Training Progression

[codmaster]

Originally Posted by Superhero

Let me address one point here specifically.

Don't confuse my personal definition of competition and training and how I am applying the definition used by others.

One of my previous posts described this fully - did you read it? You are misapplying (or not understanding) my definitions and how I am using each one. I differentiate between my own and others' and I am discussing this from both points of view, more or less.

More or less is absolutely correct!

[Superhero]

And, to one more of your points, which actually address my original point, of which this entire redundant conversation has flowed from:

The only thing I have said (regarding my response to Elaine) is that it isn't necessary to train a dog to this standard to have a well-behaved dog. I also stated that most people would probably use the AKC standard as a form of "competitive training", and that I did not think that "competitive training", as defined this particular way, is at all necessary for a well-behaved dog. I gave some examples of why this would be the case. This was a direct reply to her, and I was very clear when I replied to her.

Further, since this isn't about my definition of competitive training, but rather someone else's, how I define and use the term is irrelevant.

Since it seems to matter so much, I will repeat myself in fewer words:

my own personal definition of competitive training is any training that one is going to use to compete.

Again, as I have stated before, this is not the same definition that most people would use, I suspect, and not the definition I am applying in most of this discussion.

Now that I think about it, this is where most of the confusion lies in this conversation. I've already said all of this, but for the sake of clarity, and despite the fact there is a permanent record of me having said it, I have repeated it.

Also, please show me where I have denigrated or made fun of folks who train their dogs to the AKC standard. The only people who could possibly take offense to anything I have said are those that are arrogant and elitist. Otherwise, what I said wouldn't apply to them, and therefore there would be no offense. I didn't make any blanket statements, in fact, I made sure to qualify myself in that not everyone is this way. Therefore, the only reason for someone to take offense (unless one twists my words around as Elaine did) is if they fit the description. In which case, if they do, then yes, I have definitely denigrated those people, as I would anyone who is an arrogant elitist.

Hopefully we can get back on topic now, assuming this thread doesn't die from the massive amount of repetitiveness that it contains.

[codmaster]

Originally Posted by Superhero

And, to one more of your points, which actually address my original point, of which this entire redundant conversation has flowed from:

The only thing I have said (regarding my response to Elaine) is that it isn't necessary to train a dog to this standard to have a well-behaved dog. I also stated that most people would probably use the AKC standard as a form of "competitive training", and that I did not think that "competitive training", as defined this particular way, is at all necessary for a well-behaved dog. I gave some examples of why this would be the case. This was a direct reply to her, and I was very clear when I replied to her.

Further, since this isn't about my definition of competitive training, but rather someone else's, how I define and use the term is irrelevant.

Since it seems to matter so much, I will repeat myself in fewer words:

my own personal definition of competitive training is any training that one is going to use to compete.

Again, as I have stated before, this is not the same definition that most people would use, I suspect, and not the definition I am applying in most of this discussion.

Now that I think about it, this is where most of the confusion lies in this conversation. I've already said all of this, but for the sake of clarity, and despite the fact there is a permanent record of me having said it, I have repeated it.

Also, please show me where I have denigrated or made fun of folks who train their dogs to the AKC standard. The only people who could possibly take offense to anything I have said are those that are arrogant and elitist. Otherwise, what I said wouldn't apply to them, and therefore there would be no offense. I didn't make any blanket statements, in fact, I made sure to qualify myself in that not everyone is this way. Therefore, the only reason for someone to take offense (unless one twists my words around as Elaine did) is if they fit the description. In which case, if they do, then yes, I have definitely denigrated those people, as I would anyone who is an arrogant elitist.

Hopefully we can get back on topic now, assuming this thread doesn't die from the massive amount of repetitiveness that it contains.

We can only hope!

[Superhero]

You're right here - point well-taken. I appreciate your use of red and blue.

I'll chalk this up to improving my post count!

Originally Posted by codmaster

We can only hope!

[sagelfn]

Originally Posted by Superhero

I agree here. A big part of why I posted this was in order to find out more things to teach her so that I don't run out.

Once I "finish" with her obedience I would like to start doing some tracking work. I may seek a trainer for this as from all I have seen it's not the easiest thing to teach, but we'll see how things go. Then from there I can do all sorts of other things. Just like humans, dogs should always be learning something new. It keeps the mind sharp, focused and calm.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the majority of posts above so if this was already brought up I'm sorry

If you plan on doing tracking or maybe agility or some dog sport just for fun just to stay busy and active with your dog you need rock solid obedience. Not solid in your standards but solid by each commands definition.

For the average pet, basic OB where the commands are done but leeway is given in how its done is fine. For a pet that is going to be involved in an activity (tracking, SchH, agility, flyball, etc..) you have to be more strict in your standards to avoid confusion. Even if you aren't going to trials to compete for titles.

There is also more to form than just doing it by definition. Correct form will also help prevent injury (applies to humans and dogs) Example say you teach your dog to come but are not specific on where the dog comes..could be near you could be come to you but does not sit or stay and the dog can run off again. Say you're at a dog park and your dog is off leash playing and there is an emergency and you need to leash your dog immediately. You will have trouble leashing your dog if he doesn't really come to you. My dog has been taught to come to me and sit at my side and wait. We are not doing any competition.

If you want your dog to learn lay down and you reward when his feet are under him ready to pop back up he isn't really learning what lay down means. For an average pet thats fine (although I think its cruel to confuse your dog) but if you're going to do things with your dog you need to be clear and that comes with lay down meaning one thing.

[Superhero]

I wouldn't read it either. :P

Thanks for the advice! I have some stuff from Leerburg as well as some AKC literature. Despite my stance on the issue, I can definitely appreciate the reasons for the methodology used and I do intend to train her rather strictly in form.

I did not realize tracking also required the same level of obdeince, but now that you mention it it makes a lot of sense. I'll take your advice to heart as I go further in her training so that she has the proper foundation to be successful in more advanced endeavors!

Originally Posted by sagelfn

I'll be honest, I didn't read the majority of posts above so if this was already brought up I'm sorry

If you plan on doing tracking or maybe agility or some dog sport just for fun just to stay busy and active with your dog you need rock solid obedience. Not solid in your standards but solid by each commands definition.

For the average pet, basic OB where the commands are done but leeway is given in how its done is fine. For a pet that is going to be involved in an activity (tracking, SchH, agility, flyball, etc..) you have to be more strict in your standards to avoid confusion. Even if you aren't going to trials to compete for titles.

There is also more to form than just doing it by definition. Correct form will also help prevent injury (applies to humans and dogs) Example say you teach your dog to come but are not specific on where the dog comes..could be near you could be come to you but does not sit or stay and the dog can run off again. Say you're at a dog park and your dog is off leash playing and there is an emergency and you need to leash your dog immediately. You will have trouble leashing your dog if he doesn't really come to you. My dog has been taught to come to me and sit at my side and wait. We are not doing any competition.

If you want your dog to learn lay down and you reward when his feet are under him ready to pop back up he isn't really learning what lay down means. For an average pet thats fine (although I think its cruel to confuse your dog) but if you're going to do things with your dog you need to be clear and that comes with lay down meaning one thing.