Jump to content
BC Boards

Open handlers--what do you think


blackacre
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Regarding dogs having to produce well to be considered great: I like to think that working border collies are valued for the useful work they can do in their lifetime, whether or not they produce as good as they are. I certainly value dogs that produce well. I only train, use and run in trials dogs that I've bred myself. But for overall greatness, what a dog is itself is plenty enough for me.

 

As far as dogs with top handlers being deemed great more often than dogs with lesser handlers: Dogs pushed to their limits and sometimes beyond are more likely to impress people as being great because they're more often pushed to the point where what's really in there shows. This is simply more likely to happen, and happen in front of a bunch of people, with a top handler's dog than a dog who looks really good in pro-novice but that's all you get to see of them.

 

Undoubtedly, many, many dogs show greatness in difficult real work situations, but most times others don't get to see this. That doesn't make it any less great.

 

Obviously, greatness lies in the eye of the beholder. Many times greatness will be defined by someone based on the standard they've seen and understood, or trained a dog to. Training to the highest level takes a lot more dog than most people realize. IMO you just never know how a dog will hold up to the highest level of training, pushed to the limit of that training and ability, until you actually see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When defining a great dog how much can come from the skills of the handler vs. talent (instincts) and skills (learned) of the dog?

 

Are great dogs great because they are willing to be controlled 100% or because they can do it one their own AND are willing to be controlled?

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm not really qualified to comment on this but my sense is that you're right Marilyn. I don't think breeding is the science here that it is for some overseas. I was clerking for Bobby Henderson once and had a conversation along the same lines (about a dog here that i admired and how he was/wasn't producing) and it really opened my eyes. But then you have to wonder - how do you go about trying to improve a fault through breeding, say with that tight running bitch that is tremendous in many other ways?

 

Maybe this should be another thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because they can do it one their own AND are willing to be controlled?

 

Yes,

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training to the highest level takes a lot more dog than most people realize. IMO you just never know how a dog will hold up to the highest level of training, pushed to the limit of that training and ability, until you actually see it.

 

Again, I find myself agreeing with Denise. Remember, we are talking about the difference between a good or even a very good dog and a great dog. In other words, are most of you setting the bar too low? A top-quality handler can make an indifferent dog look pretty good. That doesn't make the dog great, however. There's something about the dog that the top handler is able to showcase.

 

Let me quote, roughly, something a National winner said to Alasdair MacRae after watching his winning run with Nan at the Nationals in Virginia. Essentially, he said something like, "I always knew Nan was a very good dog, but today, she just proved that she was a great one."

 

Does a great dog have to be a great breeder? Not in my view, but still, it's a perfectly legitimate position to take. I agree with Marilyn, though, that some UK handlers put a lot more effort into their breeding decisions and that that will affect how many good breeding dogs you see over here. Nonetheless, a lot of the consistency in, say, Bobby Henderson's dogs can be ascribed to the fact that he is line breeding to some extent. Glyn Jones would be another breeder who produces consistent dogs for the same reason. Blwch Hemp, (really Ceri's) for example, produced himself to an startling extent. I saw one when I was in MO last year that was his spitting image in work style and looks. More than a coincidence, and really not something you see much of over here.

 

Here's a name to conjure with: Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. A fiend to manage on the field by all accounts, but one that proved to be a quite tremendous breeder--in the second generation. (I'm speaking purely from hearsay here). A dog that was bred to fairly randomly over there, and here, that is, to all sorts of bitches, but one who fairly consistently produced pretty good dogs. A real contributor to the gene pool. What do we make of him? Do we put him in the "great" category? Not many could have handled him. He didn't show his greatness as a breeding dog until his sons and daughters began to produce.

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a name to conjure with: Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. A fiend to manage on the field by all accounts, but one that proved to be a quite tremendous breeder--in the second generation. (I'm speaking purely from hearsay here). A dog that was bred to fairly randomly over there, and here, that is, to all sorts of bitches, but one who fairly consistently produced pretty good dogs. A real contributor to the gene pool. What do we make of him? Do we put him in the "great" category? Not many could have handled him. He didn't show his greatness as a breeding dog until his sons and daughters began to produce.

 

 

I'd put him in the "great breeder" category but you're right, it showed up more in grandpups - particularly granddaughters I think are better than the daughters, or at least that's what i saw. Can't really speak about sons and grandsons as much but the daughter/granddaughter thing was striking enough for even my (at the time) fairly novice eyes. I'd certainly take another grandaughter of his in a heartbeat.

 

It really is all very complicated, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, which makes a "truly great" dog - the dog that is absolutely superior overall on the trial field or farm, or the dog that makes a "great" contribution to the improvement and future of the breed? Or is the truly great dog really the dog that is capable of contributing in both ways, and the others are just "great" dogs?

 

Reading the responses here, I see it's not a simple matter. What a "great" thread with lots to think about - thanks to you experienced handlers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are the really great trial dogs that produce more great dogs doing it because they breed well, or because they get bred to so much that a few great ones are bound to pop up?

 

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

because they have outstanding handler/trainers who make the most of their potential?

 

And that's certainly part of it, too, it seems to me.

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think others have illuminated what I meant by Random, vs. purposeful breeding, but here goes.

 

To me, random breeding is mating one dog with one bitch to get puppies. Most hope to improve on the two, but don't do their homework. What is each dog's pedigree? Have the two pedigree's ever been crossed before? (notice I said pedigree, not individuals) How did those pups turn out? Is each an outstanding individual, have an outstanding pedigree, or are you just breeding the bitch to breed her/ or stud dog to get a pup off of him? Are you breeding to a particular dog because it is convenient, or because something in the breeding will compliment your dog? If you own a stud, do you research the bitch, or just take the money? Personally, if you don't want a pup from the cross, why agree to put your dog to the bitch? I think these are hard questions.

 

In Quarter horses, there were 'nicks' just like in racing thoroughbreds. Sometimes it doesn't matter what the mare can do, but who her daddy/mommie was. If she is crossed on the right stallion, they will produce a likely winner. Cutting horses comes the closest to our herding dogs in my mind. If you were in quarter horses, you knew of the famous horses, and what seemed to nick to produce the best cutters. Once it was shown to work, it got repeated over and over and worked also. Cutting talent is most like our herding talent that we breed for, elusive, and conformation be damned. You need to pursue the stock sense in both horse and dog. That sort of research is what I see missing on our side of the pond. That is what I mean by random, vs purposeful.

 

I think the brits do a much better job of it. Firstly, they seem to know parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, and half sibs. They can usually say, oh that dog works just like his grand daddy/uncle/littermate. Over here, it is rare that somebody can even say, Joe's dog is a littermate to Anna's bitch ...don't they work similarly? Or... that cross sure nicked... all those dogs really work well, but so far, none have produced as good as they are! We just dont have the understanding of the pedigrees and how they produce because we have not made it a priority. Maybe we should.

 

Regarding, good, very good, or great dogs. I think most people don't realize what these dogs are capable of. Wendy and I just went to a great 300 acre farm in Kentucky of a friend. He has 200 head of sheep, hills, woods, gullys, everything you can imagine. After three days, we found ourselves on the same hill and each of us commented that here we can see exactly what our dogs are made of. It is awesome what any dog can do, if enough is asked of it, and it is your partner. My ranch dog, not my most impressive trial dog, pulled off a double lift over three hills, without extra commands. Is she great? Probably not, but that day she was to me. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marilyn - I wonder if part of it is a distance thing. Overseas, you'd see more dogs more often because things are just closer together. Here, we're so spread out that we end up with regional "lines" almost. There are certain lines i can pick out from a mile away around here. It's not so common any more, but it wasn't long ago you could pick out the Tommy Wilson's Roy dogs at every trial. And we've had a great influx of "Bombers" too. I'd guess other areas have their prepotent sires as well. But we're all so spread out compared to overseas.

 

I do agree with your point though, totally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm a horse geek at heart and have always been fascinated by the wisdom, skill, and yes, artistry that the greatest breeders of horses, such as the Aga Khan, have.

 

One of my favorite websites is here: http://reines-de-course.com/

 

It's maintained by a serious student of Thoroughbred pedigrees and is worth a read if you're ever thinking of breeding dogs (which I'm not) purely as an example of what understanding the dogs behind your dog really means and how thoroughly it is possible to geek out about this kind of stuff.

 

There were and are any number of great racehorses who failed or will fail to produce anything noteworthy in the breeding shed, while the top sires in the breed are often horses who never reached the heights of greatness as racehorses. And then there are geldings like Phar Lap or John Henry, who could never contribute to the future of the breed. Does that make them less great? I don't think so, but that's the opinion of someone who's an Open handler in name only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one way to help Andrea to write about it is as a variation on how "best" lists are created. Everyone type in 10 dogs (or dog-handler teams) they think are "great". Then, once there is a good list to work with, figure out what characteristics open handlers see as somewhat shared among those. Then, you (open handlers) could note, for instance, how many people list great breeders or great trialers or great home workers or whole packages or great teams or the grandpups of a particular producer or whatever....

 

A list has already been started in some ways (just going from the teams folks have mentioned)

Bev Lampert and Pippa

Alaisdair McRae and Nan

Bill Berhow and Nick

Denise Wall and Mick

Robin French and Spottie

Christine Henry and Rook

Kent K. with Bill

Ralph P. and Dan

 

From my own quite limited observations, it also seems like

Linda Fogt and Annie

Tommy Wilson and Sly

Scott Glen and Pleat

Jeannie Weaver and Liz

Virgil Holland and Robin

 

would be among great dog-handler teams

 

(ETA: and so this doesn't necessarily look like a "best" list--some teams that are sometimes discussed here:

Julie P. and Twist

Marilyn T. and Lena

Anna and Riddle

Wendy and Dexter

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that came to my mind from previous posts)

 

Do all these teams (or dogs) share any particular characteristics?

 

By the way, this a great thread to read and learn from!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh knock me and Spottie off of there. She's a great one for me and we suit each other well but we're way out of our league compared to some of those others!

 

But isn't that part of the point, too? It's not only the "best", but also the difference between the "good" and the "great"--which opens things up for more variety?

 

What makes Spottie great for you and how do you suit each other better than the match with one of your 'good' dogs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>Add Laura Hicks' Nell as an outstanding producer. <<

 

I SECOND that...one of Nell's daughter just got 4th in an Open trial...I just got her less than a yr ago and we have been working together and she ran her heart out for me.

 

On a side note, this same Open trial over 50% of the Open dog DQ or RT...it was that tough but, Tess and Nan completed the course and had to work hard to do it.

 

 

What makes a great dog....well one that gives you the 100 plus % on the trial field but one that gives that same off the field.....swimming to get sheep off an island that is about to go under water in a huge flood and if they don't leave the island they will drown, in that same day swimming to a big log to get the goats off the log that is floating away, on another day and time, bringing in the flock and then stopping and refusing to move until I march up the field (quite mad at that point until I saw why she stopped) and see her laying next to a new-born lamb- licking it...(rejected lamb that bonded to her....).a dog that have the biggest heart that will go for you.....that makes a great dog.

 

Diane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add one more to the list, that most of y'all won't know of, as they're a fine cattle-dog team, but in the cattle-trial world, they're legendary:

 

Loren Holmes and Puzzel

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one way to help Andrea to write about it as a variation on how "best" lists are created.

 

GREAT idea!

However, I'd like to limit it to dogs of our own era, because, while Cap 3036 (aka "Wartime Cap"), for example, was undoubtedly a brilliant dog and a hard core contributor to the genetics of the breed, none of us ever saw him run. Sadly. Actually, not many saw him run even in his own era, because of the war.

 

And, if you could add a few words on why you would choose the dogs you did, that would be fascinating too.

 

So, here's my list:

 

Alasdair's Nan. See above.

Kent's Bill (some would say a great trial dog but not necessarily a great dog. Limited breeding, being a carrier in the days before DNA testing). I loved that dog. He had a way with sheep.

Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. Great breeder. A lot of dog.

Berhow's Nick (I already told a story about him that I think exemplifies what was great about him).

 

I'll have to think some more, but that should be enough to go on with.

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carol campion
GREAT idea!

However, I'd like to limit it to dogs of our own era, because, while Cap 3036 (aka "Wartime Cap"), for example, was undoubtedly a brilliant dog and a hard core contributor to the genetics of the breed, none of us ever saw him run. Sadly. Actually, not many saw him run even in his own era, because of the war.

 

And, if you could add a few words on why you would choose the dogs you did, that would be fascinating too.

 

So, here's my list:

 

Alasdair's Nan. See above.

Kent's Bill (some would say a great trial dog but not necessarily a great dog. Limited breeding, being a carrier in the days before DNA testing). I loved that dog. He had a way with sheep.

Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. Great breeder. A lot of dog.

Berhow's Nick (I already told a story about him that I think exemplifies what was great about him).

 

I'll have to think some more, but that should be enough to go on with.

 

A

 

I would like to go back to commenting as to what makes a great dog as oppoed to a good dog.

 

The answer is going to be influenced by different people's experiences with these dogs, but I have to agree with the camp that feels to be a great dog it needs to be a good producer.

 

A great dogs is to me a dog that has the ability to be great in all aspects of the working but also should have the ability to impact the continuance of the quality of worker in the BC future. I think you can have great trial dogs, great breeders, great outrunners, great shedders, great drivers, great farm dogs, but to be all encompassing "great" a dog must have all these and more. I do feel the ability to impact the future of the breed is as important as any of those other qualities and cannot be excluded.

 

If we think back to the "remarkable dogs" the Key Dogs, they are dogs whose names appear over and over again in the pedigrees of their contemporaries and of other dogs that go on to be "great". There are dogs that have won the big trials here and overseas but did not breed well and those are often forgotten because their names do not keep repeating in the backgrounds of the newer greats.

 

I think we in this country have the handicap of distance and size of the country as well as the limitation of judgement by not having work the scope of the folks overseas. Overseas, they can see the dogs working on the hills, in the barns, at the trials and in the pubs. And folks live close enough and the community is close knit enough that not too much remains hidden.A dogs flaws will get talked about a lot quicker than here where often our only way to judge is by who won what trial.

 

I also think an experienced handler knows how to align himself with a winner as readily as a dog being more likely a winner in the hand of experience.

 

I also agree with the camp that claims that great dogs that are bred a lot get bred to many of varying quality and so get blamed for the lesser off of lesser quality mates.

 

Lots of variables to think about here ! Great discussion.

 

Carol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. Great breeder. A lot of dog.

Berhow's Nick (I already told a story about him that I think exemplifies what was great about him).

 

 

I would second both those names. Wisp is a well known name in the pedigree of a lot of good dogs in Western Canada. 3 of my 4 have Nick in them so I am biased there. :-)

I would also add Peter Gonnet's Moss(also pretty dominant in my crew). Moss is a tremendous working ranch dog on cows, bulls and sheep. Plus under Peter's expert handling, also a suscessful trial dog. He is producing solid pups for ranchers all over the prairies as well as successful Open trial dogs for some pretty novice handlers(and experienced ones). I personally have seen Moss do an 800 yard outrun into the wind which also made it a silent gather. Peter has another 'field' where Moss has completed a 1200 yard outrun. A son of Nick also has done that huge outrun. At age ten or eleven last year, he retired after winning one day of the Canadian Nationals with a 90+ score.

Another name would be Norm Close's CV Joe(Wisp grandson); another great working and successful trial dog. His progeny will be what makes him great - Dale Montgomery's Tex, Don Helsley's CVCap & Blue, who just shone at Zamora SDT this month.

I would add Kathy Knox's Jake to the list. For his trial success and method of work as well as progeny. Again - my bias as I have a Jake grand daughter. :-)

Berhow's Pete may become a great one although he is still young so not a lot of progeny to judge by. He impressed me one hot August week the year before last; Pete & Sid split the day working & holding sheep at a 2-day clinic which was predominantly very young or first time to sheep dogs. Then they did set out pretty much all day long at the trial following, except for when Pete made his winning runs.

Another one that would be in the BCSDA Hall of Fame if we had one: Gayle Cochlan's Kate. Sadly never bred but her sibling, Norm Sumner's Moss has sired some nice ones. Kate, Moss and Peter's Moss are all sired by Lee Sexton's Ben who was by Richard Tipton's Max who has had a huge influence on Western Canadian dogs. In my area, when we see Peter Gonnet, Jack Reiger, Richard Tipton as names back 3 & 4 generations, we have a pretty good idea of what kind of dogs they will be. Gayle's Kate has been winning trials in BC for a few years now, but only recently has Gayle been able to get time off the family ranch to travel much. Kate is maybe eleven now so we may not see what she could have done nationally, nor will she produce pups.

Also to add would be Tommy Wilson's Roy? I never saw him but he is sure in the pedigrees of a lot of good dogs.

A dog that can take a novice handler to a successful Open level in one or two years might also be considered a great dog in some respects. WA state's Lynn Johnson & Anna is that kind of example. His first trial was in 2006. They qualified for Nursery and went to Klamath that year. They have continued doing very well in Open last year and just won another trial this month. Only the future will tell us just how successful or how great they might become....maybe we should have a 'rising star' catagory.

Great topic, Andrea!

cheers Lani

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...