German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello everyone, I am new to the GSD forums, but I figured this would be a great place to find help. I’ve been researching GSD’s for a few months now but have found a lot of mixed reviews and information for what I’m looking for specifically, so I will reach out to all of you experienced owners/handlers/breeders.

My intentions are to get a WL GSD as a multi-purpose working dog, this pup will be my prospect as a Psychiatric/Medical Service Dog as well as participating in IPO training. I am not a physically disabled individual which is why I find this breed to be ideal, the hard work and challenge is something I excel in so I know working this dog will be a healthy alternative for me to put my mind/energy to. That being said, I have no idea what lineage to look into; West German/ East German (DDR)/ or Czech. As you can imagine Service Dog prospects need to have stable temperaments and demonstrate self control with that “on/off switch”. On top of that I am also looking for a solid black male, which makes the search that much more difficult because reputable breeders breed for temperament, not color, which is preferred! But I’m willing to wait for the right temperament AND color, which may take an extra while.

Can anyone please explain which lineage (or mix of) would be better suited for multi-purpose work and which breeder(s) they would recommend? This is my future I’m trying to plan for, I really appreciate any help!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,126 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,343 Posts
Coming from someone that wanted a service dog prospect German shepherd, I think you may need to reevaluate what you are wanting to do and are looking for. A GSD is not a super great choice for a psychiatric service dog. That said, I don't believe that a service dog should be doing IPO either. The obedience and tracking, sure, that seems fine, but bite work? Definitely not. Your dog is going to be busy enough working really hard to become a real service dog, and you won't have the time and energy to get into IPO as well. The drives that would make a great IPO dog, would probably be the drives that would make an awful service dog.

Are you hoping to owner train your puppy, or are you going to have a trainer either help you or train the dog for you? I am sure you are well aware of the wash out rate for puppies becoming service dogs. I'm not trying to be too negative. I completely understand needing a service dog while also wanting this amazing breed. Sometimes though, the two just can't go together, and you have to be realistic. There are plenty of German shepherds that become full service dogs, but it is much harder to do, in my experience and opinion, than with say, a golden retriever. Especially for a psychiatric service dog.

If you still want to try, which is great, I would get a show line vs a working line. Show lines tend to be a little softer and calmer, less driven. What will you do with your puppy if he/she washes out of service work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,507 Posts
Vom Sitz von der Hose / Olgameister in Marion NY. Jody used to be the kennel manager and in charge of breeding for Fidelco. Her dogs also do IPO. She can help you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Coming from someone that wanted a service dog prospect German shepherd, I think you may need to reevaluate what you are wanting to do and are looking for. A GSD is not a super great choice for a psychiatric service dog. That said, I don't believe that a service dog should be doing IPO either. The obedience and tracking, sure, that seems fine, but bite work? Definitely not. Your dog is going to be busy enough working really hard to become a real service dog, and you won't have the time and energy to get into IPO as well. The drives that would make a great IPO dog, would probably be the drives that would make an awful service dog.

Are you hoping to owner train your puppy, or are you going to have a trainer either help you or train the dog for you? I am sure you are well aware of the wash out rate for puppies becoming service dogs. I'm not trying to be too negative. I completely understand needing a service dog while also wanting this amazing breed. Sometimes though, the two just can't go together, and you have to be realistic. There are plenty of German shepherds that become full service dogs, but it is much harder to do, in my experience and opinion, than with say, a golden retriever. Especially for a psychiatric service dog.

If you still want to try, which is great, I would get a show line vs a working line. Show lines tend to be a little softer and calmer, less driven. What will you do with your puppy if he/she washes out of service work?
I’ve heard of a few success stories but I’m also realistic to the fact that it may not work out. I currently have a Siberian Husky SDiT that a lot of people warned me against due to the challenge and stigma behind his breed, but I believe that the breeding and the puppy are what determines the outcome. My current Pup is not a wash out, he is marvelous, my problem with him was something I couldn’t quite account for, despite his sire’s massive stature, my Pup is under standard height which I require for counterbalance.
That said, there is no law that prohibits Service Dogs having IPO Training, a protection dog may still be a Service Dog, though I understand what you’re saying in terms of conflict with what makes a good IPO dog vs what makes a publicly safe SD. I would never consider a show line. To me, they’re completely useless. Both IPO and Service Dog workwill take years to fortify, but that will be one we exercised Pup psychologically and physically, if it can make it. If the Pup washes out, I know many trainers/facilities in Florida that are always looking for hard working K9s, of course that would be at the breeders discretion since they’re usually the ones who decide what happens to their pups should your home become unfit for it.
You aren’t being too negative, you’re pointing out the reality of my dreams which is important, but nothing I haven’t yet considered or taken into account. Though I WANT this to be a successstoey, I’m aware it may not. But I have my all to give to this cause, this K9 will be my entire life, my independence, my safe place, it will get all the attention and time it deserves to excel in my life. Not all IPO trained dogs can be Service Dogs, and not all Service Dogs can manage IPO, but I believe some can. With the right breeding and the right puppy, which is why I’m prepared to wait a few years if that’s what it took to be somewhat certain of the right prospect. The lineage of the sire and dam is important, which is why I’m curious as to which lineage is considered to have the best “on/off switch”/control/stable temperament. This whole thing is a gamble and a risk, but for what I believe in, it’s one worth taking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,535 Posts
Please take the time to read the DOJ's position on "protection" training for service dogs.

"Providing minimal protection. The 1991 title III regulation included language stating that "minimal protection" was a task that could be performed by an individually trained service animal for the benefit of an individual with a disability. In the Department´s "ADA Business Brief on Service Animals" (2002), the Department interpreted the "minimal protection" language within the context of a seizure (i.e., alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure). The Department received many comments in response to the question of whether the "minimal protection" language should be clarified. Many commenters urged the removal of the "minimal protection" language from the service animal definition for two reasons: (1) The phrase can be interpreted to allow any dog that is trained to be aggressive to qualify as a service animal simply by pairing the animal with a person with a disability; and (2) The phrase can be interpreted to allow any untrained pet dog to qualify as a service animal, since many consider the mere presence of a dog to be a crime deterrent, and thus sufficient to meet the minimal protection standard. These commenters argued, and the Department agrees, that these interpretations were not contemplated under the original title III regulation.

While many commenters stated that they believe that the "minimal protection" language should be eliminated, other commenters recommended that the language be clarified, but retained. Commenters favoring clarification of the term suggested that the Department explicitly exclude the function of attack or exclude those animals that are trained solely to be aggressive or protective. Other commenters identified non-violent behavioral tasks that could be construed as minimally protective, such as interrupting self-mutilation, providing safety checks and room searches, reminding the handler to take medications, and protecting the handler from injury resulting from seizures or unconsciousness.

Several commenters noted that the existing direct threat defense, which allows the exclusion of a service animal if the animal exhibits unwarranted or unprovoked violent behavior or poses a direct threat, prevents the use of "attack dogs" as service animals. One commenter noted that the use of a service animal trained to provide "minimal protection" may impede access to care in an emergency, for example, where the first responder is unable or reluctant to approach a person with a disability because the individual´s service animal is in a protective posture suggestive of aggression.

Many organizations and individuals stated that in the general dog training community, "protection" is code for attack or aggression training and should be removed from the definition. Commenters stated that there appears to be a broadly held misconception that aggression-trained animals are appropriate service animals for persons with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While many individuals with PTSD may benefit by using a service animal, the work or tasks performed appropriately by such an animal would not involve unprovoked aggression but could include actively cuing the handler by nudging or pawing the handler to alert to the onset of an episode and removing the individual from the anxiety-provoking environment.

The Department recognizes that despite its best efforts to provide clarification, the "minimal protection" language appears to have been misinterpreted. While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the "minimal protection" language to read "non-violent protection," thereby excluding so-called "attack dogs" or dogs with traditional "protection training" as service animals. The Department believes that this modification to the service animal definition will eliminate confusion, without restricting unnecessarily the type of work or tasks that service animals may perform. The Department´s modification also clarifies that the crime-deterrent effect of a dog´s presence, by itself, does not qualify as work or tasks for purposes of the service animal definition."

The DOJ states specifically that an animal individually trained to proved aggressive protection, such as attack dog, is NOT appropriately considered a service animal"

Now you can split hairs and say it's a "sport" and and it's not really an attack dog, and I am pretty sure I do understand how IPO differs from actual personal protection training but to the general public? Good luck with that.

Futhermore, there is simply NO more room for bending rules, ignorance, or what I want trumps what the best interests of other service dog users. The DOT is preparing to draft new laws, there are two different congressmen proposing new laws as we speak, which could potentially impact the lives of service dog users in a big way and it is all a result of ignorance and I want what I want.

Service dog mis-steps all have the potential to "go viral" and start and new wave of hysteria and law makers are responding. If your dog has a mis step and investigation produces the dog has also done bitework well...that's potentially major, and it could help to push through these laws that are
going to cause major problems for everyone else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,535 Posts
The quote I posted above is from:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 36
CRT Docket No. 106; AG Order No.
RIN 1190-AA44

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
AGENCY:
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
ACTION: FINAL RULE ADA Title III
ADA Subpart A 36.104 Definitions

Excerpted from the IAADP website:

International Association of Assistance Dog Partners
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Please take the time to read the DOJ's position on "protection" training for service dogs.

"Providing minimal protection. The 1991 title III regulation included language stating that "minimal protection" was a task that could be performed by an individually trained service animal for the benefit of an individual with a disability. In the Department´s "ADA Business Brief on Service Animals" (2002), the Department interpreted the "minimal protection" language within the context of a seizure (i.e., alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure). The Department received many comments in response to the question of whether the "minimal protection" language should be clarified. Many commenters urged the removal of the "minimal protection" language from the service animal definition for two reasons: (1) The phrase can be interpreted to allow any dog that is trained to be aggressive to qualify as a service animal simply by pairing the animal with a person with a disability; and (2) The phrase can be interpreted to allow any untrained pet dog to qualify as a service animal, since many consider the mere presence of a dog to be a crime deterrent, and thus sufficient to meet the minimal protection standard. These commenters argued, and the Department agrees, that these interpretations were not contemplated under the original title III regulation.

While many commenters stated that they believe that the "minimal protection" language should be eliminated, other commenters recommended that the language be clarified, but retained. Commenters favoring clarification of the term suggested that the Department explicitly exclude the function of attack or exclude those animals that are trained solely to be aggressive or protective. Other commenters identified non-violent behavioral tasks that could be construed as minimally protective, such as interrupting self-mutilation, providing safety checks and room searches, reminding the handler to take medications, and protecting the handler from injury resulting from seizures or unconsciousness.

Several commenters noted that the existing direct threat defense, which allows the exclusion of a service animal if the animal exhibits unwarranted or unprovoked violent behavior or poses a direct threat, prevents the use of "attack dogs" as service animals. One commenter noted that the use of a service animal trained to provide "minimal protection" may impede access to care in an emergency, for example, where the first responder is unable or reluctant to approach a person with a disability because the individual´s service animal is in a protective posture suggestive of aggression.

Many organizations and individuals stated that in the general dog training community, "protection" is code for attack or aggression training and should be removed from the definition. Commenters stated that there appears to be a broadly held misconception that aggression-trained animals are appropriate service animals for persons with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While many individuals with PTSD may benefit by using a service animal, the work or tasks performed appropriately by such an animal would not involve unprovoked aggression but could include actively cuing the handler by nudging or pawing the handler to alert to the onset of an episode and removing the individual from the anxiety-provoking environment.

The Department recognizes that despite its best efforts to provide clarification, the "minimal protection" language appears to have been misinterpreted. While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the "minimal protection" language to read "non-violent protection," thereby excluding so-called "attack dogs" or dogs with traditional "protection training" as service animals. The Department believes that this modification to the service animal definition will eliminate confusion, without restricting unnecessarily the type of work or tasks that service animals may perform. The Department´s modification also clarifies that the crime-deterrent effect of a dog´s presence, by itself, does not qualify as work or tasks for purposes of the service animal definition."

The DOJ states specifically that an animal individually trained to proved aggressive protection, such as attack dog, is NOT appropriately considered a service animal"

Now you can split hairs and say it's a "sport" and and it's not really an attack dog, and I am pretty sure I do understand how IPO differs from actual personal protection training but to the general public? Good luck with that.

Futhermore, there is simply NO more room for bending rules, ignorance, or what I want trumps what the best interests of other service dog users. The DOT is preparing to draft new laws, there are two different congressmen proposing new laws as we speak, which could potentially impact the lives of service dog users in a big way and it is all a result of ignorance and I want what I want.

Service dog mis-steps all have the potential to "go viral" and start and new wave of hysteria and law makers are responding. If your dog has a mis step and investigation produces the dog has also done bitework well...that's potentially major, and it could help to push through these laws that are
going to cause major problems for everyone else.
All that you have stated I have read before, however, all that has been stated also states that protection services are not considered tasks under the ADA. Personal Protection is not nor will it ever be considered a task, therefore a protection dog on its own may not be considered a Service Dog. That aside, if the dog is trained it’s tasks such as; guiding a dissociative handler to an exit, getting help, interrupting unwanted behaviors, alerting to an episode or spike in HR, it is still a Service Dog despite its IPO work.
Further more, whether it be a Service Dog or a Service Dog in training, it MUST be publicly safe, this means the K9 has gone under extensive training and measures to ensure its public access rights, please do not get me wrong, I would never bring a potentially unstable or “reactive” dog in public. As a handler, that is my responsibility to the public. I am aware of the controversy behind having an IPO sport dog as a Service Dog, and you’re correct, should an incident occur and it is found that the K9 has training in bitework, it would be a catastrophic series of events. It was to my understanding that in IPO the K9 is taught situational awareness, obedience, and correct usage of power– yes, they are dogs and not robots, but if the K9 is taught to attack strictly on command unless in a life threatening situation, in which case I would be under physical attack, is that not an appropriate time to exercise his training? As a Service Dog, the K9 is taught that his paws may be stepped on, he may be shoved aside, scooted out of the way, pet by ignorant or belligerent passerbyers all without being able to react, is that not possible for a K9 trained in both working worlds? Perhaps I don’t have enough experience so I believe this can be achieved, but that is why I’m here. For information, and shared experiences. I’m not one to make quick or impulsive decision and every decision has its consequences and they need to be weighed, I still need to visit a few IPO clubs and see what their members/trainers would recommend.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, to my abilities I keep myself as informed as possible, that’s what I’m here for.
As stated before, and I will say again to clarify because I WISH it was something all dog handlers in general would consider, I would never bring an aggressive dog in public without appropriate safety measures to ensure the safety of those around me.
I just happen to believe an IPO working dog is not aggressive by nature, but trained to utilize his strength and energy at the right moment for the right cause. I also believe genetics and training have a lot to play with that.
Or I may just be wishful and hopeful, thankfully I have all the time in the world to educate myself further before making any decisions.
Thank you for your response to my thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,535 Posts
All that you have stated I have read before, however, all that has been stated also states that protection services are not considered tasks under the ADA. Personal Protection is not nor will it ever be considered a task, therefore a protection dog on its own may not be considered a Service Dog. That aside, if the dog is trained it’s tasks such as; guiding a dissociative handler to an exit, getting help, interrupting unwanted behaviors, alerting to an episode or spike in HR, it is still a Service Dog despite its IPO work.
Further more, whether it be a Service Dog or a Service Dog in training, it MUST be publicly safe, this means the K9 has gone under extensive training and measures to ensure its public access rights, please do not get me wrong, I would never bring a potentially unstable or “reactive” dog in public. As a handler, that is my responsibility to the public. I am aware of the controversy behind having an IPO sport dog as a Service Dog, and you’re correct, should an incident occur and it is found that the K9 has training in bitework, it would be a catastrophic series of events. It was to my understanding that in IPO the K9 is taught situational awareness, obedience, and correct usage of power– yes, they are dogs and not robots, but if the K9 is taught to attack strictly on command unless in a life threatening situation, in which case I would be under physical attack, is that not an appropriate time to exercise his training? As a Service Dog, the K9 is taught that his paws may be stepped on, he may be shoved aside, scooted out of the way, pet by ignorant or belligerent passerbyers all without being able to react, is that not possible for a K9 trained in both working worlds? Perhaps I don’t have enough experience so I believe this can be achieved, but that is why I’m here. For information, and shared experiences. I’m not one to make quick or impulsive decision and every decision has its consequences and they need to be weighed, I still need to visit a few IPO clubs and see what their members/trainers would recommend.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, to my abilities I keep myself as informed as possible, that’s what I’m here for.
As stated before, and I will say again to clarify because I WISH it was something all dog handlers in general would consider, I would never bring an aggressive dog in public without appropriate safety measures to ensure the safety of those around me.
I just happen to believe an IPO working dog is not aggressive by nature, but trained to utilize his strength and energy at the right moment for the right cause. I also believe genetics and training have a lot to play with that.
Or I may just be wishful and hopeful, thankfully I have all the time in the world to educate myself further before making any decisions.
Thank you for your response to my thread.
it does not matter what you believe about an IPO dog's "nature"

You are correct that protection does not constitute a service dog task. But the part I think you are missing is that protection training basically disqualifies the dog as a service dog under the ADA.

Protection training and service dogs | Service Dog Central

This is a direct quote "While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the "minimal protection" language to read "non-violent protection," thereby excluding so-called "attack dogs" or dogs with traditional "protection training" as service animals. "

The reason that dogs with protection training are excluded as service dogs is because any service dog does not have public access if it poses a direct threat to people in the general public and they are presuming that any dog which has had this type of training is a direct threat by mingling with the general public in the role of service dog. Is that accurate? Who knows. It doesn't matter. it does not matter what I believe or what you believe or what we think we know about how stable the dog is.

OP, even if the DOJ's position allowed for a protection trained dog to be a service dog, which it doesn't, it is simply the wrong thing to do at this point because of what is happening with service dogs for the reason I already mentioned.

Please reconsider. It is decisions just like this which are impacting us all right now, and will continue to impact us.

Psych dogs in particular are at risk right now. Handlers of legitimate service dogs right now have to be above reproach, and we MUST make every decision for ourselves while also considering the impact on the rest of the service dog partnered community.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
I was just wondering since your Husky doesn't fit all your needs, i.e. Height for counter balance, will you be rehoming him/her after you have trained one who does fit your needs? I'm sure you have thought the rehoming part through but the way it is read, it just seemed like a no big deal off hand remark.

Also, if you have a need concerning balance, I would think that it would conflict with your part as the handler during IPO training. The handler has to have good balance while "being the pole" that prevents a premature leash release for the bite. I'm not involved with IPO but I know that the handler plays a huge part in the safety of both dog and decoy.

I'm just pointing out something you may not have thought about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,535 Posts
Please read this letter by IAADP, a highly respected service dog organization.

International Association of Assistance Dog Partners - Advocacy

It does not matter what you believe about the ability of a dog to be trained in IPO and also work as a service dog. It probably is possible, but it doesn't matter because a protection trained dog does not have public access rights

It doesn't matter how stable and outstanding the dog is. Hopefully the dog is just that great. You can do all kinds of other stuff with your dog, tracking, obedience, dock diving, there are a million fun ways to spend time with your dog that don't interfere with its ability to work as a service dog.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
All that you have stated I have read before, however, all that has been stated also states that protection services are not considered tasks under the ADA. Personal Protection is not nor will it ever be considered a task, therefore a protection dog on its own may not be considered a Service Dog. That aside, if the dog is trained it’s tasks such as; guiding a dissociative handler to an exit, getting help, interrupting unwanted behaviors, alerting to an episode or spike in HR, it is still a Service Dog despite its IPO work.
Further more, whether it be a Service Dog or a Service Dog in training, it MUST be publicly safe, this means the K9 has gone under extensive training and measures to ensure its public access rights, please do not get me wrong, I would never bring a potentially unstable or “reactive” dog in public. As a handler, that is my responsibility to the public. I am aware of the controversy behind having an IPO sport dog as a Service Dog, and you’re correct, should an incident occur and it is found that the K9 has training in bitework, it would be a catastrophic series of events. It was to my understanding that in IPO the K9 is taught situational awareness, obedience, and correct usage of power– yes, they are dogs and not robots, but if the K9 is taught to attack strictly on command unless in a life threatening situation, in which case I would be under physical attack, is that not an appropriate time to exercise his training? As a Service Dog, the K9 is taught that his paws may be stepped on, he may be shoved aside, scooted out of the way, pet by ignorant or belligerent passerbyers all without being able to react, is that not possible for a K9 trained in both working worlds? Perhaps I don’t have enough experience so I believe this can be achieved, but that is why I’m here. For information, and shared experiences. I’m not one to make quick or impulsive decision and every decision has its consequences and they need to be weighed, I still need to visit a few IPO clubs and see what their members/trainers would recommend.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, to my abilities I keep myself as informed as possible, that’s what I’m here for.
As stated before, and I will say again to clarify because I WISH it was something all dog handlers in general would consider, I would never bring an aggressive dog in public without appropriate safety measures to ensure the safety of those around me.
I just happen to believe an IPO working dog is not aggressive by nature, but trained to utilize his strength and energy at the right moment for the right cause. I also believe genetics and training have a lot to play with that.
Or I may just be wishful and hopeful, thankfully I have all the time in the world to educate myself further before making any decisions.
Thank you for your response to my thread.
it does not matter what you believe about an IPO dog's "nature"

You are correct that protection does not constitute a service dog task. But the part I think you are missing is that protection training basically disqualifies the dog as a service dog under the ADA.

Protection training and service dogs | Service Dog Central

This is a direct quote "While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the "minimal protection" language to read "non-violent protection," thereby excluding so-called "attack dogs" or dogs with traditional "protection training" as service animals. "

The reason that dogs with protection training are excluded as service dogs is because any service dog does not have public access if it poses a direct threat to people in the general public and they are presuming that any dog which has had this type of training is a direct threat by mingling with the general public in the role of service dog. Is that accurate? Who knows. It doesn't matter. it does not matter what I believe or what you believe or what we think we know about how stable the dog is.

OP, even if the DOJ's position allowed for a protection trained dog to be a service dog, which it doesn't, it is simply the wrong thing to do at this point because of what is happening with service dogs for the reason I already mentioned.

Please reconsider. It is decisions just like this which are impacting us all right now, and will continue to impact us.

Psych dogs in particular are at risk right now. Handlers of legitimate service dogs right now have to be above reproach, and we MUST make every decision for ourselves while also considering the impact on the rest of the service dog partnered community.
What you’re saying makes plenty of sense now, I must have missed what you were saying the first time around. I really appreciate your input, you’ve given me a lot to think about and consider. Though it’s a little bit of a let down in the big picture I’ve always prided myself on representing the community correctly and positively, I wouldn’t want to tarnish that by training bitework. There are plenty of other sports we could partake in that wouldn’t put my K9 at risk of public threat, ultimately, it’s whats best for the dog because that’s what will be best for me. I couldn’t put it at risk if it violates the ADA in any way. Thank you again for contributing to this post, all that being said, do you think a WL is would do well in other sports or is it strictly for IPO purposes? I will have to redirect my research and thought process now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
What you’re saying makes plenty of sense now, I must have missed what you were saying the first time around. I really appreciate your input, you’ve given me a lot to think about and consider. Though it’s a little bit of a let down in the big picture I’ve always prided myself on representing the community correctly and positively, I wouldn’t want to tarnish that by training bitework. There are plenty of other sports we could partake in that wouldn’t put my K9 at risk of public threat, ultimately, it’s whats best for the dog because that’s what will be best for me. I couldn’t put it at risk if it violates the ADA in any way. Thank you again for contributing to this post, all that being said, do you think a WL is would do well in other sports or is it strictly for IPO purposes? I will have to redirect my research and thought process now.
There was an amazing trainer and breeder suggested earlier that I'd look into and talk to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I was just wondering since your Husky doesn't fit all your needs, i.e. Height for counter balance, will you be rehoming him/her after you have trained one who does fit your needs? I'm sure you have thought the rehoming part through but the way it is read, it just seemed like a no big deal off hand remark.

Also, if you have a need concerning balance, I would think that it would conflict with your part as the handler during IPO training. The handler has to have good balance while "being the pole" that prevents a premature leash release for the bite. I'm not involved with IPO but I know that the handler plays a huge part in the safety of both dog and decoy.

I'm just pointing out something you may not have thought about.
The imbalance happens during certain episodes, not so much on the regular, yes I’m a clumsy individual but I live a very active lifestyle. I just lose sense of perception and space during times of heightened symptoms, it’s an occurrence but not constant.
The reason why I mentioned my current SDiT in not such a “big deal” kind of way is because I’ve already made arrangements for him. He will be staying with me through the puppy’s maturity as he will be a fantastic influence, so long as I can afford both, my philosophy is to do what’s best for the dog always. If I can keep both, I am happy to have both boys. If I cannot afford them both, my current has many relocation options with close friends and people he’s already familiar with who know his working style so he won’t be in unfamiliar territory or subjected to a culture shock until I can bring him back into my care. As for the puppy, if he washes out, the breeder usually has rights to handle any of their dogs that are no longer fit in their home. If they allow me to regime, I’ll be sure he goes to an amazing one that he will thrive in. Having two dogs is difficult, I can’t home a retired SDiT and a washout plus a new prospect after that, I’m keeping my Sibe close, washouts will be rehomed accordingly. Since I’ve changed my mind on the IPO aspect, my future prospect has less of a wash out rate. If I can’t do a puppy right the second time, I’ll go through an organization the third.
I don’t consider my current a washout as there is no behavioral problem on his part, he can’t help his height, the sweet boy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
What you’re saying makes plenty of sense now, I must have missed what you were saying the first time around. I really appreciate your input, you’ve given me a lot to think about and consider. Though it’s a little bit of a let down in the big picture I’ve always prided myself on representing the community correctly and positively, I wouldn’t want to tarnish that by training bitework. There are plenty of other sports we could partake in that wouldn’t put my K9 at risk of public threat, ultimately, it’s whats best for the dog because that’s what will be best for me. I couldn’t put it at risk if it violates the ADA in any way. Thank you again for contributing to this post, all that being said, do you think a WL is would do well in other sports or is it strictly for IPO purposes? I will have to redirect my research and thought process now.
There was an amazing trainer and breeder suggested earlier that I'd look into and talk to.
Thank you for pointing that out! I’ll be sure to scroll up and check it out soon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
WL GSD's can do well in other sports for sure! Not just IPO
Is there a certain lineage (German, DDR, Czech, or mix) that you would suggest for Service Dog work as well as other sports? Since it won’t be IPO the intensity can be lowered. I’m just not a fan of show lines at all!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,535 Posts
There are SO many fun things you can do with a service dog, AKC obedience, rally, AKC Tracking, WCRL rally, dock diving, barn hunt....can anybody link Gandalfs thread as it had a lot of good links.

OP, are you sure your husky can't do the job? The type of counterbalance you are talking about is very light mobility. If you train the dog to pull forward into a Y front harness so you can steady on a non rigid handle...even if the dog is a little small for the job jeez, if anything was built for pulling it's a husky. And you can also consider how long duration and how often you really need this task vs what a husky was bred to do? Do you know how close you are as far as height/weight percentages?

Just a thought.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top