AKC thinking of getting rid of the table?

[k9kreationz]

Interesting.

I was so upset when they changed it to positionless. Why? Because I worked by arse off training Koji to sit/down on command depending on what was needed. Right when I got it pretty solid, they changed it.

I felt the table (when it has a position) is a great feature. It shows that the dog has control over themselves to down/sit when told to do so. I saw a friend excel in AKC only to fail horribly in USDAA because her dog refused to down. Took a long time to fix that.

But then, I sit here and I laugh about the people who ragged on NADAC for not having a teeter or table....because every other venue does. And now, look where this is going. Right back to where NADAC is (including their rubberized equipment). Interesting.

Personally, I liked the table when it had a purpose (to show control). Nowadays, people just hover/block their dogs from getting off, so to me, that's stupid. It also gave me 5 seconds to catch my breath and lead-out if needed.

And yes, I heard last year that the judges were informed to start creating courses where lead-outs (or far ones) were not needed to speed things up. I still lead out since we needed to work on our stays, but I saw more and more courses with immediate turns at obstacle 2.

Table or not, I don't care. I still put Koji in a down, even if it takes him 5 seconds and I lose a few more to move out. I want him to to learn control and to me, that's what the table still represents.

I think I've done enough NADAC that the Regular (standard) and Touch-n-Go courses are "fast" that if all you want is to run fast, there you go. Those two things are great for that. I will say this, most people have a TON of issues with TNG because their dogs have stopped contacts and the entire course is fast to begin with. But if you have running contacts, I'm sure it'd be super fun for you because you'd never have to stop or slow down.

Just my opinion.

 

[k9kreationz]

For sport.

I think all dogs should have a CD before being awarded a MACH, because of a lack of control. So I'm OK with the table, in any position.

I have to admit. If this was true in AKC, I'd be screwed. I think this is why I sort of agree, because there are so many great agility dogs who have absolutely no control nor obedience in them (except on the course - and we're talking broken start-line stays and mostly broken stopped contacts, but are awesome otherwise). And look at Koji, Mr. Reactivity to all dogs and people. But he doesn't give a damn about them when he's running. He's focused on me and the run. Which is great and all. It shows he can do his job, which is agility. But outside of the ring, forget it.

So, do we want just great agility dogs with nothing else to show for? Or great all-around dogs? BTW, I know Koji isn't the only one like this. I see many other struggle too. So, I see both sides (damned Libra in me), but if I wanted the title, screw the CD cuz Koji would never get it. But if I want a dog that is great outside of agility too, bring on the CD.

 

[ortegah]

I agree. I just might fell differently! And I never once said the table was a 'must have'. Everyone has a different opinion. You don't like the table. There's nothing wrong with that. I do. There's nothing wrong with that either! It's just differences in opinion. Neither of us is wrong, nor are we right, so why argue?

I think you're being overly sensitive. This isn't arguing. At least not the way we do it around here I don't think any of us are upset in the least. We are all just discussing agility rule changes.

 

[ortegah]

I have to admit. If this was true in AKC, I'd be screwed. I think this is why I sort of agree, because there are so many great agility dogs who have absolutely no control nor obedience in them (except on the course - and we're talking broken start-line stays and mostly broken stopped contacts, but are awesome otherwise). And look at Koji, Mr. Reactivity to all dogs and people. But he doesn't give a damn about them when he's running. He's focused on me and the run. Which is great and all. It shows he can do his job, which is agility. But outside of the ring, forget it.

So, do we want just great agility dogs with nothing else to show for? Or great all-around dogs? BTW, I know Koji isn't the only one like this. I see many other struggle too. So, I see both sides (damned Libra in me), but if I wanted the title, screw the CD cuz Koji would never get it. But if I want a dog that is great outside of agility too, bring on the CD.

I think it would be a good idea if it were required that your dog at least have some basic obedience skills. I don't think that should mean having a CD, but a basic aptitude test would be smart. Kinda like the CGC but with some sits, downs and stays. I see some exhibitors(some even that are considered *pros*) that can't get their dog to do a stay at the start line. Something seems very wrong about that in my opinion. We don't have perfect stays but at least we have a stay. Of course that gets into a whole other topic of control and all...

 

[ClantyreSheltie]

I see some exhibitors(some even that are considered *pros*) that can't get their dog to do a stay at the start line. Something seems very wrong about that in my opinion.

I see them that can't train the dog to walk on a leash! They throw the dog on a harness and hope to not get dragged along behind it. Then they claim "oh, it's because he has so much drive". No, it's because you are a crappy trainer. Sorry, this makes me absolutely crazy.

Obedience should be the foundation of agility skills. Your dog should not be learning "stay" in a high drive, fun environment. They should *already* know it before you ever start training agility. They should already know "lie down". None of this should be new, and to expect them to learn it in a hyped-up environment is setting you up for issues later.

 

[Sharon]

Table

I see them that can't train the dog to walk on a leash! They throw the dog on a harness and hope to not get dragged along behind it. Then they claim "oh, it's because he has so much drive". No, it's because you are a crappy trainer. Sorry, this makes me. absolutely crazy.

Not every single dog is like that.Some yes but not all.

 

[Silaria]

Rachel, I agree with you that the dogs should have some level of obedience training. Not necessarily a CD but a CGC, RN, or something that shows they have some level of control. Having a well behaved dog doesn't decrease their drive. If a dog wants to work for you they'll work for you whether it's walking at heel or running an agility course.

Even when teaching agility classes it drives me nuts when people don't have any control over their dogs, lacking even a basic sit and/or down command. Sometimes the dog really could care less about what the handler is trying to have them do because there is no value in paying attention to their handler.

 

[Sharon]

AKC thinking on getting rid of the table

Most agility clubs that teach agility won't let dogs in until they have some basic obedience and one is a reliable sit stay and a recall.If the dogs dont have either they dont get to play till they do have them.

 

[Tabitha]

I think you're being overly sensitive. This isn't arguing. At least not the way we do it around here I don't think any of us are upset in the least. We are all just discussing agility rule changes.

When I try to end a disagreement with someone and they continue to say that I'm wrong... I'm no expert, but that sounds like arguing to me. I'm just trying to keep the peace. I made that post hoping it would put an end to the disagreements. And I hope they don't start up again. My original post on this thread was voicing my opinion. HopeShelties decided to question me and I answered her questions the best I could. But she continued to say I'm wrong. All I did was try to end the discussion between us. When she pursued, I ignored. And I will do the same thing again. If I am pursued and called wrong and I think a argument might start up I am ignoring you. Plane and simple. I will gladly have more friendly conversations, but nothing heated. One table is not worth all this.

Definition of ARGUE
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue

 

[ortegah]

When I try to end a disagreement with someone and they continue to say that I'm wrong... I'm no expert, but that sounds like arguing to me. I'm just trying to keep the peace. I made that post hoping it would put an end to the disagreements. And I hope they don't start up again. My original post on this thread was voicing my opinion. HopeShelties decided to question me and I answered her questions the best I could. But she continued to say I'm wrong. All I did was try to end the discussion between us. When she pursued, I ignored. And I will do the same thing again. If I am pursued and called wrong and I think a argument might start up I am ignoring you. Plane and simple. I will gladly have more friendly conversations, but nothing heated. One table is not worth all this.

Definition of ARGUE
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue

Uh...ok