Jump to content
BC Boards

Sheep at the National Finals


amc
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, the sheep were re-run at the English Nationals this year. They ran 50 dogs per day and took the top 5 from each of the three days. Those 15 dogs will comprise the English National team.

 

I think this is an idea whose time as come. What with the costs of leasing, feeding and caring for, and especially transporting sheep, we could do exactly the same thing in our qualifying rounds.

 

Besides the cost savings which would number in the 1000s of dollars, the requirement to find over 600 sheep for a national finals would disappear, thus making it easier for Eastern venues to host the Finals.

 

Would anyone stay home if you had re-run sheep at the Finals?

 

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We in the east are "forced" to run on re-run sheep on a fairly regular basis, and re-running sheep has both good and bad points. The biggest disadvantage is, of course, if the re-run sheep you get have learned they can "get away with" stuff on the previous run, making the work harder for the dog who gets them the second time around, but then the risk with all fresh sheep is that one could get one or more who are particularly ornery (maybe they've dealt with more predators than any of their flock mates), making a lot of trouble for the dog. I guess my feeling is that a dog who is good enough to run in and perhaps win the finals ought to be able to handle either fresh or re-run sheep as required. For me, cost and time (location) are a much greater deciding factor on whether I attend the finals than what kind of sheep are being run.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think, regardless of the sheep, that we ought to be taking X number of teams from each day rather than the top X overall. Weather conditions are such a large influence, especially in say, Sturgis, that it's the most fair way to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If sheep are fresh, I've found the changeability more a factor of time-of-day rather than day to day....especially on western sheep. However if we are talking about rerun sheep (especially western sheep that can change dramatically as they are rerun), then the selection should definitely be made by daily qualifiers. The handlers that ran fresh sheep should not be ranked against handlers that ran rerun sheep.

 

The proposal to rerun sheep could be a good one, but it depends on the circumstances and the sheep! I personally would prefer fresh range ewes over a group that has come down the field for the 3rd time. I'd be less picky about rerunning a commercial flock.

 

My choice about attending a Finals is likely to be more about whether I can afford to and whether I have a dog that's worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone stay home if you had re-run sheep at the Finals?

Amy

 

Yes. It's the National Finals. In my very humble opinion the *last* thing that should be compromised is the quality of the sheep for each run. As in, fresh sheep for each run in the prelims at least. I feel very strongly about this.

 

I have no problem with the scores being top whatever for each day. And yes that would make it more even if the sheep were being re-run. But to find the best team I think the sheep challenge needs to be the same (as much as possible of course) for each team.

 

I'd be far more in favor of limiting the number of teams that could compete to lower costs than re-running the sheep. Do we really need to run 150 dogs each finals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that re-running sheep necessarily compromises their quality; I'd rather draw up on re-runs, myself! :rolleyes: Besides, the sheep are handled over several days at the National Finals, so by Day 3 they are not nearly as 'fresh' as the sheep on Day 1.

 

I do agree that 150 dogs is too many and have argued that for years. We still don't have a way to limit Nursery numbers, however.

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amy, by compromising their quality I mean as a means of sorting the best, most natural dogs. I realize the sheep are handled during the trial even when they're "fresh" for each run and it may change them some. All kinds of things influence them. I'm saying equal draw for each team as much as possible.

 

Are we going to give up all pretense of trials helping decide which dogs are worthy of breeding and turn it into just a sport? We have plenty of handlers' trials around here where there's not much opportunity to see real dog work. I'd hate to see the finals become just another one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say i agree we should use fresh sheep for the whole first round. There's a reason we all look forward to the Finals or the Bluegrass in this part of the country. The sheep sort the dogs.

 

I'd like to see 100 dogs, fresh sheep, top XX from each day move on (because weather does matter - at the 2003 sturgis finals it blew and snowed one day, sunny and warm others). It would be nice if qualifying for the Finals (making the top 100) actually was harder and brag-worthy in itself. Re-run sheep, top 150 dogs with handlers who can make the trip, and it's really more of a social event than a test of dog/team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limiting entries to 100 dogs represents a $10,000 loss in entry fees. The cost difference between two and three truckloads of sheep, while significant, would not likely be $10,000. Do you have ideas how to make up the shortfall? Maybe only hire 3 judges?

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you only needed 450 instead of 650-675, you would save renting 200+ and save one truck's hauling (current quote out here is $4.30 a loaded mile), plus the feed for 200 sheep x about 7 days. It adds up, but it probably won't total $10,000.

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It puts a bad taste in my mouth to try to float the Finals on the backs of the handlers. They are already paying high entry fees, plus the cost of travel and upkeep while there. Increasing fees to $250 per dog could mean $1000 for one handler alone. The purse is barely $1000 as far as I know...so now you're restricting entries to those with disposable income (even more than it already is). Not good.

 

Quite frankly, I don't think our North American National Finals is intended to select the great breeding dogs, at least not the way the UK finals does. Our Finals is largely a social event, and until we have the will to change that mindset, the challenges we've outlined above will remain.

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It puts a bad taste in my mouth to try to float the Finals on the backs of the handlers.

 

Quite frankly, I don't think our North American National Finals is intended to select the great breeding dogs, at least not the way the UK finals does. Our Finals is largely a social event, and until we have the will to change that mindset, the challenges we've outlined above will remain.

 

Well, if it's just a social event, whose backs should it be floated on if not the socializers?

 

The substantial financial support provided by the ABCA is premised on its being a trial of dogs to determine breeding quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It puts a bad taste in my mouth to try to float the Finals on the backs of the handlers. They are already paying high entry fees, plus the cost of travel and upkeep while there. Increasing fees to $250 per dog could mean $1000 for one handler alone. The purse is barely $1000 as far as I know...so now you're restricting entries to those with disposable income (even more than it already is). Not good.

 

Quite frankly, I don't think our North American National Finals is intended to select the great breeding dogs, at least not the way the UK finals does. Our Finals is largely a social event, and until we have the will to change that mindset, the challenges we've outlined above will remain.

 

Amy

 

 

Interesting comment. In what way do you think the UK National Finals are so far superior in identifying superior breeding stock (other than the fact that since no handler need travel more than 300 miles to the event, more of the top dogs can attend which is nothing we can change given N. American geography)?.

 

They use a smaller course. They each get one run so luck of the draw plays a significant role. They take 150 dogs (and for the Irish National Final at least, this is the first year they've even needed points to qualify). Plus, the presence of large beer tents on site makes it even more of a social event (not that I have anything against the presence of large beer tents).

 

So, other than the implementation of Regional Finals (which we can agree to disagree on being a panacea for everything that ails us), how would you propose making the National Finals a truer test of a dog's ability

 

Pearse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that despite the class distinctions in the UK (farmers and shepherds), the system there is more egalitarian; hard to do much about that here unless people are willing to step up and put on more local trials, but when you have your choice of 2 or 3 trials per weekend at entry fees of about $5 per dog, you can get lots of dogs out there for evaluation and inspection. I don't mean this to sound like there are 'better' dogs over there, I think this is not the case, but they do have lots more trial opportunities and sheepdogs are so much more a part of the culture than they are here. Everyone marvels at the audience at big UK trials...they actually understand the action! We may be moving in that direction, but we are not there yet.

 

I have no problem with the finals being largely a social event; I do have a problem with more economic barriers to participation. And I do think that using Regional Championships as a filter, if you will, might go a long way toward addressing some of these issues.

 

Eileen, for my part ABCA support is gratefully acknowledged and I don't think we'd have a hope of producing a National Finals without it; it's clear that the top finishers are often sought for breeding stock as well. But given that in most years it's still not that difficult to qualify, and given that many entered dogs are altered, it's clearly not the only reason to hold the competition.

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the finals being largely a social event; I do have a problem with more economic barriers to participation. And I do think that using Regional Championships as a filter, if you will, might go a long way toward addressing some of these issues.

 

So, it's not that the UK system is any better. It's that there are more local trials and fewer economic barriers to participation at the National level, which would be improved in North America by the implementation of Regional Finals. Hopefully I understand the gist of your argument.

 

What I don't get is how. How does participating in a Regional Qualifying Trial make it easier for me to go to the National Finals on the other side of the continent?

 

What you are proposing is that each district hold a regional qualifying trial (or designate some trial in that district as the regional qualifier) and that the top dogs from that trial be allotted spots at a National Finals based on how many USBCHA members are in that district. Given the numbers you listed in another discussion, and a hypotheticial 100 dog Finals, that would give spots as follows (by district): 1 - 27 dogs, 2 - 9 dogs, 3-8 dogs, 4-7 dogs, 5 - 10 dogs, 6 - 12 dogs, 7- 7 dogs, 8 - 12 dogs, 9 - 3 dogs, 10 - 6 dogs. Let's say we implement this proposal in time for the 2010 National Finals. You'll take the top 50 dogs (by points gained running in District 1 trials) to the regionals. You hold the Western States Regional Trial, and pick your 27 dogs.

 

How does coming in the top 27 at the WSRST make it cheaper to go to the National Finals in Virginia? Let's say it costs $2000 for each handler to go (a conservative estimate), and it takes 4 days out and 4 days back plus minimum 6 days at the trial (so ten working days). Not counting time off work that's $28,000 minimum (assume each handler qualifies 2 dogs) to send the District 1 team to the Finals.

 

It comes down to; are handlers in each district going to pony up the time, money, and effort to send other handlers on a 2 week trialling vacation? My guess is, no. When I raised the notion of starting in 2005 to raise money to subsidize the US team to the 2008 World trial (so that the best handlers could be sent), the most common response I got (by far) was "Why should I spend money to subsidize x on a three week vacation and dog buying trip to the UK".

 

So, I'm not against the idea of regional trials per se. I still haven't seen a good argument as to how it makes it more economically feasible to hold a National Finals, or to allow people to go to one. On the contrary. What I see is regional finals becoming an end in themselves and making it more difficult to mount a decent National level trial.

 

Pearse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a In a perfect world it would be best to have fresh sheep for all the runs at the finals. Amy is coming at this from somebody who has helped put on several national finals, and western regional trials. I would like to hear what the organizers of the east coast and Sturgis finals have to say about re run sheep.

 

I don't think we can compete with UK on who has the best "test" for choosing the dogs. Many of those top handlers have been working sheep since they were in grade school. The culture over seas concerning sheepdogs is vastly different than the mostly "sport" participants in the US. Yes we have good dogs and yes the USBCHA finals does help select what dogs are best for breeding, but can we do as good of job at selecting dogs in the US as they do overseas? I just don't see how we can, with most dogs being tested on trial fields, and with very little real work in sight.

 

I know this is not a popular stance, but i think as Americans we just don't like to think we are not the BEST at everything we do.

 

Lana

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest herbertholmes
It puts a bad taste in my mouth to try to float the Finals on the backs of the handlers. They are already paying high entry fees, plus the cost of travel and upkeep while there. Increasing fees to $250 per dog could mean $1000 for one handler alone. The purse is barely $1000 as far as I know...so now you're restricting entries to those with disposable income (even more than it already is). Not good.

 

Quite frankly, I don't think our North American National Finals is intended to select the great breeding dogs, at least not the way the UK finals does. Our Finals is largely a social event, and until we have the will to change that mindset, the challenges we've outlined above will remain.

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest herbertholmes

Just so you know for sure,Amy, the national finals is the largest bayback in the country, and I do not know of one that pays back more in the world. This comes exclusivly on the backs of members of the usbcha,abca,and usbcc. There is no other way to do it unless we as members want to locate in one spot permantly. I do not think members want that,and rightfully so. The top end of the trial is not loaded with a huge payback,like soldier, (and meeker a bit). We probably pay too many placings so the finals does not get a lot of recognition as a big money event. However, with sponsorships from abca, usbcc, and all the handlers that enter, the toal open purse exceeds $33,000. The winner will take home a minimum of $4000, and fiftieth place in the open gets minimum of $100. So,social as it may be, at the same time there are a lot of checks being given out.

 

As to the rerun sheep, I think we need the option to do so, not all finacial based, but based on the availability of sheep,period. it is going to get more and more difficult to find 800 hd of good sheep, even 650, which we have sunk to as a standard number. It would be better to have 450 real good ones than 650 with a third of them no good. I have been part of a sheep disaster at the national finals and we cannot do that again. So keep an open mind in these discussions. It does not need be the standard to rerun, but it needs to be an option. hmh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for setting me straight on the $$, Hub. You can see it's been a while since I've been in the prizes at the National Finals! :rolleyes:

 

Your point about good sheep is also well taken. Thanks!

 

Amy

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...