Jump to content
BC Boards


Registered Users
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Nashville, TN

Chanse's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. My BC definitely struggled with that one and I almost didn't train it. It made him nervous and frustrated. I had to start with just holding a treat to the side of his head while in a down position and giving a click&treat for a small head turn. Took a while to get him to roll onto his side, but once he got that far the rest was easy. He is great at it except for certain types of floors. It took a while for him to get over his fear of rolling over on linoleum and tile. Once he figured it out he started rolling over every time I asked for a down Corrected that issue... mostly, still does it if he is super excited. Hard to complain though because it is entertaining.
  2. Maybe you can try free shaping. This would let Jack lead the training session instead of him being led. Do a search online (also, there should be some info on this forum) and you should be able to find some ideas for free shaping. Lots of people seem to start with a box or a target. Basically you just need a clicker and lots of treats/kibble. You reward very small improvements on a behavior until you achieve the desired behavior. The important thing with this is that you treat very rapidly. I think the goal is something like a treat every 3-4sec. A popular game for free shaping seems to be "101 things to do with a box", lots of youtube videos of that. Might be worth a try to see how Jack responds. This would definitely give him some mental stimulation, and might help with confidence.
  3. Good responses so far. I would also be wary of adding prozac right now. Seems a bit early and there are definitely other things you can try before making the dogs mood dependent on a drug. I agree with Cass C that the runaway problem might just be out of boredom. The idea that a dog needs a big yard to run around in is kinda flawed. Sure, it helps, but dogs need something to do. Border Collies especially can benefit from having a job to do. The "job" doesn't have to be herding sheep, but doing tricks or retrieving a ball. So I would start with that. Trick training can significantly improve your bond and also improve the dogs confidence. And it is fun. Everyone loves to see a dog that can spin/twirl, rollover, beg/sit pretty, etc. One of the tricks I would recommend teaching is "touch". Look up a video on youtube. This is probably the simplest trick to teach and can be extremely useful. Also, look up info on how to teach a dog to play (fetch or tug, anything). This will help with any boredom and also help teach the dog to engage with you. As for the people problem, there is definitely a lot of info out there on this and if you are willing to do the work then it seems that many dogs can overcome this issue. It isn't exactly complicated, it just takes time. Use treats to your advantage. When your dog sees someone "scary" then start feeding treats. Drop a handful on the dogs nose so the dog has to search around for them on the ground (which can be calming for the dog). If the dog won't take the treats then let them go and relax out of sight. If there are guests that your dog is becoming comfortable around then ask them to give Louie treats. Just make sure you tell them to not lure Louie with the treats, you want Louie to make the choice to approach. Also, if/when Louie does start approaching, ask your guest to never reach over Louie's head to pet him, this can be very scary for fearful dogs. Instead, ask them to reach down and scratch his chest. Good luck!
  4. I want to +1 that comment because I have similar feeling about Archer. I am finding that dog training isn't something that you can just jump into, it definitely something that a bit of time to learn. Maintaining a strict set of rules I think is more challenging then I thought, which I think hurts Archers walking on leash skills. I wish I knew what I know now when I got Archer as a puppy. I did get a book called "101 dog tricks". I am not going to say it is a good book, but when I feel like Archer might be getting bored we just drop whatever I want to work on and just choose something out of the book. Yesterday I just taught him on to turn off the light and it was the most fun Archer had training in a little while.
  5. For recalls I like Donna Hills technique (just search "Donna Hill Recall" on youtube, she has 3 parts). Also, like others were saying, randomizing the reward is good. Also, if you can, when you are sure that Juno is going to respond to a recall then start running away right after the recall command. Juno should chase you down and if you do this often enough then this should definitely speed up her response. Chasing a running person is highly rewarding. Then if you have a toy hidden on you, you can reward Juno with that once she arrives (I usually use a favorite tug toy for this), or if Juno likes food more then use that. As for the attention and training relationship in general, I have recently found Denise Fenzi's blog (http://denisefenzi.com/) very helpful. Do a search for "engagement." Read those articles and watch the videos. They have helped me significantly improve on Archer's attention and focus.
  6. I may have had a similar problem with training (probably not the same, but maybe this will help). Archer was getting bored and lacked focus. A set of articles that really helped me out were by Denise Fenzi. Check out her blog (http://denisefenzi.com/) and do a search for "engagement". She has a lot of good advice in there. This is all about getting the dog to ask to work with you, instead of you always trying to get the dog to engage in training. The "give me a break" game from Control Unleashed (CU) is basically doing the same thing. Working on engagement has helped a lot with basically everything. Archer use to pay zero attention to me on walks and now he will check in with me. His loose leash walking has improved considerably. He still tries to pull occasionally, but I just stop moving and he will return to me to continue walking. No comments on the dog social issues, can only wish you luck with that challenge.
  7. I've got a floppy disc (http://www.amazon.com/Floppy-Disc-Soft-Flying-Dogs/dp/B00DFABI8A/ref=sr_1_1?s=pet-supplies&ie=UTF8&qid=1436800033&sr=1-1&keywords=floppy+disc) and it has held up way better then I expected. I've had it for about 10 months now and use it at least once a week. I actually used it a lot as a tug toy as well because Archer didn't care much about bringing a frisbee back, but playing a bit of tug every time he brought it back made him enjoy it more. There's a small tear in the frisbee but it still works. I'll definitely buy another after this one is destroyed. I've also got a hyperflite jawz which I like. Haven't had it for long though so I can't comment on durability, but it does seem like it should hold up pretty well. Used it about 4 times so far and there aren't any teeth marks yet.
  8. I would recommend something a bit stiffer. I can definitely see the reasoning behind wanting a mat to reduce the impact forces but I wouldn't use something with a lot of give to it. Soft surfaces tend to create unstable landing points. This can lead to excessive torque on the joints as the dog tries to stabilize itself. At least that's my first thought and that is just me applying my knowledge of how people (and their knee's) handle soft surfaces. I am just assuming soft surfaces would cause similar problems for dogs. I like gcv-border's first thought of wrestling mat material.
  9. Thanks for sharing, I will probably be checking it out as well. I kinda liked her crate games (I didn't find it amazing, but seems to be a good tool for dog training). She seems to like games that focus on impulse control which is what my dog needs. As for the hard sell, I can't really see the point in faulting her for that. Her career is literally to sell dog training. If that sales technique is working for her then good for her. If she was selling crappy training advice then I would have a problem, but from what I have seen it seems like she has some good training games. Either way, free access to part of recallers seems like it would be worth checking out.
  10. Yeah, theft in the US and UK (and probably Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc? I only know about the articles I've read and those are usually US and UK) is frightening. Moving on to the problem though, upgrading materials is probably always a good idea. I was also wondering if anyone has ever tried doing crate training techniques for the kennel? I feel like the main problems is that the dog wants to get out. I imagine that spending some time to train the behavior that you would like to see in the kennel would be helpful. Do some stuff to make the dog like the kennel, like crate games or something. Just an idea.
  11. I like Mark’s line of reasoning. That provides a link between public demand for working BCs and the breeding programs of a working breeder, and uses assumptions that I can also agree are true. But, moving past this detail, I will agree that the AKC might be a contributing factor to the downfall of a working breed, but I don’t agree that they are the principle cause. I like Root Beer’s description of the circular problem. I will agree with that. The real question is, if the goal is to protect the working breed does the downfall of the AKC achieve this? The problem for me is that even if the AKC is a contributing factor, I don’t see it as the principle cause. If I was to look at the decline of a working breed like a disease, I would call the AKC a symptom, not the cause. Treating the symptom will make you feel better but it doesn’t solve the problem. The AKC just capitalizes on a movement that is already taking place. Why do I believe that? Well, what would the scenario look like if the AKC didn’t exist or if we managed to end the AKC? This eliminates a written conformation standard (which is great, I would love to see that disappear). Does this action protect the working lines? The problem is that these conformation dogs are not the only dogs being bred away from the working standard. Would people still want BCs as ‘pets’? As Frisbee dogs? As agility dogs? As SAR dogs? As a running partner? As a hiking/camping/kayaking/paddleboarding/etc. companion? Sure, the working bred BC can fulfill all of these roles. But just because it can, is that going to prevent a Frisbee dog competitor from breeding their champion BC with another champion BC? What are they going to call that offspring? Will they still advertise those puppies as BCs to the public? Which dogs are the public going to start to know about? The BCs kept on farms, or the BCs out on the streets? This ‘BC’ doesn’t meet the standard, but this scenario without the AKC is still leading to confusion of the breed. Then following the line of reasoning from before, this change in public image leads to the demise of the working breed. Although, an important question in this scenario that I don’t have the answer too is this: would those people with the non-working BCs still claim that there BCs can work (which is definitely an issue with AKC breeders)? Also, one last thought on this is that as the public demand for BCs increases, would working breeders meet this demand? This gets into Root Beer’s circular problem. If the public demands non-working dogs and they are only getting the ‘leftovers’ (not saying that those 'leftovers are bad ) from working bred litters, then how does the market correct for this? Do working breeders fill the gap and start producing litters without the goal of producing a working pup? In the end, I am all for gathering support for eliminating a conformation standard, explaining that the ‘AKC breeder of merit’ badge is meaningless, arguing that AKC breeders can’t support the claim that their dogs can work, and even arguing for the fact that breeding a BC to any other standard will result in something that is no longer the BC that we all love and know. But I will not argue against the AKC in reference to the working lines. One reason being for what I said above, and the other is that this just isn’t what the public cares about (to be honest, that’s not even my concern. Do I care that there aren’t any working fox terriers? Sorry, but I don’t. Would a working fox terrier be better than a non-working one? ‘Better’ is an opinion and I will not argue ‘better’. The better dog is the one that fits its owner/companion best. Is one of them more of a fox terrier then the other? Yeah, sure, but does the owner care? Probably not. But, do I care that pugs are being breed to exaggerate a facial deformity which is leading to breathing problems? Yes.). As for the working lines, I think that promoting quality breeding among the working lines would be to educate those that are in demand of a working dog, or even promoting the working bred dog in the sporting communities, where many have shown that the working bred dog can excel.
  12. (Note: This is a response to Eileen's post above) I meant to mention this before, but the problem with this and earlier arguments is that you use percentages to predict changes to numbers. An increase in the percentage of AKC dogs does not mean that there is a decrease in the number of working dogs. Why does 90% AKC dogs mean that there isn't enough genetic diversity to maintain a viable working line? What if that 10% consist of 100,000 genetically different working dogs? Your conclusion is based on the assumption that more AKC dogs means less working dogs, which does not have to be true. Also, I am calling the two types AKC dogs and working dogs. For this argument I don't care that they are being called BC's, the only thing that matters is that there are two lines. I'm not positive, but in your scenario it sounds like that there are only two possible outcomes. The AKC BCs takeover to become the only BC and the working lines die off, or vice versa. This leaves out the possible conclusion of coexistence. There is no requirement that only one thing can be named a BC. As for time, the labrador was accepted in 1917. We are at almost 100 years later and the working lab is still around. How much more time do you need? I think the lab shows that if there is a job to do then the working lines can and will survive. I guess one way to support your argument would be to show that the working labs of today are of lesser quality then the labs prior to 1917, but that might be a difficult thing to prove. Yeah, I agree that the AKC dogs have lost their original functions. That does not have a direct relation to the number of working cocker spaniels though. Right now this argument seems to be more of a confusion of causation and correlation. There is a correlation between the AKC accepting a breed and then that breed no longer having a working line. Of course there is. But the question is if the AKC caused the demise of the breed. This is difficult to prove because there are other causes out there. Does no one need cocker spaniels to work any more? Did someone find a dog that was better at the job then the cocker spaniel? Like you said, there may be multiple causes, but the question is if the AKC was one of them. To prove that they are you need to show that they directly impacted the working lines, not that the AKC acceptance and the end of a working line coincided with each other. The problem I have with the conclusion that the AKC acceptance leads to the demise of a working breed is that it requires an assumption to be made, and an assumption is a flaw. Making assumption in arguments is common, but sometimes that assumption won't be made by everyone you talk to. The assumption with this argument is that the working breeders are affected by the AKC dogs. Are working breeders being pushed towards breeding with AKC dogs? Are they for some reason finding it necessary to produce AKC dogs? Do working breeders depend on puppy sales to the general public to continue their breeding program? Is the AKC propaganda resulting in working breeders forgetting how to properly select their own breeding stock? Are working dog breeders using these AKC champions in their lines? I don't need all of these to be true, but I have to accept at least one of those questions to be true in order to reach your conclusion. What you need to support your conclusion, that the AKC damages/decreases working lines is the input of working breeders. If anyone on here is breeding working dogs then answer this, how has the AKC affected how you breed your dogs? Has the AKC made it harder to find or choose which dogs to breed? Does the AKC damage your working lines? Are the size of your working lines being reduced by the AKC? Sorry Tea, didn't mean to sum up the work that people and their BCs do, but 'herder' was just a little bit shorter then your description
  13. Eileen, yeah, I glossed over the name because it is part of the problem, but not the solution. As simba said, the name change has been done before and it has led to the same result as before. Sure, I agree that the AKC border collie shouldn't be called a BC anymore, but I also don't believe that will get us anywhere and it will likely just add to the confusion. As for the flaw in the argument that I am referring to, I am talking about the leap that is made from the supporting information to the conclusion. The supporting info is good: selecting for different qualities will lead to different offspring. The argument then defines a dominate authority and tries to link the dominate authority with the extinction of the original group. I will agree that the dominate authority can and does add to the confusion, and they use the name of a superior product to sell their own. This does not provide any support for the conclusion that this leads to the demise of the original. Sure, the original is less known then the new one, but that does not mean it no longer exist. So this is the point that I am trying to make: there is no direct support linking the AKC to the demise of a working breed (at least none has been presented so far and I have yet to find any). Now I can find examples of working breeds that have not been driven to extinction by the AKC. The BC being one. There are still working BCs out there. Unless you have numbers showing that the numbers of working BCs or the demand for working BCs is being directly reduced by the AKC, then you can't say that the AKC is leading to their demise. Also, those numbers will require that your rule out other causes, such as are there fewer jobs for working dogs? The other example is labs. There are two lines of labs now. Yep, it can be confusing and not everyone that knows about labs will know that there are two separate lines, but the point is that the AKC has not led to the demise of the working line. I think there is a good argument here, I just also think that you are just overreaching with the link between the AKC and the demise of a working line. The argument I like that people have been making can basically be summed up by saying that breeding to different standards leads to different dogs. This is what I believe to be the core of the problem and I believe Mark summed it up nicely. Working line breeders breed their dogs for a function/task. Their function gives them their form. The AKC has made a significant logical error since their inception. They defined a dogs form as giving them their function. In logical reasoning this would be called a mistaken reversal. Just because function lead to form does not mean that form will lead to function. So yes, argue that the AKC standard leads to the breeding of dogs using a different selection criteria then that of a functional dog, which leads to a very different dog. This is why we have different dog breeds after all; we selected dogs for traits that we desired. Explain to them what makes a working line BC unique. Tell them that if a BC became the amazing dog that they heard about by breeding for the herding ability, then the AKC standard cannot produce the same BC because it no longer selects for those traits that make a BC a BC. Ask them this: how does breeding for a certain coat style, ear position, tail position, etc. lead to a smart, intelligent, and devoted dog? The answer is that it doesn't guarantee these traits, so why not support breeders that are selecting for those traits.
  14. So I feel like we've hit on 4 different, but related arguments, and I kinda want to know what chene's goal is with whichever argument is being made. 1. Don't support the AKC 2. Dying off of a working breed 3. The difference between an AKC dog and a working dog 4. The naming of the AKC dog and the working dog I feel like #3 and #4 are what we focus on a lot here, but we tend to switch between them and confuse the argument. #1: This is what my first post was getting at. If you are just aiming to get people to not support the AKC then talk about the AKC. There is no need to confuse the situation by bringing in the working dog argument, which people may or may not care about. #2: This is something chene mentioned in the original post. I think the goal was to link the AKC with the end of a working line. We have kinda touched on this and I believe that if a working dog is needed then a working dog will be found (which is why the lab split into two types). So I don't think the AKC is capable of ending a working line. The name of the dog and what makes a BC a BC can be made confusing by the AKC though, but I think that is for point #4. #3: I think we can all agree that a working dog is different then an AKC dog. The claims being made by the AKC breeders are the problem here. Just trying to convince someone that the AKC is not the gold standard is the challenge with this one. #4: I would say that this one is the most challenging and I think is the main point of the last comments of Mr. McCaig and GentleLake. Calling these AKC dogs a BC takes something away from the working BCs. But, I don't think that the fault rest entirely on the AKC. This "lesser BC" problem really started once BCs were purchased/acquired by non-herders. Anyone that took their BC to an AKC event put those wheels in motion to define the public image of the BC. The AKC just capitalizes on this, which is unfortunate, but I don't think they are the sole culprits in creating this image. Regardless of what the BC standard says, the BC has developed a general look. People are able to identify a BC. Someone posted an article about the Saluki recently and I found one of the lines very interesting. The author said "The working definition of a Saluki that I'll start with is: a dog that looks like a Saluki." I believe that the same applies to the BC, a lot of you may disagree with this, but it is a difficult point to argue. If I can't accept your argument that a BC doesn't look like a BC (yeah, that is confusing), then I doubt you will convince the general populace. So my question is this: What argument are you trying to win chene? Are you trying to point out the flaws in the AKC and refute the idea that they are the gold standard? Or are you trying to convince someone why they should search for a non-AKC border collie? Is someone you know looking for a BC for agility and are they convinced they need an AKC dog? Or are you just trying to be more general and convince someone that the AKC BC is different from a working bred BC? Or are you trying to somehow link the AKC to being harmful for breeders of working dogs? Your original post was about how to convince someone about your point of view. If you ever want to achieve winning someone over to your side then I think you need to simplify your argument and really define what your goal is. Accomplishing any one of those 4 points I listed can be a challenge, but trying to accomplish all 4 at the same time is probably close to impossible. I personally feel that points 1 and 3 are the key ones. Explain why the AKC is not the good organization that people think it is. Then convince people why they don't need an AKC dog.
  15. There a lots of comments that I want to make about earlier posts, but I'll just focus on the initial post. What it comes down to is that your initial argument is flawed. There is a connection in the argument with no supporting premise. Basically, it is the link between the AKC dogs and the working dogs. Sure, the name of the dog links them, but the argument being made is about the breeding of the dogs. Your argument is missing the link of how the AKC breeding affects the working dog breeding. You even said it yourself: I don't believe that there is a fundamental link between KC and working lines. There may be some effect, but unless you can say that workers are being forced to buy and breed AKC dogs, then this argument is impossible to make. Also, I don't think this is the argument that you should be making. You stated that your goal is to get people to not support the AKC/CKC, yet you are trying to do two things: not support that AKC/CKC and to support working dogs. Sure, it would be nice to support working dogs, but I think you are overreaching. Not everyone needs or cares about working dogs, which makes that point of the argument more of a hindrance then a supporting fact. This then leads to a challenge in the human thought process. Maybe you can convince them to not support the AKC, but they aren't so sure about the working dogs. If they disagree with one point then they will likely default to disagreeing with both (the human thought process has some pretty serious flaws when it comes to logical reasoning). I think the argument you should be making is against the AKC directly, not the AKC's impact on working dogs. The effects of breeding for appearance are pretty clear at this point. It is likely an unintended consequence of the standard, but it is one that should be corrected. These dogs are being bred in a way that is leading to unhealthy dogs. There are likely some underlying genetic problems being worsened, and there are the deformities that are being awarded (ex. the slope of the german shepherds back, and the flat face of the pug). The AKC's lack of oversight in it registered breeders has also lead to poor breeding practices. I would never try to make someone care about the working dog. What's the point? Not everyone needs or wants a working dog. Maybe some of you are against the idea of companion dog breeding, but I am not. People want dogs, so why not let them breed dogs that are right for them. How to do this while maintaining responsible breeding will definitely be a challenge, but I think we have found that the appearance standard is not the correct way to go about it (also, naming is of course an issue). I like what Gloria said: So, I would stop using the working dog argument against the AKC. There is so much more that you can fault them for and that people will actually care about. You can tell them what those AKC papers actually represent. Explain to them what they are actually spending their money on. Lots of people still see the AKC as the gold standard for dogs. Explain to them how meaningless an AKC registration actually is. Inform them about the flawed organization that they are supporting by buying an AKC dog or registering with the AKC.
  • Create New...