IGP 스틱 논란

And we knew it. Anytime you hit the dog, it leaves welds, it leaves bruises. It was not necessary. We corrected that. We evolved. We replaced it with the padded leather stick. And we changed it with the padded leather stick. That was the proper compromise between realism and ethics. And that version remained stable for over 20 years. Then something else happened. Not science. Not careful reasoning. Not canine welfare research. Politics, optics, fear of activists, the perception game. I don't know. I wish, actually, I wish I know. The lesson we learned from Austria. Austria had been bending to activists' demand pressure since I can remember. Step by step, step by step, piece by piece, they chipped away at the sport from the outside. It's literally the boiling frog metaphor applied to policy. They don't slam the ban in one move. They dismantled it through small increments. Each sold under ethics, modernization, welfare. First, the first savers have to have a stopper. Next, Gnostics hits aloud. And eventually what happened? The entire sport gets banned by the Austrian government. This really should be the lesson for the entire IGP world. Appeasing external ideology did not protect the sport there. It only accelerated the destruction. The irony is that even when the world championships were held in Austria, it was agreed not to use stick hits in order to respect the Austrian law. That's okay. When the padded stick hits were later removed worldwide, the Austrian activists didn't stop with that compromise. They went further with the insanity. The IGP itself became illegal in the entire country. For the rest of the world, we didn't lose the stick hits because the sport submitted to some external pressure. There was no evident pressure to do so. This is what is so puzzling for many of us. How come one day it was decided that we don't need the stick hits? Is this some hidden agenda? And is what happened in Austria going to just roll in across the whole world? Let's talk about why stick hits existed. It is about function, not abuse. The padded stick hit was never really about punishment. It wasn't cruelty. It was not herding the dog.

It was a confrontation stimulus. The same way any real adversary would attempt to create pain, pressure and doubt in a real fight. Of course, there always will be someone or some groups that will do stupid things to dogs. However, this is silly to believe that banning something actually works. It never does. We can't just throw the baby with the water every time there is an issue so we can look good on the surface of things. Because of drunk driver accidents, we don't think to ban cars or ban alcohol, right? We can't just throw the baby with the water every time there is no protection. Protection without actual opposition is not protection. It's not protection. The helper waving a stick and yelling without consequence produces no internal shift in the dog. That's what we would call shadow boxing. It's theatre. And everyone involved, helper, dog, judge, all subconsciously know the difference. Usually when we talk about this martial arts analogies, they show it perfectly. So on a recent podcast we were comparing karate to protection dogs. And protection work without the padded stick hits is basically what in karate is called kata. This is a choreography. It's beautiful, impressive, skilled, but not fighting. Just moving around in a perfect fighting forms without actually fighting. Karate even labels the distinction clearly. There is the kata, which equals form demonstration, and kumite, which is the full contact fighting. And here is the key. Full contact fighting is where the genetic makeup is revealed. You cannot, nobody can evaluate fighting capability by form. You evaluate it by impact.

The interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact interact draw or do I engage? No stick hit, no believe in real fight, no genetic exposure. And genetics cannot be faked with a chain of behaviors. You can make a dog bark for a toy with intensity, you can train picture-perfect control, you can stage perfect blind searches, but the existence of this behavior does not mean the dog is genetically prepared for confrontation. It means that the dog has been trained in rehearsed predictability. Once the dog realizes the program no longer contains real adversity, the entire sport slid towards performance.

It is very much a way from selection. Schutthorn works because it filters nature, not because it builds illusions. Without a hit, a dog can be technically brilliant and still genetically fragile. And no training layer can replace genetic reality. I'm going to give you, take the gunshot example. Gunshots prove that principle. Every serious dog evaluation system in the world uses gunshots. Why? Because gunshots are temperament exposure mechanism. Yes, you can say we can desensitize the dog. Yes, we can condition the dog. However, when a sudden unexpected gunshot occurs, the dog still exposes who they are temperamentally. No serious selection and breeding program will ever remove gunshots from their evaluation processes. Why? Because everybody understands the purpose. And the stick kit is the exact same category of test, except it's directly tied to the fight. Removing this while keeping gunshots is logically inconsistent. It betrays functional testing logic. The transition phase. The transition phase. The transition phase was where we would say the magic was. Basically, kind of the most important part of evaluation was not the strike itself. It was the two, four seconds after. The transition phase. Today's helpers are trying their best to compensate for the absence of stick kits. They, you know, they would kind of pull the sleeve high to maintain some pressure before the out. They stay active to simulate some kind of resistance. And of course, some dogs will refuse to out because of that. But that's a training mechanics problem. And it can be fixed through training. How dogs handle the stick kit was not a training problem. It exposed the dog's genetic and internal fight threshold. This is the important difference, if you want. One is technique and the other is nature. When you remove actual adversity, trainers start building beautiful chains of behaviors that look correct, but are in many ways disconnected from the original purpose. A dog should search the blinds for the decoy, not to pop up balloons. A dog should guard the helper to dominate and show courage in the guarding and not to bark for a toy reward, which basically what happens is it just shifts

the emotional state completely to play interaction. Of course, I agree, these are super creative, cool ideas. They are clever ways to isolate a behavior and teach it out of context, out of purpose. But protection shouldn't be a tricks catalog. Protection has meaning. Meaning. Meaning. Behaviors must reflect the purpose behind them. Judges, in my opinion, need to call this out when they see it. If they see it. Sometimes the fakes are so good that the points have to be awarded, and that's fine. If this is the route somebody chooses as a trainer to go, that's okay. But since the stick hits got removed, I've been hearing this argument quite a bit, actually. Like, you know, we would say, well, Mondiorin doesn't have stick hits, and they do just fine evaluating the dog's fighting instinct. No, they don't. I train Mondiorin. I've been involved with Mondiorin since the foundation of the sport. I was living in Belgium at that time. Mondiorin is built on systematic desentization from a young age, showing the dog that any scary props are basically harmless. The entire philosophy is built on the training illusion that nothing is going to harm you. On the other hand, actual impact cannot be desentized. Actual adversity is not symbolic. Actual strike pressure cannot be rehearsed into harmlessness. When I used to have the parrot stick, when we used to have the parrot stick, some dogs would not like it and basically stop engaging in the confrontation. And yes, we used to see this. It was an important part of the selection process for breeding, working, military dogs, and so on. When a dog decided that they don't like the hit, there is always some master trainer who would promise to fix the problem. And typically it would go like this. They would spend months and months desentizizing the dog, basically showing that the parrot stick is nothing to worry about. Eventually, with time, some dogs would believe the lie. However, when test time comes and there is a different helper and the dog gets tapped with that parrot stick, they quickly realize that they have been lied to. It always failed. Just like the example I gave you with the sudden loud noise in testing. So my argument, one of my arguments, is that IGP protection is losing its identity.

IGP protection today is becoming a technical performance sport, a choreography sport. The core of protection, the pressure confrontation moment, basically has been taken out. And without confrontation, any obedience inside protection no longer means the same thing that it used to mean. There is a difference between obedience inside an arousal, an aroused mental state versus obedience under adversity. These are not the same things. These are not equal skill sets. Arousal and adversity are very different things. A dog trained exclusively in obedience is not the same organism as a dog who can execute obedience while in real fight mindset. This is why the original Schutzkorn combination of tracking obedience and protections was so respected by everybody. It wasn't a silly behavior sequence. It was a whole organism test. Remove the confrontation element and all that, meaning goes down the drain. It collapses. There is also a much bigger application than most people overlook. And that's the ability to control a dog while the dog is in a fight state. It's not just a sport novelty. It has also direct value to pet training and real-world scenarios. Knowing how to convince a dog to cooperate with the trainer, with the owner, when the dog absolutely does not want to, when the dog believes, I'm just going to handle that situation right now by myself and I don't need anybody to tell me what to do. When the dog emotionally commits to taking care of business, that ability to be able to learn how to control is priceless. And these concepts, training concepts, from IGP can be applied in many different other areas. This is not about, I'm not talking about crushing the dog or forcing some universal suppression that the dogs are just afraid of their shadow. it's about teaching an agreement, like reaching an agreement under conflict, through cooperation, under adversity. This is a level of relationship and clarity that general obedience sports will never access because they never operate inside the fight state. IGP protection, done correctly, teaches trainers the skill of guiding behavior through conflict, not avoiding it. And that has far more significance than the sport field alone. The necessary correction, this is not a debate about nostalgia,

this is not resistance to modernization, it's not a, some kind of emotional attachment to the past that we have. This is about function, this is about selection, this is about truth. If IGP wants to remain a protection sport, it has to restore the padded stick hits exactly, exactly the way they existed before the removal. No, no, this symbolic waving and modified version, not the intimidation circles. Actual contact, because without the confrontation, there is no protection. And without protection, there is really no justification to call this sport a protection dog sport anymore. If we don't correct this now, I think we can agree that genetics we lose will probably be irreversible. So what do we do? Where do we start? I think that like in your countries, with your breed clubs and competitions, bring back the padded stick hits. You're the majority. This sport is yours. This is by no means over. It cannot be over because too much is at stake. Have the conversations and don't give up on Schutzhund. don't be afraid to call the sport Schutzhund. Don't be afraid to say protection dog sport. Tell it how it is and defend it. Trust me, we can defend the sport if all of us take that position. Right now we are pretending to run a protection sport. And I say pretend because the most essential protection test does not exist. Once a protection sport begins kneeling to outside ideology instead of maintaining internal standards, we already saw what the final outcome was like. Austria proved that. We know now. for those of you that don't understand English well, I hope that the captions and translation will do the job. People, let me know what you think in the comments. If you're doing IGP, then again, the sport is yours. You have a voice, so speak up. Speak up. Thanks for watching.