This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Blitzen on 08 May 2013 - 09:05
Boy, some of you guys could find something to argue about if reading the phone book. Why don't you start another thread - why NOT title a dog?
by fozzie on 08 May 2013 - 09:05
Most people who argue that you don't need titles on a dog either haven't got a dog that is good enough to be titled or they haven't got the time or skill to title it.
For those people its easier just to belittle everyone who can and does work tremendously hard nurturing and testing their dogs abilities under an impartial and knowledgeable judge who will tell you truthfully if its good or not good.
For those people its easier just to belittle everyone who can and does work tremendously hard nurturing and testing their dogs abilities under an impartial and knowledgeable judge who will tell you truthfully if its good or not good.
by joanro on 08 May 2013 - 11:05
Dislike on the comment "very touching", has nothing to do with the reason to title. It just reflects disdain for love of life expressed in sentimental post Blitzen put up.
by joanro on 08 May 2013 - 12:05
Until the chickensheezit tells everyone why they 'dislike', anybody's 'jump to conclusion' is as good as the other.
by Abby Normal on 08 May 2013 - 12:05
Wish I'd written it too, but it's not attributed, it's anonymous...... but expresses it all for me.
by Micaho on 09 May 2013 - 18:05
Blitzen,
I think that the "Like"/"Dislike" buttons contribute to the arguments. People can hide behind their anonymity while others "jump to conclusions" about their reasons.
Joanro,
Anyone who would dislike the "Touching" comment probably also hates Hallmark cards.
Fozzi,
Thank goodness for those whose dogs "aren't good enough" or who "haven't got the time or skills to title their dogs," there are lots of other ways to spend quality, productive time together.
I think that the "Like"/"Dislike" buttons contribute to the arguments. People can hide behind their anonymity while others "jump to conclusions" about their reasons.
Joanro,
Anyone who would dislike the "Touching" comment probably also hates Hallmark cards.
Fozzi,
Thank goodness for those whose dogs "aren't good enough" or who "haven't got the time or skills to title their dogs," there are lots of other ways to spend quality, productive time together.
by joanro on 09 May 2013 - 19:05
Micaho, you're most likely correct, but they are gutless regardless.
If the only way to validate the quality or value of a dog is through titling, then the whole world needs to start all over.
If the only way to validate the quality or value of a dog is through titling, then the whole world needs to start all over.
by Blitzen on 09 May 2013 - 21:05
I don't even look at likes and dislikes, they mean nothing.
by Abby Normal on 10 May 2013 - 06:05
Joanro
See I read it differently. I read it as an alternative reason for titling a dog...a more loving reason if you like. Rather than just the potential for breeding/sales etc that can often accompany the connotation of titling a dog. Some breeders send a dog away for 'titling' just to give them value for breeding. This put a more 'personal' aspect to 'titling' the way I read it. It didn't have to be important titles, it might only be a little local competition, or a CGC but it reflected the pride in doing/achieving something with your dog. I also didn't read it that the only dogs that were validated as being loved were those that were 'titled'. I think it goes without saying that untitled dogs are loved equally as those that are.
Funny how we all put different interpretations onto things. Most people in the world don't title their dogs, but they are soundly loved.
See I read it differently. I read it as an alternative reason for titling a dog...a more loving reason if you like. Rather than just the potential for breeding/sales etc that can often accompany the connotation of titling a dog. Some breeders send a dog away for 'titling' just to give them value for breeding. This put a more 'personal' aspect to 'titling' the way I read it. It didn't have to be important titles, it might only be a little local competition, or a CGC but it reflected the pride in doing/achieving something with your dog. I also didn't read it that the only dogs that were validated as being loved were those that were 'titled'. I think it goes without saying that untitled dogs are loved equally as those that are.
Funny how we all put different interpretations onto things. Most people in the world don't title their dogs, but they are soundly loved.
by fozzie on 10 May 2013 - 07:05
Micaho - You're right, what I originally said was wrong. What I meant to say was 'those who go out of their way to portray titling as a bad thing' usually haven't got a good enough dog or can't do it themselves.
I'm totally fine with people just having dogs and enjoying them without having to title. I'm sure most of those people who live that way would look at dog sport and think 'oh thats cool but its not for me' which is fine. Its when people, and the following wording is important, go out of their way, to criticise the whole concept of titling dogs is unfair as, the way I see it, the system of qualifying dogs on the whole is undoubtedly a force for good when it is exercised as intended.
Sure there are people who corrupt the system, but thats not an excuse for criticising the system as inherently bad, that just demonstrates something that we all already know i.e. some people are bad and will corrupt good things regardless of what that thing is.
The original post is beautifully written and reflects the best and most ideal concepts behind what many hard working dog loving people do to improve their respective breeds. I am totally against bad practices wherever they may be and am just as much against using dogs as tools or trophies as anyone, I will debate with people who criticise something they might not entirely understand (or what I find is more likely the case as stated in my original comment, most often can't do themselves resulting in the ever popular knee jerk anti-titling internet rants), and absolutely celebrate positive good natured dog lovers wherever they are and whatever they choose to do with their dogs, especially if they put in the ammount of work it takes to title a dog (as long as its good for the dog and the breed)!
I'm totally fine with people just having dogs and enjoying them without having to title. I'm sure most of those people who live that way would look at dog sport and think 'oh thats cool but its not for me' which is fine. Its when people, and the following wording is important, go out of their way, to criticise the whole concept of titling dogs is unfair as, the way I see it, the system of qualifying dogs on the whole is undoubtedly a force for good when it is exercised as intended.
Sure there are people who corrupt the system, but thats not an excuse for criticising the system as inherently bad, that just demonstrates something that we all already know i.e. some people are bad and will corrupt good things regardless of what that thing is.
The original post is beautifully written and reflects the best and most ideal concepts behind what many hard working dog loving people do to improve their respective breeds. I am totally against bad practices wherever they may be and am just as much against using dogs as tools or trophies as anyone, I will debate with people who criticise something they might not entirely understand (or what I find is more likely the case as stated in my original comment, most often can't do themselves resulting in the ever popular knee jerk anti-titling internet rants), and absolutely celebrate positive good natured dog lovers wherever they are and whatever they choose to do with their dogs, especially if they put in the ammount of work it takes to title a dog (as long as its good for the dog and the breed)!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top