Change to blog title

I changed the title of this blog today to more aptly describe the purpose of the blog, which is a proposal to change the structure of obedience to incorporate popular elements of other dog sports. The old title (The Moving Stand) was not one that I especially liked, it wasn't very descriptive, and I stumbled across another blog called Moving Stand.

Tri-Obedience: A Proposal for changing the structure of Obedience

For a long time, my ideas for changes in obedience focused around tweaks of this and that.  Things like modification of the group stays to make them less dangerous or less onerous; or adding new elements to the heeling patterns.  However, the more I thought about the reasons why obedience is failing to attract and retain participants, the more convinced I became that the big problem is not the individual exercises as much as the basic structure.  Obedience, in my ever so humble opinion, needs to adopt some of the structural elements that have made agility so popular.  My radical proposal is what I would call Triple-Path Obedience, or Tri-O for short. 

The major defining feature of Tri-O would be separating the exercises into categories that could be pursued for titles independently.  Other important elements would be 1) the selection of exercises from a pool of potential exercises (similar to Rally, but with a much smaller pool of exercises at each level); 2) incorporating techniques to increase the number of dogs/hour that could be judged, 3) increasing the number of class levels so that the transition between levels is more gradual, and 4) making the requirements for a championship more dependent on the team meeting a standard than defeating other teams.  In more detail, the basic elements of Tri-O would be

·         Splitting the exercises into 3 categories with separate paths to titles. The multi-path structure would be analogous to the separate paths through Jumpers and Standard in agility.  As I envision it, the separate obedience paths would be:

o    1) handling/heeling,

o   2) retrieve and scent work

o   3) jumps and sends. 

·         Independent pursuit of separate paths for titles.  Each obedience path could be pursued completely independently of one another, just as one can pursue Jumpers, Standard, FAST, and T2B titles independently in agility.  However,  just as a MACH requires points and double Qs from Jumpers and Standard, a championship in Tri-O (a Tri-OTCH) would require accumulation of points in all separate obedience paths plus a specified number of triple Qs.

·         Increasing the number of levels to at least 5.  I’m not sure why AKC has gotten stuck on 3 levels in everything.  Increasing the number of levels in obedience would have two advantages: the increase in difficulty between levels could be more gradual and, conversely, new, harder exercises could be added at the highest levels.  The addition of the recent optional titling classes in obedience was a tacit admission that the transitions between the traditional obedience titles are too steep.

·         Having a pool of exercises at each level.  At each level, a run would consist of only 4 exercises from a pool of 6 to 8 exercises at that level.  There would be 2 mandatory exercises that would always be included, plus a random choice of 2 exercises from the remaining 4 to 6 potential exercises. The exercises could be done in any order the judge chose, but, when possible, one exercise would end at the location where the next began, to save time.  Switching things up would add a little element of chance and keep the runs from always feeling so depressingly patterned.  Each class would have a total of 100 potential points.  Distribution of points could either be 25 points per exercise or the mandatory exercises might count for 30 points each (60 total) and the two “judge’s choice” exercises for 20 apiece (40 total).  I think the 60/40 structure for mandatory/optional would make more sense.

·         Dramatically decrease the run time per dog.  Incorporate practices that would keep each run to a maximum of about 2 minutes at the lower levels to a maximum of about 5 minutes at the highest level.  For example, the dog and handler next in line might be required to wait their turn in a holding area next to the ring entrance.  As the team ahead was leaving the ring, a steward would lead the incoming team to the start area.  Another example of a time-consuming activity in obedience is having the judge adding the scores for a team. Agility judges do not spend time between runs adding scores.  Why do obedience judges do that?  The judge could hand the score sheet to the table steward, who would do the math, while the judge could go directly to the team already positioned at the start by the steward.

·         Reduce or eliminate run-offs.  As another time-saving device, there would be no run-offs for placements except for first place at each level.  Thus, there could be placement ties below first place.  Places would be determined as in golf.  So, for example, if dogs had scores of 97, 97, 95, 95, 94, there would be a run-off for first place between the dogs with 97.  The loser would get 2^nd place and the dogs with scores of 95 would tie for third place.  The dog with 94 would be in 5^th place and would not get a placement, but would Q.  Scores would be posted as soon as the table steward added the points, so teams would know in advance whether they would be in a runoff. 

·         Modeling Tri-OTCH after the MACH system.  Once a dog was competing in Level 5 of all three paths, the dog would earn points towards a Tri-O Championship (Tri-OTCh).  Analogous to a MACH in agility, a Tri-OTCH would require a certain number of triple Qs at Level 5, plus points earned.  Points would be based on a combination of the dog’s score and the number of dogs defeated.  I considered basing points only on a dog’s score (just as agility bases points earned on time alone), but, in this respect, I think obedience is very different from agility.  In agility, Standard Course Time is more or less objective (ignoring some differences in the way judges wheel the course).  If points toward a Tri-OTCH were based on score alone, the easy-grading judges might suddenly find themselves in great demand.  However, if Tri-OTCH points were based on both score AND number of dogs defeated, all dogs with a qualifying score defeating other dogs would earn points, no matter how tough the scoring.  I would also give points to all qualifying dogs that defeated another dogs, instead of only to dogs placing in 1^st through 4^th.   Limiting points only to dogs in the ribbons penalizes good dogs entered in big shows in regions where the “big gun” competition is intense.

I will elaborate on the different aspects of my proposed Tri-Obedience in subsequent posts.

The State of Obedience, Part 2: The Problems

Finally getting back to my commentary on the State of Obedience.

To recap Part One, I think obedience has problems in both attracting newcomers and retention of participants. Attracting newcomers (i.e., moaning about low Novice A entries) generates the most gnashing of teeth, but in my ever so humble opinion, retention is a bigger problem. Obedience needs to keep more of the newcomers that try it and keep more of the old-timers from drifting away.

What are the factors that make obedience less attractive than other dog activities, especially agility?

Not exciting to watch.

I wouldn’t say obedience is “boring” (oh, heck, maybe I would), but think about it: How often do you see non-obedience passers-by stop to watch “a few minutes” and find themselves still watching an hour later? At our agility trial, which is held in a park, there is always a substantial ringside contingent of captivated spectators who have never seen an agility trial before. Most tellingly, when was the last time you saw a crowd of obedience people entranced by an obedience trial?

Not exciting to do.

The exercises in obedience never vary. Oh, sure, the Open B and Utility B classes switch up the order, but that’s it. In agility, the courses are always different. In hunt trials, the terrain differs and the set-ups differ. Even the birds differ with each trial.

Bad experiences are often prolonged unnecessarily.

Obedience has the counter-productive tradition of not allowing participants to excuse themselves when things are clearly going badly. If a Novice competitor has to drag their dog around the ring during the on-leash heeling, why can’t they excuse themselves before the more humiliating experience of off-leash heeling? If a dog fails during the solo exercises in Novice or Open, why the expectation that the team must hang around for sits and downs? I had a training partner when I first started in obedience. She entered Novice twice, during which her dog showed interest in many things, none of them involving heeling. My friend felt so humiliated, she vowed “Never again.” And she meant it. I wonder, if she had had the option of leaving earlier during her runs, instead of being forced to continue long after it was clear things weren’t going well, would she have possibly been more likely to keep trying?

The transition between levels is too steep.

In agility, there are essentially no new obstacles introduced between any of the levels. The only obstacle change is that the weaves are 6 poles in Novice and 12 poles in the other two classes. The courses become more complex, the time requirements get tighter, and fewer mistakes are allowed. There is a relatively smooth progression of difficulty.

In retriever hunt trials, there are new challenges at each level, but they build on the prior level. The first level requires single retrieves across land and water. In the second level, the dog must do doubles (two birds thrown, requiring the dog retrieve one right after it’s dropped and remember the drop location for the second). The retrieve distances become longer at the second level and the dog will need to do a short, blind retrieve (a retrieve in which he doesn’t see the bird drop and must follow directions from the handler). At the third level, the dog must do triples on land and water and longer blind retrieves. As in agility, the handler teams are held to stricter standards at each level.

In contrast, in obedience, the leap beyond levels is huge. Multiple, completely new, exercises are introduced at each level. Between Novice and Open, the heeling becomes more demanding (figure 8 is off-leash), but the rest of the exercises are virtually new. You could argue that the out-of-sight stays in Open build on the Novice stays, but I think the leap in length of stay combined with the handler leaving the dog alone makes the out-of-sights almost a different exercise. There is no handling from any distance in Novice to make the progression to a Drop on Recall smoother. There are no jumps in Novice and no retrieves. The recipient of a shiny, new CD can bask briefly in the success…until the handler who hasn’t started training beyond Novice realizes that the next level will require another year or so of training.

Obedience veterans jokingly refer to Utility as Futility, but the statistics tell another story. About 44% of dogs that get a CDX will go on to get a UD. Only about a third of the dogs that complete a Novice title will go on to complete an Open title. In other words, two-thirds of handlers that complete a CD are trying and failing at Open or they never try because the task seems too hard.

In my opinion, this lack of retention of participants between Novice and Open is the single biggest issue in obedience.

I believe that the vast majority of newcomers hit the wall of challenges in Open, give up, and never come back. Some give up because their dog cannot do the Open jumps. Some cannot get beyond the challenge of teaching a retrieve. Some lose a Q so many times during the out-of-sights, they just can’t face the prospect of having another success yanked away because their dog went down on a sit with a few seconds to go. Some small dog owners are afraid to leave their little dogs alone with a group of big dogs of unknown temperament.

The gulf between Open and Utility is so wide, it’s a mystery why Open is a prerequisite to Utility. I am one of those participants that would happily give up on Open, with its out-of-sight sits, to train for Utility. But if you can’t get past Open, you can’t go into Utility. In agility or hunt training, because of the more natural progression of increasing difficulty, if you can’t pass at a lower level, you sure won’t be able to pass at a higher level. Yet, in obedience, I suspect there are many dogs that would have an easier time in Utility than in Open.

The Reward System is Too Heavily Skewed towards the Great Teams

I think a huge factor in the popularity of agility is that a team’s pursuit of a MACH (Master Agility Championship) depends only on the team and not who they are competing against in a particular trial. The teams are being measured against a standard, not one another. If another team makes a better score, it takes nothing away from your own points.

The situation is similar In hunt tests, there are three title levels (Junior-JH, Senior-SH, and Masters-MH). If a dog has ten Masters passes in a year, it gets invited to the Masters National, and if it passes the 4 or 5 tough series in the Masters National, it gets the MNH title. The dogs are judged against a standard, and not against one another. In fact, in hunt tests, there aren’t even any placements of any kind at any level. All teams either pass or fail.

In contrast, in obedience, an OTCh requires you beat other dogs, and the more dogs you beat, the better. The OTCh is modeled more on the breed ring chanmpionships and field trial championships. Yet, even in the breed ring, dogs don’t vie against dogs that already have their championship. Even in field trials (the competitive version of hunt tests), the professional handlers are treated separately from the amateurs and less experienced dogs can start in classes with less experienced dogs.

I am no where near the rarified OTCh level. Still, I hear the grumbles and discouragement of people with very good, even great dogs, that struggle to make any points against the very best teams that go to every trial looking to pick up points. Unlike the MACH or MNH quest, the OTCh struggle works against comradery. It feels a lot better to cheer on a fellow MACH because those MACH points didn’t come at the expense of one’s own MACH points. Obedience is such a tiny world these days, that the last thing it needs is a system that drives wedges between competitors.

The OTCh “compensation prizes” are the UDX and OM. Both have their problems. Getting a UDX requires passing both Open and Utility. Contrast that with agility, where the “X”s (MXJ, MX) can accumulate with a pass of EITHER jumpers or standard. They do not depend on one another, so a handler can fail one event early in the day and still feel like there is a purpose to running in the other event later (unless their only goal is double Q’s for a MACH). The OM title is meant to recognize dogs that make high scores, but can’t get an OTCh because of the local high level of competition. I think, to many handlers, it’s a painful reminder that they might have been able to get an OTCh if they competed in a different area of the country.

Next installment: What I would do to address the problems of Obedience.

The State of Obedience

Recently, Willard Bailey, in his blog “Willard Unleashed” (http://www.willardunleashed.blogspot.com) had a series of posts concerning the dropoff in obedience entries. He inspired me to write a series of my own posts about changes that might increase interest in obedience.

I’m still a Novice at obedience. I put my first CD on a standard poodle in 1993. His career ended there because he could not jump the 28” required at the time. My next poodle could jump so well, I got drawn into agility, which was so much more fun, I didn’t seriously consider obedience again until my third poodle, Alder. I worked at agility with him until he was 3 years old, when it had become clear that, yes, he could jump, but not well enough for agility. I turned back to obedience. Since then, I have put CDs on Alder and two other dogs, for a total of 4 CDs. Alder has 2 Open legs. He struggles with the jumps in obedience. I am hoping he has enough jump left in him to get that last Open leg, and then he will most likely become strictly a Rally dog.

I’ve enjoyed obedience more this second time around, but I’ll admit that if I had a jumping fool of a dog, I’d probably be bumbling around in agility with nary a thought of obedience. I’ve recently started serious hunt training with my young Golden. Hunt training is tremendous fun for both dog and handler. For sporting dog owners, it represents yet another temptation away from obedience.

There is plenty of (justifiable) angst about the low Novice A entry, but I think there needs to be at least as much attention paid to the dismal retention of Novice competitors beyond the CD. Obedience has problems both with attracting newcomers and with retention of competitors. Consider these numbers:

· Obedience retention: Of dogs that finished a CD, about 34% completed a CDX. Of dogs that finish a CDX, about 44% finish a UD. Hence, of the dogs that finish a CD, about 15% will eventually get a UD.

· Agility retention: Of dogs that finish a Novice Agility (NA) title, about 75% go on to finish an Open Agility (OA title). Of OA dogs, about 75% go on to complete an Excellent Agility (AX) title. Hence, of the dogs that complete an NA, over half eventually get an AX.

It may surprise some people to know that the number of novice obedience and novice agility titles awarded each year are similar (4,000 to 6,000/year) (It’s difficult to compare the exact number of novice agility titles because there are novice titles for jumpers, standard, preferred jumpers, and preferred standard and no way to tell how many of those titles go to overlapping dogs.) Not only are agility competitors more likely to stay with agility through open and excellent, they often continue to stay for multiple MXs, MXJs, and MACHs, then start over and get the same titles at preferred heights.

Agility training requires far more space and far more expensive equipment than obedience. Getting all those titles represents a huge expense in entry fees. Agility competitors can usually sign up for 3 events/day (jumpers, standard, and FAST/T2B), and they often do. Handlers and dogs must generally be in better physical shape for agility (although good distance training can compensate for handler handicaps).

And yet, despite the agility costs, space requirements, equipment, and demanding physical condition of handlers and dogs, agility continues to draw dog people that would be much better suited for obedience.

Why is obedience less attractive to newcomers? Why do people that venture into obedience drift away into other activities, often never to return?

To be continued…

New blog, old topic

This blog isn't really new. It's a branch off my old blog, PalouseDogs.  PalouseDogs began as a blog about the ups and downs of training my own (less than perfect) dogs.  The blog was morphing into more of a blog about the status of AKC obedience.  Lately, I've felt that posts about my personal experience of training were not meshing well with the more serious essays about the structure and rules of Obedience.  I decided to split off the AKC Obedience commentary into its own blog. 

I have no illusions that the opinion of one mid-level obedience competitor will amount to a hill of beans, but, who knows, with enough voices, maybe the immovable force of AKC Obedience can be nudged a tiny bit.

My first posts in this blog will be old posts moved from PalouseDogs.