Learn Thy Rules

I hate admitting this as much as admitting that this is true: I am the walking USDAA rulebook.

I've read the rulebook (both the 2004 + modifications and the one that begins June 1), and can rattle off answers to a lot of questions. The ones that kill me the most are the Masters handlers who have competed with multitudes of dogs that ask, "How many points to qualify in snooker?" and those that can follow USDAA's titling requirement matrix.

I encountered another problem this weekend: Trying to stack the deck in snooker.

A competitor asked a long-time USDAA judge about the running order rules for Masters/PIII Snooker. The answer is that the order is randomized. You *may* space out dogs, but the dog can only move up in the running order. Question asked and answered. Done deal, right?

Wrong! The competitor cornered the inexperienced trial secretary to talk about the running order. The competitor is running a dog for someone else as well as this person's own dog. Since the other dog is known to mess up, the competitor wants the other dog to ALWAYS run first. I happened across the conversation.

I should preface this by saying that I've helped the trial secretary with the software and the rules in preparation for this trial. Both the judge and I told the trial secretary that Snooker is randomized, and WHY it's randomized, and that the order can only be changed by moving up. There is NO spacing between dogs guarantee - the ring will be held. The trial secretary was very understanding and receptive to help with the rules.

The competitor then got pissy when I rearranged the Veterans dogs. Once again, someone not familiar with the rules. The USDAA Veterans program is NOT COMPETITIVE. There are no real placements and no SuperQs, only Qs going toward Lifetime Achievement Award. Another competitor got pissy about it as well, telling me that eventually there will be SuperQs. Uh, no. It's non-competitive. Period.

There were a grand total of TWO Veteran Snooker dogs: one mini and one open. Once again, if competitors could, uh, actually read the rules, they would quickly learn that OPEN dogs are scored separately from MINI dogs.

It was awesome for USDAA to offer a Veterans program, but it's still a shame that handlers cannot fathom it not being a competition. At Nationals, it's called the "Veterans Showcase", and I like to think the same of the Veterans Program.

Please, familiarize yourself with the rules. You don't need to know all of them.

Dear Clean Run

The following is my letter to the editor of Clean Run regarding someone's letter.

Dear Clean Run,

I did take offense to seeing a breeder advertisement in Clean Run. Regardless of how accomplished and/or responsible the breeder is, Clean Run is NOT a purebred-only and breeding publication. If I want to see breeder ads, I can subscribe to AKC publications.

However, what I found more offensive are the rebuttal letters, namely So-and-So's comment regarding rescue dogs, “However many do it while suffering through health and structure problems.” Where are the numbers that back up this claim?

I never knew that all three of my rescue dogs (and mixes at that) are suffering health problems, while all those well-bred purebred dogs are not. There are plenty of “reputable” breeders breeding dogs with seizures, dogs unable to jump, luxating patellas, among other physical issues. I can name these dogs.

I have yet to meet a rescue dog that is one of these “many” unfortunate dogs mentioned. I do have a rescue with a collapsed trachea. That’s not poor breeding – that’s poor care before I got him. The other two are very healthy, including an 11.5 year-old who can still compete.

I am disgusted with the amount of pure hatred people have towards rescue dogs. I terminated a friendship when one person said, “All rescue dogs should be euthanized.”

Please cease perpetuating the rescue dog myths.

What I did glean from the letter writer is that she bought a dog from a backyard breeder (BYB), and had to retire the dog early due to physical problems. Here's what I don't get: How is this a rescue dog? You paid a shitload of money to "rescue" a puppy from a backyard. If your issue is with BYBs not giving a crap about the health of a dog, then say that! Don't lump all rescues in your diatribe. Dogs from reputable breeders end up with a rescue group or in the pound as well.

Foundation Work

Just open up any Clean Run magazine to find articles on "Foundation". All are about foundation for the dog. What about the handler?

I had an interesting conversation with my friend, Gail, this weekend about handling. We came to the same conclusion: Everything we needed to know about handling we learned growing up playing basketball.

Here are some basketball skills:
Pivoting
Passing
Running
Stopping
Working as a team
Reading body language
Hand/eye coordination

These are all important agility skills!

• In basketball, you always know where the ball is, but use your peripheral vision for movement from other players.
• In agility, you keep your eye on the dog.

• When you get the basketball, you either dribble, pivot, or shoot.
• Is a pivot any different than a front cross? No!

• Is passing or shooting a basketball any different than sending your dog out to an obstacle? No!

• Basketball is a lot of stop and go movement. Can you say "acceleration" and "deceleration"? I knew you could!

When I played basketball, I learned how to use my peripheral vision, see what was around me, and anticipate "things", like other players cutting through the lane, the recipient of the pass (since the passer usually looks at the recipient), who is going to shoot, etc. I do the same thing in agility. I walk a course. I see what my dog may see at each obstacle. I know if I twitch, my dog may react to the twitch by popping weaves or pulling off a jump. Yet most handlers blame the dog!

As a handler you are both the coach and a player. You guide your dog through the play. It is your job to anticipate the off-course potential. You send your dog on in gamblers. You snake your dog though a snooker. And you do this without flailing your arms and screaming.

It may be worth having a handler foundation class on a basketball court. A few bonks in the head by a basketball (trust me, it hurts), may be what some people need to get into the game.

Now this is a good Snooker

The following course is Tammi Stone's, ran at Happy Dog Agility on March 7, 2010.



Here's why I like it:

1. Three OF Four. Handlers must pay attention to the details.
2. The #7 Combo must be taken as marked.
3. The #7 Combo is NOT easy to handle.

Sure, you could go for all sevens - some people did. Most were not successful.

As for flow, the ONLY option I liked to enter #2 nicely into the closing was the #7 combo. There are two reds on the map (bottom reds) that open to either nothing, or no points. If you started with Red #2 (bottom right), it opened to some small points. I try to only do fives, sizes and sevens in 3-Red snooker. I discounted that strategy.

Other than all sevens or starting with a low value obstacle, I saw only one flow course with points: 6-6-7.
It was flow enough for both dogs to win their jump heights.

USDAA Performance Titles

Here's an excellent blog entry about the title names for USDAA's Performance program.

http://agilepooch.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/wackronyms-time-for-usdaa-to-join-us/

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.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

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?

WRONG! 

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?