Titles....

 13 1/2!!?!??!?! That is pretty awesome!

jennie_c_d

13 1/2!!?!??!?! That is pretty awesome!

Yes he was. He was also our boy, our constant companion. He just loved to lie with is head in my lap having his ears stroked. We lost him in January this year on his 15th birthday.It was actually difficult to get this title and a training achievement. Not many people track dogs of this age.

I guess that in a previous topic i suggested that titles are something to be proud of  a measure that at least you and your dog had done something  other than blow a lot of hot air. I also respect trainers that don't title that help others in many areas or that contribute with their knowledge.  I don't have a lot of respect for trainers that aim to title or suggest that they can help people title who have no idea of the basic concepts that are required . There are many of them. It is almost How to Title 101 find a trainer that can help you that knows what they are doing! It is very much a case of my dog my responsibility.

How i do it is super important to me.Luci my oldest poodle has some latent noise phobias. If they were to re-occur i would be out of trialling completely without thought. She is just a beautiful dog to work with. 

 Here are some videos from when she was 15 months old. My handling is awful. The signals are very hard on her, my corners are dreadful, i am looking at her all the time as i wish to make sure i reinforce good stuff. All that i wanted to see in the heeling was focus and i think i got that :)

I think maybe she is a happy dog :)))

Her retrieve is basically a clicked retrieve. Her finish is better. We have a choice of three here.

I will post some recent ones soon. 

http://s587.photobucket.com/home/deniscody100

Titles mean that you put time and energy into training for a specific competitive event.  Then you put out the money to be judged until you met the criteria.  They tell more about what you and your dog do with leisure time (or if you make your living with dogs) how good your business skills might be (think hunting  and herding trials). 

The other thing I have noticed, any number of folk who actually work their dogs, dont necessarily trial them.  That is more likely to be found in breeds with lower popularity rates that GSDs or in situations when there is a huge split between the conformation and working minded folks who breed.

I don't think titles matter in terms of proving that a dog is well trained.  A dog is either trained to a high level or not, regardless of whether the owner chooses to compete.  That having been said, I do think that there are circumstances in which titles are valuable - when you want to prove to the public that your breeding stock's conformation is correct and functional, and that your stock has the temperament and ability to do the job for which it was intended, for example.  Had I wanted to breed Sequoyah, I might have done stock dog trials with her.  As it is, there are no titles for dogs that do tricks - and with my bad hips freestyle is pretty much out of the question;-)  I also think that the ability to train is also very much separate from the ability to teach.  There are terrific people who are at the highest levels of competition, but they cannot convey their knowledge.  And, there are others, who don't have a competitive bone in their bodies, or who have physical disabilities, who eschew competition, but are able to produce students who go one to great things in the ring.  In my own case, my reputation was built for the great therapy dogs my facility produces, many of whom are working in hospitals, nursing homes, day habilitation settings, school and after school programs, etc.  There are no therapy dog titles, although they almost always have a CGC, their therapy dog designations are given from the organizations that insure them, after they pass a test, which is actually very easy - our course over-prepares the dogs for it by a long stretch, I'm proud to say.  Some of my students' dogs are AKC or UKC champions, others have obedience, agility, or rally  titles - I have a UD (or UDX, can't remember) in my current therapy dog class.  But, others were street dogs in Puerto Rico before they were adopted, and have never seen an obedience trial.  All are wonderfully trained and doing wonderful work.  No less important than the national champions of any other discipline IMO;-) 

I chose to spend my money on other things aside from competition, because my main objective was to teach - so completing a psychology degree and going to every seminar and workshop I could afford, and get to was very important to me.  I also have a really extensive library which cost me thousands of dollars to accumulate.  My passion is teaching behavioral wellness along with skills training.  I also spent years in lessons with other great trainers, and doing the "pay your dues" kind of dog handling that you get in shelters and other situations.

When I was young, I did compete and teach in the horse world, but my experiences there (riding some pretty rank horses leads to some spills now and then) lead to some pretty severe arthritis that makes it problematic for me to run agility or spend lots of time on my feet.  It has nothing to do with either my dogs' level of training or their ability.  However, my dogs must still be obedient, because they are acting as demo dogs for the public who attend my classes.  I'm sure that if they were disobedient, my word of mouth advertising wouldn't be nearly so effective:-)  They are a testament to the power of positive training.

Maybe I'll get flack for this but I do believe that depending on the breed, some titles tell you more about the dog than others.  For GSDs I need them to have titles that were designed to work that breed.  Not just AKC titles like CD, RE, etc.  Those are all-breed titles and you can train reactive dogs, low drive dogs, nervy-bag dogs to get these titles (I know b/c I have done it and seen others do it). 

I prefer titles where you are actually given a critique from the judge.  The last time Kenya and I competed, it was two days and we didn't win the first day, didn't score the highest points, but the judge noted in the critique that we were a good "team" and the bond and working relationship was very evident even if we didn't score perfect points.  Also in conformation I like to know why my dog was placed where he was placed.  A lot of it does boil down to politics or the judge's agenda, but when they critique, at least you know what they like and don't like.

Again, titles are important for me because while training is important, I also need my dogs tested and proofed.  It's not enough that they can do what I say at our training club or at home but at least for the breed I love, these dogs MUST be able to work under pressure.

Maybe I'll get flack for this but I do believe that depending on the breed, some titles tell you more about the dog than others.

I wouldn't give you flack for that;-)  Having competed in equine dressage, I liked the feedback from judges, too.  But, you can get feedback from judges, when appropriate, by asking them to comment.  Or, you can get input by seeking the opinions of other trainers whose students seem to be placing higher.  There are various ways to seek out the help you need.  AND, big one here, it's fine to be satisfied with NOT placing under judges whose opinion you do not respect, either because they pin by politics (ya, I know you are only supposed to look at the nameless dog, but who wouldn't recognize Jimmy Moses enter the ring and whatever really super dog he has been showing all season???), or because they pin characteristics that you feel are harmful to the breed, or which tend to increase the likelihood of temperament issues, etc.  Just as an example, there are, in my opinion, many Aussies who pin today in the conformation ring, that I would not want to rely on as working dogs.  They are too heavily coated, too heavy period, and while they have those lovely white collars, the right topline and can gait, would they last on a 300 acre cattle ranch?  Maybe not.  That's why there seems to be a divide between the dogs that are WTCH's and the dogs that are CH's, although, I'm sure there are some that could wear both hats, so to speak.

I do disagree that you must title dogs to prove that they can work under pressure.  They either can or can't, and it is the fact that you personally test them under the appropriate circumstances that determines that.  The title is only your way of proving it to others, and maybe to yourself.  But, the inherent working ability of the dog plus his training, is what decides whether he is capable or not.

Liesje

Do titles mean that your methods are superior to the methods used by those whose dogs don't have titles?

I'm going to go against the grain here and say yes. Oh, alright, no, not really. But, I don't give a lot of credibility to self proclaimed training experts who don't provide some evidence that they can actually train a dog. Of course simply earning a title doesn't prove that your method is superior to other's methods. But it does at least provide some evidence of what you are capable of training. Anyone can claim that their method will work, or that their method is superior for some training goal. Earning a title, or multiple titles means you are willing to display the results of your training method to the world. It's not just about eventually appending a set of letters to a dog's name; it's about letting the world actually see what your methods can achieve. A title won't prove the superiority of one's training method, but it does give people a chance to see whether they want their dog to behave the way your dog does in circumstances that you don't have complete control over. And I'm going to question why any self proclaimed training expert would be unwilling to put the results of their training method on display.

Titling is also about finding out for yourself whether your methods are as effective as you think they are. It's easy to think that your dog is more reliably trained than he really is. It's easy to not notice all those tiny tugs on the leash, to overlook all those times when you've had to repeat a command, to settle for half hearted compliance when no one is keeping score. Having an outside, more or less objective, observer take note makes all those little "oops" glaringly obvious.

Titling also helps illuminate the limitations of one's training methods. It's easy to think that because a method worked to train a dog to sit, that one is now qualified to advise on how to train a blind retrieve, or weave pole entries, or search and rescue. I've recently been involved in a discussion on another forum about methods for training herding dogs. There are about a dozen people involved in that discussion whose actual experience consists of driving past a pasture with some sheep in it once, and yet they are all totally convinced that since they know how to teach "leave it" and how to walk on a loose leash that they could teach a dog to herd just fine. If any of those people would actually attempt to get even the most basic herding title on their dog, I think they would be amazed at how much less knowledgeable they are than they perceive themselves to be.

So, no titles alone don't prove the relative superiority of a training method. But I'm pretty skeptical of trainers who claim to know how to train a skill if they are unwilling to put the results of their training on some sort of public display. Earning titles isn't the only way to display the results of one's training, but if you aren't willing to title in a venue that is relevant to what you claim to be able to train, I'm certainly gonna ask "So, what else have you got?"

spiritdogs

That's why there seems to be a divide between the dogs that are WTCH's and the dogs that are CH's, although, I'm sure there are some that could wear both hats, so to speak.

One of the reasons i don't have another lab is that the working lines and show lines are quite split here but one wag of a breeder does say that the only difference between a  good working lab and a show lab is 30lb :))

I do tend to agree with you about pressure. It means nothing to me if my dogs can't handle working in front of a class, or find it difficult to handle everyday life. These situations require real spot on obedience and flexibility. There are many obedience dogs that are pains to live with.

One if the reasons that i have poodles (other than them being about the very  best looking and smartest dogs in the world :)) is that the stuff that they go through to be a show champion seems to be a good predictor of how they will work. My boy is a show champ that i got at 16 months. He has no right to be as good as he is, but he is very calm under pressure, works very up , is hugely interested in the world around him (a good predictor of tracking prowess) and is good with people. He is already an awesome tracker.

When i have downloaded some recent videos of Luci i will download some of him. Luci is now nearly four, and i got a great one of her today doing an exercise that is unique to Australia called the seekback.  It shows her just hanging on to her impulse control and jumping a ring rope because that is where she thinks the scent is because of the wind. They are allowed to do that here.She is a very up worker, and i can have troubles with forging with her if i haven't worked with her for a while.... like 3 days!!!

I have also done a video of her doing our Scent Discrimination . We don't have dumb bells, we have flat leather strips , aluminium tubes and wooden square rods.

 Luci is 1/2 US bred. Her sire is a Silverado dog.

Sam is 1/4 US bred. 

Here unless they show up, they don't really get noticed. They also need to have good bounce back from noises.

I don't show, but have some obedience judges i just don't bother with. It might be personaility.or attitude or ignorance with smaller dogs.

I have put a posting up in the obedience part with an explantion etc with an address http://s587.photobucket.com/albums/ss311/deniscody100/LuciLuci%20UD%20training/ showing luci training in UD in Oz.

Titling also helps illuminate the limitations of one's training methods. It's easy to think that because a method worked to train a dog to sit, that one is now qualified to advise on how to train a blind retrieve, or weave pole entries, or search and rescue. I've recently been involved in a discussion on another forum about methods for training herding dogs. There are about a dozen people involved in that discussion whose actual experience consists of driving past a pasture with some sheep in it once, and yet they are all totally convinced that since they know how to teach "leave it" and how to walk on a loose leash that they could teach a dog to herd just fine. If any of those people would actually attempt to get even the most basic herding title on their dog, I think they would be amazed at how much less knowledgeable they are than they perceive themselves to be.

We have people involved in discussions here all the time who have trained one dog, and now think they can advise those of us who do this for a living;-)  So, I completely agree that it is sometimes beyond the scope of imagining how inadequate you might be in training a discipline for which you have not adequately prepared.  However, I think there are certainly other criteria by which to measure.  One is video, another is the success of the students you prepare, another is the respect of fellow trainers who do have titles, another is public obedience demonstrations (you are doing the same skills, just not in the competition venue), another is actually working a dog (non-dog savvy sheep are way different...), and so on and so forth.

I can tell you that I would never presume to tell Rebecca Shouse how to train a dog for actual farm work just because I have informally had two of my dogs tested for instinct.  But, that also doesn't mean that I've been incapable of training my really intense Aussie that sheep are ok for her to herd but horses aren't.  So, it isn't always black and white when you talk about levels of experience in a given discipline.  Some skills are transferable, some not so much.  So, while I have no idea how to actually work sheep with my dog, other than what I've been taught on an elementary level thus far, I understand very well the mechanics of how dogs learn.  So, as with other disciplines that I have managed to master (including those on horseback where I did win ribbons lol) the proof for me is always in the mastery of the skill, not so much on whether I have the capacity any more to go to shows every weekend.  But, I do realize that others feel differently.  I know many dogs that have obedience titles, but, sadly, do not really know how to learn as well as they know how to be told what to do.  I am never as thrilled by someone's title as I am by seeing a dog solving a problem by testing new behavior.

spiritdogs

We have people involved in discussions here all the time who have trained one dog, and now think they can advise those of us who do this for a living;-)  So, I completely agree that it is sometimes beyond the scope of imagining how inadequate you might be in training a discipline for which you have not adequately prepared.  However, I think there are certainly other criteria by which to measure.  One is video, another is the success of the students you prepare, another is the respect of fellow trainers who do have titles, another is public obedience demonstrations (you are doing the same skills, just not in the competition venue), another is actually working a dog (non-dog savvy sheep are way different...), and so on and so forth

Yes. I totally agree. I really enjoy titling dogs in tracking, it is in the open air and the scenarios are true to life. Now if i could avoid titling in obedience. My message with videos and titling is a little more obscure. It might not be obvious now but the main reason is that despite my size disparity, despite my innate clumsiness, despite my relative lack of finesse, Luci using positive methods is shaping up to be a really competitive dog. I didn't have to correct her , and i have enormous fun training her. I hope that i get that across. Sometimes it seems all too serious in obedience.