I [nq:1]was trying to explain, (Most of an excellent post, [nq:1]ok, but

Rocky:

(Most of an excellent post clipped)
[nq:1]And I said way back in the thread, you get the dog you want to live with first and foremost. And then you do the sport(s) together that you both can do and enjoy.[/nq]
I agree with 100% of what you wrote, especially the above. I was trying to explain to emily47 how some people can approach dog selection so that life and sports juxtapose - I think she had the feeling that competitive people may be mercenary with their dogs.

Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Christy:

[nq:1]ok, but what if you get a dog specifically for agility... and it turns out that particular dog doesn't like the sport? Or (in the case of a person who's never done agility before) the person doesn't like the sport?[/nq]
Exactly. Or the human gets an injury and can't do agility (like my pup's breeder) or the dog gets an injury and can't do agility, or has a genetic problem and can't do agility, etc.
Don't get me wrong - I think that if you want to get a dog suited for the sport, you should - but you need to be ready and willing to deal with that dog the other 23+ hours a day that you aren't running agility. And I think there are enough dogs of different types that one can find one that will excel in agility and still be the kind of dog that works well for your lifestyle.
Christy

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Robin Nuttall:

[nq:2]ok, but what if you get a dog specifically for ... never done agility before) the person doesn't like the sport?[/nq]
[nq:1]Exactly. Or the human gets an injury and can't do agility (like my pup's breeder) or the dog gets an ... find one that will excel in agility and still be the kind of dog that works well for your lifestyle.[/nq]
And I would say probably 99% of agility people are like this, even those who switch breeds for the sport. There's only one person I know for sure who dumps dogs. I'm sure more do, but it isn't common by any means.

I do see a lot of people get dogs totally unsuitable to them, then have trouble being as successful as they visualized themselves being. But I still see very little dumping.
I see it a lot more in schutzhund, where a lot of dogs are kennel dogs unless being worked, and they trade them around like playing cards. Not my cup of tea. But if you've got your dogs living with you it's a lot harder to dump them.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Judy:

I
[nq:1]was trying to explain to emily47 how some people can approach dog selection so that life and sports juxtapose - I think she had the feeling that competitive people may be mercenary with their dogs.[/nq]
You know, we just had a discussion about some of this with our agility instructor. In agility, we all know people who are more about the competition and winning than they are about the dog. They are, in agility, a very definite minority. And most of us manage to ignore them most of the time - they are just very outnumbered.
That said, there are days that we all forget for (briefs) periods WHY we are there. I know I have left the ring wondering why I ever thought this would be fun. Our instructor is also an AKC judge. He said he has had to approach handlers (national level handlers) at the end of a run and remind them that as long as they're in his sight, they can be eliminated for poor sportsmanship.
I don't know much about the percentage of those uber-serious handlers in other sports. I have heard stories of beaglers leaving the field at the end of the day (and especially the end of the season) and leaving behind the dogs that performed badly. I cannot believe this happens on a regular basis - surely the sponsoring group and the sanctioning organization would step in to control this. I can believe that the handler would take the dog home and shoot him. Such is the attitude toward beagles. So sad.

In general, an overly competitive person - with a mercenary attitude toward their dogs - is probably not going to do well in the long run in dog sports. (And I personally believe they also will not do well in life.) The dog may care about the activity but he will never have any concept of winning or losing. The dog understands teamwork and proper performance but will never comprehend that they lost by a second or a point. Those people exist in every competitive venue. But I think most of them are more likely to participate in other sports that don't rely on a partner who understands praise and cookies better than blue ribbons.
~~Judy

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Anonymous:

It's not a "feeling" I have. It's a simple fact. Some competitive people ARE "mercenary" with their dogs (if by mercenary you mean people get dogs ONLY for a particular sport and discard the dog if it's not suitable). Since dog sports at at that level are mostly about human ego, not the dog's need/desire to work, I don't find that a very attractive behavior. Some of those highly competitive people also treat their dogs as pets/companions. But some certainly do not.

I agree with those who are saying that people should get pet dogs as companions and do "things" with them (including sports) that suit the personalities and skills of human and dog. (I of course am excluding people who get dogs for truly working needs; in that case it makes sense to choose a dog from the best working lines you can find and if it doesn't work out, find a more suitable home for the dog)

Anyway, there is no guarantee that any dog, whatever its bloodlines or the performance of its parents, can perform well in agility. Certainly if if I were buying a puppy, I'd want to know that the parents had a variety of appropriate health certifications. I'd like to know that they show some degree of intelligence/trainability as demonstrated by sporting titles. I'd also want to know that the puppy's individual personality seems suited to the sport (to the extent puppy personalities can be tested) Just the fact that a dog's parents may have achieved a MACH (or other high titles) is no predictor of a puppy's ability to achieve that title. Such a title is only a predictor (maybe) that the MACH dog's *handler* is more likely to be able to achieve a MACH on a different dog.
Anyone who chooses an Aussie over a Schnauzer just because he/she wants to get a MACH title is doing agility for his/her own ego. When people do things with dogs because of human ego, the dog will suffer. If someone likes agility, and likes Aussies, then get an Aussie. If someone likes agility and likes Schauzers, get a Schnauzers. Any other decision path is "mercernary ".
Is there anything that we really disagree about?
EmilyS

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Robin Nuttall:

[nq:1]Anyone who chooses an Aussie over a Schnauzer just because he/she wants to get a MACH title is doing agility ... likes Schauzers, get a Schnauzers. Any other decision path is "mercernary ". Is there anything that we really disagree about?[/nq]
Sorry, but I think you're painting with way too broad a brush here.

What if someone who does agility likes both Aussies and Schnauzers? Are they "mercenary" because they choose the Aussie and do agility rather than the Schnauzer? I don't think so. If they like both breeds, what on earth is wrong with choosing one for the sport they love and working with it?
And let's face it. ANYONE who actually goes out and competes with a dog in ANY sport is doing so at least in part because of human ego. The dogs don't give a rat's *** if they compete or not. If you're getting out there on the field, you're doing it for at least partly human ego reasons. You sure aren't doing it for the dog's ego they don't care.

In fact, I see a LOT of people out there with far-less-than-suitable agility dogs (no breed specified) who are determined* to *make that dog do it and like it. You see them at every trial, frantically cheerleading away. Is that in any way less human-egotistic than getting a dog that's suited to the sport in the first place? I hardly think so. At least the dogs chosen specifically for agility have a pretty darn good chance of liking it!
The way you have stated your post, anyone wanting a MACH (or frankly, any other title in any sport) with ANY dog, ever, is mercenary and the dog will suffer. You may not have intended that to be the way it read, but it is.
I absolutely agree that everyone should get breeds of dogs they can live with and love regardless of whether or not that dog ever sets foot in the ring. I've had Dobermans for 23 years now, I'm hardly likely to "dump" them if they can't compete any more. But it's just ludicrous to say that people shouldn't get a breed they can live with and do sport with, if that's what they want. And it's silly to say that people who get a dog with a sport in mind are somehow harming the dogs.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Rocky:

[nq:1]Is there anything that we really disagree about?[/nq]
I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't disagree with the general POV that there are some handlers who will choose winning over quality of life for their dog.

What I'm trying to say (and obviously failing to get across) is that it's possible to get the best of both worlds.

Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

J1Boss:

[nq:2]Another good question, though I've never seen anyone get involved in a new-to-them sport with a new-to-them dog. Not competition-wise, anyway.[/nq]
hadn't seen this before. while I didn't get her with the purpose of competing, playing with Lucy prior to adoption did put the bug in my ear that she may be a good flyball dog (i had only a passing knowledge of what flyball was all about). Once I adopted her, and had her home 2 days, I was working the club's obedience show and was told that an intro flyball class was starting 4 days later. The rest is history. A new-to-me sport and a new-to-me dog were a great match (starting that sport less than a week from adoption may not be immediate, but pretty darn close!)
.
Janet Boss
http://bestfriendsdogobedience.com /

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

diannes:

[nq:1]Another good question, though I've never seen anyone get involved in a new-to-them sport with a new-to-them dog. Not competition-wise, anyway.[/nq]
(raising my hand) I chose my first Briard in good
part because I wanted to do competitive obedience
and from everything I'd heard about their temperament I thought one would make a good prospect. The fact that both his parents had CDs and herding titles (in addition to their conformation championships) was to me a big selling point for that particular litter. And my choice worked out well - he ended up winning two High In Trials from Novice A.
But generally speaking I agree with you - such a
occurrence is definitely the exception rather than the rule.
JFWIW,
Dianne

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RE: Small agility/family dog? page 14

Related forum topics: