NSDR

[ziggzmom]

Janet-

Before I knew better and became educated in the working dog versus akc beliefs I tried to ILP one of my dogs with akc. I train w/ people who mainly compete in akc events and the thought of going to my first agility trial alone was scary, but I survived and have met awesome people because of it. I didn't think I would have a problem ILPing my dog, I had seen one ILPed bc that looked more like a huge dalmation w/ scruffy hair, so I sent my forms in with full confidence. Well I did get rejected, the only thing I can think is it's because of his coat, which how you would determine that from a photo, I'm not sure. Since than I have known people who have tried to ILP their dogs, bc and other breeds, some have no problems with dogs that don't seem to meet breed standards and others have issues w/ those who do. So my thought on the whole process is it is subjective depending on who's desk the application lands on.

 

Julie

 

Hi Julie,

 

Thank you Julie, I stand corrected=) Sorry desertranger, I owe you an apology! Back to my kennel.....

 

Janet

[Debbie Meier]

The Hangin' Tree Cowdog registry is a working registry. Pups born out of registered parents get appendix papers. When they can work cattle and will bite head and heel they can get permanent papers. There are problems with the method, biting does not necessarily mean working but I guess at least the dog went to cattle. Better than nothing anyway. The trouble with having a working registry is that 'work' is very subjective. What one person may consider working... well......

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out, I had not realized that the Hangin' Tree's have their own registery, weren't they originally registered with NSDR?

 

 

Deb

[bcnewe2]

Julie P writes:

You probably already know this, but for other potential breeders who might be reading I want to point out that simply working your dog on livestock doesn't make it worthy of breeding. Sure, it's better than not ever working the dog, but really when one is considering breeding a working dog, one should have proven that dog to a pretty high standard (which means something other than just very basic farm chores) and should be able to discuss logically the dog's strengths and weaknesses when working and also be able to explain why a particular cross would be expected to improve on the parent's generation (that is, what the sire and dam both bring to the breeding and how you expect the them to complement one another--if you have made thoughtful choices then you should even be able to tell potential puppy buyers what kind of work they could expect from their pup). In other words, there's a lot more to it than just saying "I work my dog on stock." I don't think anyone is really qualified to create working-bred litters if you can't do the above. If I'm buying a working-bred pup from you (the generic you), I expect you to be able to tell me the things I outlined above. Your dog doesn't have to be a National Finals champion, but I would want some proof of ability or you would have to be so darned experienced with dogs and stockwork that I'd take your word at face value (this holds for the Tommy Wilsons, Bill Berhows, Alasdair MacRaes, John Thomases, etc. of the world, but not for most of us).

J.

 

Thank you Julie for putting this out there, it's what I was thinking but couldn't come up with a nice way of saying it. As always, your words are worth reading over a few times.

 

I also assumed that it was the same for Aussies, but not sure. I've really only seen a handful of real working Aussies and question the true breeding of those. Sure looked like some BC in there down the line. I've been to several ASCA trials to observe, very few could even get the job done. Maybe it was just the area I was in.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I think HTCs always had their own registration processes. There were a few studbooks going simultaneously at one point due to some bifurcated leadership.

 

I'd call the HTC requirement more of a performance standard but it's just a semantic thing. It would be really hard to create anything that was an actual "working" standard because everyone's idea of what is useful, is different. Literally there are as many working standards as there are working dogs and people who need them. I'm one person with one very small farm, and I've found a use for three different types of dog and hope always to maintain that mix of dogs here.

 

It will be interesting to see how the standard plays out as the breed develops.

[Sue R]

Narita,

You probably already know this, but for other potential breeders who might be reading I want to point out that simply working your dog on livestock doesn't make it worthy of breeding. Sure, it's better than not ever working the dog, but really when one is considering breeding a working dog, one should have proven that dog to a pretty high standard (which means something other than just very basic farm chores) and should be able to discuss logically the dog's strengths and weaknesses when working and also be able to explain why a particular cross would be expected to improve on the parent's generation (that is, what the sire and dam both bring to the breeding and how you expect the them to complement one another--if you have made thoughtful choices then you should even be able to tell potential puppy buyers what kind of work they could expect from their pup). In other words, there's a lot more to it than just saying "I work my dog on stock." I don't think anyone is really qualified to create working-bred litters if you can't do the above. If I'm buying a working-bred pup from you (the generic you), I expect you to be able to tell me the things I outlined above. Your dog doesn't have to be a National Finals champion, but I would want some proof of ability or you would have to be so darned experienced with dogs and stockwork that I'd take your word at face value (this holds for the Tommy Wilsons, Bill Berhows, Alasdair MacRaes, John Thomases, etc. of the world, but not for most of us).

 

J.

Yes, thank you, Julie - well said, as usual.

[NRhodes]

Betty: They have to be short or slick haired and have a docked tail, yes. Hah, just had this conversation last night. I think the main notion behind this is to make the dogs more uniform looking, or more easily recognizable. Otherwise most of these dogs would look like a border collie.

 

Debbie: The HTCs have always had their own registry and sometimes several of their own registries. It's been a big fuss for years. There is sort of just one registry right now, the disagreeing parties have come to some sort of understanding, so we'll see how this goes.

[hsnrs]

Kristen, I think it was just the area you were in. We have many Aussies from working lines in our area of AZ. This is cattle country so the dogs need to be able to do the work. N

[jdarling]

I also assumed that it was the same for Aussies, but not sure. I've really only seen a handful of real working Aussies and question the true breeding of those. Sure looked like some BC in there down the line. I've been to several ASCA trials to observe, very few could even get the job done. Maybe it was just the area I was in.

 

I know what you're talking about. I've seen a few Aussies around there that move laterally, and I've been very sharply corrected for mistaking them for tail-less Border Collies. There seem to be two main types of Aussies around here -- those that are very upright, very big boned, very bouncy and barky, do not have a whole lot of presence and do not elicit much respect from the livestock -- and those that are much lighter boned, work more quietly, appear to be more serious about their work, have a thin/medium coat/build, and have more success at moving livestock, but tend to do so by hanging off some part of them. The ones in between are a rare find, but a real treat to watch work.

[bcnewe2]

I to live in cattle country too, most of the people around here don't have dogs. They don't want them either.

They've seen bad dogs that aren't helping make their jobs easier. When and if they get the chance to see good dogs working their usual comment is they don't have the time or knowledge to train them or the money to buy one.

Then there are the others out here that have the grippy all teeth type dogs that move livestock with their mouths and that's it. I feel sorry for the livestock that these dogs are turned loose on. And I also feel sorry for those poor dogs, most of those men have their e collar control in their hand proudly spouting that they can't work without it. It's just a shame on all parts.

 

Can you address some of the points Juile P brings up? I know you have the right to breed anything you want but if you post on here about breeding any dog, you have to expect people to ask you these type questions.

[Debbie Meier]

I am electing to remove my post after having it referenced via e-mail as a stand alone post out of the context of this thread. Though my original intentions were to offer a why and a different perspective, some how what I wanted to convey and how it was read did not match. I am not removing my post in a effort to hide what I typed but rather to mediate the future use of what I typed here against others.

 

Deb

[Little Bo Boop]

eventually he got a stop on it, a stratigic shot from his rifle just over the dogs head. He said after that all he had to do was fire off a round and dog would stop working and come running, that was before the days of e-collars.

 

Charming.

[Debbie Meier]

Charming.

 

Hey, atleast he was able to turn it into a somewhat useful gathering dog vs. a dog that was really good at running cattle through fences, granted it was probably by accident due to missing his mark, you know those "I meant to miss" shots.

 

I kinda wonder if e-collars have saved a lot of dogs lives, there are still guys out there that will drop a dog that they can't get it to stop chasing cattle, some just do it with an e-collar and give the dog the chance to change, others I don't think are so lucky.

 

Deb

[Little Bo Boop]

I think the only thing that e-collars do is mask or keep you from knowing what kind of stock dog you have. IMHO if you have to use an e-collar it's one of two things. A. Quick fix, instant gratification, trainer too lazy to take the time to do it right. Or B your dog is not cut out to be a stock dog. Doesn't mean he should be shot, just means he needs to find another line of work ;-) a pet home is a thought. Once again, IMHO, there are just so many negatives in regards to E-collars. I can't see where they should ever be used in the training of a sure enough stock dog.

 

Betty

[Debbie Meier]

I agree with you, I have had some border collies come in where as the handlers became impatient and went to an e-collar on them or I suspect they did, the first it took me 3 months just to get her mind to settle back down, each time she heard a click or buzz she would just run to her crate another would run straight away from you as fast as she could to get out of range if you asked her do anything that she just couldn't do. Just the other day she went into that mode, she decided that she could not handle the pressure of going to the indoor arena, even though I don't use one when she went to leave she went back to her old trick, straight out the driveway and into the field acrossed the road, all I could see was a tiny figure of a dog leaving, heading to the next cross road. The first time she did it I found her camped out at a neighbors, this time she came home on her own, time will tell if I will be able to repair her. It's like a switch flips, she just has to leave, shuts everything out and just goes, that first dog did the same thing. Both dogs were from two different people and both were trying to fix first a stock aggression problem which lead to an escape problem. The third was someone trying to teach the dog to not harass horses, he got to the point where the dog won't do it with the collar but goes right to town without the collar. I spoke to him about the timing of his correction to find out that he was waiting to zap the dog until it got to the point where it was chasing the horses, I told him that if he insisted on using the collar then he needed to correct the dog way earlier, the moment the dog thought about going to the horses such as the moment it left his side. Then I gave him other ideas as to how to teach the dog about what it should be doing vs. what he did not want it to do. I don't think that dog will have a e-collar put on it again, the owner was able to get more compliance on basic requirements using patience and the training I suggested then what he had been getting with the e-collar. From what I can tell the timing of the correction has to be so perfect to get the right results, way safer to use other methods that are more forgiving to human error. I do admit, there have been times where it has crossed my mind that having a controller in my hand would be handy, but then realize that I would probably screw it up anyway, if what I am doing is not working using an e-collar won't either.

 

I think that if someone has the timing to be able to get the most of an e-collar they also have the timing to never need to use one.

 

Deb