No bad habits from the start or let them develop?

[Denise Wall]

I've started and finished a few young dogs over the years and seen even more started and finished. Hell, I've seen generations from the same lines started and finished, some of them my own lines. I've seen a lot of different training ideas and philosophies work, no matter the dog. Some trainers have and teach others the philosophy that the young dogs should be taught/made to do things as perfectly as possible from the beginning. As in, they need to start right off learning to square their flanks, give the proper distance on the outrun, have absolute obedience to every single command the first time, etc. One idea being that this will keep the dog from developing bad habits.

 

Others feel that it's more of a development thing, and will allow (not correct) less than perfect work with the idea that as the dogs learn about stock, they will develop in these areas. Or help/insistence from the trainer can be postponed at least until the dog is more mature in its work.

 

I tend to fall more into the second camp. My judgment on whether to intervene and how much is based on my assessment of the dog's talent level, attitude and what I know about their lines.

 

I've always wanted to hear a good debate on the subject. How about it?

[Shoofly]

Well, Denise and i have talked about this plenty but here's my opinion to add to the discussion --

 

I like to get a dog doing everything and enjoying it, then go back and clean up and polish up later on. I do think development comes into play, in a big way, and you have to read the dog and tailor times to "clean up" for when they're ready. If something is a struggle with a dog, a lot of the time i'll just try to let it go and come back to it later on, and many times the problem is gone on its own, or at least fixing it isn't a struggle for me or the dog. I also find that if a dog has a problem and i get too caught up in fixing it, it gets worse instead of better. I might eventually just have to fight that battle, but if a little time and maturity and experience fix it, it's a lot better for the dog and me both.

 

I find training this way leaves more initiative in a dog to fight me a bit, and i don't mind that so much because i like a thinking dog. I prefer it over one that is more mechanical. You might not believe it to hear me at the farm -- "Zac, would you bloody well lie down, i KNOW you know what it means you rotten SOB!!"

 

I throw everything at a dog pretty early, as long as it's one that can take it. I'm just now starting Billy, have maybe worked him 10-15 times in his whole life, and the other evening we were doing a little driving and i had him doing "baby" sheds, coming through the flock. I'll work up to getting all of the mechanics and elements (flanks, shedding, driving, etc) roughed in with him. Then he might even take a nice break from training and when he's mentally ready for the pressure of some precision training, i'll put it on him. Moss is in that little lull before the harder stuff right now.

 

Now, having said all of that, i might train completely differently with a different situation than i'm in - a few acres, 40-50 sheep, not a lot of real work for the dogs. If i had 100 of acres, 100s of sheep, i expect i'd do things much differently.

[Debbie Meier]

Being totally new to this...is there and option C? Show the dog how you want it, what is expected, expect compliance then let the dog explore and make mistakes but since you have an expectation and compliance instilled in the dog already you have the ability to let the dog know he is wrong and then show him what he should do if he does not figure it out himself via the stocks reaction. I guess a balance between the two?

 

Deb

[Shoofly]

Debbie - i'm not sure i'm following you, but it sounds more like you're describing "do it right from the start" philosophy. Am i reading it wrong?

[Debbie Meier]

Yes and no, I guess we want it right, but if the dog is wrong we correct it but are willing to accept change the leans toward being correct if the dog tries to change his thought from what was wrong. Then it's followed by the expection of being correct and accepting no less once you know the dog understands what is right or wrong. Sorry, it's kinda deep...

 

Deb

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I call this the "whole enchilada" (WE) approach and the "que sera, sera" (QSS) approach. I've not had enough personal experience training dogs up to an advanced level to speak with any authority on their relative merits in the finished product, but I do know now that I prefer the second.

 

My feeling on observing early training using methods that lean one way versus the other, is that with QSS, there's more leeway for a dog that doesn't have every bit in place right from the start. And that seems to be an awful lot of dogs, and an awful lot of dogs that are ultimately going to be good ones. "WE" puts a good deal of pressure on a dog and doesn't make room for a dog to learn things in stages. A square flank has to be square every time, not matter what is happening - whereas with QSS, a little slice when under a lot of pressure is okay, then one can go back and work up to the square flank under those exact circumstances.

 

My first trainer was a WE guy, and although his finished dogs were impressive, the pressure it took to get them there was, in my opinion, unacceptable. It also caused problems when I tried to work dogs that were trained by him - they didn't know what to do with freedom. I don't mean they couldn't think - just that, when faced with new situations, they tended to revert to baby dog stuff rather than back one step - because there never HAD been a previous step for them. This has been consistent with other trainers I've worked with who also lean towards WE.

 

QSS takes more experience and knowledge to execute. So as a novice trainer who prefers QSS, I still de facto end up with a WE attitude many times when training, because I don't have the head tools to break down what I'm seeing into pieces that are easier for the dog to digest. It's easier to train with that "ideal" in my head and just hammer away until I see it. I'm getting a bit better but I've a long way to go before I'd call myself effective in this respect.

[Debbie Meier]

I just thought of an example, when the dog is flanking and we ask them to stop we want the dog to stop without quartering in toward the sheep. Last night Sharon was here working Jay, she asked him to lie down he did, but quartered toward the sheep bumping or lifting them over causing her to miss the line she wanted the dog to walk up on. So we went to working on getting the dog to stop without quartering, she asked him to lie down, he quartered she put him where she wanted him, she repeated a few times and then demanded, he stopped without quartering but did not lie down, I told her to accept it even though he was wrong by not lying down. Soon he lied down quartered but fixed it on his own, and then next thing you know he lied down the way we wanted him to. I know not everyone expects the dog to stop in that fashion, but we have reason for it and the method of getting it also is line with getting the dog to execute other requirements, at this time it is a way to be sure the dog is not thinking lift everytime we stop him. Later when he understands that he does not lift everytime we stop him we can then allow the quarter in as long as his intentions are not to lift, basically the dog can face the stock it just does not mean that he always moves it as what could happen if you let the dog face the stock creating movement every time you stop him, where does the dogs flank stop and his lift begin?

 

So yeah, we are using the do it right from the start philosiphy but then taking further, I think...maybe.

[Lenajo]

I know I'm still in the experimental stage...which may not end for the next 50 years

 

Anyway, it appears with talented dogs the best training is allow them to think and develop within boundaries. Give the dog some simple basics to set the boundaries - for example to start those would be "stay out of the middle of the sheep and in the general area of the flight zone". Once you get that then work him and let the sheep develop the rest for a while, increasing requirements from you with time and miles

 

"Learning errors' (mistakes in the process) should be tolerated and in time ironed out, but "effort errors" (i.e. deliberately self satisfying below known training level rather than team playing)

 

The less talent the dog has, the more you must structure what they learn so bad habits don't become set as the "easy" or "fun" way to do things.

 

To judge what the limits of talent are...difficult. The longer I'm in this, the less I know.

 

I'm working with a dog right now that spent from 10 weeks to 2 years under either strict confinement, or strict control when it came to stock. I'm letting him, heck encouraging, make all sorts of errors because the hardest thing for him to do is simply try *something* and then work out how to do it easier/better. He doesn't understand the difference between learning and effort errors. Its very sad to see potentially very talented dog freeze up and do nothing because he fears concequences for getting it wrong.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Good one Debbie. That's something I work on with Ted as well. Here's my thinking, based on what I've noticed and lots of unsuccessful attempts to make him do it my way. Ted does this when he's tense, not feeling something right. So, I'll back up a step and work him on that pressure for a while, first making it easy, then slowly increasing the pressure. I also ask him to come on while I am doing this (thanks Robin for that tip!), keep him almost pushing too hard, but gently correcting him if he starts to blow things up.

 

Then we'll go back to flanking and stopping and almost always he's got a nice clean stop after this kind of exercise.

 

This is where QSS really shines - it's counter intuitive to ask the dog to push in harder when his problem is pushing in (quartering, good term). But repetitively putting him on that pressure in variable situation, and asking him to come up with the right answer on his own, seems to work to get him to adjust whatever brain issues he's having while driving.

 

But, this points up the weakness of QSS - you've got to go through a lot of variations before the dog starts to generalize. Shaping a behavior mechanically tends to get results faster, assuming one is communicating in an ideal way.

[Carson and Donna]

I haven't started a young dog (yet!) but I have an opinion for what it's worth! ;-) I have a backround in a different kind of training where we used operant conditioning to shape a bahavior. It works like a million dollars...well usually...we would never expect a behavior to be perfect in the beginning, but reward the behavior if it was similar to what we wanted in the end and then shape it to what will be the end product by timing/reinforcement. The reason we did not expect or ask for perfection in the beginning is because the animal needs to understand the communication and actions and even sometimes the reasoning behind it. Again, since I have not yet started a young dog, I cannot speak from experience there, but it sure makes sense not to expect, demand or push for perfection until you have established communication, reinforcement and I'll go even further, a partnership with your protege in that environment. How fast you go forward to completion ( or perfection ) would be dependent on the individual. Timing is everything!

 

 

ok ok ok, I really do stink at conveying what is in my head...I should have just said "plan B" and left it at that! lol

 

with kind regards

Donna ( who needs to go back to lurk mode lol )

[Lenajo]

If I understand your QSS right that would be when I address what the dogs is presenting today and this moment instead of set training situations to "set up" teaching a certain skill. Right?

 

For example - I think you need to address widening a dog out when he's actually cutting in. Not just take a pup out there and say "today we will teach widening out", when the pup is actually saying "today I don't want to stop" or "today I don't want to deal with corners", or pace, or whatever.

 

If the dog is thinking about it, they present it immediately in the training session..and that, would be the time to address it.

 

Otherwise, you force the issue, and may train something totally different than you expect because you aren't in their head at the same place they are.

 

That...was a mouthful...do I make sense? QSS? or just Q...uestion Super Stupid

[Lenajo]

Donna the principles of training (the 4 parts of operant conditioning) always apply but I don't think in herding "training" its the same as the traditional dog training ideas you are experienced with. For example, you really can't "shape" a true outrun - that's born in. You simple present the situation, allow them to figure out what works best, and their genes will be reinforced when the sheep are controlled and responding as they know is "right".

 

"Made" outruns, however gently or forcefully created, will always lack in comparison to a natural one.

 

Clear as mud?

 

 

 

 

I haven't started a young dog (yet!) but I have an opinion for what it's worth! ;-) I have a backround in a different kind of training where we used operant conditioning to shape a bahavior. It works like a million dollars...well usually...we would never expect a behavior to be perfect in the beginning, but reward the behavior if it was similar to what we wanted in the end and then shape it to what will be the end product by timing/reinforcement. The reason we did not expect or ask for perfection in the beginning is because the animal needs to understand the communication and actions and even sometimes the reasoning behind it. Again, since I have not yet started a young dog, I cannot speak from experience there, but it sure makes sense not to expect, demand or push for perfection until you have established communication, reinforcement and I'll go even further, a partnership with your protege in that environment. How fast you go forward to completion ( or perfection ) would be dependent on the individual. Timing is everything!

ok ok ok, I really do stink at conveying what is in my head...I should have just said "plan B" and left it at that! lol

 

with kind regards

Donna ( who needs to go back to lurk mode lol )

[juliepoudrier]

I fall into "it's a development thing" camp. I think part of the reason for this is that it's just not in my nature to drill any animal I'm training, and I think thats the necessary part of training if you're following "make them be perfect from the start" philosophy. I also think the "make them perfect" method puts a whole lot more pressure on a dog than the "let them learn from their mistakes" training style--more pressure than I'm comfortable putting on a young dog (then again that could just be a reflection of my talent as well). I believe that the dogs who have been made perfect from the start *might* have an edge on the trial field, where perfection of lines rules, but ultimately I think a dog who has learned to think independently might be more likely to save your butt in a tight situation. I'm sure people can come up with examples to refute both of those beliefs of mine, but ultimately I think teaching a dog to be perfect requires near perfection from the person doing the training (that is, you better be able to read and understand stock better than the dog), whereas the other method relies more on the dog's natural ability to get it right (eventually).** Since I know that I am generally not better at reading stock than most of my dogs, I like to let them learn what works. Come to think of it, taking that approach probably puts less pressure on me as a trainer as well. (I haven't trained all that many dogs, though, so I'm basically going by what makes me comfortable as a trainer.)

 

**I was setting sheep at a trial once and watched a handler and dog running a ranch course. The dog was quite obedient and did everything the handler asked. But as the trial wore on, some of the sheep wanted to lift to their right and try to get back to the set out pens. This same dog, who had looked pretty good all weekend, wasn't bothering to cover his sheep until the handler told him to do so. Now maybe this is more a mechanical vs. natural work kind of issue, but in my mind the "make them perfect" training style does tend to lead to a more mechanical dog.

 

ETA: I also think there's some sort of continuum here. When we're talking about developing bad habits, I will give the dog opportunities to figure it out and do it right but I won't just keep letting it "get away with" doing something wrong (i.e., develop bad habits). If you follow the Jack Knox school of thought (which falls under the developmental philosophy), then the dog is getting negative feedback when it does wrong (generally a voice correction, maybe body pressure), so it's not as if using the "developmental" method is allowing bad habits to develop--it's telling the dog that the wrong thing is unacceptable but allowing the dog to choose to try to find the right thing instead of making the dog do the right thing and seeking perfection every time.

 

J.

[1sheepdoggal]

From some one who has learned from their mistakes, I choose #2.

I have a dog I expected complete OB from on the feild. I feel that it really contributed to making her so pressure sensitive. She is/was afraid to make a move unless told to, she cant, though she's learning to think on her own, and in some instances she is more focused on me than on her sheep. Lately, Ive just been keeping my mouth shut, and letting her work. Letting her feel her sheep moor, being where she feels she needs to be to control them, and she appears to be freeing up more, enjoying the work more, is more relaxed, and is starting to think on her own.

Comming from a competition OB and Sch back ground, it was very difficult to understand and incorporate the concept of allowing a dog to be wrong some times. That they learn by their mistakes, and that making mistakes doesnt immediatly form bad habits.

[Carson and Donna]

Actually, my experience in training rarely involved domestic dogs to any extent, other then a few here and there. I worked for decades training exotic animals from dolphins to zebras and eveything in between.(lions, tigers bears, elephants, chimpazees etc) The closest I worked with that resembled a dog was timber wolves. Way out in left field, I know, compared to stockdog training. I have a great deal to learn in that area and I know it will take me a lifetime as there will always more to learn. I guess in my lame attempt to voice an opinion as to whether I felt option A or option B would be what I thought would work better, I failed due to my example. I apologize. I do however believe that timing is everything. No matter which of God's wonderful critters you are working with, you have to communicate what you want in some way. These dogs have an inborn sense of what to do, I totally agree, but I am not sure I understand your reasoning about letting them figure it all out themselves without some guidance from the handler at some point. If outruns are not shaped in some sort of way, why would a handler stop their dog that was not going out wide enough, go to the dog and resend to widen out the OR? Would this be an example of a dog that was forcebly taught a "good" outrun?

 

with kind regards

Donna ( who should have stayed in lurk mode now I see! lol oh well I'll leave the rest of the debate to those more learned then I and I'll sit back and learn)

[Smokjbc]

I'll put in another vote for "development" rather than "expecting perfection". Mike and I argue about this quite a bit actually- he comes from an obedience background and is rather militant about training where I am far more laid back and like to give my dogs the benefit of the doubt. I usually try to look past the "sin" and try to figure out why they did it first before I insist on correcting it. I see shades of grey more than black and white and I really enjoy watching a talented dog work out what it's method is naturally. I probably do need to be alot more concrete about stopping- I tend to let those steps slide more than they should.

 

On the other hand, the argument could be made that by going easy on young dogs and avoiding pressure may make it harder for them to take the pressure later. I attended a cowdog clinic about 6 years ago, just as I was starting to emphasize more on the sheepdog thing and the clinician- more a practical ranch type than a trialer- did the small, packed pen thing with the theory that more pressure is better. Put them in a situation they can't get out of and make them face it. I took Nellie, who is quite pushy but gets frantic under pressure, but I didn't see a real value to that at the time and still not sure I do. This clinician did like a very hard, strong dog to start- so it may be suited to that type of dog but not all dogs. I know it didn't help Nellie at all- we got very little from that clinic but I didn't apply it much either- seemed too easy to completely shut a dog down and make them lose faith in you.

 

Now, my Jane was a golden child to start- square flanks, sliding downs and natural pace. I rarely pressured her before she was 3 or so because she just didn't need many corrections. Now, at 5, I have to be careful of pressure with her- I can make her leave (well, kinda leave, she just goes so deep that she has a hard time finding her way back to the sheep) just by heading towards the top. I'm sure at some point I crossed the line pressure wise- although not sure when but I wonder sometimes if I should have asked for more flexibility when she was younger- or asked her to do things against her instinct enough that she would accept a little pressure to be flexible. I got really down on her at one point, seemed like she wasn't trying or letting the sheep beat her but I figured out that she was really sensitive to my moods and could sense when I was annoyed or let down by her. I have really worked on my attitude when I work her and it's helped a great deal- she's really surprising me this last year or so on what she can handle. I think having a few older dogs now has really helped me gain perspective on the end product and what you need to preserve so it's still there when they are mature dogs.

[juliepoudrier]

These dogs have an inborn sense of what to do, I totally agree, but I am not sure I understand your reasoning about letting them figure it all out themselves without some guidance from the handler at some point. If outruns are not shaped in some sort of way, why would a handler stop their dog that was not going out wide enough, go to the dog and resend to widen out the OR? Would this be an example of a dog that was forcebly taught a "good" outrun?

Donna,

I think in some respects your example is about "forcing" (although forcing might not be the best word) a correct outrun on a dog. Here's an example of how I approached fixing an outrun. I have two youngsters who started out without any outruns to speak of (i.e., they went straight up the middle). Their mother is a naturally wide outrunner, which has both advantages and disadvantages (more of the latter on a trial field because running wide eats up time). So here I was faced with pups with no outruns but the genetic potential to run perhaps too wide. The *last thing* I would ever have done with them was force them wider on the outrun (using the method you described), for fear of getting a "too wide" response. Instead I chose to follow the developmental method, going on the assumption that the genes eventually will out. To help them with their outruns without forcing them, I worked on having the pups give distance while balancing on a circle (with voice corrections and some body pressure corrections). We worked with Jack Knox on this from the start in the round pen, and they quickly learned that "get back" means just that (give some space to the sheep), but they learned it while flanking, and not on their outruns. Then we could send them on short outruns, we could growl at them "get back" (the correction) if they were too tight, but *let them decide how to fix the problem.* So far, what I have ended up with is dogs who have fairly nice outruns, but without having to force it on them. (This is Pip and Phoebe--don't know if you remember their runs at Carol's but both had good outruns there.) I think that by using this method, I can give the dogs feedback (so I am communicating with them, the difference is I tell them when I don't like something rather than telling them *how* to do something) without cramping their ability to learn from their mistakes. Does that make sense?

 

ETA: I suppose there could have been some concern that by letting them run up the middle a few times I was allowing bad habits to dvelop, but instead by shortening the distance (i.e., working on flanks) I was able to help them figure out the right approach. Neither dog is inclined to run up the middle now, even in tense situations, so allowing those "bad habits" to happen at the very beginning didn't set the tone for how they would work for the rest of their lives.

 

J.

[mjk05]

That's an interesting question, and I'm as confused as anyone. I think I sit more in the "get it right from the start" camp, but then in practise I seem to go along with my partner, who is more of a "let them work it out" kind of guy, and prescribes "lots of farm work" for just about every training issue.

 

We've had this specific debate about outruns quite a few times- his main dog is a full brother to mine (much earlier litter), and he apparently just didn't train an outrun at all. Fred used to run straight at the sheep, but somewhere around age two, he miraculously widened out, stopped sticking and developed a really gorgeous natural cast and lift. My Bill is coming up 4 and it still hasn't happened for him. Probably he's just not as good a dog, but also my dogs have had much less opportunity for farm work on a daily basis, I don't travel all over the place doing contract stockwork and working various types of sheep- and the main factor is probably that my partner does step in and make it easy for the dog to get it right sometimes, and sort of knows how to set up situations for each dog to learn what they need to know. So he's not really letting the dog do any crazy thing it likes, he's setting things up for them to work it out for themselves- and doesn't let them keep making the same mistake if they aren't getting it.

 

Its still very frustrating for me to spend hours out in the training paddock trying to train things right, when he can put them on the back of the ute, head off to work and swear he does "no training, just work" and they come back trained. Of course he's a better trainer and handler, but still...

[bexie]

I hope it is okay if I comment even though I'm not training a stock dog. I enjoy the discussions...

 

But it seems to me that the "let them develop" theory lines up well with other training methods found to be very effective, like clicker training. By letting them develop, you take a behavior that approximates your final goal and work with it for a while. As the dog gets more comfortable and confident with the behavior, you start refining your expectations slowly to shape the dog's behavior closer towards the ideal. It stays fun and positive for the dog and eventually you end up with strong high quality behavior and a dog eager to perform.

 

If you set your goals too high from the start, you are likely to burn out a dog when it has difficultly meeting your demands and never feels like it does anything right. I'd think this would be even more of an issue working with BCs that have such a need to please their handlers and are often a bit soft about repeated failure and negative methods. Development would unite instincts and a desire to please with lots of positive feedback and permission to perform where a demand for perfection would be more likely to set up a negative atmosphere that turns a dog off.

 

This is all theory on my part and I'm sure a lot depends on the dog and the handler. I'm also sure that with the intelligence level and desire of the breed, you can probably develop many behaviors to a higher level in a pretty short time span.

 

Molly's a big softie so I will be sure to be looking for a trainer with development theories whenever we get the chance to work her. Or if I end up decided to try on my own at some point.

 

Just a few thoughts from a sorta outsider. Sometimes a different perspective can be useful.

[juliepoudrier]

...the main factor is probably that my partner does step in and make it easy for the dog to get it right sometimes, and sort of knows how to set up situations for each dog to learn what they need to know.

 

I think this is the key statement and something I should have mentioned in my reply to Donna. It's not as if you go out and just let the dog do whatever and hope he eventually figures out the right thing--you set up situations that encourage/allow the dog to be right (you know, the old chestnut, make the right easy and the wrong difficult). The difference is simply that you don't make the dog right; you make the situation so that it's easy for the dog to *be* right. A subtle difference, but an important one I think.

 

J.

[Sue R]

This is a terrific discussion! Thank you all!

 

Julie P - Thank you very much for your post about Pip and Phoebe. Bute has quite a bit of eye and is definitely a run-up-the-middle sort of dog. He's now two but "young in training" so to speak, and we are working on this. While we do flanking/circle work at each lesson, I see that maybe we need to use this more in the respect of what you are talking about.

 

When the sheep head for the draw and I send him, "instinct takes over" and he does a nice outrun but, when the sheep are still, the eye takes over and he tends to go straight up towards them, sometimes bending out as he gets closer and sometimes not. Lack of opportunity to work with him (only monthly lessons at best and no training stock of any sort here at home, just some on-the-job work with the cattle, and I know that's not ideal for him), him being very different from Celt (who was so easy to start, although with his own significant issues otherwise), and my own lack of experience have really retarded his progress.

[Shoofly]

I hope it is okay if I comment even though I'm not training a stock dog. I enjoy the discussions...

 

But it seems to me that the "let them develop" theory lines up well with other training methods found to be very effective, like clicker training. By letting them develop, you take a behavior that approximates your final goal and work with it for a while. As the dog gets more comfortable and confident with the behavior, you start refining your expectations slowly to shape the dog's behavior closer towards the ideal. It stays fun and positive for the dog and eventually you end up with strong high quality behavior and a dog eager to perform.

 

If you set your goals too high from the start, you are likely to burn out a dog when it has difficultly meeting your demands and never feels like it does anything right. I'd think this would be even more of an issue working with BCs that have such a need to please their handlers and are often a bit soft about repeated failure and negative methods. Development would unite instincts and a desire to please with lots of positive feedback and permission to perform where a demand for perfection would be more likely to set up a negative atmosphere that turns a dog off.

<and>

This is all theory on my part and I'm sure a lot depends on the dog and the handler. I'm also sure that with the intelligence level and desire of the breed, you can probably develop many behaviors to a higher level in a pretty short time span.

 

Hi Bexie-

 

I'm glad to see you contributing to the discussion and i hope my response doesn't come off as in any way trying to squelch the discussion, but i wanted to add something based on what you'd said above. The problem with comparing stockwork and the training methods for it to clicker training is that in stockwork, you're trying to bring out a behavior that is there in the dog and in clicker training you're trying to train a behavior that's not naturally in the dog. A dog with no feel for sheep, or a terrible outrun, or too wide flanks *by nature* is never going to be a dog that naturally feels sheep, or naturally runs out perfectly, or naturally flanks appropriately. In stockdog training, with the "let them develop" school of thought, you're letting the dog try to find that natural skill and hoping like heck it's in there. But if it's not, you can't bring it out or let it develop - the seed isn't there. I could wait 10 years for a golden retriever to develop a big scopey outrun and it ain't happening. On the other hand, i could possibly train that golden to run out in a perfect circle around sheep (maybe with a clicker ) and fake it, or "mechanicalize" it and you might not know it was trained that way, if i'm really good and the conditions are right. But add in wild sheep, torrential rains or wind, a rough field, protective mama ewes with lambs at their sides, nasty old rams, and it'll surely show up and i'll be wishing for the dog that has the skills by nature to draw on from inside himself.

 

Food for thought.

[stockdogranch]

What a great thread! While a lot certainly depends on the pup and the stock you have available, etc., I tend to mostly fall into the latter camp, as well. If the pup has a level head and a natural feel for its stock, then I throw a lot of different things at it quite early on--working in a very small pen, a little bit of baby "driving," working the big group, and so on. Gathers (outruns) I don't worry too much about, unless I see a really bad habit beginning to form. I especially don't worry about pushing them out wide on an outrun, as most seem to widen as they mature anyway. I think too many people get hung up on making everything just right, and end up drilling a whole lot in the process (like wide outruns or square flanks). Once a pup has the bare basics, I tend to just do things with them--moving stock from point A to point B, sorting, and so on, and they learn as they go, more or less.

 

However, if the pup isn't as level-headed, or doesn't have that "natural" feel for its stock, then I might be a bit more into making it right--if I can make the pup be in the right place to feel its stock, if even for a moment or two, then it can recognize where that place is and what that feels like. Thereafter I let it find that place on its own. I think some pups are just too busy reacting to the stock, without the brain being engaged, and thus require a bit more management in the very beginning. Once they realize that they have a brain and how to engage it, we're good, and we can proceed on to doing lots of different things. A perfect example of this is a dog that a guy brought here probably a little more than 2 months ago for the first time. In the round pen, I could see that this dog was just NOT comfortable feeling the pressure of the stock--it would constantly flank off, winging and wanging all over the place. Or if it did get close enough to the stock--you guessed it--a dive in and grip. I kept that dog in the round pen, and later in my 100'X200' arena MUCH longer than I would most dogs until she finally began to be comfortable enough just staying in contact with her stock to move them along. Two + months of weekly sessions, and she is now finally ready to move on from there.

 

So, for me, I guess I fall into Camp A as far as I do make absolutely certain the pup is thinking and feeling its stock before we move on to much else; that, and I insist on a fairly decent lie down. I find if I don't have some semblance of a lie down, I can't set up other things, or get much done in the way of chores. Fortunately, most are pretty good at getting this quickly--now, they may not be able to hold it for more than a nanosecond, and that's fine, but I guess I am pretty hard core about that stop early on--learn it so we can move on. Once they have that much, then we are all about Plan B because they are now in a position to utilize plan B.

 

Not sure if this makes any sense at all...

 

A

[Debbie Meier]

So, for me, I guess I fall into Camp A as far as I do make absolutely certain the pup is thinking and feeling its stock before we move on to much else; that, and I insist on a fairly decent lie down. I find if I don't have some semblance of a lie down, I can't set up other things, or get much done in the way of chores. Fortunately, most are pretty good at getting this quickly--now, they may not be able to hold it for more than a nanosecond, and that's fine, but I guess I am pretty hard core about that stop early on--learn it so we can move on. Once they have that much, then we are all about Plan B because they are now in a position to utilize plan B.

 

Not sure if this makes any sense at all...

 

A

 

 

Sounds like a C to me

 

Deb

[bcnewe2]

SO I'm in the B catagory. But I can give you a great example of why I'm in that camp. Mick is the first dog that had "it" in there when I started him. But being more in the A camp at that time, I wanted it perfect right from the start. Thank Dog Mick is not the "give up my Mommy is never going to get this thing right" kind of dog. But he is the "Mom is sure screwed up so I'm going to bust em up and release some pressure" type. So....skip a few years, now I've got a dog with loads of talent but he's been so "made" that it's hard for him to trust himself or is that trust me to not help or correct him when he's trying to figure things out.

 

I can send him on an outrun which way back I "made" him quite square and wide. He used to almost turn back to about 8 or 4 oclock to start his out runs. That took a very long time to undo. But he'll still head for the hills if I whistle him to long. Since it was so hard probably impossible to make the top end he gets to about 10 or 2 and wants to start coming in cause the sheep are starting to do something. That, I contribute to working on him giving distance on his sheep at the top when they were already running for the hills....no fences and wild non dogged sheep, not because he was affecting his sheep at that moment but becuase I had no help and no fences so sheep were out smarting us. He finally decided I was absolutly crazy and would just turn in and grab hold of the pressure. So what if there wasn't a line that I wanted, he had his sheep. Well that's not good....so I was left with a dog that would get a great start on his outrun and things would go to hell. But remember his default under 'to" much pressure was to just go bust em up and have a bit of fun to release the pressure or till that happens he'd be happy to just hold them in the pressure point. We've been at that spot for quite a while.

 

The last time I was with Kathy K. at a clinic she told me I was going to have to do what I needed to do to open him up at the top so he could start to feel things "right" up there. That's been so hard for us. But a couple weeks ago I was in a contained area, he turned in and I ran as fast as my fat butt would allow me to, jumped over some orange cones that were piled up waiting to be set in a course and headed straight for him. When I reached him, I read him the riot act then quietly set the whole thing up again and gave a little growl when he was thinking about turning in and what the he** he gave me what I wanted. Now he is starting to feel things a bit at the top but we're still sorting it out.

The issue was that when I had tried to put pressure on him at his bad spots he'd just beat me. He didn't know better and I was afraid I'd put to much pressure and blow him out of the water. So Kathy said I needed to break that habit and do what it takes to make him listen there...by listen I mean lets check some other ways out of doing this....so it's still in the B catagory but I did have to make sure I had his brain in the right frame of mind.

 

Funny....the day I did the leap the cones thing we'd been getting ready to compete in a monthly fun trial that a club has down here, it's in an arena because the people are old and don't want to play big field but it's sheep work and I'm a sheep slut so I go anyways.....

Each month before he'd always pressure up and pop so we'd lose by a DQ or an RT...this time he was listening to my advise and we finally made the course...not only made it but did it real prutty too! It's been a steady up hill journey since then. But I guess it's been a steady up hill journey for the whole time with lots of detours thrown in for my learning curve.

 

I try my damndest to stay in the B catagory with Dew so I don't have near the stuff to undo when we finally get there! These talented dogs don't need "us" to do it right, they just need the information about what "we" would like and help with opening the door for the "right" feeling. Meaning setting things up for the dog to get a chance to feel things instead of making them do them which in my mind keeps them from feeling anything.

 

I love Julies young pup description about opening her dogs up in the round pen and teaching a get out command. I don't have small spaces and that method is so much easier to work with.

 

Heck....as of today I only have 3 sheep left to go the butcher....even the llama is gone. It's a very big place and feels quite lonely with no one around. My daughter even took my son back to St. Louis with her so I"m really alone for the first time in quite a while. Thank Dog for the BC's or I'd be more of a wreck than I am!

So guess Dew will get to wait till I have access to sheep and a small pen after all!

 

Love this discussion. Hope my story makes since...it's taken almost 4 years for me to screw Mick up, now that I'm understanding the B camp ideas better and better it's been almost a year working on unscrewing him or is that he's taken almost 5 years to finally train me?

 

Sinceless in AR

Kristen