How many times does THIS happen? - Page 2

Agree; the dogs, however wonderful specimens they are, don't give a
toss for podiums, silverware & rosettes; so long as they get to have
fun with the handler, in whatever shape that fun comes.
From the owners point of view, surely better to try their hand at getting
their dog to work or show, and learn with them; and surely its also better
to do their learning on a good dog with half a chance of qualifying than
on an also-ran substandard no-hoper ???
Anyone who tries to put them off on the basis that they aren't skilled
enough for a dog of that worth is missing the point.

Love what you have to say there Hundmutter.

You know when people look at the dogs and think 'dang, I wish I could've got better...?' (apparently there are people out there that do that...). Anyway, I often feel my dog is looking at me and thinks that! 

I definitely lucked out with my girl - I got her as an addition to the family with the hopes of maybe showing her and doing some trials. As it turns out though, she really has surpassed my expectations and I do feel that I let her down in terms of my skill (or lack thereof) as a handler. However, what we do get done, we do with a lot of love and lot of enthusiasm. And we're together - at the risk of sounding cheesy, that's what is important for me.

While I agree that titles, ribbons and trophies don't matter to the dog, I absolutely disagree that a dog is just as happy being yard art as it is being actively engaged in training with its owner.

I have an e-friend who owns a very talented horse. She became friends with a top-notch dressage rider, who began working with the horse. They did very, very well together, and began to rack up the trophies and ribbons. The horse is a paint, which is very unusual for a dressage horse, and his owner often overheard nasty comments about her 'cow pony'. Then she would have the last laugh when he beat their expensive warm bloods and thoroughbreds.

After awhile, the horse began having problems with lameness. They rested him up, and he seemed fine to his owner, but the rider insisted something was still wrong. Expensive tests and examinations by the vet were not able to pinpoint the problem.

Finally, the owner just decided to retire him from competition. He's doing just fine as a pet and a pasture horse, and has another horse for company. He gets cared for by his owner, and ridden when she has time. I'm sure he's perfectly happy. He's also perfectly sound!

Succeeding in top-level dressage takes a level of dedication that most riders just don't have. This horse's rider did, but along with it was an obsessiveness that saw problems with the horse when his owner (who's had him since he was a weanling) didn't. I'm sure he's better off without her. The animal's welfare needs to come before the owner's or rider's ambitions. Unfortunately, it sometimes doesn't, and this has ruined many good horses [and dogs!]

Jezasmom 

What I hear in most of these posts is people saying that the accumulation of titles, etc. doesn't matter to the dog, but the activity levels involved in the events is GREAT for an active breed, so long as they are physically able.

 If I didn't want to make the effort to train a dog in some venue, I wouldn't have a GSD.

Sunsilver, I have respect for the rider of the dressage horse for pointing out the horse had problems even if the owner couldn't see it, espeially as the team were apparently doing so well. Nice tohear the owner retired him sohe can have a happy life and only do things that do not make him uncomfortable.

@Keith - agreed. But just where does Kinalog say his friend's dog
does nothing but decorate yard and couch ?

I wasn't responding to Kinalog.

I just want to be clear on one thing; I was not in any way criticizing people who train their dogs for any sort of competition.

Anyway, here are some more details to the story. It happened at a regional dog event, and the critic was a dog breeder that had several of his own dogs entered. The dog in question placed first in his age class.

The breeder praised the dog and the bond that the owner had with him. He also said he preferred this dog to his littermate that was held back by the original breeder. Then he told the newbie owner that it was unfair for the dog to remain in his present home with an inexperienced handler. He suggested that if the dog was given to him, he would promise to make him shine in the show ring, and in return he might give the dog owner a puppy.

More info about the dog and his potential value as a give-away or trade: he is a German import with a nice pedigree that the guy got when he was a puppy, and he did all the work for the following: certified hips and elbows a1, normal, cert DM free, DNA cert, ZW 73, placed 1st several times, and almost ready to pass the BH - owner trained.)

So this dog is not quite a couch potato although no high level competitor.

I was thinking that the breeder who wanted the dog did not really think the dog was that great but possibly worth the effort of re-homing for a clean profit. In return he would get rid of an older puppy he might be having trouble placing.

Anyway, the owner of the dog in question has no intention of just handing over his dog, and he was offended by both the emotional manipulation (your dog would be better off with me AND you are a lousy owner if you keep him) and the suggestion that a trade for some unseen puppy is fair - never mind the acknowledgment that the owner has a close bond with his dog - but sucks to that, too!

Maybe it is just me, but is this not kind of insulting, and also creepy and unscrupulous? And if you knew this about a breeder, would it make you feel any differently about doing business with him? Or, if you were given the same opportunity, would you be willing to take advantage of a newb as well?