Unknown champions

[Jakezilla]

From the pointing dog side of things, I like e-collars and use them. However they have also created dogs that are not as tough as in the past. To make it through the training programs in the past the dogs had to be literally tougher than boot leather. The e-collar has allowed dogs that would not make it through those programs to be successful, which is a good and bad thing. There are lots of dogs being bred that don't have the proper mental stability and toughness to make their breed better because of the e-collar.


As far a tractability and field trials. They are run without e-collars and if your dog doesn't finish with you, you aren't winning anything. You need a dog with some sort of desire to go with you and work with you in order to be successful.


Field trials aren't the be all and end all but they are a place to start. Everyone's idea of a good dog is different and trials set a standard that everyone can agree on. A title and a bunch of ribbons doesn't mean the dog should be bred but it is a reason to take a good look at him/her and make your own decision. Like I said in another thread, there are titled dogs in the grouse woods that I wouldn't want anything to do with and non titled dogs I would definitely take a pup out of.

[welsh]

I think it is accurate to say that the use of a collar guarantees a higher degree of consistency which may be viewed as tractability by some.

My point is that to achieve similar results sans collar you would need a highly biddable dog. With retriever-world e-collar methods I think it's fair to say you'll get that consistency whether you gave the biddability or not. That's why the collar is now de rigeur.

Look at trainers who use a more punishment-based approach and it's even less likely a title indicates tractability.

When we say from a breeding perspective that titles indicate tractability, we're downplaying the role played by training. A dog may be consistent in the field in spite of being a hard-headed SOB thanks to training. The e-collar certainly plays a role in achieving that.

We might also consider that biddability may not be entirely inherited ... a lot of it probably comes from early training. Two people could turn the same dog into an entirely different animal. The same guy has won the Canadian spaniel amateur championship for something like nine out of the past ten years, and I don't think it's all in the breeding....

Now, the other things we ascribe to breeding -- desire, etc. -- are undoubtedly in the breeding and the titles prove it. But tractability, I'm not so sure.

I don't understand the comment about a dog being stripped of a title?

Simply a point about hero to zero ... we don't take titles away. That may be a training problem as much as anything, but not all FTCHs are equally meaningful.


Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[krakadawn]

This is why I like the hunt test system. If the dog has a bad day he gets nothing. In a field trial I may be wrong but regardless of performance they always award a win to the best dog performance? That could be a field of 6 dogs or 60. Not really apples/apples at that point. I have heard the show people play that game very well. The breeder who sold me my Brittany told me could virtually guarantee me a Show title. I have no interest in that but it does show that you can game the system.

In a field trial there will be a winner declared at the end of 2 days in AA stakes. Will that dog have had a 'bad' day...highly unlikely. The purpose of retriever trials is to examine the 'relative' merits of the dogs entered.

In a field trial a dog that has a bad day is usually out of the competition early on and for sure gets nothing. It is possible that all finishing dogs have some 'hole' in their performance but usually a long way from having a 'bad' day.

Our game is apples to apples. All dogs tested on the same set up and judged accordingly for performance.

There is never a field of 6 in our sport and there is a minimum of 8 qualified AA dogs in a stake for championship points to be awarded.

Hunt tests and field trials are two very different venues.

[welsh]

This is why I like the hunt test system.

You can still make any number of attempts to get that title, though.

The key thing is that to jakezilla's point, seeing the title on the pedigree is less meaningful than knowing the dog behind the title.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[krakadawn]

My point is that to achieve similar results sans collar you would need a highly biddable dog. With retriever-world e-collar methods I think it's fair to say you'll get that consistency whether you gave the biddability or not. That's why the collar is now de rigeur.

Look at trainers who use a more punishment-based approach and it's even less likely a title indicates tractability.

When we say from a breeding perspective that titles indicate tractability, we're downplaying the role played by training. A dog may be consistent in the field in spite of being a hard-headed SOB thanks to training. The e-collar certainly plays a role in achieving that.

We might also consider that biddability may not be entirely inherited ... a lot of it probably comes from early training. Two people could turn the same dog into an entirely different animal. The same guy has won the Canadian spaniel amateur championship for something like nine out of the past ten years, and I don't think it's all in the breeding....

Now, the other things we ascribe to breeding -- desire, etc. -- are undoubtedly in the breeding and the titles prove it. But tractability, I'm not so sure.



Simply a point about hero to zero ... we don't take titles away. That may be a training problem as much as anything, but not all FTCHs are equally meaningful.


Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

I would never down play the role of training. Nothing could be more paramount.

In our trials , 10 points including major(win) are required to title. I guess your win could have come from 30, 40 or 75 dog trial but a win never the less.

We keep and publish performance data on all dogs running. Total trials run, finishing rates(%), total points and a break down of the placings. This data is available each year and published by NRCC and now Retriever Results. CKC also publishes our top dogs. Not hard to do some homework about consistency etc. It needs to be pointed out though that people often train/compete hard but then take breaks and run sparingly....not to mention the challenge of finances etc

The big male in my avatar won trials every year from age 2 until age 9. He literally won his title every year with his performances which put him on the top amateur dog list in Canada for most years. Not all dogs or competitors choose to do this.

[Cass]

However they have also created dogs that are not as tough as in the past. To make it through the training programs in the past the dogs had to be literally tougher than boot leather. The e-collar has allowed dogs that would not make it through those programs to be successful, which is a good and bad thing.

Jakezilla this post is quite interesting and opposite of what some say on this thread. Would you elaborate?

[Mount Sweetness]

Jakezilla has it right, well said!

[terrym]

Question for JZ and Kraka. You are both very serious about trialing yet have very different venues. In your opinion would you say skill of trainer is more important than breeding? I used to trial when I was into beagles but have only done hunt tests and a gundog/ fun class at Hullett with my Britt. My limited experience is that the dog world is heavy to retired people with lots of free time. So, my opinion is the trainers should weigh heavier on the scales than pedigree. Don't get me wrong I definitely believe in looking for proven/titled bloodlines.

[welsh]

Jakezilla this post is quite interesting and opposite of what some say on this thread. Would you elaborate?

Who said that e-collars produced hard headed dogs? Where is that on this thread?

You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

[Jakezilla]

The e-collar and training methods associated with them have made it so that he public can train their dogs to very high levels that were only achievable by pros and gifted amateurs in the past. This is a good thing for the sport but it also makes these same people believe that their dogs are better than they acutally are and these weak dogs get bred and produce weak dogs. The real high end dogs that better the breed aren't for the average guy and are usually too much dog for them. When these high end dogs are bred, if you are lucky, you will end up with one or two champion calbire dog and the rest will be hunting dogs. The kennels that breed "Gentlemen's Hunting Dogs" aren't doing their breed any favors and weaken their breed.


Also when I say there are non-titled dogs I would take a pup out of these are all trial dogs that I have seen compete repeatedly and have all the tools to be a champion they just haven't got the nod yet. Even if I was looking for a hunting dog I would still go to trial stock and competing dogs.