Figured I'd post this here because I don't want to resub to the ng the
proposal was posted to. I saw some of you reply there, as did I, but
figured it may be discussion worthy here in a non-official capacity.

IMO training & behavior go hand-in-hand with alot of training being
discussed here. From that aspect I think a *training ng would be redundant.

However, specific training methodology can be separate from behavior. For
example, you won't see people coming here, or thinking to go to a behavior
group, to ask how to begin their young Lab on field training. People
wouldn't think to come to behavior to ask questions on SAR, mushing, etc
training. I think the same generally applies to agility as well and that
the only real agility threads here are those posted by regulars but not by
newcomers.

So from that standpoint I think a *training ng would be beneficial. Where
things may overlap (as they occasionally do already between *behavior,
*breeds & *health) I don't see why it would be too much of a hassle for
someone to direct the poster to the more appropriate ng or to simply
crosspost between two relevant ngs. I think my strongest sense of dislike
for the proposal of *training came/comes from the fact that the proponent is
unknown, or is unknown here by that usenet handle.

So as it stands right now I'm on the fence. I can certainly see a benefit
to having a *training group as people looking to housetrain or do any other
kind of canine training will be able to spot an obvious ng for their
question vs going to *misc since *behavior doesn't automatically imply
training discussion to JQP. OTOH I can see a large potential for
overlap/redundancy but I'm no longer convinced that such a thing is
inherently bad.

--
Tara