Do You Consider Obedience "work"?

[PAX]

Kavik, do you then think that performing tasks, lets say retreiving, something that is not hard wired into the average BC or Kelpies (for your benefit), is that work or play in the Op's original argument?

[PAX]

ETA: Yes, okay Pax, anything your dog does not want to do is work. Whatever you want. I don't know why I bother sometimes.

I don't know either.

[Kavik]

I think Midol is talking precisely about what IS hardwired into the dog, and work being something that tests that ability. Obviously for Kelpies and BCs this is herding.

I don't think he is talking work/play but working with the dog's instincts, testing for what it is bred for.

Because you can't test for herding ability in obedience, it is not work under this definition.

[Luke W]

When Barkly finished his test today and the club's chief instructor spoke to me about his performance she said "...he worked really well today"

I think Midol's view is that the only time a dog is 'working' is if it's

1. Traditionally bred for that task

AND

2. The handler is doing it for a living

Edited March 22, 2009 by Luke W

[Just Midol]

Kavik & Luke, yeah, but it's also a little flexible. I'd consider a Labrador doing drug detection work a working dog as well.

[Kavik]

OK sounds fair

But what are the parameters? Bit muddy?

Drive? Duration? Does handler have to be doing it as a living? What about SAR dogs owned/handled by civilians?

[PAX]

I think Midol is talking precisely about what IS hardwired into the dog, and work being something that tests that ability. Obviously for Kelpies and BCs this is herding.

I don't think he is talking work/play but working with the dog's instincts, testing for what it is bred for.

Because you can't test for herding ability in obedience, it is not work under this definition.

Kavik, that is exactly my point though, my dogs (well two of them) have been selectively bred to work sheep. So if I teach them other stuff that is less rewarding then their hard wired traits, is that work?

To me I think it is, I know when we work sheep I don't have to give any rewards, the working of the sheep is it's own reward, if they don't comply, they don't get to work them, simple.

Where Obedience work is a whole different game, it is not self rewarding, actually very boring to the dog, so in my and I'm sure my dogs opinion, Obedience is work, even though I add high level rewards to make it fun, it is not the same as working the sheep, it has no real reward for the dog therefore it's work IMO..

[JulesP]

Now Pax Midol has made it quite clear that it is not from the dog's viewpoint!!!!

[PAX]

Sorry Jules, but to me it is only about the dogs POV.

[JulesP]

My BC are so serious that they consider coming with me to the washing line 'work'!!

[PAX]

OT..... Jules we both know, if it's not a BC it's just a dog.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

My BC are so serious that they consider coming with me to the washing line 'work'!!

[WoofnHoof]

To someone who will never own a true working dog then it won't matter, and the discussion will seem useless. If that's the case, then you shouldn't bother reading it.

But to those of us who do, the comment arose when someone in the GSD thread stated that their dogs do work... When talking about work from a breeding perspective you are discussing whether the dog can perform the tasks which it is bred for. When you claim your dog works you are implying you are testing their working ability. Obedience is not doing so.

So to someone who does not have the desire to own a true working dog and only wants dogs for their own pleasure then drawing distinctions is useless, and I don't expect you to ever understand.

So basically you just want people do validate your somewhat confused viewpoint that a working dog is whatever you say it is and sporting dogs aren't classed as working dogs? It makes no difference, the GSD thread was about form following function in the original sense, the standard is a construct following from the original shepherding form of the dog, it matters not whether the dog does other jobs because the standard only refers to a shepherding dog, and the current debate centers around whether the dog reflects the standard accurately and therefore is it able to perform it's original function adequately.

Here's an analogy that makes more sense to me - a thoroughbred is bred for a sport - racing, this also earns people a living and some economies even rely on it, is it considered 'work'? Is the hobby trainer's horse a sport horse or a working horse compared to the professional trainer's horse?

Drawing disctinctions is useless because it's just a human obsession for classifying and justifying and dare I say it - pontificatng! Has nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic value of a working dog or a companion dog either.

[Just Midol]

To someone who will never own a true working dog then it won't matter, and the discussion will seem useless. If that's the case, then you shouldn't bother reading it.

But to those of us who do, the comment arose when someone in the GSD thread stated that their dogs do work... When talking about work from a breeding perspective you are discussing whether the dog can perform the tasks which it is bred for. When you claim your dog works you are implying you are testing their working ability. Obedience is not doing so.

So to someone who does not have the desire to own a true working dog and only wants dogs for their own pleasure then drawing distinctions is useless, and I don't expect you to ever understand.

So basically you just want people do validate your somewhat confused viewpoint

I'm not confused at all. In fact, the majority of working owners share my view. If I posted this on the working forum I wouldn't have received a single yes. I have to question why obedience trialers want their dog to be considered working dogs...

that a working dog is whatever you say it is and sporting dogs aren't classed as working dogs? It makes no difference, the GSD thread was about form following function in the original sense, the standard is a construct following from the original shepherding form of the dog, it matters not whether the dog does other jobs because the standard only refers to a shepherding dog, and the current debate centers around whether the dog reflects the standard accurately and therefore is it able to perform it's original function adequately.

And...

Here's an analogy that makes more sense to me - a thoroughbred is bred for a sport - racing, this also earns people a living and some economies even rely on it, is it considered 'work'? Is the hobby trainer's horse a sport horse or a working horse compared to the professional trainer's horse?

No, I do not consider a racing horse to be a working horse.

Drawing disctinctions is useless because it's just a human obsession

Then don't take part in the discussion?

Edited March 22, 2009 by Just Midol

[WoofnHoof]

No, I do not consider a racing horse to be a working horse.

Based on what parameters?

Then don't take part in the discussion?

If I want to participate in a pointless discussion I will thanks.

[Just Midol]

No, I do not consider a racing horse to be a working horse.

Based on what parameters?

Based on my view that racing is a sport. Yes, I know, people make a living on it. I don't care. It's a sport.

If someone uses a horse on their farm, to work, then that horse is a working horse.

If someone uses a horse to pull a cart and offers cart rides then that horse is a working horse.

A horse racing around a track? Nah.

If I want to participate in a pointless discussion I will thanks.

Then stop complaining it is pointless The majority of discussions are

[WoofnHoof]

No, I do not consider a racing horse to be a working horse.

Based on what parameters?

Based on my view that racing is a sport. Yes, I know, people make a living on it. I don't care. It's a sport.

If someone uses a horse on their farm, to work, then that horse is a working horse.

If someone uses a horse to pull a cart and offers cart rides then that horse is a working horse.

A horse racing around a track? Nah.

That's not a parameter, galloping around a track is no different to mustering cattle, different skills required, different form but essentially the same purpose, carrying a human being (even a shrunken one) is the essential 'work' performed by horses since the beginning of equine domestication. Given that many musters in this country are done with trailbikes or choppers horses are more used for the enjoyment and 'tradition' factor these days anyway rather than purely economic purposes, especially with the cost of feed more often than not it is uneconomical to keep horses on larger stations. The horse is still doing work by your definition but the need for it is not present and therefore the work they do is no more valid than the work a racehorse does.

If I want to participate in a pointless discussion I will thanks.

Then stop complaining it is pointless The majority of discussions are

I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out the pointlessness.

[Just Midol]

No, I do not consider a racing horse to be a working horse.

Based on what parameters?

Based on my view that racing is a sport. Yes, I know, people make a living on it. I don't care. It's a sport.

If someone uses a horse on their farm, to work, then that horse is a working horse.

If someone uses a horse to pull a cart and offers cart rides then that horse is a working horse.

A horse racing around a track? Nah.

That's not a parameter

Yes it is, that's the point of this pointless discussion

, galloping around a track is no different to mustering cattle, different skills required, different form but essentially the same purpose, carrying a human being (even a shrunken one) is the essential 'work' performed by horses since the beginning of equine domestication.

But it is sport, as opposed to work.

What's the difference between someone planting trees for 4 hours and playing rugby for 4 hours? Both require physical strength, stamina, energy... You put effort into both... But playing rugby isn't work. Even if you're paid for it, I'd consider you a professional sports player as opposed to a working man or woman. Some may disagree, I have a feeling you will.

Given that many musters in this country are done with trailbikes or choppers horses are more used for the enjoyment and 'tradition' factor these days anyway rather than purely economic purposes, especially with the cost of feed more often than not it is uneconomical to keep horses on larger stations.

This doesn't support your argument that sport horses are work horses. All it does is tell us that very few people work their horses now?

The horse is still doing work by your definition but the need for it is not present and therefore the work they do is no more valid than the work a racehorse does.

The horse is DOING work but it is NOT A WORKING HORSE.

Who said it was more or less valid? I certainly didn't. I said it is different. In fact, I've said several times that accomplishments in sport are no less worthy than accomplishments in work. They're not the same, both are commendable, but they're different.

[Kavik]

What about SAR dogs Midol? I went to the SAR seminar held by K9 Force and SAR people from this board - it was awesome If the SAR teams are civilians, do you classify them as working? Racing Greyhounds (if you don't think racing horses are)?

[JulesP]

Now Midol you wrote this about dogs - "For me the dog is working if it is using their natural instinctive abilities to perform a task which the dog was specifically bred for.

There isn't a single breed that I know of that has instincts specifically tuned for obedience trials and bred for obedience trials."

The Thoroughbred race horse has been bred to race. It was developed to race. It is not a farm horse and has never been a farm horse. The race horse is certainly working.

Also no one on this thread has said that their obedience dogs are working in the true sense.