A quick question for all the professional LAB trainers!!
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2002 5:17 pm
Chance, how can you add to the finality of something that is final? (thats like making something REAL DEAD)... Sit means sit. Stay can only add to that if sit doesn't really mean sit, it only kinda means sit. Stay can only errode the finality of sit. You, sit. Dog thinks, ok Ill sit, I guess. You sit, stay. Dog, ok now he means it. Same reason you shouldn't beg/nag a dog... sit, sit, SIT, sit fido, sit boy, sit, SIT YOU PIECE OF CRAP, (dog says, ok, 14th sit hes serious, maybe he'll throw the dreaded STAY after it...). bwhahaha.
Didn't say it wouldnt work, obviouisly it does. Just said it doesn't make sense, and can actually errode what does make sense. And just because some folks train that way, doesn't make it make sense, or right. If same result can be achieved easier by clearing it in dogs mind, why would you make it more difficult or errode what your doing?
And for those that don't understand hunt tests (heard from several in this thread thinking it was bout show dogs and/or competetion), you really ought to check one out. Your statements about simply wanting a dog as a hunting companion are EXACTLY the mindset of hunt tests. Its all about hunting dogs, and testing them in hunting situations. Field trials are all together different, and while they do defiently serve a purpose, they aren't about developing hunting companions (not to say some of those dogs aren't fantastic hunters, its simply not the intent of the game). HT are non competetive, you either pass or fail a test. They test skills needed by dogs to hunt, from the most basic tie up a dog, shoot a duck, and he brings it almost all the way back dog, to the skilled dog capable of triple & quad marked falls, and muliple blind retrieves. A hunt test dog and the training required for them prepares a dog for the blind better than anything short of blind time, and we all know thats way too short. A dog that hunts 2 months a year compared to a dog that hunts 12 months doesn't have the chance to be all he can be. Not to mention tests provide a catalst for people to train more, in more vaired situtions, with a better ideal of the end result. Sometimes tests actually get people to teach their dogs things they NEVER would have got around too, and they have a better, more complete dog as a result (just got back from a texas upland hunt, where we took 7 duck dogs on a chucker hunt... and I had never SEEN a chucker... But i got a lil black dog now i'd take bird hunting ANYWHERE, as a result of running an upland test). Anyone who turns their back on what they don't know, and condem it without understanding it, is shorting theirself. Yes, perhaps its not for you. But if you haven't seen one, you don't know that. If anyone that's followed this thread this far can honestly tell me how dogs, ducks, and guns is bad, I'll buy you a beer. My season never ends, for me or my dog. travis
Didn't say it wouldnt work, obviouisly it does. Just said it doesn't make sense, and can actually errode what does make sense. And just because some folks train that way, doesn't make it make sense, or right. If same result can be achieved easier by clearing it in dogs mind, why would you make it more difficult or errode what your doing?
And for those that don't understand hunt tests (heard from several in this thread thinking it was bout show dogs and/or competetion), you really ought to check one out. Your statements about simply wanting a dog as a hunting companion are EXACTLY the mindset of hunt tests. Its all about hunting dogs, and testing them in hunting situations. Field trials are all together different, and while they do defiently serve a purpose, they aren't about developing hunting companions (not to say some of those dogs aren't fantastic hunters, its simply not the intent of the game). HT are non competetive, you either pass or fail a test. They test skills needed by dogs to hunt, from the most basic tie up a dog, shoot a duck, and he brings it almost all the way back dog, to the skilled dog capable of triple & quad marked falls, and muliple blind retrieves. A hunt test dog and the training required for them prepares a dog for the blind better than anything short of blind time, and we all know thats way too short. A dog that hunts 2 months a year compared to a dog that hunts 12 months doesn't have the chance to be all he can be. Not to mention tests provide a catalst for people to train more, in more vaired situtions, with a better ideal of the end result. Sometimes tests actually get people to teach their dogs things they NEVER would have got around too, and they have a better, more complete dog as a result (just got back from a texas upland hunt, where we took 7 duck dogs on a chucker hunt... and I had never SEEN a chucker... But i got a lil black dog now i'd take bird hunting ANYWHERE, as a result of running an upland test). Anyone who turns their back on what they don't know, and condem it without understanding it, is shorting theirself. Yes, perhaps its not for you. But if you haven't seen one, you don't know that. If anyone that's followed this thread this far can honestly tell me how dogs, ducks, and guns is bad, I'll buy you a beer. My season never ends, for me or my dog. travis