The new International Utility Dogs Regulations have been adopted and will take effect from January 1, 2025: What changes do you need to be aware of, and how and why were the adjustments made? We had the opportunity to ask all our questions to our K9andSports ambassador Klaus-Jürgen Glüh, who is, among other roles, Vice President of the FCI Utility Dogs Commission and a member of the VDH Utility Dogs Commission.

K9andSports: What is the process like, and how long does it take for the FCI to adopt a new set of regulations?

KJG: It was actually quite complex because for the first time we wanted to involve all stakeholders, i.e. the delegates, the member states, etc., instead of simply prescribing a new PO. Internally, we first worked out initial proposals in working groups. We presented these, along with the problems we encountered, to all 25 delegates of the Working Dog Commission. A few aspects served as guidelines: it was important to us to make it easier to get started in the sport by making the first test stages simpler. And then the PO should and must meet the requirements of animal welfare by not setting any requirements that promote or even require methods that are relevant to animal welfare.
Of course, there were a large number of meetings behind this. Finding a compromise was not easy even in this context because opinions differed considerably. And in the end, a document like this is always exactly that: a compromise. At the end of September last year, we first sent proposals to all member states so that each member state could comment. At the VDH level, i.e. in Germany, we discussed the proposal with the member associations and established a German line.

K9andSports: That’s quite a lot of groundwork behind such a document.

KJG: Yes, it certainly requires more work to gather and implement feedback than simply dictating how things should be done. These feedback rounds were conducted under my leadership, and I compiled the opinions of the individual countries. We then adjusted our proposal accordingly when there was a majority consensus among the member countries. One example is the free jump hurdle. Our proposal was a height of 80 cm, but it ultimately remained at 100 cm. The same applies to the weight of the retrieve dumbbell, which we did not change in the end.

K9andSports: One of your guiding principles was to make it easier to enter the sport; on one hand, by reducing the number of obedience exercises in the BH, but also by streamlining the IGP1. However, the IGP3 will remain at its current level of difficulty?

KJG: Exactly. Ultimately, nothing has changed in the IGP3, and therefore the training of the dog remains the same. The only change we've made is to increase the scoring for the sit exercise; it is now worth 10 points again. The international dog sports community largely agreed that this exercise had previously received too little weight in terms of points, given its difficulty. Naturally, the question then arose as to where to allocate these five additional points. The candidates were 1. the heeling exercise, 2. the down stay, and 3. the climbing jumps. We had extensive and controversial discussions about this.

K9andSports: What is your opinion on this? Where would you have wanted to take the points from?

KJG: In my opinion, one must approach this from various perspectives. Firstly, there is the comparison of the difficulty levels between the exercises and how challenging it is to train each exercise. When I compare the difficulty levels of the sit and the down stay, I don't find the down stay, with all its elements and distractions, any easier than the sit exercise. I believe there should be no distinction made. From my point of view, the heeling exercise also should not be reduced in value because the training process in practice takes a long time and is very complex. Therefore, it makes the most sense to take the five points from the climbing jump. Training a jump is relatively straightforward. However, the scoring for faults remains the same. The retrieve portion remains at 5 points. If a jump is missed, no points are awarded for the jump, resulting in a deduction of 5 points. These arguments ultimately led to a significant majority in favor of this decision.

K9andSports: Since we’re already in the obedience section: according to the new regulations, the retrieve dumbbell will be placed down if the handler does not throw it into a designated area. Many handlers are pleased about this. But that probably wasn’t the underlying motivation, was it?

KJG: No. Rather, it’s about being able to better assess the jumping ability of the dogs. This is an important aspect of evaluating the utility of our dogs. When judging the World Championship two years ago, I noticed a strikingly high number of dogs had jumping problems. Mind you, this was at a World Championship. However, the jumping ability can’t be accurately assessed when the dumbbell is placed just behind the hurdle. You can't see how confidently the dog approaches and jumps the hurdle or how powerful the jumps are. To ensure the necessary distance for proper assessment, the designated area will now be marked. Of course, there are opposing voices, such as the argument that the dumbbell will always be optimally placed when it is laid down. But that’s just how it is: for some, it’s optimal, while for others, it’s not. There’s no 100% solution. The conditions are now as equal as possible for all dogs. Such decisions shouldn’t be criticized in advance; rather, we should see in practice what the change brings. Then we can always make adjustments.

K9andSports: Why has the climbing jump been lowered from 180 cm to 160 cm?

KJG: Originally, the goal was for the dogs to climb in a more controlled manner. However, this would have meant requiring two opposing behaviors in one exercise: on one hand, the dog should retrieve with drive, and on the other hand, it must also gather itself and climb in a controlled way. This is extremely demanding. In a seminar, we closely observed how dogs jump naturally, without any constraints. We noticed that dogs consistently approach the jump at an angle of about 45 degrees and then jump down. They cannot maintain this angle if they are “climbing” in a controlled manner. Controlled climbing is usually achieved in training by using ropes or arcs, which force the dog to climb very steeply. This does not correspond to their natural movement patterns and can be harmful to their back and elbows; this is an important point regarding animal welfare. Therefore, we decided to set the climbing jump to 160 cm. This way, the dogs jump less forcefully against the hurdle, resulting in a smoother motion. At the same time, the expectations for the dog do not change significantly. In this regard, we will also need to see how this proves itself in practice.

K9andSports: I personally find the idea of making it easier to enter the sport particularly sensible for young people. The IGP1 is incredibly extensive for newcomers. I don't know if I would have managed it without a support system. From my perspective, it's only something for young people if their family is already active in dog sports.

KJG: I see it that way too. Imagine walking into a dog sports club for the first time, without friends or people to specifically help you. There are fewer of those than there used to be. It’s an immense challenge to pass the first exam, and we need, and want, to keep as many athletes as possible with us. The IGP sport also needs a kind of "grassroots" participation from which ambitious athletes and helpers can emerge. Professional working groups cannot cover this area. I think it’s great that the idea of "loosening up" has been included in the first exams—by the way, this was completely normal 30 years ago. According to the new regulations, the handler can keep the dog in the basic position as before and offer light praise. However, they can also release the dog and praise it with voice and body language (for no longer than 5 seconds) before bringing it back into focus. It’s up to the handler to decide.

K9andSports: To make the sport more accessible, there have been suggestions to replace the tracking exercise with a different form of search work, for which it might be easier to find suitable training grounds. Was this discussed?

KJG: That has also been discussed. Abolishing the tracking work would significantly impact the sport's tradition, and many are afraid of that. Moreover, we have tracking dog tests; many handlers train their dogs in a dual capacity. However, I did suggest shortening the track for the IGP1. But that did not come to fruition.

K9andSports: Are you fundamentally in agreement with the changes, or are there regulations that you would have preferred to see handled differently?

KJG: Overall, the new regulations are a step in the right direction. However, one point I find difficult to accept is the back transport in the IGP2. The handler must move to the helper during the back transport, stand next to them, assume a basic position, remove the soft stick, and demonstrate a side transport. In my opinion, this exercise does not belong in the IGP2, especially considering that the requirements should increase uniformly between the different levels. Furthermore, I believe the back transport is by far the most challenging exercise in section C. With certain types of dogs, it takes a long time to train the exercise properly. Therefore, it should only be required in the IGP3. Ultimately, however, nearly 70% of the countries were against removing the exercise from the IGP2; many even wanted to reintroduce the surprise attack in the IGP2, which makes no sense at all. The only difference between levels 2 and 3 would then be just two more hides to search.

K9andSports: The companion dog test has now become somewhat easier in its obedience requirements and is also shorter. However, the social assessment is supposed to become stricter?

KJG: Exactly. The companion dog test is not a competitive examination type. This test was introduced to assess the basic obedience and social compatibility of the dog. In 2000, a child was fatally injured by a dog in Hamburg. Although no protection dog was involved, people turned to us as an organization because we were tangible. We, as an organization, also had an interest in ensuring that only suitable dogs (socially compatible with basic obedience) enter the various sports. The endless heeling we had in the companion dog test is not necessary for assessing basic obedience. What’s much more important is to place a stronger focus on whether the dogs are socially compatible. To achieve this, we move away from the training ground and observe how the dog behaves in public. Judges should definitely place more emphasis on this.

K9andSports: Socially compatible in this sense means that the dog must remain neutral as long as it is not being attacked. But what happens if another dog attacks mine during an exam?

KJG: Yes. Most judges will have experienced such situations before. A handler is not paying attention, and their dog goes after another dog on the training ground. It would obviously be unfair to disqualify the second dog if it defends itself. However, there should be a distinction made in these cases.

K9andSports: The preamble places a strong emphasis on species-appropriate housing and animal welfare-compliant training. However, even under the previous regulations, avoidance behavior or signs of negative stress should have influenced the evaluation accordingly. Does the new regulation provide for a stricter approach?

KJG: This has been analyzed, and indeed, the regulations previously made clear statements about this. However, these guidelines were not implemented well enough. Some judges evaluated accordingly, while others completely ignored the expression. Still, others only saw things in black and white, focusing on the extremes. But we are also concerned with the gray areas. If negative influences are observed, the highest rating is no longer possible, even if the signs are not severe. A "V" can only be achieved by a dog that truly works freely, motivated, and openly. In protection work, there's something comparable: a dog may execute full grips, attack, and guard the helper after separation. However, if its expression does not clearly show that the dog is willing to engage with the helper and assert itself, especially if that willingness is not highly evident, then a "V" cannot be awarded.

K9andSports: So we've arrived at the term dominance. Do you believe there is consensus among the judges on this? Do handlers understand what the judges want to see or what the regulations require?

KJG: No, there is a lack of common understanding on this. One can approach the term scientifically or rely on common language usage. Dominance always involves two subjects. One subject displays confidence towards the other with the intent to assert itself in a recognizable way. However, we should generally refrain from fixating on the term. It’s about the dog approaching the helper confidently, being active, and showing a clear desire to engage with the helper. This necessitates the highest evaluation level. I consciously avoid using the term "dominance" in my discussions because there is too much ambiguity surrounding it.

K9andSports: It is inherent to the nature of regulations that they allow judges some leeway in their evaluations. However, dissatisfaction continues to arise. Do you see ways to further improve the judging process and make it more transparent regarding what is required and how evaluations are conducted?

KJG: We need to have leading examinations and judges in both the FCI and the VDH. We require judges in both organizations who can implement what we specify to a high percentage. I believe that if the judging at championships is done uniformly as intended, our interpretation will also prevail, leading more judges to align with it. Otherwise, neither the athletes nor the judges will make progress. The direction must also be clear to the athletes, making it reliable. At the end of November, we will conduct an international judge training session where we will discuss issues related to judging in our sport to raise awareness and develop solutions. After that, we will of course delve into the changes in the new version of the regulations. In Germany, we are also pursuing the approach of collaboratively establishing a unified direction across associations for the first time. We should and want to converge in our judging practices across associations. In the past, the member associations of the VDH have gone separate ways, which has created too much uncertainty. If we manage to come closer together and develop a unified philosophy, we will have made significant progress.

K9andSports: Then we thank you, K-J, for all your efforts for the sport. You are currently on the phone from Croatia at the FCI World Championship. We wish you and everyone a wonderful event.