Titles....

Nope.

not in my opinion

Truley

Nope.

Ditto.

Just means I spent time and effort to teach my dog some skills that are recognized by a national organization.    And it's cool to have titles. 

Nope :) Although some members on this forum clearly believe otherwise...

There are some trainers out there who have titles on their dogs who are what people on this forum would call traditional trainers. There are people with no titles on their dogs who are excellent handlers and don't compete with their dogs for whatever reason. Titles, whilst great achievements, on their own are no real example of the quality of the trainer.

My take is this...for me, titles are really important, but not because I feel I have anything to "prove" to anyone else, but one of my reasons for owning dogs (German Shepherd dogs) is breed preservation.  I feel it's critical that the dog be proofed and tested.  If I'm the only one that ever gets to work and see my dogs, how can I objectively assess their strenghts and weaknesses?  How can I really test their drive and their ability to work under pressure without actually exposing them to the pressure and having them be evaluated by people who have worked the breed for decades?  The titles do not validate my methods.  The ends do not justify the means. Also, the process of training, proofing, and earning the title is what teaches us about the dogs and about ourselves.

I don't think titles offer any sort of validation of the methods used.  You can watch videos of people competing internationally at the highest levels of SchH and quite easily pick out dogs trained and titled using all coersion and pressure.  And yet these people are at the top level.  I've seen people at agility competitions do and say things to their dogs that give me pause, even if they are at a higher level than us.

 I used to think so. But not anymore. So no.

Liesje

The titles do not validate my methods.  The ends do not justify the means.

Exactly.  I've known many dogs with Master Hunter titles who were titled using methods that I would never use and the fact that the dog finally titled means nothing because the methods used didn't allow an observer to honestly assess the dog's true abilities and temperment.  Titles do mean something but to use the fact that a dog has a title as the only criteria of that dog as a good representative of it's breed is a mistake. Knowing the trainer and the methods and of course the pedigree is all part of determining the dog's status as a rep of the breed.

Liesje

Also, the process of training, proofing, and earning the title is what teaches us about the dogs and about ourselves.

This should always be the case but unfortunately it is not.  I know plenty of people who have trained dogs for 20 plus years using the the methods that earned them their first title with their first dog. They continue on in the same way despite repeated failures and usually attribute the failure to the dog and not their methods. 

IMHO titles can be fun to get, and it is a way to show that you have done some training to a certain level. They do not show your methods, good or bad. A trainer that has never put any kind of titles on a dog gives no proof to their clients that they have "any" level of skill. This doesn't mean the trainer is lacking in skill, just that no judge has evaluated that skill. Nor do titles give any indication of the training methods used.

For me, a show is a place to evaluate where my dogs are in their training. I've gotten a few titles that I personally wouldn't have awarded if I had been the judge, but being out in a strange, new venue really helps in my evaluation of my training methods and my dog's level of training. There's been lots of "back to the drawing board" moments!!

billsmom

IMHO titles can be fun to get, and it is a way to show that you have done some training to a certain level. They do not show your methods, good or bad. A trainer that has never put any kind of titles on a dog gives no proof to their clients that they have "any" level of skill. This doesn't mean the trainer is lacking in skill, just that no judge has evaluated that skill. Nor do titles give any indication of the training methods used.

For me, a show is a place to evaluate where my dogs are in their training. I've gotten a few titles that I personally wouldn't have awarded if I had been the judge, but being out in a strange, new venue really helps in my evaluation of my training methods and my dog's level of training. There's been lots of "back to the drawing board" moments!!

I think that your take on it is pretty good. What interests me is that personally i would much sooner take my dog out in public or do a class demo rather than get a title. I have also seen a phenomina of late where titles are passe and explained off a bit. I think that that is because of the introduction of the CCD class here in Australia which is meant to encourage people to trial but also has lowered the bar to get that all important title for breeding purposes.

I guess if they are so easy to get why do some trainers that constantly slag them just pop off and get one or two?? 

When i looked around for a trainer, i looked for a person that had trialled that had been highly successful and that had very good personal skills so that she could encourage me to achieve my goals.The training methods were an absolute must. I wasn't interested in anybody but a known positive trainer.

Well, since none of my current crew have any titles, I would say no. LOL (but c'mon Gaci, I just KNOW you'll get your Jumpers this spring....!!!)

Titles are just letters after a name to show that your dog reached certain criteria by a judge of some sort. How you got there is a whole other ball game.

I think Liesje summed it up nicely for me when she said that the end doesn't justify the means.

When I'm at a show or trial, I enjoy watching a good run by some of the more advanced teams. Their techniques for training may not suit me, but I do know for sure that they have spent a great deal of time with their dog. Probably they have more dedication to the given sport then myself or other competitors.

Most of my dogs have titles in one sport of another. Some have titles in several venues. To some uninitiated people, the amount of titles is very impressive, but the titles are low level, and my scores in some cases are an embarrasment. We're small peanuts that just like to have fun.

What disturbs me is some exhibitors desire to have titles to prove their dogs worth. They are desperate to get a Rally Novice, a herding pre-trial tested, or a hunt test title. "See my dog can do what it was bred to do!" Titles should be for enjoyment of dog and handler, and an outlet for humans that are competitive.

The training methods are no better or worse at any level. A poor rapport with a dog, inappropriate methods for a given dog, or over pressure just to compete and get a title is wrong, but I do know that for people that train and exhibit for clients as their business are always under pressure to produce results. That doesn't always make for a happy experience for the dog. 

 Absolutely not. Titles are important to me, because I enjoy spending time with the dogs, I enjoy getting them, and the dogs are out in public a lot. They are representing thier breeds as the intelligent and trainable dogs that they are.

I have known people with more titles on more dogs, and higher titles, that routinely use methods I consider abusive, and their relationship shows it.  The relationship is what's important to me, much more than the title or the ribbons or the rankings will ever be.

Hi All

Sometimes the story behind the title is really important. The ones that get to me are the ones that say Tch Cadbury CDX. I was pretty green and made lots of mistakes with him. I prepared him for his Tch when he was 10, but got so ill that i couldn't trial him. During that year and the next year . the idea of ever trialling a dog again seemed very remote. 

When he was 12  we got Luci our oldest poodle. I stated to train her for her tracking. One day as i was starting a track i heard this distress barking from the car and went to see what was wrong with him and got him out of the car. It is hard to explain but he made it known that he wanted to track.

I made this very hard track for him, and of course he just nailed it.  I needed to do 4 tracks to get his Tch and had 6 tracks in a season to do it that i could possibly attend. Of course he failed the first two, and nailed the rest. The last track, well it was perfect. My 13 1/2 year old dog nailed a track aged for over 1 1/2 hours and about 1300M long  with two acutes, 5 normal corners and two cross overs in bush in 10 minutes flat. That is fast. There is a cup named after him for vetrans in our state. It is hard to describe the feeling of shock and disbelief and elation when he finally did it. I guess that the Judges words still ring in my ears " He is a Champion now but you always knew it didn't you?" .

No.

Titles are different things to different people. To me, someone who does not breed, or buy from breeders, titles to me are about having fun. It's about saying "Hey, me and my dog did this and we had a blast doing it!" If titling my dog is not fun (which really, I have little interest in it but it's happened), I wouldn't do it. If my dog didn't enjoy it, we wouldn't do it. If we cannot do it free from bad stress, fear, discomfort, pain, unnecessary pressure, or other such unpleasantries, we don't do it. If we can't do it where we are both utterly enjoying ourselves, I won't do it.

Dogs can get titles using just about any method, and people using any method can choose to title or not to title their dog.