A quietly common notion

[MooseGooser]

You work at putting a dog through the yard and basics.

You work very hard at making sure what you taught is solid.

Should you really consider "going back" or "reviewing',, but instead, making sure you move on to transition and apply what the dog has learned, keeping the standard high?

I get told all the time ,I miss opportunities to handel, work on sit, keeping my standard high..
Its all about applying what you have taught the dog to the field work..
Do you really TRAIN at a Training day?

JMHO..

P.S.

I am very bad at the above.. and working on my 1000 blinds.

Gooser

[gdgnyc]

Obedience is an ongoing project. Every issue that arises will get addressed on the spot, whether it's in the house, on a walk, or in the field. That's for general obedience. How else can you produce a reliable dog? Competition obedience is worked on 5 times a week.

[copterdoc]

This is one of those things that persistently comes up quietly...almost casually, but all too often. Someone will suggest or state something like "I like to re-visit obedience once a month", or "I go back to force fetch every month or two...",

I haven't heard that said very often.

"Before each training session we do some obedience work"

I've heard that.

....On discussion boards this sort of comment is pretty common, but is rarely discussed at any length. What are your thoughts on such notions?

Certain things do need to occasionally be revisited. Like lining drills, no-no drills, tune-ups, and swim by.

However, there are other things that should be maintained throughout all of a dog's training and working. So, they shouldn't require "revisiting".
If they do, either you aren't being consistent in maintaining your standards, or you didn't adequately establish the standard to begin with.

Could be either one.
But, it tells you that something isn't "right".

[EdA]

It would be interesting to know how many successful field trial trainers both amateur and professional do drills and go back to basic training as a matter of course with every dog. I cannot say it has never happened here but if so it was rare and related to some specific issue with a specific dog that was not resolved in the field. I understand why people who mostly train alone with limited available hours do this but competitive field trial dogs almost never see any element of basic training after they are successfully doing multiple marks and complicated cold blinds.

[Evan]

Should you really consider "going back" or "reviewing',, but instead, making sure you move on to transition and apply what the dog has learned, keeping the standard high?

Ah, there it is! And EdA basically stated how it goes for competition dogs trained by knowledgeable experienced FT trainers, which are an excellent model for HT and gundog trainers. "Keeping a high standard"; sounds like MAINTENANCE to me. And that is where the subject usually lands when it comes up in discussion. It gets a mention on forums, in PM's and in emails, and I know what the thinking is.

Think about it; it's all obedience, isn't it? How much of this stuff does the dog dream up? We train our dogs to be obedient in a variety of ways. We do the best job we know how to do, but somehow come to believe it will just stay that way. It doesn't. Then some folks try to fend off the digression of standards by re-hashing fundamental obedience, and other essential tasks, when we should be maintaining them each time we train. If a specific area is falling into disrepair, our training should be designed to allow us to work on it...in the field.

I get told all the time ,I miss opportunities to handle, work on sit, keeping my standard high..
Its all about applying what you have taught the dog to the field work..
Do you really TRAIN at a Training day?

JMHO..

Gooser

Yup! I don't think those things need to be gone back to, so much as they need to be kept alive; maintenance.

Evan

[Chris Atkinson]

The notion of maintaining a standard is a fairly regularly discussed concept here on RTF and has been for years.

Creeping, vocalizing, breaking, loopy sits, crooked sits, hovering or butt-lifting.... All part of poor maintenance of a standard, it seems to me.

Chris

[walt8@cox.net]

The notion of maintaining a standard is a fairly regularly discussed concept here on RTF and has been for years.

Creeping, vocalizing, breaking, loopy sits, crooked sits, hovering or butt-lifting.... All part of poor maintenance of a standard, it seems to me.

Chris

Isn't it possible some of the above are the result of a compromise and not poor maintenance? Over the past few years I've seen dogs with problems like these (not all at once) go home with blue ribbons in the Open and the Amateur.
Walt

[MooseGooser]

Isn't it possible some of the above are the result of a compromise and not poor maintenance? Over the past few years I've seen dogs with problems like these (not all at once) go home with blue ribbons in the Open and the Amateur.
Walt

I thought the discussion was about training procedures,,, going back to previous steps to correct problems,, ect,, not what you do to win or Pass an event.

Even though you might go home with a ribbon,, do you accept a problem early, because you think Judges will turn a blind eye,, or do you work at correcting the problem,, and not encouraging it to get worse? (GUILTY AS CHARGED)

What have so many here said about expecting only half of your obedience and control at a Trial or test, compared to what you see during training??

Sumpin like that as I remember.

Gooser

[walt8@cox.net]

I thought the discussion was about training procedures,,, going back to previous steps to correct problems,, ect,, not what you do to win or Pass an event.

Even though you might go home with a ribbon,, do you accept a problem early, because you think Judges will turn a blind eye,, or do you work at correcting the problem,, and not encouraging it to get worse? (GUILTY AS CHARGED)

What have so many here said about expecting only half of your obedience and control at a Trial or test, compared to what you see during training??

Sumpin like that as I remember.

Gooser

Didn't mean to derail the thread. My post was a response to Chris's, about what he felt was poor maintenance of standards.
I'm not talking about encouraging young dogs to misbehave in training. My comment concerns some all age dogs that are given some latitude with a problem, instead of pushing to gain a perfect standard. Like lifting their behind up a bit, or moving their front legs, or giving a little voice. Some of these dogs you'd have to practically kill to get a perfect standard.
Walt

[copterdoc]

There's some stuff that you can't continually maintain, if you hunt your dog.
You will have to do tune-up drills in the spring, in order to get the dog back to where it was at the beginning of fall.

The reason is simple.
Hunting isn't a designed training set-up. It is random, chaotic, and without specific design.

The dog is going to have to be allowed to go "self employed" on blinds, cheat water and cover, and just plain forget a lot of the concepts that were pounded into it's head in the off season.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to maintain the standards that we have established, when we are able.
But, the fact remains that a lot of hunting, is "untraining".