Luke W Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Ok, I has a better way to phrase my question.Do you think obedience shows a dogs working ability? Somewhat. For some skills and for some dogs. But it's stylised. Maybe as much as doing katas shows a fighters ability. Or a woodchopping competition shows a blokes ability to chop down trees for a living. Or the 100m sprint shows a persons ability to escape from a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHRP Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 If owned a dog that I soley did obedience with and someone asked if I had a 'working dog', I'd say no, but I work my dog in Obedience. I regard obedience as 'work' but it in no way proves the ability of a dog being able to do what it was originally bred for. I have gundogs that I compete in retrieving trials and still would not say they are 'working dogs' because I do not (or very rarely) hunt over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Midol Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 $50 says I could escape from a lion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayreovi Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) I think what Midol is getting at, is not that the dog's themselves think they are "working" but the notation that we put on it. How can someone say that just because their dog can retrieve a dumb bell over a jump knows how to herd sheep, or a dog doing a seekback know to go to ground? JMO You're comparing apples with oranges there. The only true test of working ability is working as originally bred to do. We've developed dog sports to amuse ourselves, keep our dogs stimulated and keep some instincts alive. Nothing more. Which is exactly what I am trying to say, people who equal training obedience to a dog's workability to perform original tasks are comparing apples with oranges. I agree with the last paragraph now Edited March 19, 2009 by tollersowned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke W Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yeah, but not working ability.I guess when I hear someone say I "work" my dogs I assume they are either actually working in the field OR testing their dogs working ability in a dog sport. I don't consider obedience to be a test of working ability. I guess this is because I probably spend more time reading working related materials and my interest lies in actual work. But like I said, I do have respect for those who can get to high levels in obedience. I don't necessarily think that makes them a great trainer though. And the same goes for those who have your style of 'working dogs'. You sound miffed and a touch dismissive - do a sense a bit of elitism seeping through? Don't security dog handlers spend most of their time just 'taking their dogs for a walk'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Midol Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 Most security trainers are probably worse than most obedience instructors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke W Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Most security trainers are probably worse than most obedience instructors I think a good trainer is a good trainer. I'm thinking of buying a chicken to practice my clicker technique on, or maybe an agility mouse. Edited March 19, 2009 by Luke W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayreovi Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 A rat would be a better choice LukeW, they are quite intelligent little buggers and take to training like a fish to water! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke W Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 A rat would be a better choice LukeW, they are quite intelligent little buggers and take to training like a fish to water! completely off topic How cool would it be to teach a rat all the obedience exercise? Sits, downs, stand for exam, retrieve over a jump, heel work, scent discimination, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Midol Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 Most security trainers are probably worse than most obedience instructors I think a good trainer is a good trainer. Definitely. I was just pointing out that someone being acomplished in a dog sport does not necessarily make them a good trainer. I am talking from a perspective of training other peoples dogs and having a great deal of knowledge about dogs. The obedience instructors at the club I visited can train their dogs for obedience, sure, but when I questioned why they do certain things they had no answer and it was just the way they do it. I think that's what seperates an average trainer from a good trainer or a good trainer from a great trainer. It just happened to be obedience that I was discussing at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayreovi Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I did teach one of mine to come when called and beg, so anything is possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikesPuppy Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 My post from the GSD thread I do kind of agree with those saying obedience isn't work.... just as I don't believe a dog with an ANKC herding title is in the same league as a working dog (unless the dog doubles as a working dog on a working farm!!!). IMO to really have the 'working' label on an individual dog, it should be doing a job which it is relied upon to do, such as herding, guarding property, personal protection, police work, customs work etc. Having said that though, any title IS a wonderful thing and does show something for the dedication of the owner and the intelligence/ability of the dog... be it natural instinct (earthdog, herding etc) or obedience/agility etc. And with a multi function breed like the GSD, I think it is very appropriate for the breed to have a number of titles in various disciplines. But a breed like the Border Terrier for example, was never required to be *obedient* so while it is nice to acheive, it doesn't really mean much to me in the way of what the breed was bred to do..... And to add to it..... I will be participating in an ANKC endurance test this year, with my Border Terrier. I consider this to be an indication of his working ability- as the breed was bred to run with the horses (hunter types, not the thoroughbreds), and typically maintain a steady trot over a long distance on a fox hunt. The ET is 20k and approx. 10k an hour speed limit, which is actually pretty close so while it does not mean he CAN follow a hunt as his ancestors did, it will prove his physical ability (sound conformation with enough leg to keep up, thick pads to support himself, good movement to maintain stamina etc) to an extent. On the other hand, Earthdog is a simulation of a terrier (or Dachshunds) working instinct... but not all dogs eligible for this activity hunt the same way!! Many of the small terriers were ratters... Borders and other medium sized terriers were used for hunting larger game such as foxes, badgers, etc. So therefore, it is not so much working ability as a desire to go underground and react at the end LOL. Another thing, my boy does not have the instinct for it, he will do it because I have *trained* him to do it... my bitch however required no training and takes to it like a duck does to water. In short, I believe obedience and other canine activities are a form of *work* but they should not be considered *working animals* in the same sense as a dog that earns it's keep!!! With the exception perhaps of dogs used as models or actors... if they don't have the training they would be bloody hard to work with!!! Also Guide Dogs... what would you cinsider them to be doing? I guess it is an advanced form of obedience? Dunno... and customs dogs... Beagles are scent hounds but Labs are gundogs... not much game in an airport or at a concert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gayle. Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I use the phrase "Time to do some work!" to signal to my dog that I want him by my left side, alert, focussed and attentive to my signals and commands. For him, the word "work" signifies the beginning of an obedience class/trial/practise session. It's just a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonymc Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Do I consider obedience work?No way. There is some work involved for the handler training the dog, yes. Nowdays, there are less dogs working.Less dogs working means less people working with dogs.Thats one of the reasons people are more out of touch with dogs. I consider work to be some of the following,the Kelpie or BC working all day in the shearing shed,out mustering,drafting sheep,the heeler out working cattle.the police dog on duty,the hunting dog out in the field,the terrier going to earth,the bullcatching dog handling scrubbers,the staghound working a spotlight,the greyhound racing,the drovers dog working the mob all day and so on. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) I wouldn't call a dog that competes in obedience a "working dog". The same as I wouldn't call a back yard hack trained "security" dog a working dog, although there are plenty out there who would like to think they are. ETA: as I hit the wrong button. Obedience, fly ball, agility, schutzhund are not work. The dog is displaying it's trainability and willingness to work with the handler, follow direction and instruction, it is not however " working" in the traditional sense. Edited March 19, 2009 by PPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I do not consider obedience 'work' in being able to determine whether the dog will be able to do what it was originally bred to do. However, competition obedience is not easy, and to do well and have a flashy working dog like some of the clips I have seen requires lots of time, dedication and a decent amount of drive in the dog. I get upset when people come in and say competition obedience is easy, when I have been working with Diesel and have not been able to get him to the point I would like to trial . IMO obedience is as difficult and valid a sport as any other you can do with a dog. I don't think getting to this level could be considered easy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickie Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) I tend to get a little irritated when people use the term "work" to describe obedience or agility. I often hear people say their dog is working well & it just doesn't sit right with me. I am not saying it is wrong, it is just a term I don't use. There is a vast difference in my dog's attitude from agility to sheep. Agility is fun and although they are very driven & giving it their all, it is still a game for them. I do not work sheep for a living, but my dogs take it very seriously when I put them on sheep. It doesn't seem to matter to them whether we are moving groups of sheep around in a work situation or training flanks in a small yard, their demeanor is the same & it is very serious business for them. They treat it as a job, not a game that has a reward at the end. Trim can look intense in pretty much everything I ask her to do...but I have never been able to get the same focus from her in sports/tricks/training as you see in the pic below where she is working sheep. I remember sending her on a cast out in a paddock once, she was running up the fenceline & there was a horse & rider in the next paddock running up the other side of the fence, parallel to her. LOL, to my knowledge she had never seen a horse before. She did the funniest double take I have ever seen & then back to her sheep & she never looked at the horse again. I can guarantee she would have had a different reaction in agility. It is just different for her, one is work & one is a game. So I use a different word. Edited March 19, 2009 by Vickie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekhbet Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I agree with PPS Agility, flyall, obedience etc are NOT work in the traditional sense. They are a controlled SPORT which can give indications of a dogs workability and temperament for proper work eg - Schutzhund to police/security/PPD etc competitive tracking to S&R or hunting the problems is that dog sports are controlled, the parameters are restrained and most are not done in the real world with real word distractions. They are an artificial simulation of a work situation and hence cannot be counted as 'work' situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I do not consider obedience 'work' in being able to determine whether the dog will be able to do what it was originally bred to do. However, competition obedience is not easy, and to do well and have a flashy working dog like some of the clips I have seen requires lots of time, dedication and a decent amount of drive in the dog. I get upset when people come in and say competition obedience is easy, when I have been working with Diesel and have not been able to get him to the point I would like to trial . IMO obedience is as difficult and valid a sport as any other you can do with a dog. I agree. What you describe is my issue with the way this non-debate is usually framed. Ultimately I doubt many of us disagree about the differences between dogs competing in obedience and dogs working sniffing out currency. There are less provocative ways to frame the question tho', and the OP knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolassesLass Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Doing obedience or any sport is working as far as the dictionary definition goes but I would not think obedience dog when someone said "I have a working dog". Some people seem to have decided that "working dogs" are the only "proper" dogs and it somehow makes them better than everyone to use the term. These people thus get quite shirty when anyone else uses the word (though a correct usage) which is plain ridiculous. Edited March 19, 2009 by molasseslass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now