# Training vs. breeding



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

I see so many times dog prices based on who they are out of. And while it is true we look for aspects of our breed isn't so much of it training.

I mean I could pay big bucks for a dog out of great hunting lines but if I don't do some decent training, those "lines" are going to get me very far.

So how much of a dog is genetic and how much is training??

I am not talking genetics as far as hips, eyes, etc. We always want to see that.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

The dog is 100% genetic.

The training is 100% human.

how's that for an answer?


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Genetics will determine the POTENTIAL, training determines if the finished product is anywhere close to the potential.

I am sure that there are diamonds in teh rough, but have seen enough dogs that have no instinct from "local good hunting parents" to know that I will always look to buy the best breeding I can justify. My labor in training is worth too much to spend a years time to find out that there is no potential.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

No matter how hard you try, a pile of Yugo parts will never build a Rolls. You have to have the parts to make the finished product. The genetics are the parts. You build the finished product as best you can.

The old adage is the poorest pup from the best breeding will always be better then the best pup for poor breeding. The rest as they say is up to you.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

I Understand what yall are saying but didn't "x" dog get there because of training??

I mean if 2 dogs are born from the same litter they have the exact same genetics but one is trained and one is not, we will pay more for the one sired out the trained one, yes?? But aren't the genetics still there on both, just lacking the training part?? I could pay $1000 for a pup out of "X" MH and $400 out of X both littermates. Isn't the training the only difference between the two??

**sidebar**I am in no way promoting backyard breeding or those breeding wtihout testing and hunting, etc, and breeding to the best of the breed, I just think of things like this and i makes me go hmmm***

I just hear people all the time well I would get a lab if it worked like that, or I would get a dobe if I could get it to work like that. Sometimes I feel people see a "trained" dog and sudden;y they want to know where it came from because they want on like that.

I have heard it with Sampson and he is from the pound. People see a nice dog and sudden;y want one form the same breeding without consideration of the training that went into it.
Two dogs from the exact same litter with different training can work very differently. Some pleasing, some not as much.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Is your brother AS good looking, talented, more/less predisposed to allergies, cancer, you name it, smart, have more hair, taller, etc, etc, etc...........
Littermates/siblings have the same parents. They DO NOT have the same genes in the same order/combination unless they are identical twins. 
Dog "X" with the title PROVES to a point that he holds the right combination of genes which make him the logical choice for Sireing a litter, while his brother MAY or MAY NOT have the same genetic combination. Brother "X" has not proven himself so it's a crapshoot. 
To complicate the whole mix, Brother "X" may not have what it takes due to just not wanting to do the work, but may pass on all the necessary material to his offspring. Dog "X" with the titles and higher stud fee may have all the desire and tractability but may not throw those qualities to his pups. Basically, a "sleeper" gene or what they used to call a "throwback" that skipped a generation or two or more. 
It's all a crapshoot anyway, but it's human nature to want to go with a proven thing over the unknown, especially since it is a pricey hobby to get into!


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

firehouselabs said:


> .
> Dog "X" with the title PROVES to a point that he holds the right combination of genes which make him the logical choice for Sireing a litter, while his brother MAY or MAY NOT have the same genetic combination. Brother "X" has not proven himself so it's a crapshoot.
> !


But what if that is due to poor training vs good training??


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> But what if that is due to poor training vs good training??


Winning the Indy 500 is about good driving, but wouldn't you still rather be driving the fastest car? ;-)

JS


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2009)

JS said:


> Winning the Indy 500 is about good driving, but wouldn't you still rather be driving the fastest car? ;-)
> 
> JS


That is excellent!


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

JS said:


> Winning the Indy 500 is about good driving, but wouldn't you still rather be driving the fastest car? ;-)
> 
> JS


The car is only as good as its driver.But what if the fastest car is not necessarily the most consistent. If the fastest car wins 1 in every 6 races and a slower car wins one in every 3 because of the driver, who is better??


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

If you spend enough time in a pro camp, especially where there are littermates, you will see that some dogs just have something special and others fall short. They are not trained any differently. You must have both. No doubt there are many very talented dogs that are sold that don't have the benefit of being trained by a pro that could have been field champions, and there are a lot of dogs that even the best training can't make them more than gundogs. You increase your chances by buying the best you can afford and placing them with talented trainers. There are litters where all the dogs are talented, but not that many, and there are litters where they are more diverse. Most exceptional markers are born that way.


----------



## redleg06 (Jan 28, 2008)

My old high school football coach once told us:

"Boys, They pay those race horse trainers alot of money cause they know what they're doing BUT... you've never seen a mule win the Kentucky Derby either."


----------



## redleg06 (Jan 28, 2008)

agile.labs said:


> The car is only as good as its driver.But what if the fastest car is not necessarily the most consistent. If the fastest car wins 1 in every 6 races and a slower car wins one in every 3 because of the driver, who is better??


and some people say cucumbers taste better pickled...what does this have to do with dogs and genetics??? 

I understand the analogy that got to the Indy 500 and all that but you've lost me here. 

Bottomline, Siblings arent guaranteed to be the same and if you want to gamble on going with an unproven dog because its sibling has had great success then so be it...Ill take the dog that has proven to be at the top of its game with the letters in front of its name to show the dogs natural ability. Isnt that what these test and standards are largely supposed to evaluate...natural ability?


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

I love this topic. This is the really cool part of genitcs. Mostly we talk about hip' elbows, eyes and the defects but this side of genetics is what it's all about. 
The special ones are just that, special. I have two very nice dogs that are 6 and 7 years old, both MH and Qaa and I have a two year old that is leaps and bounds above them as far as having the right stuff. She has no problem out performing them at a 1/3 their age.
I doubt there will ever ever be another Lean Mac and how about that little Ammo choco dog, now that is special. They can have the same genetics same training but some are just special.
Horse or Jockey? I say HORSE.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Breeding is all a matter of chance. When a breeder plans a litter, he or she is trying to stack the odds in your favor. Some things are easier to predict than others because only one of two genes are involved and patterns of inheritance are known. Others are polygenic and harder to predict such as hip dysplasia. Still others are polygenic and much, much harder to predict, such as performance. For most traits, the manner in which the dog is fed, socialized, treated medically, and trained will be critically important to outcomes.

When I am looking at pedigrees with respect to polygenic traits, I tend to consider the parents, the grandparents, the aunts and uncles, and the great aunts and great uncles. While two siblings have genes based on the same line of ancestors, they do not have the same genes. You have no way of knowing if the fact that one titled while the other did not was a function of differences in their genes or differences in their training. 

If I have the choice for a sire, I would prefer the pup from the titled sibling. The difference in price, spread among all the pups, is probably $200-500 when compared to a litter sired by an untitled sibling (reflecting both the difference in stud fees and the increased likelihood that AI will be needed. That is a small price to pay for the improved odds of success. 

The issue is somewhat different in selecting between a titled female and an untitled sibling as the mother of the pups. In that case, the price difference is likely to be a few thousand per puppy since the untitled mother is probably worth more than ten times as much as the untitled sibling. If I had reason to believe that the untitled female had the basic drive and talent, I would probably opt to save the money and buy the cheaper pup. But then, if the $5000 price tag for the FC x FC pup were within my budget, I would go ahead and spend the money. It is still only the equivalent of a few months in training.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Juli H said:


> The dog is 100% genetic.
> 
> The training is 100% human.
> 
> how's that for an answer?


ding ding ding!

pay the lady!


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

I guess I just think so much is put on genetics when a lot more should be put onto training.

Genetics can be there but if the dog isn't trained properly, they won't make an MH necessarily.

Doesn't any one sit back and think about the time spent training the dogs to get them where they are. Could genetics alone have done that?? 

The dogs who are MH and the ones capable but not are because of the right handler and training. Genetics only goes so far.

Some of you need to lean back and say "damn, look what I got my dog to do" "all the time we put in is paying off"

I could have the best genetically bred dog, with the highest drive to hunt, retrieve, and all the heart to do it, but if he isn't guided in the right direction, his genetics are only gonna carry him so far.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

redleg06 said:


> and some people say cucumbers taste better pickled...what does this have to do with dogs and genetics???
> 
> I understand the analogy that got to the Indy 500 and all that but you've lost me here.


If you have the fastest car, but not the driver to drive it, it doesn't alway win, fast or not, it is who is behind the wheel that determines the final outcome.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

agile.labs said:


> I guess I just think so much is put on genetics when a lot more should be put onto training.
> 
> Genetics can be there but if the dog isn't trained properly, they won't make an MH necessarily.
> 
> ...


Training is essential. But marking, drive, soft mouths, steadiness, and overall drive are also heavily influenced by genetics. If you don't believe that, try to train a dachshund sometime;-). As it happens, great genetics cost a lot less to buy than great training and may significantly affect the results of your training program. Why not start with the best genetics possible?


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

I'll use mine as an example

Now Indi comes from a great hunting pedigree. MH's up the wazoo. She is genetically capable fo being a Master Hunter but I am not "training" her to be. I am using her drive in other games. Now it is possible that she may be genetically superior to another dog out there with an MH but the one with the MH trained to get it whereas I did not.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

YardleyLabs said:


> If you don't believe that, try to train a dachshund sometime;-).


LOL dachsunds are fun. Our facility has a swiss mountain dog and a bloodhound doing open work so I understand the difference but that isn't what they are bred to do. Just like I wouldn't ask a pug to become an avalanche dog.

I believe that YES they could, but it isn't realistic.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Now it is possible that she may be genetically superior to another dog out there with an MH but the one with the MH trained to get it whereas I did not.


Of course it's possible. It's possible that a well bred couch potato could be an FC but the only way you know for sure is to train them for field trials and compete-otherwise it's only braggers rights.


----------



## signgirl (Jun 4, 2006)

O.K....so I had a bunch of puppies from a very strong breeding....for some reason the girls are dynamos....wild, fun, busy, talented, smart...the boys seem to be more biddable but.........the colour of the males is also an indicator. The lighter boys are more like the bitches.... fearless, hard driving .....the darker seem more laid back...all good markers and with good attitude....seems intensity is the difference. I am not saying that colour is a factor...just a curiosity in this case. These babies had the same early exposures but at 7 months are as different as night and day ....one reminds me of the grand dam, a few of the dam, one of an uncle, a few of the sire and a few a mixture.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> Of course it's possible. It's possible that a well bred couch potato could be an FC but the only way you know for sure is to train them for field trials and compete-otherwise it's only braggers rights.


Exactly the point I am trying to make. Genetics only go so far. Training is needed to prove what a dog can be.

The same reason people don't breed based on what grandsires granddams do. It is in the lines but the sires and dams need to be proven. If it was solely genetics then couldn't we realistically breed two dogs out of great MHer's that have great potential, but just haven't been trained to do so. No one would do that(or shouldn't) without the titling first.

Interesting discussion. Everyone is making great valid and interesting points, but nonetheless, very interesting.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Exactly the point I am trying to make. Genetics only go so far. Training is needed to prove what a dog can be.


Not exactly. Obviously the FC that is someones pet still has the potential but he has to be exposed to the game, but for the most part we are talking about what makes a dog special and that's about marking, trainability, and lining. If the dog is an exceptionate marker, you don't have to train him to mark but you have to expose him to different trained marking situations because he doesn't know indents per say. Some dogs can be trained to mark better, but they usually won't be outstanding markers. If the dog is a great lining dog, he will line naturally, but won't handle, he has to be taught that. The genetics for a great marking and lining dog probably come from an exceptional relative. That is what makes the difference in litters, inate genetic ability and then training to fine tune it. We don't know what genes must be present for superior marking and lining, but I would look first to the individual that already exhibits those characteristics.


----------



## Paul Fix (Jul 5, 2009)

If you have 2 steaks and one is aged prime angus and the other is out of the freezer at Wal-Mart and you have a competent grill chef prepare each steak, the prime aged angus will be the better steak. If you give the same 2 steaks to my wife to cook they will both be burnt and unfit to eat. 

It takes a great dog and a great trainer/handler to be a field trial champion.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

cbrdog said:


> If you have 2 steaks and one is aged prime angus and the other is out of the freezer at Wal-Mart and you have a competent grill chef prepare each steak, the prime aged angus will be the better steak. If you give the same 2 steaks to my wife to cook they will both be burnt and unfit to eat.
> 
> It takes a great dog and a great trainer/handler to be a field trial champion.


LOL, I would be the latter.

And I am not saying genetics are not a huge factor in the game but I think too often the training involved gets left out to onlookers. 

I see people want a dog of certain breeding because of what they see it do and perform. But what they are seeing is the training bringing out the potential of those genetics. They can have an equally superior dog but it doesn't mean the end result is the same.

I just think some people put too much weight on the genetics and not enough weight on the training. When maybe it should be more balanced.

**I appreciate the great discussion with everything being civil.**


----------



## scott furbeck (May 28, 2008)

I mean if 2 dogs are born from the same litter they have the exact same genetics but one is trained and one is not, we will pay more for the one sired out the trained one, yes?? 

Well that not fully true, on average any two full sibs share half their genes ((plus whatever is fixed due to prior inbreeding or population structure (in dogs that would probably be around the 10% figure)), so they are not the same. Any two half sibs (Same Daddy different Mom share 25%.). 

I agree that the non-trialed sib of a trialed dog could be as good or even better, you probably will never know. What the title usually does is give you a little more information about the dog, there are more progeny out there of titled dogs and the mean of a larger number of a dogs progeny is probably more useful in determining his breeding value than what he actually accomplished himself. Since it cost a lot to get the title, the pups are going to cost a bit more on the backside. Differences in training do get swamped out a bit when you look at more than say, 3 litters of dogs. For that reason I would prefer repeat breedings.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

There are a bunch of these genetic superior dogs in the past history of field trials. Most were resold when the original owner realized it would take better training and a new owner with the financial ability to provide the training and campaigning.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> .....
> 
> And I am not saying genetics are not a huge factor in the game but *I think too often the training involved gets left out to onlookers.
> *
> ...


You may be underestimating the research that is put in by most people in this game when considering a puppy, their parents or a stud.

It's a pretty small community and people talk to each other. Different people are looking for different characteristics. People want to see and watch siblings, relatives, previous offspring, etc and preferably in a training environment or talk to others who have knowledge.

And _generally_ people in this game are straightforward and honest with one another. Titles are a way to measure results but are not the only thing considered, by far.

So, all those things together is what people mean when they talk about a "good breeding".

JS


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

JS said:


> You may be underestimating the research that is put in by most people in this game when considering a puppy, their parents or a stud.


But that is just it, not every one interested is actually involved in the game. And this isn't "hunt" specific, heck I am not even involved in this game but I am involved in other games and I see it all over. Obedience, agility, field, herding.

My mom hears it constantly. She is big time in obedience, top of the country with her dobes and often she hears "oh I want a dobe that works like that. Where did you get it?" Right back to the genetics factoring the way the dog works. Until they get one and figure out, wow, why isn't my dog working like that one?? Difference in training.

In fact there is a sister of one of my moms(same breeding, different litter) and honestly you cannot tell the two apart if you did not know them. Same drive, same attitude, etc except one has that drive in check and one doesn't.

Seeing a dog work and wanting to get one from those lines isn't always smart especially if you are not prepared to handle a dog of that nature.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> LOL, I would be the latter.
> 
> And I am not saying genetics are not a huge factor in the game but I think too often the training involved gets left out to onlookers.
> 
> ...


 



You have to start somewhere and that would be genetics. Without it all the training in the world wouldn't do any good. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
I've also known trainers that could train a genetically superior dog but could not train one that is sub par but still capable of being a MH. That trainer is a genetically inferior trainer.


----------



## mike olson (Aug 11, 2009)

I may be off base here but I believe what the word we are all talking about is trainability. And titles prove those dogs have it.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I'm not too sure what the OP is getting at but there is a difference between obedience and field trials as far as what we look for in a pup. Trainability is one thing but we are looking for marking.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> But that is just it, not every one interested is actually involved in the game. And this isn't "hunt" specific, heck I am not even involved in this game but I am involved in other games and I see it all over. Obedience, agility, field, herding.
> 
> My mom hears it constantly. She is big time in obedience, top of the country with her dobes and often she hears "oh I want a dobe that works like that. Where did you get it?" Right back to the genetics factoring the way the dog works. Until they get one and figure out, wow, why isn't my dog working like that one?? Difference in training.
> 
> ...


So tell us, what do you seek in a puppy or in a sire for your litter if breeding??

What determines how much value you place on a prospect.

Realizing of course, that nothing is guaranteed ... it's always a crapshoot to some degree but certainly you have some rational for choosing?

JS


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Good training isn't that hard to find.
A really talented dog is.

The difference in a great field dog and a bad one, many times, is not the training. 
It's the talent.
Which is genetic.

Dog with good work ethic + good training does not necessarily = good field dog. 
It takes more.


----------



## Jim Scarborough (May 5, 2007)

cakaiser said:


> Good training isn't that hard to find.
> A really talented dog is.
> 
> The difference in a great field dog and a bad one, many times, is not the training.
> ...




Well said.


----------



## labman13 (May 11, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> I see so many times dog prices based on who they are out of. And while it is true we look for aspects of our breed isn't so much of it training.
> 
> I mean I could pay big bucks for a dog out of great hunting lines but if I don't do some decent training, those "lines" are going to get me very far.
> 
> ...


Seems simple to me. I think it's about playing the odds. All the training in the world can't fix some problems. Seems like it's about getting off to a good start and not wasting time and money on a dog that can't do advanced field training. And I also think this game is a lot different then some others mentioned.


----------



## Squirm88 (Oct 30, 2008)

labman13 said:


> Seems simple to me. I think it's about playing the odds. All the training in the world can't fix some problems. Seems like it's about getting off to a good start and not wasting time and money on a dog that can't do advanced field training. And I also think this game is a lot different then some others mentioned.


I agree with labman that this game is different than the others mentioned. In a venue like obedience a dogs natural instincts and prey drive are of very little to no importance. A dog is trained to do tasks that do not require any intuitive instincts.

However, in the field those natural instincts that are 100% genetic cannot be trained and are the building blocks of a great retriever. A dog is born with drive, desire, marking ability, etc. The very best trainers in the country cannot train a dog that has no drive to become a fire breather. You are either born with it or not.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2009)

Squirm88 said:


> The very best trainers in the country cannot train a dog that has no drive to become a fire breather.


FYI, it does not take a fire breather to be a successful field trial dog.


----------



## Squirm88 (Oct 30, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> FYI, it does not take a fire breather to be a successful field trial dog.


I totally agree. I was just illustrating the point that some traits are genetic and cannot be trained.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

Squirm88 said:


> I totally agree. I was just illustrating the point that some traits are genetic and cannot be trained.


Got it.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

JS said:


> So tell us, what do you seek in a puppy or in a sire for your litter if breeding??
> 
> What determines how much value you place on a prospect.
> 
> ...


Well, I do not breed, neverhave and never will. In fact, Indi is my first ever non-rescue and the very first dog that I ever had that was under a year when I got it. I usually get the ones that got dumped because someone didn't take the time to train them. Ones that have potential to bbe great but someone didn't give them the time they needed and deserved.

I fall into the category, get a dog that I want, a breed that I want and go paly the games I want.

I want a lab retriever because I like the drive in the breed. Could I have gone and looked for a border collie and truly excelled in agility?? Sure, but first and foremost I want a dog that I will enjoy to live with. 

When looking for a breeder I looked for one with a good guarantee, one that is proven in the field as I believe dogs should be bred for what they are intended to do, and that is it. From there I look at the drive and likeness that I want in a dog. I will also not go to a breeder that chooses the dogs for me.

My next dog will most likely be another rescue


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

mike olson said:


> I may be off base here but I believe what the word we are all talking about is trainability. And titles prove those dogs have it.


I think trainability is an important factor


ErinsEdge said:


> I'm not too sure what the OP is getting at but there is a difference between obedience and field trials as far as what we look for in a pup. Trainability is one thing but we are looking for marking.


Sure there is a difference but a working dog should still be able to work regardless of what they are doing. (which gives me an idea for another thread LOL)

And my original question had nothing to do with marking. I was simply asking how far genetics can get a dog if the training isn't there. I just think there is so much more to a "top" dog than genetics.

There have been some great answers that make a lot of sense and I do understand the starting with a good backgroud to be able to get there. Again, it is just an interesting discussion


----------



## labman13 (May 11, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> I was simply asking how far genetics can get a dog if the training isn't there. I just think there is so much more to a "top" dog than genetics.


How far in what? Not everyone on this board trains for the same thing. The question is too vague IMO. Hunters, Hunt Test, FT. Oh I think you got your question backwards if I remember it right from earlier.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> And my original question had nothing to do with marking. I was simply asking how far genetics can get a dog if the training isn't there. I just think there is so much more to a "top" dog than genetics.


A "top" dog of what specifically? In field trials marking by the rule book is of primary importance, not merely working. I think there have been a number of answers that have indicated that, and it is inherent in the dog.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> I was simply asking how far genetics can get a dog if the training isn't there.


Then the simple answer is absolutely nowhere. We all know that. That's why many of us haven't understood your question from the beginning.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> I think trainability is an important factor
> 
> 
> Sure there is a difference but a working dog should still be able to work regardless of what they are doing. (which gives me an idea for another thread LOL)
> ...


*AHA!!!* We are nearing the root of the issue!

In field work, whether field trials or hunt tests, where it is written in the rules or in hunting, where it is implied, MARKING IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE. ("primary" meaning #1, all other things are of secondary importance.)

MARKING is pretty much a genetic characteristic. It can be enhanced and channeled to it's maximum _potential_ by careful, systematic exposure or it can be retarded, mostly by neglect or lack of exposure.

But it must be there in the raw ... it is not taught.

A dog is not taught to spot a fly landing on a holstein cow at 300 yards, turn around and perform 10 minutes of diversionary task, turn back around and remember exactly where the fly is located and on which cow. (OK, I exaggerate, but not by much.) And there are other important talents that are genetically hard-wired that may be enhanced by a good trainier or wasted by another.

Of course, training is a factor but by most, it is a given. And most astute buyers do not evaluate solely on a name or a title as you suggest. Knowledge of how certain dogs respond to various kinds of training techniques is an important consideration. But you gotta have the raw material to start with.

JS


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Melanie Foster said:


> Then the simple answer is absolutely nowhere. We all know that. That's why many of us haven't understood your question from the beginning.


But that was exactly my question

From my OP


agile.labs said:


> .
> 
> So how much of a dog is genetic and how much is training??.


When people see a dog the first thing they see is the "training". Sure genetics plays a part but people often choose a dog because they want one like "that". So while genetics only gets you so far, the training is what proves the genetics worthy

When people "research" they research for good genetics but when someone "sees" a dog they like, it is more or less the training they see.

A superior genetic dog can have poor training and a less than superior dog can have great training. The training is the first thing often seen but often people assume "genetics" got the dog to that position.

And hence my original discussion.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

redleg06 said:


> My old high school football coach once told us:
> 
> "Boys, They pay those race horse trainers alot of money cause they know what they're doing BUT... you've never seen a mule win the Kentucky Derby either."



Actually a Mule DID qualify to run the Kentucky Derby back I think around the 40's. They changed teh rules to disqualify him before the race because he would have been the favortie entering... 

Good trainers can bring out the best in a dog, much the same way a good football coach can bring out the best in his players. It becomes harder to tell which is more important in the long run though because just like Urban Myer has an advantage in recruiting th ebest athletels becasue he is in the South and has a record of winning, the top trainers are goin gto have more talented (genetically) dogs on their truck beacause they have high enough rates that you aren't goin gto invest the $$$in a pup with questionable genes, but also they are going to sort through pups/wash them out more quickly becasue they know they have a waiting list.....


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

agile.labs said:


> I guess I just think so much is put on genetics when a lot more should be put onto training.
> 
> Genetics can be there but if the dog isn't trained properly, they won't make an MH necessarily.
> 
> ...


Your absolutly right, but buying the genetics increases the odds that the time you spend will not be wasted. Training, either at a pro or done your self is the most expensive part of a dog. So why waste all of that money on a pup the "might" have it, vs. spending a few more bucks for a puppy that almost certainly will.

I have little doubt that my seven year old could have achieved a lot more than he has in the right hands. I see it as his Genetics have had to overcome me as a handler to get to where we have. If I had started with less of a dog, I would likely not be in doggie games anymore, the way it is He has taught me a lot, and I have gotten better, though we still fight a couple of mistakes (lack of OB) that I made early on.

I just point out to people when they are looking at pups that you can expect to spend 150-200 hours per year for the first year or two with your pup. So take 350 hours X what ever you get paid at work, and see how much you have invested in time alone. Makes paying a few hundred or even thousand dollars extra to increase your odds a pretty minimal investment. And that is just looing at a 2 year old.........


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

agile.labs said:


> My mom hears it constantly. She is big time in obedience, top of the country with her dobes and often she hears "oh I want a dobe that works like that. Where did you get it?" Right back to the genetics factoring the way the dog works. Until they get one and figure out, wow, why isn't my dog working like that one?? Difference in training.
> 
> .



We were doing a demo at a outdoor expo once, I was putting Beamer through "baseball" but not letting him pick up the dummy, stopping him just short, then casting him to another. Just doing it to draw a crowd to our booth. A lady watched for five minutes or so, then asked "how old is he" "6 and a half" "well my dog is seven and a half and he won't do that"

I about laughed, but managed to keep a straight face enough to answer her and her husbands questions about training, but there is a hunting dog owner that is skipping genetics and training and thinks that "working" ability is solely a function of AGE.....

Another time I was running my dogs at a pond on the back side of a campground. We threw two birds off of the damn so that the short bird was a wipe out of the long and indented from the other bird as well. The three marks had an island in play on two of the marks, and the third had some pretty "ugly" water to negotiate. One of the blinds was tight along the damn under the arc of the two birds, the other was over the island, through an old fall and ended 30 yards up a channel. The first dog did OK, I walked her back to the truck with one of the campers "yap" dogs barking and carrying on "chasing" us back to the truck. The camper was hollering the whole time,callin g the dog and saying, "don't make me use your shock coller!" ( my thought was that the coller should have been on her, not the dog) Anyway, I get beamer out and after beamer thinks about eating the yipper, we walk to the Line and smoke the set up. Walk back to the truck and the dog is all over the place still. This time the camper waits until I get beamer put away than approaches me and asks " how did you get you dogs to do that" I started to explain starting as a puppy with short single retrieves, baby lining drills, T, TT, Baseball, she lets me go on for about 5 minutes than says, " no I was jsut wondering how you got them to walk beside yo ulike that"


My point in all of this is that people have WAY different expectations of what a "good" dog is. We are seeing it some with the difference in OB/agility vs FT and HT. But I would bet that GENETICALLY anydog that anyof us owns has more then enough talent (what ever you are calling talent) to satisfay 99% of the dog owners in this country. For a vast Majority of dog owners, the training probably is the only thing that matters.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> Well, I do not breed, neverhave and never will. In fact, Indi is my first ever non-rescue and the very first dog that I ever had that was under a year when I got it. I usually get the ones that got dumped because someone didn't take the time to train them. Ones that have potential to bbe great but someone didn't give them the time they needed and deserved.
> 
> I fall into the category, get a dog that I want, a breed that I want and go paly the games I want.
> 
> ...


From your above quoted statements, it doesn't appear that you look for a breeder to purchase a pup, but rather get dogs that have been "dumped".


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 9, 2009)

The genetics of wrinkled vs smooth peas (Mendel's original work) and coat color in labs are pretty well worked out. The genetics of behavior are vastly more complex, and less understood. Mainly because the above examples are for the most part, free of external environmental influence. Behavior is more than the opposite. Tendencies, potentials, instincts are all heavily influenced by life experiences, TRAINING, and other things we know nothing about.

I think its an oversimplification to call some dogs Fiats and Ferraris based on breeding. That doesn't take into account mutations that may produce a Lean Mac out of fido and bisquit?? Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying breeding doesn't matter, if you look at the odds and statistics, but it's just something that we poorly understand. Looking at the last page of the national reports in RFTN will show strong family tendencies, no doubt.

Even that is somewhat "unfair", due to the huge selection bias against no-name dogs. How many pros (the ones who win lots of titles) really take on dogs with no pedigree? It would be interesting to hear from pros who do take lesser known dogs (with no significant field lines) along with the usual lines, and compare the wash-out rate.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

This seems to be evolving into a chicken vs egg discussion. The fact is that no amount of training will turn a Labrador Retriever into a master hunter or all age FT dog if it does not have the basic genetic predilection for marking, lining, birdiness, and drive. While theoretically these are built into the breed, the reality us that these traits are not shared equally. However, regardless of the genetics of the dog, it will never be able to perform at a significant level without appropriate training.


----------



## RemisGunner (Nov 28, 2006)

agile.labs said:


> I guess I just think so much is put on genetics when a lot more should be put onto training.
> 
> Genetics can be there but if the dog isn't trained properly, they won't make an MH necessarily.
> 
> ...


This is where I have to disagree a little based on my experience. My dog Gunner is HR and JH right now but he is the first dog I have ever formally trained and it is the first time I have ever followed a training program. So in my case I am not going to take credit for training my dog to the level he is at, rather I am going to go with genetics. I understand and can read dogs very well and that is really my only strength at this point in my early trainer years. I may have used the training program to help shave off the edges and smooth out the lines a little but I am not going to take the majority of the credit for my very talented dog. My vote is genetics more than training and again this is based on my and my small sampling pool.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

limiman12 said:


> We were doing a demo at a outdoor expo once, I was putting Beamer through "baseball" but not letting him pick up the dummy, stopping him just short, then casting him to another. Just doing it to draw a crowd to our booth. A lady watched for five minutes or so, then asked "how old is he" "6 and a half" "well my dog is seven and a half and he won't do that"
> 
> .


ROFLMAO. That made me laugh out loud See these are the kinds of people I run into daily. Maybe I need to move. 



Vicky Trainor said:


> From your above quoted statements, it doesn't appear that you look for a breeder to purchase a pup, but rather get dogs that have been "dumped".


Is this a problem?? Dogs in shelters are great dogs too.



YardleyLabs said:


> This seems to be evolving into a chicken vs egg discussion. The fact is that no amount of training will turn a Labrador Retriever into a master hunter or all age FT dog if it does not have the basic genetic predilection for marking, lining, birdiness, and drive. While theoretically these are built into the breed, the reality us that these traits are not shared equally. However, regardless of the genetics of the dog, it will never be able to perform at a significant level without appropriate training.


This is a great post they do tend to go hand in hand.




RemisGunner said:


> This is where I have to disagree a little based on my experience. My dog Gunner is HR and JH right now but he is the first dog I have ever formally trained and it is the first time I have ever followed a training program. So in my case I am not going to take credit for training my dog to the level he is at, rather I am going to go with genetics. I understand and can read dogs very well and that is really my only strength at this point in my early trainer years. I may have used the training program to help shave off the edges and smooth out the lines a little but I am not going to take the majority of the credit for my very talented dog. My vote is genetics more than training and again this is based on my and my small sampling pool.


And sometimes our dogs teach US a lot. They sure have ways of keeping us humble.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> See these are the kinds of people I run into daily.


See, and we don't. Feel free to share these training vs breeding thoughts with them. In their case, it makes perfect sense.

The folks on this forum are not your average pet owners...unless the average pet owner spends thousands of dollars a year on training/competing with their dogs?


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Melanie Foster said:


> See, and we don't. Feel free to share these training vs breeding thoughts with them. In their case, it makes perfect sense.
> 
> The folks on this forum are not your average pet owners...unless the average pet owner spends thousands of dollars a year on training/competing with their dogs?


As do I. When it is our responsility as an instructor to educate them, it is difficult to avoid them Most people here want to be involved in the training of their dogs, not send them off to someone else. How do you educate them to become better dog people if you completely avoid them.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

That's what I was saying. Educate them, not us.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Melanie Foster said:


> That's what I was saying. Educate them, not us.


WOW!! It is a simple discussion nothing more. I am not trying to edcuate this that or the other. Simply like to hear what others think.


----------



## redleg06 (Jan 28, 2008)

agile.labs said:


> WOW!! It is a simple discussion nothing more. I am not trying to edcuate this that or the other. Simply like to hear what others think.


I think the point is that this thread is going on forever and seems to be going in circles. You are preaching that Training is of the utmost importance and wont stop about it as if someone here is disagreeing with you....Consider your audience here...You are on a website called *RETRIEVERTRAINING.NET* Everyone on this site thinks training is very important. We get it... 

What others are saying, and I agree, is that Genetics also play a very important role...if you dont think so then so be it...thats ok too. 

If your as vigorous in your training as you are on typing on this forum then I dont doubt you could beat a genetically inferior dog into something special:evil:


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> Well, I do not breed, neverhave and never will. In fact, Indi is my first ever non-rescue and the very first dog that I ever had that was under a year when I got it. I usually get the ones that got dumped because someone didn't take the time to train them. Ones that have potential to bbe great but someone didn't give them the time they needed and deserved....... My next dog will most likely be another rescue


It seems to me that this whole thread is an attempt by you to justify your choice of low cost rescue dogs. It's not that you have made a bad decision based on what you know. It's just that you don't know very much.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> It seems to me that this whole thread is an attempt by you to justify your choice of low cost rescue dogs. It's not that you have made a bad decision based on what you know. It's just that you don't know very much.


I think you hit the nail on the head, doesn't know much and did not come here to learn, came to turn words around and give their point of view. ARA? I think let the threads die.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> ...When looking for a breeder I looked for one with a good guarantee, one that is proven in the field as I believe dogs should be bred for what they are intended to do, and that is it. From there I look at the drive and likeness that I want in a dog. I will also not go to a breeder that chooses the dogs for me.
> 
> My next dog will most likely be another rescue





Vicky Trainor said:


> From your above quoted statements, it doesn't appear that you look for a breeder to purchase a pup, but rather get dogs that have been "dumped".





agile.labs said:


> Is this a problem?? Dogs in shelters are great dogs too.


Adopting dogs from a shelter is not a problem at all. However, I was referring to the statement "When looking for a breeder I looked...".


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> This seems to be evolving into a chicken vs egg discussion. The fact is that no amount of training will turn a Labrador Retriever into a master hunter or all age FT dog if it does not have the basic genetic predilection for marking, lining, birdiness, and drive. While theoretically these are built into the breed, the reality us that these traits are not shared equally. However, regardless of the genetics of the dog, it will never be able to perform at a significant level without appropriate training.


That puts it in a nutshell.

Like others, I believe people weight their odds by looking for the genetic potential to make the most of the efforts they will put into training the dog.

It helps to have the right genes in the human that makes them a good trainer as well 

Whatever your choice of games, an even moderately good trainer can make a "good" dog. Excellence is more than just "good".

The breeders' addiction is to find the magical combinations that consistently produce excellence ... those dogs who will take even the lesser trainer to a higher level of achievement.



> So while genetics only gets you so far, the training is what proves the genetics worthy


Conversely, sometimes it is the genetics that proves the training worthy 

FWIW, at least in Goldens, I observe that those who pursue "other games" eventually find that those dogs who are bred with field capability as a primary criteria can play almost any of the "other games" at high levels of excellence. Utility requires a directed retrieve at 30 feet or so. A field trial requires a directed retrieve at 300 yards (or more). 

So, agilelabs, if you want to have a high level of success in obedience or agility, I would still pick the dogs with strong field genetics. The dog you find as a rescue may have those genes, even if you don't realize it. However, if you want to weight the odds in your favor of success, I'd look for good genes to start with.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head, doesn't know much and did not come here to learn, came to turn words around and give their point of view. *ARA? I think let the threads die.*


Yup. I'm thinkin' t r o l l . Maybe ARA.

JS


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> That puts it in a nutshell.
> 
> Like others, I believe people weight their odds by looking for the genetic potential to make the most of the efforts they will put into training the dog.
> 
> ...


LOL, should we have breeding requirement for himans too?? LOL.

And I agree, you have mediocre and you have great in both dogs and handlers. I've seen handlers screw up some great dogs and I have seen some great dogs save handlers. And I have seen handlers do some great things with some not so great dogs




> Conversely, sometimes it is the genetics that proves the training worthy


Touche. Nicely played.



> FWIW, at least in Goldens, I observe that those who pursue "other games" eventually find that those dogs who are bred with field capability as a primary criteria can play almost any of the "other games" at high levels of excellence. Utility requires a directed retrieve at 30 feet or so. A field trial requires a directed retrieve at 300 yards (or more).
> 
> So, agilelabs, if you want to have a high level of success in obedience or agility, I would still pick the dogs with strong field genetics. The dog you find as a rescue may have those genes, even if you don't realize it. However, if you want to weight the odds in your favor of success, I'd look for good genes to start with.


And I do agree here as I sought out a field lab over show ring lab for the drive I want. I guess what I look for isn't necessarily a dog that is going to be top of their game. I pick a dog I like that if injury or such occurs and they have to be outta the game, I still want to be able to live with them. (and I say that simply because so many dogs being bred for sport are becoming such high drive they cannot be without work without becoming psychotic.)


And thank you for the civility.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

JS said:


> Yup. I'm thinkin' t r o l l . Maybe ARA.
> 
> JS


I would rather be called a troll than be someone who is closedminded. I believe that One cannot expand their knowledge without opening their miind outside a comfort zone.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

*agile.labs*


> LOL, should we have breeding requirement for himans too?? LOL.


We see examples daily of what a good idea this could be 

*agile. labs*


> And I do agree here as I sought out a field lab over show ring lab for the drive I want.


For some reason there seem to be fewer people who take their field Labs into obedience and agility than Golden owners. 

There are several outstanding field trainer/handlers who routinely take their field-bred Goldens into obedience & agility. 

For obedience, I quickly think of Janice Gunn, Connie Cleveland, and Bridget Carlsen. (No offense to anyone I should have mentioned there & forgot). Bridget also recently put a MACH and GRCA Agility Hall of Fame on her boy OTCH, MH, QAA "Hootie".


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> .....
> 
> I believe that One cannot expand their knowledge without opening their miind outside a comfort zone.



Did you capitalize "One" just for me?? 

But actually, when you have dogs of proper breeding, you don't need to expand your knowledge that much. Thank you! 

JS


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

JS said:


> Did you capitalize "One" just for me??
> 
> But actually, when you have dogs of proper breeding, you don't need to expand your knowledge that much. Thank you!
> 
> JS


No, actually one is capitalized because that was the original part of my sentence before I added in front of it. GOing back to my language(see other thread).

But if I have a proper bred lab, what does that teach me about shepherds herding, swissies guarding, etc. It teaches me exactly what I need to know to get by with what I do, nothing more. I am always looking for more because I deal with more than just well bred dogs and field dogs.


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 9, 2009)

"This seems to be evolving into a chicken vs egg discussion."

Or "nature vs. nurture"?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

dnf777 said:


> "This seems to be evolving into a chicken vs egg discussion."
> 
> Or "nature vs. nurture"?


Or don't breed for better dogs because you can train a rescue to become an FC.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> Or don't breed for better dogs because you can train a rescue to become an FC.


Well I thank you for reminding me of the person I truly am. I would much rather have success with a less than stellar dog than have a great one and be a breed snob without regards to anything less than the best.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

agile.labs said:


> I mean I could pay big bucks for a dog out of great hunting lines but if I don't do some decent training, those "lines" are going to get me very far.
> 
> So how much of a dog is genetic and how much is training??


It's easier to get to a 10 if you start with an 8 than if you start with a 4.

Here's the recipe in my opinion:

- 1 part pup 
- 1 part socialization
- 1 part training
- 1 part luck

With many recipes, the better the ingredients (i.e better pedigree, better socialization, better training, etc..), the better the final product (i.e the _luckier_ you get).

Re: all pups in a litter being equal genetically. They may all have the same mom and dad but there are stars and there are duds in pretty much any litter. However, one person's star might be another person's dud. Hard to argue with titles, they prove what the dog has accomplished. 

Travis


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

agile.labs said:


> Well I thank you for reminding me of the person I truly am. I would much rather have success with a less than stellar dog than have a great one and be a breed snob without regards to anything less than the best.


I don't see an FC in front of your Sunnyburke dog's name or a MH behind it. Now it's breed snobbery, not training. Until you walk the walk you can fantasize all you want that you can train any dog to do anything.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> I don't see an FC in front of your Sunnyburke dog's name or a MH behind it. Now it's breed snobbery, not training. Until you walk the walk you can fantasize all you want that you can train any dog to do anything.


So an MH or FC a good trianer makes?? What if a trainer sends students to the field, or what if a person just simply wants to hunt with their dogs and could care less about trialing. To me it isn't all about the titles it is about the dogs. 

And my Sunnyburke dog isn't even 2 so before you start insulting my dogs, be sure you know a bit more about them


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

stonybrook said:


> . However, one person's star might be another person's dud.


Very true. "One persons trash is another person's treasure" sort ot thing.


----------



## labman13 (May 11, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> So an MH or FC a good trianer makes?? What if a trainer sends students to the field, or what if a person just simply wants to hunt with their dogs and could care less about trialing. To me it isn't all about the titles it is about the dogs.
> 
> And my Sunnyburke dog isn't even 2 so before you start insulting my dogs, be sure you know a bit more about them


My point earlier and I think some others are making is this. How can your convictions be so strong with zero experience training or watching a gundog, ht dog, or ft dog?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

labman13 said:


> My point earlier and I think some others are making is this. How can your convictions be so strong with zero experience training or watching a gundog, ht dog, or ft dog?


Agile, Ignore the naysayers on here.
Buy a 120 pound silver pointing lab out of the newspaper for $50; then go put an FC-AFC on it and prove them all wrong.

I know YOU can do it!!!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> To me it isn't all about the titles it is about the dogs.


Yeah, twist it around but then why are your dogs listed in your signature with all their titles and your blog talks about your title progress. BTW, it isn't just about the titles with us either-it DOES happen to be about the dogs too, but the difference is we know we can't train every dog to do everything, but we still love them anyway, and not even in a snobby way.


----------



## Normal (Aug 4, 2003)

I stopped reading after 5 pages, so this may have been said....

When you buy a pup, you are buying potential, not training. 

People pay more money for what they percieve as more potential. In this circle it seems the vast magority believe/measure/value that potential in a pup primarily based on the genetics/past achievements of the breeding. 

If you measure the potential differently than the rest (or at least majority) of the market, well that is really good for you because you will be able to get a real bargain (supply and demand).

Not sure what your trying to prove/argue here. I think that the same people you are debating with (the ones who pay big bucks for pup potential, based on genetics) are the SAME PEOPLE that spend the most on TRAINING. For those people (i.e. those with the interest and resources), the answer is clear, they buy the most potential (best perceived breeding) and the give it the best chance to succeed (best perceived training).


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> buy the most potential (best perceived breeding) and the give it the best chance to succeed (best perceived training).


Even when you stack all the cards in your favor like this, there's still only ~10% chance that the dog will have the talent, training, and luck to make it to FC.

I can't think of a game with the odds more stacked against you.


----------



## Leslie B (Jul 3, 2009)

cbrdog said:


> If you have 2 steaks and one is aged prime angus and the other is out of the freezer at Wal-Mart and you have a competent grill chef prepare each steak, the prime aged angus will be the better steak. If you give the same 2 steaks to my wife to cook they will both be burnt and unfit to eat.
> 
> It takes a great dog and a great trainer/handler to be a field trial champion.


I hope you like to eat at McDonalds cause I don't think you will be having much home cooking if your wife reads the forum!!


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Even when you stack all the cards in your favor like this, there's still only ~10% chance that the dog will have the talent, training, and luck to make it to FC.
> 
> *I can't think of a game with the odds more stacked against you*.


The roulette tables in Vegas.....Oakland Raiders winning the Super Bowl...Oklahoma playing for the National Championship in football this season
LSU playing for the National Championship in football this season


----------



## tomhunter (Jan 27, 2007)

while breedings & genetics are definitly very important factors in choosing a pup, you will always have a pup somewhere that came from a "nothing" background that will make it. BUT, your chances of finding that 1 pup from "nothing" background are alot slimmer than choosing from a proven breeding. It's all relevant. You pay less now and pay more later or pay more now and less later.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> I'll use mine as an example
> 
> Now Indi comes from a great hunting pedigree. MH's up the wazoo. She is genetically capable fo being a Master Hunter but I am not "training" her to be. I am using her drive in other games. Now it is possible that she may be genetically superior to another dog out there with an MH but the one with the MH trained to get it whereas I did not.


That is a question a lot of us ask. For example my dog Alex who is a very nice dog, with the best training I could afford, is the only dog out of this field trail litter to be trained and run in field trails. My wife flew out to pick the best male out of this litter. The breeder had one picked out as the best male but that pup was bitten on the nose requiring stitches the day before my wife showed up, and he was a dud during puppy evaluations mostly due to the after effects of the injury. The breeder really wanted her to take him regardless, but did admit this other male had come on strong the last week and was probably equally good so she took him (Alex). That male that he thought was the best FT prospect of the litter went to a guy who owns a vineyard and to this day just rides around the vineyard in this guy's pick up. 

How good would that dog have been in FTs? How many FC/AFC or even National Champion prospects have gone to homes as pure pets or hunting dogs? Also how many FC-AFCs have come out of nowhere? It's definitely possible to discover some very talented dog that is bred out of relative unknowns, but if you are serious about competing in field trials, you tend to put all of the odds in your favor by studying pedigrees, picking the best combination of genetics and training to the fullest.

John


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

The truly GREAT ones do it in spite of training rather than because of training. Yes, good training can enhance a good dog. Poor training often cannot constrain a GREAT dog! Ask anyone who watched "Rocky" (Euroclydon) run with her owner. She could be pointed in the absolute opposite direction of the next retrieve and still ace it! That's certainly not "training"!

It is a lot easier to expect greatness from a proven pedigree of outstanding achievers than from unknown quanitities. The ability to be trained to the highest levels comes from brains, inate ability inherent to the breed--which is not equal in all Labradors, disposition of the dog to accept direction/training, etc.

If genetics were not of primary importance, the proven trainers could take any old dog & make it a national champion. They wouldn't wash out unknown numbers of dogs that don't possess the genetic predisposition to the work for which they are to be trained. There would never be a washout except from those less talented trainers. Unfortunately, there are many wash outs from even the very best trainers because at the outset, all things are not equal from a genetic standpoint. Genetics provides marking ability, trainability, and brains. Three key components for training a Labrador.

Genetics in Labradors is optimally important because the dogs must perform so many tasks in a nearly perfect manner in order to even place in a field trial....and do it without the handler having any physical control such as a leash or other direct physical means beyond limited use of body language and voice...and at great distance from the handler during the performance.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Thank you for these last few posts, exactly the kind of discussion thoughts I was looking for as with many others. And yup, I know Bridget and she is phenomenal in everything she does.



Howard N said:


> Even when you stack all the cards in your favor like this, there's still only ~10% chance that the dog will have the talent, training, and luck to make it to FC.
> 
> I can't think of a game with the odds more stacked against you.


Interesting. You are the second person who has said Luck. Without bad luck I wouldn't have any luck so there goes my game. LOL



Vicki Worthington said:


> The truly GREAT ones do it in spite of training rather than because of training. Yes, good training can enhance a good dog. Poor training often cannot constrain a GREAT dog! Ask anyone who watched "Rocky" (Euroclydon) run with her owner. She could be pointed in the absolute opposite direction of the next retrieve and still ace it! That's certainly not "training"!


I like your whole post but this is really interesting. Those are the kinds of dogs that are a rarity but so awesome to watch. And the kind of examples of things that make the point of this thread.




> and do it without the handler having any physical control such as a leash or other direct physical means beyond limited use of body language and voice...and at great distance from the handler during the performance.


That reminds me alot of herding and guardian. Some things are innate and need to be 

But I know alot of border collis that nip at their owners(well they are herding dogs that is part of who they are) My friend who raises and breed BC's always says "I am not a sheep I am not for herding" ROFL. I guess that is putting the instinct under control?? Or maybe it is giving their instinct direction??


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> That male that he thought was the best FT prospect of the litter went to a guy who owns a vineyard and to this day just rides around the vineyard in this guy's pick up.


What a lucky dog.



> but if you are serious about competing in field trials, you tend to put all of the odds in your favor by studying pedigrees, picking the best combination of genetics and training to the fullest.


Maybe this is what throws me. What if you get that dog and discover his potential isn't all there and he tirns out not to be this top dog as expected or gets hurt and can no longer do it? What happens to him?

I see over and over and people running out to get a dog that will be good at the sport and then when they cannot handle to drive in the dog, the dog gets dumped. 

I have never said genetics are not an important things but if the person getting those genetics cannot control them, then the dog suffers. And many of the people see a "show ring" lab who is much calmer but end up with a lab that has a drive of some of the field labs, because the "general public" doesn't understand the difference which is maybe where my difference lies.

While I myself know what I want in a dog, I deal with the general public on a daily basis helping them understand the dogs that they got and want to do something with.


----------



## Normal (Aug 4, 2003)

Agile,

Your last post seems to, if anything, now argue that genetics may be more important than the training (i.e. in your examples of people that are getting dogs that are bred with too much XXX or too little XXX for their purposes) - and they aren't a good match for their purposes/interests/abilities, etc.

I'm confused as to what point you are making / debating.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Vicky, about Euroclydon, would that be poor training or poor handling?




> Maybe this is what throws me. What if you get that dog and discover his potential isn't all there and he tirns out not to be this top dog as expected or gets hurt and can no longer do it? What happens to him?


Agile, you are describing a washout. I've been lucky and have been able to place all my washouts in good homes. The only one who had no desire became the pet of a family who had just lost their lab a month or so before they took my pup.

All the others have been placed in hunting homes. Some homes hunt more than others. I just sold one last month. She was 19 months old, had greenied a couple of derbies and was 1 for 1 in master hunt tests. She is a team player and likes her work but couldn't mark at a high level. I thought it best if I placed her rather than trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Normal said:


> Agile,
> 
> Your last post seems to, if anything, now argue that genetics may be more important than the training (i.e. in your examples of people that are getting dogs that are bred with too much XXX or too little XXX for their purposes) - and they aren't a good match for their purposes/interests/abilities, etc.
> 
> I'm confused as to what point you are making / debating.


I am simply having a discussion where we look at both sides of the coin. Is one more important than another or not? To each individual that is going to be a different answer.

As far as people not handling the dog, that is because they buy a dog they think is "genetically" worthy but then cannot "train" it therefore the genetics don't matter anyway for THAT person. 

There are two sides and it is interesting to look at both sides.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

agile.labs said:


> What a lucky dog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I really don't get what you are trying to do here. 
Accusing us of putting too much drive in our Labs? After seeing show Labs at a HT this weekend, no thanks, there simply isn't much left there of what a Lab is supposed to do. 
Accusing us of dumping dogs we've spent thousands of dollars and usually at least a year or three developing before realizing they aren't going to work at the level we hoped?
Accusing us of being responsible for the lack of intelligence of the general public that rushes out to get a Lab, usually from one of the byb and/or millers who are so responsible for churning out en masse poor specimens of the breed?
Got news for you, over the top out of control Labs have no place in FT or HT anymore than in a home. Started dogs sell for thousands, which is far less than what their owners have in them but at least gives a little assurance that the people buying them are serious and have the funds to take care of them. Or are placed with known good homes that are a better fit for them. I'd stake a lot that very few on this forum have "dumped" a washout. I don't think you have a clue what goes on in breeding and developing and training retrievers for any kind of field games and are out of your depth here with some pretty odd questions that don't even make sense and whether you mean them to be or not, are actually pretty insulting to many on this board. BTW, interesting that you retracted your post of last evening wherein you stated that would be your last post on this forum, you just weren't too happy with how some here view pit bulls and the like and really couldn't be associated with such.


----------



## starjack (Apr 30, 2009)

I like to have good gentic on both sides but to me i want to see both parents and i want them to let me watch both dogs hunt.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> What a lucky dog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My wife and I are both serious about maximizing the potential of all of our dogs, but only if they (the dog) is driven in the same manner. If that means training hard, advancing the dog through all levels with FC-AFC as our goal and the dog is enjoying this life that's what we do, if the dog doesn't have what it takes to be FT competetive but still thinks this retrieving game is the most fun ever, we lower our sights to Master hunter, if the dog likes to hunt but could care less about training for even hunt test, then he's just my hunting buddy. 

We don't have the time or money, and we get too emotionaly attached to our dogs to get rid of them if they wash out from FT training, luckly we have been fortunate to be pretty successful with our dogs to date. We still go for the best breeding with a field champion as our goal, then work hard and see how it works out. BTW, our first dog was just a backyard bred Golden with no pedigree to speak of, but he loved the game and overachieved in earning five titles including Master Hunter and was the best upland game dog I ever saw. We were lucky that the stars lined up on that breeding and got us into this crazy sport.

John


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Melanie Foster said:


> FYI, it does not take a fire breather to be a successful field trial dog.


Correct to a degree. 

But ... I rather enjoy watching the fire breathers even when they go down in flames. When they don't flame out, they are a joy to behold. 

On the other hand, it is PAINFUL to watch a dog who has no style and just goes through the motions. They may be considered by some to be a "successful field trial dog" based upon good marking, but I wouldn't stand in line to breed to them nor would I want to buy a pup coming from a parent or parents known for having no desire, no drive, i.e. no style. 

Kinda like shoving a chain up hill. You gotta start with desire and drive because training won't put it in. It has to be there from the get-go, and that is genetics. Training is used to temper the fire breathers. 

Just my 2-cents. 

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Juli H said:


> The dog is 100% genetic.
> 
> The training is 100% human.
> 
> how's that for an answer?


After all is said and done, I think this answer is the best one. 

Helen


----------



## Socks (Nov 13, 2008)

Agile.labs I think I know where you're coming from. You come from an area where you come across people who have no real idea how to train a dog and are astonded at what a little training can do.

I was asked to do a hunting dog demonstration for a charity event and I said yes on one condition that I get to ask the people to not run out and get a lab and just expect them to do the things that JD can do. I don't want to be indirectly responsible for someone getting a dog and wonder why it won't cast when in reality it doesn't have the basic obedience yet. This of course is on top of whether or not it has the genetics i.e. drive, trainability, nose etc. that proper breeding maximizes the chances of a dog being born with.

I know genetics and such are talked a lot on here(above my head by the way) and titles this and titles that. Here's the difficulty here with the post. Almost every single one of us if not every single one of us does train our dogs to the best of our ability. Our basic obedience is exactly that, basic, whereas to people who aren't in this area think that a sit, heel, and come/here are the pinnical of dog training. Since many people on here are good trainers the next variable in the equation is genetics. This group on the RTF are a basically a dedicated sub set of dog owners(compared to the whole) who can't really be compared to the average dog owner in regards to the self imposed standards that they maintain for their dogs and breeding programs.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Socks said:


> Agile.labs I think I know where you're coming from. You come from an area where you come across people who have no real idea how to train a dog and are astonded at what a little training can do.
> 
> I was asked to do a hunting dog demonstration for a charity event and I said yes on one condition that I get to ask the people to not run out and get a lab and just expect them to do the things that JD can do. I don't want to be indirectly responsible for someone getting a dog and wonder why it won't cast when in reality it doesn't have the basic obedience yet. This of course is on top of whether or not it has the genetics i.e. drive, trainability, nose etc. that proper breeding maximizes the chances of a dog being born with.


Exactly. The do not try this at home label LOL



> I know genetics and such are talked a lot on here(above my head by the way) and titles this and titles that. Here's the difficulty here with the post. Almost every single one of us if not every single one of us does train our dogs to the best of our ability. Our basic obedience is exactly that, basic, whereas to people who aren't in this area think that a sit, heel, and come/here are the pinnical of dog training. Since many people on here are good trainers the next variable in the equation is genetics. This group on the RTF are a basically a dedicated sub set of dog owners(compared to the whole) who can't really be compared to the average dog owner in regards to the self imposed standards that they maintain for their dogs and breeding programs.


And I absolutely have no doubt there is some of the best breeding and training here on this forum. No doubt in my mind.

But when I think Retriever training, I also think agility, obediencce, flyball, freestyle, disc dog, dock diving, lure coursing(you get the idea). There is way more training involved with retrievers than simply the field. And I tink that is where this barrier is coming in. I see so many retrievers in other sports as well.

And Rainmaker, reading through my last post, I see no where that I indicated FT HT or any others specific sport, so if you felt the need to take it personal, that is your right.




Howard N said:


> Agile, you are describing a washout. I've been lucky and have been able to place all my washouts in good homes. The only one who had no desire became the pet of a family who had just lost their lab a month or so before they took my pup.
> 
> All the others have been placed in hunting homes. Some homes hunt more than others. I just sold one last month. She was 19 months old, had greenied a couple of derbies and was 1 for 1 in master hunt tests. She is a team player and likes her work but couldn't mark at a high level. I thought it best if I placed her rather than trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.


Thank you for sharing that



John Robinson said:


> My wife and I are both serious about maximizing the potential of all of our dogs, but only if they (the dog) is driven in the same manner. If that means training hard, advancing the dog through all levels with FC-AFC as our goal and the dog is enjoying this life that's what we do, if the dog doesn't have what it takes to be FT competetive but still thinks this retrieving game is the most fun ever, we lower our sights to Master hunter, if the dog likes to hunt but could care less about training for even hunt test, then he's just my hunting buddy.
> 
> We don't have the time or money, and we get too emotionaly attached to our dogs to get rid of them if they wash out from FT training, luckly we have been fortunate to be pretty successful with our dogs to date. We still go for the best breeding with a field champion as our goal, then work hard and see how it works out. BTW, our first dog was just a backyard bred Golden with no pedigree to speak of, but he loved the game and overachieved in earning five titles including Master Hunter and was the best upland game dog I ever saw. We were lucky that the stars lined up on that breeding and got us into this crazy sport.
> 
> John


And this is exactly where I would fall as well.


One thing for sure this thread has definitely opend my eyes as to what to look for in a trainer. While many trainers can get dogs to the top of their "sport" I would prefer to work with one that can get any dog to the top regardless of breed or genetics over someone who gets a dog to the top that has the potential to be there. While, we ourselves, know what we want in a dog, others see that and it isn't the best match for them and as trainer it is our responsibility to get the people the most successful dog for their ability and to be able to work with what they have. Some simply don't have the physical ability to handle certain dogs but it doesn't mean they should lose out on the potential they have as a team.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

agile.labs said:


> One thing for sure this thread has definitely opend my eyes as to what to look for in a trainer. While many trainers can get dogs to the top of their "sport" I would prefer to work with one that can get *any dog to the top regardless of breed or genetics* over someone who gets a dog to the top that has the potential to be there.


so... Jesus is training retrievers these days


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Ken Bora said:


> so... Jesus is training retrievers these days


Thanks, Ken, I read it a couple of times trying to even consider if she's serious with a statement like that on a forum like these.


----------



## marshmonster (Jan 21, 2009)

somebody told me a long time ago..

rather bluntly:


You can spray paint a turd gold....but it's still a turd.....

a gold nugget that is dirty, can be polished, and turned into jewelry.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

agile.labs said:


> One thing for sure this thread has definitely opend my eyes as to what to look for in a trainer. While many trainers can get dogs to the top of their "sport" I would prefer to work with one that can get any dog to the top regardless of breed or genetics over someone who gets a dog to the top that has the potential to be there..


So agile,
The retriever breeds eligible to participate, I not going to type them lets let you do some work. Who, I say who has taken every one of those breeds and personally trained them to FC or MH or MHR level and you found them because of this thread. We all would be very interested in meeting this person who you are going to train retrievers with. Can I come? I’ll bring the beer.


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

agile.labs said:


> While many trainers can get dogs to the top of their "sport" I would prefer to work with one that can get any dog to the top regardless of breed or genetics over someone who gets a dog to the top that has the potential to be there.


I would be delighted to take the biggest, no talent, waste of time potlicker you can find and train them in whatever dicipline you wish to persue. Of course I will have to run a credit check first to satisfy myself that you can afford to pay the never ending training bills that will occur while we are engaged in this fantasy of yours.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

So if I follow the logic, if John Doe can only find the right trainer, he can become the next Michael Jordon? I'm not drinking from that jug.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

agile.labs said:


> But what if that is due to poor training vs good training??


How many well bred dogs do you think get washed out every year by very good trainers?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Bruce MacPherson said:


> I would be delighted to take the biggest, no talent, waste of time potlicker you can find and train them in whatever dicipline you wish to persue. Of course I will have to run a credit check first to satisfy myself that you can afford to pay the never ending training bills that will occur while we are engaged in this fantasy of yours.


But unfortunately her funds have been held up in a Nigerian account. If you would forward her a small processing fee in cash and your account information she could easily transfer the balance to you.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

agile.labs said:


> And I absolutely have no doubt there is some of the best breeding and training here on this forum. No doubt in my mind.


Don't be so sure...

Most of the best trainers don't have time to be fool'in around on this forum.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

To think of all that money spent over the years, the dog's that didn't make it.
So, it's all the pro's fault.
I KNEW IT!!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> (snip)While many trainers can get dogs to the top of their "sport" I would prefer to work with one that can get any dog to the top regardless of breed or genetics over someone who gets a dog to the top that has the potential to be there. (snip)


Consider this, because I don't think you have... I'm talking just for hunt tests. With THE AVERAGE DOG, to get to the top of the sport (let's say master hunter, ready to go to the master national), you are talking probably ***2.5-3 years*** of full-time training. This is with an AVERAGE dog.

What do you feel is acceptable for a less than average dog?

I am someone that was naive like you in the beginning. I do NOT mean that disrespectfully. I am also someone who has painted turds gold as someone else mentioned. I have taken some dogs that other trainers wouldn't have peed on if they were on fire...

Let me tell you this...

I'm not sure what you do for a living (I haven't read all your posts and am not sure if you've mentioned it.)... But as a trainer, who is training dogs as your job/career, do you want to work with a group of DIFFICULT dogs who DO NOT want to do their job and you are MAKING them do it? Or do you want to work with dogs who LOVE to work and train and work WITH you?

The first group is going to ***SAP*** every bit of your emotional, mental, physical and time resources. You're going to take AT LEAST twice as long every training day to work with the difficult dog who is not genetically, temperamentally, physically, mentally, whatever able to do the training like a "good" dog can. THAT dog's owner is going to pay you the same $600 a month that every other dog on your truck is paying. Yet, as you are working with that dog, your employee payroll and your time is ticking away...

I did the math once and I didn't like it. At that point, I made a promise to myself that I would accept no more than two DIFFICULT dogs into training at any given time. It has really worked for me. Some trainers will take ZERO difficult dogs and I DO NOT blame them.

By difficult, I mean everything from dogs that have attitude problems to dogs that have trouble focusing to dogs that aren't good markers to dogs that are tough as nails to dogs that are crazy... It doesn't mean I don't care for them. They have each required SO MUCH more of my time and I could have easily sent him home. They will teach you a lot as a trainer and I encourage any other professional trainers just starting out to at least work with some because it does teach you a lot. But it makes NO SENSE to bring out a bunch of dogs that don't want to and aren't able to do the work. 

IF a dog cannot do the work, there's an issue of whether it just doesn't want to or can't. So why waste your time??? Find a sport, if any, that's more suitable for that dog.

I think as you become more familiar with the sport, you will see what everyone here is talking about. It will take at least a few years for you to see enough dogs and experience enough situations where this will make sense. I have not yet met a trainer (pro or amateur) that's been in the sport for any period of time who doesn't understand this...

Heck, I have a personal dog going to the master national this year. She'll either look like crap or she'll shine, but she hates to train. And here I am spending money on her... LOL Most people wouldn't, but she was one of my early "causes" that I was going to train, dammit!! I don't regret it one bit and I love her dearly, but I wouldn't want a truck full of dogs like her!! God bless her... 

-K


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2009)

marshmonster said:


> somebody told me a long time ago..
> 
> rather bluntly:
> 
> ...


Very true,

but I've seen a pretty good spit-shine on a number of turdish meat-dogs.

I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Having a Ferrari doesn't do much for someone who just drives to and from the Piggly Wiggly.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vicki Worthington*
> _The truly GREAT ones do it in spite of training rather than because of training. Yes, good training can enhance a good dog. Poor training often cannot constrain a GREAT dog! Ask anyone who watched "Rocky" (Euroclydon) run with her owner. She could be pointed in the absolute opposite direction of the next retrieve and still ace it! That's certainly not "training"!_
> 
> I like your whole post but this is really interesting. Those are the kinds of dogs that are a rarity but so awesome to watch. And the kind of examples of things that make the point of this thread.


The point is only 1/2 made ... because you didn't ask about the inheritance that may have been present in Euroclydon that made it possible for the dog to overcome even an inept trainer.



> Originally Posted by *agile.labs*
> _One thing for sure this thread has definitely opend my eyes as to what to look for in a trainer. While many trainers can get dogs to the top of their "sport" I would prefer to work with one that can get any dog to the top regardless of breed or genetics over someone who gets a dog to the top that has the potential to be there.._


I doubt there is a trainer ever born that could take any/every dog and take them to the top of their sport, whatever their sport. I *would* agree that the best trainer is one that can take any dog to the top of that particular dog's individual potential. Just as there are humans born who lack the inherited physical and/or mental, capabilities to become Olympic athletes or nuclear physicists why would we expect it to be different in dogs? In humans, not all siblings have the same potential. Unless identical twins, siblings do not have identical genes. So, even in one litter, potential can inherently vary. The spectrum of variance may be broader or narrower. The trick is, however, figuring out who is which when you pick the pup 

Good potential in the hands of a good trainer, will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low-grade potential in the hands of a good trainer, will use the existing potential to its maximum. But the less-well-endowed dog genetically, the trainers being equal, will not likely end up equal to the achievements of the dog who had the better inheritance.

In your position as an instructor to John Q Public, it is of value to prove that every dog has potential to be a mannerly pet. You give your students hope and proof that their dog can be better than it is without training. That is a good thing ... for the dogs, for the owners, and for those of us who treasure the right to own pets and pursue competition. The need for dragonian legislation restricting pet ownership come from the uneducated many who do not take the time and effort to make their pets mannerly members of society. In this regard, you and other trainers like you, are doing a great service for us, as well as the people & dogs you train.

OTOH, it is also true that many of the service groups have found that they will have better success over the long haul by carefully breeding their own service dogs for health and working traits. Since the cost of raising & training a service dog for the high levels of sophistication of Seeing Eye, controlling the genetics by breeding their own stock, has become preferable to "rolling the dice". So those of us who place emphasis on the genetic aspect of the equation also provide a service that can benefit the general public.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

jimboburnsy said:


> Very true,
> 
> but I've seen a pretty good spit-shine on a number of turdish meat-dogs.
> 
> I think it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Having a Ferrari doesn't do much for someone who just drives to and from the Piggly Wiggly.


I dunno, I think I'd still rather drive a Ferrari to the grocery, maybe not practical but way more fun.;-)


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2009)

Rainmaker said:


> I dunno, I think I'd still rather drive a Ferrari to the grocery, maybe not practical but way more fun.;-)


Well, its hard to disagree with that.

I used to hunt with an old ******* in NE Texas who ran a lab-heeler mutt. The dog would make two marks, would hunt up dead birds and wouldn't eat them. That was all he needed and the dog knew its job. Everyone was happy. Not at all fancy, but happy.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> While many trainers can get dogs to the top of their "sport" I would prefer to work with one that can get any dog to the top regardless of breed or genetics


Agile, you won't get _any dog_ to the successful all age level*.*

The only ones who'll make a successful all age dog are the special gifted ones. Who are also given good training mostly from a young age.

Read Christie Wilder's post above. She's just trying to get dogs to the master hunter level and she's running into the ceiling of what the dog is capable of doing. The difficulty from master to all age goes up exponetially. I really don't think you have any idea of what it takes to make an all age dog.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Bruce MacPherson said:


> I would be delighted to take the biggest, no talent, waste of time potlicker you can find and train them in whatever dicipline you wish to persue.


I guess this is the mentality I will not get here. You are telling me that every student that has ever come for lessons has the cream of the crop type dog???

I find that hard to believe. Or do they just get turned away?? Some people want to learn the sport simply with the dog they have


I cannot tell you how many "no talent, waste of potlicker" dogs are successfully competing at the top in some sports. And maybe that is why I will stick to the sports I do if this is how people feel about dogs of "lesser" quality. 

We don't always have the choice to teach the cream of the crop. SOmetimes we have to teach the hand we were dealt and bring out the best in that team.

Even the best cream of the crop may not make it to the top isn't the handler isn't right.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Now you're willing to say there is a cream that separates itself from the crop. That is, I feel, genetics and the dogs that field trialers compete with. The common dogs won't make it to that level.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Kristie Wilder said:


> Consider this, because I don't think you have... I'm talking just for hunt tests. With THE AVERAGE DOG, to get to the top of the sport (let's say master hunter, ready to go to the master national), you are talking probably ***2.5-3 years*** of full-time training. This is with an AVERAGE dog.
> 
> What do you feel is acceptable for a less than average dog?


Now I appreciate this clarification being for hunt tests. And that is something I was hopefully going to try to learn about here.

In 2-3 years in agility, an abused rescued dog can be competing in National/Invitational level competitions(with the right training)



> I am someone that was naive like you in the beginning. I do NOT mean that disrespectfully. I am also someone who has painted turds gold as someone else mentioned. I have taken some dogs that other trainers wouldn't have peed on if they were on fire...


I don't think naivity is the right word. I am fully aware of what is involved in training. I just am not naive to have the luxury of every person coming for training having the cream of the crop and guess what, they still need training.

Let me tell you this...



> I'm not sure what you do for a living (I haven't read all your posts and am not sure if you've mentioned it.)... But as a trainer, who is training dogs as your job/career, do you want to work with a group of DIFFICULT dogs who DO NOT want to do their job and you are MAKING them do it? Or do you want to work with dogs who LOVE to work and train and work WITH you?


Actually this question has been asked of me. For a living I manage a dog kennel just to answer your question.

And I do teach agility classes and I would actually much rather work with the difficult ones BECAUSE, yes I do have a reason.
The difficult ones are the ones that are more likely to get dumped off at the pound when the handler cannot get the dog trained. If I can get a connection between that dog and owner then I have potentially saved that dog from being dumped

The easy dogs are more likely to settle in and keep their homes.

But I also prefer a person to stay with their dogs for the training and don't have dogs come for a stay(so I totally understand that situation being different)
For you, a person drops off a dog and wants it returned trained so they can do what they want with it. I understand the need for an easier(quicker study) dog.

I have people who also want to be involved in their dogs training or game and it becomes a weekly thing.

.



> By difficult, I mean everything from dogs that have attitude problems to dogs that have trouble focusing to dogs that aren't good markers to dogs that are tough as nails to dogs that are crazy


LOL, I wish those were the difficult dogs we get. We get the ones who lunge and break pich collars, biting their owners, breaking through windows at people passing by.



> IF a dog cannot do the work, there's an issue of whether it just doesn't want to or can't. So why waste your time??? Find a sport, if any, that's more suitable for that dog.


And as a trainer I feel that is my responsibility to help that owner decide if there is another route to take.


And Kristie, I want to thank you for the time you took to civily type out your post. I do understand where you are coming from and from your perspective I understand the need for a genetically superior dog.

I guess I am just on the side of the book that in my sports genetics don't necessarily make or break the dog. And I think that is why people are having such a hard time understanding where I am coming from.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

agile.labs said:


> We don't always have the choice to teach the cream of the crop. SOmetimes we have to teach the hand we were dealt and bring out the best in that team.


If you want to be successful, I think you do what you have to do. It's a personal choice to either train dog X to the top level of it's game, or die trying.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Howard N said:


> Now you're willing to say there is a cream that separates itself from the crop. That is, I feel, genetics and the dogs that field trialers compete with. The common dogs won't make it to that level.


Ah but neither with the creams if the handling isn't there and hence we are back to the chicken vs. egg and people are still discussing that and no right answer has yet been determined.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Buzz said:


> If you want to be successful, I think you do what you have to do. It's a personal choice to either train dog X to the top level of it's game, or die trying.


I guess I would rather dye trying than think that I didn't give that dog a chance.

Each dog has its own potential. If you can get the highest potential from that dog and bring it to the top of ITS game(owner/handler), then I feel I have been successful. The top of its game may be different that another dog.

I have a lady in class right now who has potential to be fantastic in agility. Problem, she has issues with knees and cannot run without pain. It then becomes my job to help her and her dog to learn how to handle an agility course at a distance.

Will they be at the top, who knows, they can, but almost any agility competitor will tell you, Q or not, if is fascinating to watch someone handle their dog from the middle of the ring. The ability to do that for someone who is not physically able, is worth so much more than a title.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

It sounds to me like you are looking to pick arguments here. You've tried to argue with everything people have tried to explain to you about retriever training, when most posting on this thread are trying to be helpful. This is a *RETRIEVER* training forum, not an agility, or rally, or competition obedience, or dock dogs training forum, though we have members that compete in those things and at fairly high levels, too. The specific training discussed here, again, is RETRIEVER training, whether for duck hunting, hunt tests and/or field trials. Not, training retrievers for agility, rally, canine good citizen, etc.



agile.labs said:


> I guess this is the mentality I will not get here. You are telling me that every student that has ever come for lessons has the cream of the crop type dog???
> 
> I find that hard to believe. Or do they just get turned away?? Some people want to learn the sport simply with the dog they have


Many of us did start out with the 'wrong' dog. Some people here have amazing success stories with the 'wrong' dog. Some of us don't own Labs ;-) so always have to listen to the jokes and lectures because we have the 'wrong' dogs. The way it works though, is you do the best you can with the one you have or if you get really bitten by the bug for HTs or FTs you get one bred for the game you want to play. There are those that send their inadequate dogs to trainers that keep taking their money, and those that send their dogs to good trainers who honestly tell them the dog would be better suited to some other dog sport or life as a pet, and those that pick a trainer that has had success with the type of dog they have, and so on.




agile.labs said:


> I cannot tell you how many "no talent, waste of potlicker" dogs are successfully competing at the top in *some sports*. And maybe that is why I will stick to the sports I do if this is how people feel about dogs of "lesser" quality.
> 
> We don't always have the choice to teach the cream of the crop. SOmetimes we have to teach the hand we were dealt and bring out the best in that team.
> 
> Even the best cream of the crop may not make it to the top isn't the handler isn't right.


I put an emphasis on some sports above because while I believe that may be true of rally where at the beginner level, anything with a pulse can pass; it seems you don't know anything about retriever hunt tests and especially not field trials, or you'd never make such a statement. So answer any or all of these: Do you honestly think you could train a Chinese crested to swim 400 yards to retrieve something? For that matter, how about a Sheltie? They're one of the top obedience breeds so they're obviously trainable. How about a puggle, could you put a UD on one of those? Could you train a Bassett hound or dachshund to become an agilty MACH? Put a UDX on, say, a coonhound or a feist? (as an aside, I'd love to see one of thoes heeling offlead in a grass ring well enough to pass a CD test, much less a CDX or UD).

No one on here has said anything about dogs not suited to retriever training as being lesser quality. We're just trying to explain to you that not all retrievers have the specific qualities needed to be successful at hunt tests and field trials. And answer your question that people serious about the game seek the best bred animal they can afford to up their odds of success. Genetics and training are the proven combination that leads to success, as everyone who plays these games at more than just the most basic, beginner level learns.

A bad dog can make you a better trainer, but it can't make you successful in retriever field sports. To liken it to something you might understand: would you get a breed known for being hard to train if your goal was to earn an OTCH?


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Julie R. said:


> . To liken it to something you might understand: would you get a breed known for being hard to train if your goal was to earn an OTCH?


LOL, actually, yeah I would. That is all part of the challenge, part of the journey. I have considering getting a coonhound to try to double CH(OTCH and MACH). Look at what Bridget Carlsen did. She looked for a breed that no dog had an OTCH in and went and got that breed and look at the remarkable things she has done with Hemi, the little Norwich. And she put and OTCH on him in no time.


----------



## Boondux (Feb 10, 2006)

It's all about training your dogs and having fun to the best of you and your dog's ability. My goal does not include having a FC/AFC however. My first dog, a golden, hated field work so we now work on competitive obedience instead (which he loves). He is my little boy's best buddy. I bought a lab from competitive field lines for Hunt Tests and she LOVES it. Sure, my golden could do the work but he was sulking around like "do I have to?" It is much more fun to train a willing dog with the "raw materials" to succeed. If your dog likes it, go for it!


----------



## Clark (Aug 10, 2008)

agile.labs said:


> LOL, actually, yeah I would.


Then you have more time than most of the people on here. Dog games are meant to be fun, for you and the dog. Why not share those hours of training with a dog that enjoys it as much as you? 

If you want to put an FC on a backyard bred dog, fine....go for it. But I'll bet there will be several hundred FC and AFC's put on well bred dogs before you sniff a ribbon. 

I guess I just don't see the point....


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Wait a minute-Bridget is one of my best friends(since 4th grade). You make it sound like she just won a couple of trials and Hemi got his OTCH. She worked her rear end off to get the OTCH. She had to come up with new ways to train Hemi. It was mind blowing how hard Bridget worked and the average trainer would not have been able to do it. Bridget is a remarkable trainer-QAA, MH, OTCH, MACH-all on her goldens. But ask Bridget if she would put Hemi in the field to even play and she will tell you NO. He doesn't want to retrieve and its no fun for him. I have a shorty jack who loves to retrieve but she physically can't swim more then 80 yards-not that she wouldn't keep trying. I can't tell you how much I have to think of new ways to train her-since much of what I do with the big dogs would be too much for her. Retriever training for most of us,either hunting or competing is about getting the best genetics we can afford of our chosen retrieving breed and putting our heart,soul and loads of cash into training. The best answer is still Julies.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Pals said:


> Wait a minute-Bridget is one of my best friends(since 4th grade). You make it sound like she just won a couple of trials and Hemi got his OTCH. She worked her rear end off to get the OTCH. She had to come up with new ways to train Hemi.


OMG no, no, no. I love Bridget. She is just that good, hence why I said "quickly'.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

Clark said:


> . But I'll bet there will be several hundred FC and AFC's put on well bred dogs before you sniff a ribbon.
> 
> I guess I just don't see the point....


But those are the dogs that aren't at risk of ending up in the shelter either.

I do not put titles as my goals. My goal is to become a better trainer. And I cannot do that if I do ot challenge myself.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

How can you objectively measure your success as a trainer without the goal of putting titles on dogs?


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> How can you objectively measure your success as a trainer without the goal of putting titles on dogs?


Why do titles mean your a good trainer?

If a person is abusvie to their dogs and can get a title, I wouldn't put him in the good trainer category. There is much more to a good trainer than a title.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

agile.labs said:


> And I cannot do that if I do ot challenge myself.


So here is your challenge, buy an unknown back yard bred sivler lab and show us the FC. That will get you some respect. Hurry though I am 55 and the dogs only live 12-15 years.

BTW, the "chicken/egg" argument does not apply. You must first have the dog to train. Training always comes after the dog. Training before you have the dog just doesn't make sense.


----------



## agile.labs (Aug 24, 2009)

gsc said:


> BTW, the "chicken/egg" argument does not apply. You must first have the dog to train. Training always comes after the dog. Training before you have the dog just doesn't make sense.


LOL, see now I will say mostly. You do a sport like agility or canine freestyle, you need coordination and that you can work on pre-dog. ROFL


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

agile.labs said:


> LOL, see now I will say mostly. You do a sport like agility or canine freestyle, you need coordination and that you can work on pre-dog. ROFL


Just what exactly does the dog learn for that work?


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2009)

agile.labs said:


> Now I appreciate this clarification being for hunt tests. And that is something I was hopefully going to try to learn about here.
> 
> In 2-3 years in agility, an abused rescued dog can be competing in National/Invitational level competitions(with the right training)
> 
> ...


I own a boarding and training facility, and am also very active in rescue -- primarily dogs that need intensive rehab. I have been doing it 14 years and live with, at my home, up to 60 dogs at a time that are here for everything from retriever training to pet obedience training, boarding, rehab (both behavior and physical), weight loss and whatever else. 

In one of your posts, not sure if it was here, you said you are just getting started in working with/training hunting retrievers. So you absolutely ARE naive. You have to admit that. I was naive when I was in your shoes.

Retriever training, you will see if you stick around long enough, is a much more complex and long-term discipline than ANY other type of dog training. There is no other type of dog training that takes years to finish a dog and have it consistent at the highest level of performance. Narcotic, sar and explosives dogs are trained in months (often 4-6). Most disciplines are trained within a year and can be done in a "backyard" or somewhere easily accessible. Retriever training is not that and I really don't think you are aware of that.

For me -- be careful what you assume -- people do not leave their dog and come back to a trained dog. Every owner is active in their dog's training here, regardless of which type of training is. All of my rescue dogs are put through our off-leash training program and new owners must come out and work with them for a period of time prior to placement.

You were talking about training dogs to HIGH levels. Rehabbing a pet so that it does not get "dumped" is comparing apples to oranges in this discussion. A dog doesn't need to do agility for its owner to be happy with it. Addressing the behavior and socialization issues are what creates a happy owner. If you do that through agility, great. But it doesn't require "taking a dog to a high level" (the original intent of this post) to prevent a dog from being dumped in a shelter.

Genetics don't make or break the dog, BUT THAT IS NOT what you were talking about. You were talking about taking dogs to the highest levels of performance, and for THAT, genetics ON AVERAGE absolutely does have a role.

It seems like you're just throwing things out there, related or unrelated, to display your knowledge and experience instead of sticking to your point. It's actually somewhat confusing. Your original question was whether ANY dog can be trained to do ANY thing as far as HIGH LEVELS of performance. and now it's turned into using agility to allow dogs to keep their homes?? This is why people are getting so frustrated with the converstaion -- but typical of us at RTF we keep digging in.

I sincerely feel that you lack the experience in LONG-TERM training for retriever performance events (hunt test OR field trial) to really understand what any of us are trying to tell you. Again, if you stick around long enough, you'll see.

And for retriever training, you typically could not take a dog that was breaking through windows and run out to the field and do a set of marks. The behavior needs to be addressed and the dog needs to be semi-controllable before you'd ever attempt retriever training. I have a rescue dog here, about to be adopted. She's on my website. She was attacking other dogs, biting our arms, lunging at anything that came near her crate and the dog that I've ever come closest to recommending euthanization. She is now fully trained off-leash and comes on the truck to do marks when I can fit her. I've also trained completely "feral" dogs that have been trapped... So please don't make assumptions about my experience. You could have given me the same respect of asking me as I asked you.

-K


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

If this thread isn't GDG then GDG doesn't exist.


----------



## labman13 (May 11, 2009)

duk4me said:


> If this thread isn't GDG then GDG doesn't exist.


Maybe we should all put on our training hats and not reinforce it anymore


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2009)

labman13 said:


> Maybe we should all put on our training hats and not reinforce it anymore


I think, as a group, we like beating dead horses...


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

I agree...and this will be my last post on this topic. This person may or may not be a troll, but obviously is either very young, very naive or both and thinks teaching a class or two of yard dogs to sit for a biscuit = instant expert on retriever training and genetics. We've all fattened this starving stray by providing hundreds of opportunities to feed her hunger for the last word. I suggest we leave the food dish empty and maybe it will leave or at least go feed elsewhere.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Julie R. said:


> I agree...and this will be my last post on this topic. This person may or may not be a troll, but obviously is either very young, very naive or both and thinks teaching a class or two of yard dogs to sit for a biscuit = instant expert on retriever training and genetics. We've all fattened this starving stray by providing hundreds of opportunities to feed her hunger for the last word. I suggest we leave the food dish empty and maybe it will leave or at least go feed elsewhere.


I agree. Thread locked.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I am glad I read the last page first.


----------

