My FIL bought a trained labrador for shooting work. Unfortunately the person who trained the dog had a completely different accent to my FIL so for a lot of commands he had to use the same accent as the guy who trained the dog ha ha!

My own opinion on this sort of thing is that the dog is bred for a specific reason...to sell on, trained up...people will buy the dog to do soemthing specific with it, obedience/personal protection. The dog therefore has become a 'tool' of the trade, a piece of equipment. There are expectations on that dog and it's behaviour and the people purchasing the dog are doing so not for the individual dog...but for what it can 'do'. I think there is a danger in that...it makes me hugely uncomfortable as once that dog is no longer fit for purpose for whatever reason, the chances are it will be disposed of by the 'purchasers'...

But the same person could equally do the same with a pup that wasn't trained up? And isn't it more likely that the dog would stay in the working home if they knew he could already do the job rather than taking the risk of a pup who might or might not make the grade?

I think there's also two distinct levels of training here. Looking at the example of Cookie, I see he is being offered as a "Trained Obedient Pet". That's very different to the other example that people have given - e.g. of personal protection. I must admit I'm uncomfortable with the latter as I can see so much going wrong. But I can still see the benefit of 'pet trained' dogs in some circumstances.

Both of my gsds came to me part trained, Cox with some schutzhund style and pp training and Belle is a failed police dog who was operational for 6 months before being taken off the streets.

Hand on heart I can say that these two are the best decisons I have made, and I have not regrets. They have both bonded very well to me, and have had absolutely no problems settling in and fitting into our way of life. Moreover they respond to the commands they knew before coming to me without any re-training on my part.

The benefits of having these two is that I could start advanced training right away (after the initial bonding period) and that of course, I didn't have to do any basic training with them.

For those of you who consider part trained dogs are reduced to 'tools', I cannot speak for others, but I would have to disagree with that. I treasure these two as much as any pet dog, they are with me for life (even if they regress and no longer do what they do now), and they have a full family life, from country walks to lounging at my feet while I watch telly in the evening. They are very much loved.

However, I would say that the training they had when I got them, in both cases requires maintenance, and because they are high drive dogs they need a clear leader and challenging training. In inexperienced hands, I think that they would forget what they have learnt, both before and with me, quite rapidly, and would begin to take the p**s if rules are not enforced, as they sometimes do with my not so doggie husband.

In both their cases, I am training them for working trials and doing ppd work with them. Cox in particular, having had him longer than Belle, has come on in leaps and bounds with his training. Belle is still bonding with me but I am confident she also will make a super pet and worker.

So in my case, having part trained dogs has created no problems for me, and only brought positives.

There is some fab dogs on there!!!!! id quite like to work there actually!!!!

But in all 3 of your examples in both paragraphs, you havent even taken into account whether or not the owner has been trained?
How would the working dog stay trained to its role or job if the owner has no idea how it was trained to this role or job before they got him, or how they are supposed to maintain the training and handling?
That, again, is straying into 'dog's can train themselves' attitude, one of the main reasons dogs end up in rescue.

I note you are uncomfortable with the working dog scenario as you can see much going wrong?
But how does that differ to the 'ready trained pet dog' scenario?
If neither owner has been trained themselves, what's the difference in terms of untraining and potential mistakes?
And how does either of these scenarios also differ from someone buying a puppy and cocking up?
All 3 scenarios are the same - unskilled/untrained handler/owner

For example, police dog handlers aren't just handed trained police dogs, police dog handlers are handed trained police dogs after they have been trained to be police dog handlers, at some stage together with the dog

Every good dog trainer in the land will tell you they dont train dogs, they train owners/handlers to train dogs.
You cant just take the paint the owner out of the picture, any more than you can train a horse to take a rider and then expecting anyone to be able to sit on the horse and know how to ride it without instruction.

Really interesting thread this !


I think I'm with Krusewalker on this one in so much as, why is it that people like the idea of advanced training when they haven't trained a dog to a decent standard before and progress from there. Much if not all the really important work is done whilst a dog is young in order to progress reasonably well at advanced stages (obviously not all) later on. Where is the real benefit in having a pet and companion to buy it pre trained unless you're unable to train to that standard oneself? and if that is so, is that not part of raising and training and learning about dogs? What real reward is there going out and doing with your companion that someone else trained? I personally do not get it but that is just me - I suppose I believe in that if one wants to work and train at an advanced standard then one ought to put the work and learning in themselves.

there is potential for success here.
but you arent talking about your bog standard average pet dog owner.
you are talking about someone whom has an above average actual interest in how dogs tick as a species - over and above just being a pet - enough that they will notice their dog enough to learn from them, which requires focussed observation skills - again over & above just being a pet - and interested enough in their dog's abilities and needs to carry dog training classes themselves, which the majority of pet dog owners in this country do not do

Absolutely.

And why would one think that a dog training club would accept a handler/owner into the advance class when they admit themselves have had no training in dog training or handling skills?

Excllent post. Again. I totally agree with everything in this.

I still think buying a dog for what it has be trained to do is making it into a tool.That comes with massive problems for me for the reasons I have already outlined...