one any reasons.   I just stated that I am not interested.  End of story, right?


I have made up my mind:  you cannot polish a turd - it will always be a turd.  Yet, in the small world of agility, I still have people cornering me,  droning on about how great venues are in which I hold no obvious interest.  Unless I have vested interest (READ: I own stock or have other financial incentive), I have no loyalty to much of anything.  Your venue doesn't love you - just your checkbook.  So what is the motive for people without any incentive to try and get me to rejoin the cult?

I just don't get it.  Please, just be respectful of others, okay?

Thursday, March 11, 2010


I've got a couple of things going on right now:

  • Trial Secretary business for SWAT
  • Old Dinosaur Cake for a friend's 50th Birthday Party
I have some upcoming trials, and I hope to get my video camera out for some strategic runs.

Monday, March 1, 2010

If you have nothing nice to say...

I have two dogs, both are rescues from animal control.  I love them to pieces.

What irritates the hell out of me are people who are such losers that the denigrate my dogs.

Every dog, whether rescued or purchased as a puppy, has a set of challenges.  My challenges including fixing issues that some asshole created.  Scout has "space issues" - she doesn't enjoy the company of 99% of other dogs, and will react to that 99% 100% of the time.  I manage these issues, and most people do not realize that there is one.

At Good Dog Agility's trial this past weekend, they have a Parade of Veterans for dogs 8 years of age or older.  At the end of the parade, an award is presented to a dog that:

  1. Contributes to the community
  2. and/or has overcome some issue
There is a point system for the award that includes the essay for the above, and points for accumulated standard qualifying runs and titles earned.  Most of the award is purely mathematical.  The essay, of course, is subjective.

Scout won the award in 2009.  It was especially sweet since she was tossed from the club.   The 2010 winner was rescued as a puppy and performs community service by visiting nursing homes and hospitals.

There was one VERY sore loser.  This loser has stated before, at USDAA trials, in front of others, that "all rescue dogs deserve to be euthanized" and that "all rescue dogs have issues."  Loser here has two purebred, purchased-as-puppy dogs.  Loser entered the older one in the contest.  Loser was convinced that you HAD to have a rescue dog to win.

Not true.  The 2008 winner was a purebred, purchased-as-a-puppy that went deaf.

Loser's older dog makes Scout look like a saint most of the time. Loser's dog has attacked and drawn blood on at least one other dog.

My dogs:
  • I never had the opportunity to meet the parents and see their temperament
  • I have never seen the pedigree
  • I have no idea if the parents were healthy or have any known genetic defects for which there are tests
  • I risked having to fix problems someone else created
Loser's Dogs:
  • Loser was able to meet the parents and the breeder and preview temperament
  • Loser can view the pedigree
  • Loser has documentation as to potential genetic defects
  • Loser had the opportunity to create the dog she wanted
Notice any differences?  Loser got a puppy and had every opportunity in the world to shape the dog's behaviors and attitude as she saw fit, yet Loser chose to create a nasty one, perhaps in her own likeness.  The only reasonable thing Loser did was not make HER mistake the problem for someone like me. Despite having the potential to create a well-rounded dog, Loser chose to create a "dog with issues", overcame the issues SHE created, and still expects to be rewarded for it?

I FIXED two dogs that someone like Loser ruined.  I don't expect to be rewarded externally for it.  My reward is the love I get from these two critters of mine.