
This is a placeholder text
Group text

by susie on 11 October 2015 - 18:10
Thank you, Allan, much better words than mine.
"Actually I think our lives would be hugely the poorer if there were no entertainers, or artists; but that would perhaps be a more relevant comparison to dogs worked in Sports or other competitions, as opposed to S&R or LE work ..."
Hundmutter, even entertainers and artists have to pay taxes in the real world. Why? Because they are working... Please, don´t start to argue about unpaid hobbies now. You can´t compare humans to dogs, humans are more or less free in their choice, dogs are not.
As soon as a dog works for me ( doing something for me on a regular, complex basis, not out of congenital drives, but out of training ) it´s a working dog.

by Hundmutter on 11 October 2015 - 21:10
I am not arguing that there is no "work" involved by the human or the
dog in Hundsport ... but I do think we should make more accurate
comparisons.
by vk4gsd on 11 October 2015 - 22:10

by susie on 11 October 2015 - 22:10
More and more unknowns. ..
by bebo on 11 October 2015 - 23:10
... but I do think we should make more accurate comparison
if there is one take-away from this and many previous threads: you can't. when opinions range from 'work is if my dog works for me' to 'only lifesaving endeavors are considered work, the futility of unification is rather apparent. of course, the more pertinent question might be why a definition of "work" is even required.
instead, it might be more useful to view the issue from the perspective of whether a dog is able to perform a certain set of utility functions. who cares if the dog, or handler, gets paid for it or whether anybody considers it "work." why not specify a few of these utility functions and design a somewhat abstract set of tests to establish a common baseline to assess a dog's ability to perform said utility functions as well as being able to predict and extrapolate to other utility functions said dog should be able to perform if the need arises. heck, there's a bat crap crazy idea: why not use tests that are already established and readily available on an international basis, like, say, the bh, ipo, zvv, fh, or rh tests.
by vk4gsd on 11 October 2015 - 23:10
But yeah, participation in formal sport requires too much dedication, time, money for most regular people these days.....but for commercial breeders.
by joanro on 11 October 2015 - 23:10
She asked for definition. She did not ask if ipo is the be all end all for evaluating a dog's character.
I still maintain the the difference between the two is; one serves humanity while the other serves human ego.
by bebo on 11 October 2015 - 23:10
... participation in formal sport requires too much dedication, time, money
i think there is a bit of a disconnect. 'regular people', and their dogs, don't have to go through these tests, unless they choose to, as the stock producing there dogs has. they just can go on and do what they want to do with their dogs. the fundamental point of the tests is to ascertain that breeding stock is capable and (hopefully) produces capable offspring. why go trough the zvv or ipo deal if your dog's purpose is to search some 100 plus containers, six days a week, at the port or guide a blind person? just because one can make a competition out of these tests doesn't mean one has to and i think the good breeders know that.
by vk4gsd on 11 October 2015 - 23:10
Stake out test comes to mind and hunting for a ball.
by joanro on 12 October 2015 - 00:10
Working dogs; "Jobs performed by dogs
A Turnspit Dog at work in a kitchen.
A German Shepherd detection dog at work
Although most modern dogs are kept as pets, there are still a tremendous number of ways in which dogs can and do assist humans, and more uses are found for them every year. The following list provides an idea of the versatility of dogs: "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_dog#Jobs_performed_by_dogs
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top