Jump to content
BC Boards

Open handlers--what do you think


blackacre
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK, here's the background:

The editor of our local newsletter and I were having a delightful, slightly tipsy lunch the other day and ended up having a raucous (but wholly amiable) discussion about what elevates a dog from being merely very good to great.

Well, the upshot was that I, somehow :rolleyes: , agreed to write an article for our local rag on the subject. Apparently, I even agreed to solicit input from others of my acquaintance who might have views worth quoting.

This would be, inter alia, YOU--all of you, my fellow Open handlers. And anyone else who cares to contribute.

Kind of a neat topic, don't you think?

So, what do you say?

I'm pretty flexible on where I go with this, but certainly some discussion of critical characteristics will figure I would think. I'm also interested in specific past or present dogs that you think would qualify, and why, ether here or in the UK. Would there be ONE thing that marks a great dog? Is it the same thing for each great dog we can come up with? Is a Supreme International or National winner necessarily great? Do you have a great or potentially great one in your kennel right now?

I'd love to hear from you, and if you'd rather NOT be quoted by name, tell me that too.

Andrea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seems to me what separates a great one from a very good, or just good one is their thinking abilities. Assuming, of course, that all these dogs are capable of working well on different stock in different settings, with varying amounts of pressure, both from people and from the stock. The good ones will understand what you ask them to do and get it done with few redirects or "mishaps." The very good ones will anticipate what you need done, and be at the ready for it (showing you that they are on the same page, as it were), again, accomplishing the task with few mishaps. The great ones see what you need done, often before you know what you need done, and get it done, no muss, no fuss, with little or no input from the handler. The great ones are those who truly read their stock and the situation and act accordingly. The great ones are those who make you just stand there in awe as you see that they, in essence "read your mind," and got it done.

 

Now, I'm not necessarily talking about getting around a course here, but doing practical work--whenever, wherever. And I'm also thinking of working different species (since I work sheep, cattle, and occasionally goats, but compete on cattle pretty exclusively) doing various chores, loading, unloading, medicating, etc. However, I do think that a dog can be pretty darn useful at home, but not cut it at trials. So I guess the great dog would do all these things and then still fare quite well (consistently, over time) in Open trials, too.

 

That's as clearly as I can put it into words...pretty esoteric, eh?

A

 

Oh, and, yes, I have one that fits that description for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat question. I wouldn't presume to know the answer.

 

But when I am feeling argumentative and drunk (well, all right,

that's not limiting things very much) I always say something about variety

and consistency. So, I guess I mean that a good dog almost alway does competent work

in a variety of situations and with a variety of sheep. A great dog consistently does,

well, great work in a variety of situations and with a variety of sheep.

 

Now I have avoided the hard questions: define "competent"; define "great". But my

point is it's not enough to do it at home, or at a trial or two, but all the time with lots

of variety. Of course there are other things we all like in a good or great dog, but I'll

leave that for others.

 

charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll have a go at this.

 

To me, greatness does not lie in the dog with the lowest percentage of faults or the highest percentage of strengths. If you're looking for greatness in a dog this way, you'll likely be disappointed. Greatness is something that comes from the whole being; a quality in and of itself that can transcend faults. All dogs have faults, some worse than others, obviously. To focus entirely on an individual's faults, without looking at how the dog compensates for these faults or transcends them as an overall worker, takes the feel out of evaluating a dog and turns it into a mechanical exercise.

 

In the end, getting it done is a very good thing. A dog that can consistently get things done, no matter the circumstance, has character. To me it's character that separates the good ones from the great ones, not the number of faults.

 

Sometimes greatness lies in the particular dog handler team, not the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a hard one to answer without more restrictions on the question. I can think of several dogs that have been "great dogs" in their particular handler's hands. Many of us have been fortunate to have that one dog that was just a great partner. Bev with Pippa, Kent with Bill, Christine with Rook, Denise with Mick, (on a personal note my good little girl Spottie) all good teams. Some dogs have "made" their handlers - Ken with Mac - that's one great dog and was a joy to watch on all different types of sheep. Some dogs make their names as breeders - Laura's Nell pops to mind immediately, what a great producing bitch she's been.

 

I guess if you own the dog, and you wonder how in the world you'll ever replace him or her when she's gone, then you have a "great dog" on your hands. Other dogs pale in comparison for you.

 

ETA: Looks like Denise and i were posting at the same time. What she said. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if you own the dog, and you wonder how in the world you'll ever replace him or her when she's gone, then you have a "great dog" on your hands. Other dogs pale in comparison for you.

 

I don't really have anything to add but just have to chime in to agree wholeheartedly with this statement!

 

I also think that the great dog's have a very good way of letting us be blind (or least not search out) to their faults like Denise said.

 

When I sit back and people ask me about specific dogs that I've owned that in my mind are great ones, I'm aware of the faults they have. But, it sure isn't the first thing that comes to my mind about them.

 

If I was to come up with a list in my head I'm afraid it might get kind of big but the core of it always come back to heart for me. Each of us knows in our minds what we can and can't live without in a dog. That is always the one thing that I come back to that I can't live without.

 

Okay, maybe I didn't add anything new but I guess I DID have something to say! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what has been posted so far. Philosophically, I guess I'm closest in my thoughts to Denise when she says that there is a 'transcendent' quality to a great dog, that is something that is in some sense " beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding; [or] exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence."*

 

Along those lines, I am reminded of a story Stormy Winters tells about Bill Berhow and Nick (much better than I can, but then, he tells his best stories far more often :rolleyes: ). Anyway, an essential element of this story was the preternaturally tough course and sheep at this particular trial. The set out crew had been struggling all day, to the point that it was unrealistic for the judge to award reruns for the sheep bolting before the dog arrived if he wanted to finish that day. So, dog after dog would arrive at the top with the sheep having already departed, and being awarded an automatic 20/10 and told to continue as best they could. Finally, it was Bill and Nick's turn. Their sheep, true to form, bolted just as Nick was coming around the top. Then, recounts Stormy, the sheep just . . . stopped, well before the fetch panels, allowing Nick to catch up, take control and complete the rest of the run without the loss of more than another couple of points. To Stormy, roughly, it was as if they had turned to each other and said, "hey guys, hold on. That's NICK. No worries, mates".

 

Now, whether that happened or not, I have no idea, but it really does capture the almost mystical quality of a great dog, don't you think?

 

Anyone else have a story like that?

 

Andrea

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you don't mind if a lowly person such as myself chimes in...

 

The dogs that stick out in my mind as being great rather than just good have heart. They don't quit, no matter how tough it gets. They would rather die than let their handlers down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm far from an open handler, of course, so feel free to disregard this post altogether. :rolleyes:

I have known of a couple of dogs who utterly transcended their novice handlers and very quickly brought them to open pretty much completely via their own instincts (perhaps in spite of the clumsy handling they've received). Can any good dog do this or would these dogs be considered great? As a novice, I can't imagine it happening so quickly and I think I have a good dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(**Novice alert**)

 

I would propose that there are great work dogs, and great trial dogs, but the only dogs who are truly great dogs as a whole pass that greatness on to their offspring.

 

I'm not sure that makes sense.

 

But if i do understand it, and what you're saying is that the only great dogs are great on the trial field, great at home, and great breeders as well, I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another novice alert as I am surely not an Open handler, or anything even approaching one.

 

I'm thinking that maybe what Megan Q is saying is that the truly great dogs are the ones that produce consistently high-quality offspring, and are not just "one generation wonders" that do well on the trial field or farm/ranch but without being capable of producing worthy progeny.

 

Perhaps a truly great dog is not only one that is outstanding and dependable on the trial field and/or working situation, but one that also makes a positive impact on the breed as well, by siring or producing pups that are themselves very successful working dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a truly great dog is not only one that is outstanding and dependable on the trial field and/or working situation, but one that also makes a positive impact on the breed as well, by siring or producing pups that are themselves very successful working dogs.

 

I'd really like to see some more Open handlers weigh in on this (no offense!) because i think it's extremely, extremely rare that that happens. Many great dogs don't produce well, and many that do produce well might not be considered "great" trial dogs. It's more complicated than that. Go back to Denise's answer about adding up faults and characteristics. The ability to breed well is just another plus or minus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps a truly great dog is not only one that is outstanding and dependable on the trial field and/or working situation, but one that also makes a positive impact on the breed as well, by siring or producing pups that are themselves very successful working dogs.

 

Yes, Sue, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. That a "great dog," to me, would be one that is the WHOLE package; a great worker and a great breeder. We might better describe the one-generation wonder as a great dog by adding a qualifier: a great trial dog, or a great work dog (or both). Of course this is just my very humble novice opinion, which Andrea didn't ask for anyway. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense taken from a good, honest reply by someone who knows what they are talking about. I'm here to learn, even though my learning curve is pitifully slow.

 

Now, I see that many people talk about "great dogs" in pedigrees. Is that maybe not as relevent as some folks would lead you to believe? I know that just about any Border Collie descendent has some one or more "great" dogs somewhere in their lineage but often that is rather meaningless.

 

I realize that breeding is often described as more art than science, and that many top breeders in UK (and, I'm assuming, elsewhere) may make pairings that don't appear "obvious", and produce terrific pups because they know what they are doing (and cull when it doesn't work out). It's way beyond me, I know.

 

And I realize it probably wasn't appropriate for me to post here as the request was made to those who are really knowledgeable about the dogs. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am not an open handler or a novice handler and I couldn't even define that for you. But I have worked stock from horseback for a long time. And made my living doing that. I couldn't do it without the dogs we've had.

 

One thing comes to mind. Bringing in alot of sheep, some with new lambs in febuary in deep cover over broken land at night in 70 mph winds with stuff blowing every which way.

 

Couldn't hear or see. Didn't know which way the sheep were going half the time.

 

But the horse and the dog knew.

 

Good horse

 

Good Dog

 

When I die I hope they come with me to those far pastures because I bet it really blows in heaven or maybe, as more likely, the other place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin wrote

The ability to breed well is just another plus or minus.

 

Robin, I think that the ability to breed well and pass along the traits is what separates the great dogs from the good dogs. If the dog (or bitch) is not able to pass along the traits, then you end up with a one hit wonder.

 

Tha ability to pass along the traits is what provides the foundation for the breed.

 

Nancy O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doing practical work--whenever, wherever... consistently over time

 

great work in a variety of situations with a variety of sheep...all the time with lots of variety

 

consistently get things done, no matter the circumstance, has character...character separates the good ones from the great ones

 

Seems like there are some common threads running through some of these responses...

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nancy, the problem is that in today's herding community, especially over here, people don't breed with as much calculation. From horses, I know pedigreee is a great part of the animal's ability to produce. Yet here, you usually see breeding for convenience, not of purpose. A stud will be put to an ordinary bitch, or two dogs will be bred because there is only an hour travel time, or they happen to be at the same trial at the perfect time. If the cross doesn't produce, who do you blame? Can you say neither is a producing dog/bitch? I remember a conversation in Tennessee at the finals, where one man was really degrading a trials winning, prominent male dog. He had trained (or attempted to ) one of the pups off the dog, and it was horrible. He totally blamed the male, yet the female was a back yard dog. Has Pippa produced any great dogs? Can you take the label of great away from her if she hasn't? I don't think you can include the ability to produce into the labeling criteria. The ability to produce certainly can make a dog or bitch great, but you can't make it mandatory for the label.

 

I think the signs of a great dog are many. The dog that can bring a ewe and lamb through the flock to the barn. The dog that can bring sheep back to itself on the fetch, and sooth and settle them. The dog that can pick out the single sheep wanted, and help cut it out of the flock. The dog that can turn a sheep with just a tip of the head. The dog that keeps the five sheep from rejoining the other fifteen, on a break away in an international shed, .... the list goes on. Many unsung dogs are good to great.

 

Usually a dog will only be labeled as great when it is paired with a great handler also. That is sad, but a fact of life.

Would Nick have been what he was without Bill. Would Ben or Nan without Alasdiar? I think Ben did okay, but never was considered great again after he got sold. What about Ralph and Dan? Kent and Bill and Coon. Coon was bought after he was trained, but was he considered great until he got into Kent's hands??? Bev and Pippa? I think Pippa was great even across the pond. But would she have been sold if they thought she was one of the great ones, like she proved here with Bev? JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nancy, the problem is that in today's herding community, especially over here, people don't breed with as much calculation. From horses, I know pedigreee is a great part of the animal's ability to produce. Yet here, you usually see breeding for convenience, not of purpose. A stud will be put to an ordinary bitch, or two dogs will be bred because there is only an hour travel time, or they happen to be at the same trial at the perfect time. If the cross doesn't produce, who do you blame? Can you say neither is a producing dog/bitch? I remember a conversation in Tennessee at the finals, where one man was really degrading a trials winning, prominent male dog. He had trained (or attempted to ) one of the pups off the dog, and it was horrible. He totally blamed the male, yet the female was a back yard dog. Has Pippa produced any great dogs? Can you take the label of great away from her if she hasn't? I don't think you can include the ability to produce into the labeling criteria. The ability to produce certainly can make a dog or bitch great, but you can't make it mandatory for the label.

 

 

Marilyn,

 

I agree that you can have a great working dog that never produces anything (and I'm not referring to Pippa, as I know nothing about her reproductive history), but then what does that dog/bitch contribute to the breed? Esp when you can have a dog that may not be at the top of standings, yet thier offspring, either to the same partner, or to different partners, consistently produces good/great offspring.

 

I am only saying that the dog that produces good dogs over and over again, even if they themselves are not a "Great Dog" would stand out for me. But then you don't often hear about them, do you?

 

Usually a dog will only be labeled as great when it is paired with a great handler also. That is sad, but a fact of life.

 

Very true. If you look at littermates, the ones that are in the hands of good trainers, are much better off than those that aren't. And when evaluating a dog, that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

Nancy O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am only saying that the dog that produces good dogs over and over again, even if they themselves are not a "Great Dog" would stand out for me. But then you don't often hear about them, do you?

 

Actually, what happens for me is i start looking at the sire and dam of those great dogs, and see how they're influencing the breed. For example, Pippa -- her sire Craig is obviously a great dog himself, but he's also had a tremendous influence on the future of the breed, where she herself probably hasn't, other than in "advertising" Craig more. No slam against Pippa here, she's like my all time favorite dog but Craig will be one standing out on pedigrees.

 

Other dogs may excel on the trial field and make me look at the "line" they come from, for example, consider the phrase "Henderson bred" - my pup Bill is exactly that and i have him because i've admired dogs from that line and it seems to breed fairly true.

 

It just seems more complicated to me than expecting a particular dog to breed well to be great. It also makes it harder for bitches to be "great" since most of them produce very few offspring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, what happens for me is i start looking at the sire and dam of those great dogs, and see how they're influencing the breed. For example, Pippa -- her sire Craig is obviously a great dog himself, but he's also had a tremendous influence on the future of the breed, where she herself probably hasn't, other than in "advertising" Craig more. No slam against Pippa here, she's like my all time favorite dog but Craig will be one standing out on pedigrees.

 

Other dogs may excel on the trial field and make me look at the "line" they come from, for example, consider the phrase "Henderson bred" - my pup Bill is exactly that and i have him because i've admired dogs from that line and it seems to breed fairly true.

 

It just seems more complicated to me than expecting a particular dog to breed well to be great. It also makes it harder for bitches to be "great" since most of them produce very few offspring.

 

Robin,

 

this has been my point, the fact that you got Bill, because you've looked at the "line" he came from and saw that there are alot of dogs consistently doing well from that "line".

 

had a tremendous influence on the future of the breed

 

The are alot of excellent working and trial dogs, but this is what would put the dog at the top of the list for me.

 

Nancy O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

having a delightful, slightly tipsy lunch the other day and ended up having a raucous (but wholly amiable) discussion

 

Why is this not hard to believe? :rolleyes:

 

In reading, "One Man's Way..the interviews" by Austin Bennett, one can find many definitions of a great dog as defined by those who know more than I. It would be a great resource for this article.

 

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it is way more difficult to find out what is in a dog's pedigree here. You ask the average handler, they probably know the immediate parents, but going back further, is a stretch. Also, when somebody is interviewed about their dog for a publication, rarely is the dog's pedigree shown, listed or even mentioned. Across the pond, they generally can give you a couple of generations on their dogs....not just Maggie crossed to Moss.

 

That is what we lack over here in my opinion. I was in quarter horses for 35 years. It wasn't necessarily the parent who was the major influence on a horse, but the grand and great grand sires and dams. I'm sure the same holds true with dogs. Until we acknowlege that with our dogs, random breeding will still occur, and not purposful breeding. People breed a narrow running bitch to a wide running dog in the hopes of fixing the outruns. What you usually get is half narrow, half wide, not a blend of both traits. I think more consistancy in puppies (aka 'Henderson bred') is produced by breeding like to like. Then you can more accurately predict the outcome. There seems no predisposed plan over here for the breeding that is done.

 

Sorry to hijack the thread Andrea! Back to great dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...