Breeding the Hard Mouthed, Hard Everything Border Collie

[Debbie Meier]

Now to put this in dog terms. If you are waving a stick at a dog, you are putting pressure on the dog, and this is actually a very common training method. But the disadvantage to this is that some dogs will respond to that pressure pointed directly at them by either pushing back (moving in closer) or speeding up to get past it. So instead of putting the pressure directly on the dog by pointing or waving the stick at him, instead you point or wave the stick at the ground where you don't want the dog to travel. Because you're not putting pressure directly on the dog, it is less likely to push back or race past, but instead will avoid that ground where the pressure is being applied.

 

This is something I address and take the time to teach the dog the proper response, off stock I will put direct pressure on the dog, if the dog leans on me I will apply more pressure until the dog reaches a point of moving off or away, even just as much as a head turn. When he does I allow him the release. Once the dog gets that concept he will then allow me to position him either by putting pressure directly on him and also acknowledge that I made the ground dangerous in front of him.

 

It is my expirence that making the ground dangerous does not work well or takes a lot longer for the dog to get the idea of what your trying to teach when a dog leans or goes to pressure. By taking the time away from stock I can reprogram the dogs response to my pressure, requireing the dog to acknowledge it, so that the right response will be there when I need it on stock. That way if the dog blows me off I can correct him and he has a chance of offering the right response, move off or yield.

 

You can test your dogs pressure response at home before ever going to a lesson or work, step into the bubble of space around your dog, does he move off, does he ignore you or does he come to meet you, if he does not move off or if he comes to meet you correct him, what does he do, does he move off and yield to the pressure or does he assert more pressure back. If he asserts more pressure back then you have a dog that has a tendency to lean into pressure and not stop or make a change when you try to apply pressure but rather accelerate on the wrong path. IMO, people train dogs to lean into pressure by allowing them to come into their space, demand attention and invade the space of others, the ruder the dog the worse it will be about leaning into pressure. Some get kinda angry too when you try to teach them that leaning will no longer be tolerated, not tolerating it at any level (at home and at the training pen) will improve the chances of getting it consistently at the training pen. Another note, I've noticed that dogs that lean into pressure often times don't have good feel, get them to stop leaning and all of a sudden they can feel and will begin to display keenness and style if they were blessed with via breeding.

 

Deb

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Then, on the other hand, I've seen a lot of really, really good handlers with good responses to variations of the "make the ground dangerous" technique, so different strokes for different folks. Might be a good topic for a training thread, Debbie?

[Debbie Meier]

Then, on the other hand, I've seen a lot of really, really good handlers with good responses to variations of the "make the ground dangerous" technique, so different strokes for different folks. Might be a good topic for a training thread, Debbie?

 

Now don't think I'm saying that it does not work, it does, but think about something, those really good handlers that you saw that get good responses, do they allow their dogs to lean on their pressure or have they already taught or brought their dogs up in a method that discourages leaning or challanging? It's the step that gets missed by those that don't have the expirence, why does my dog ignore me or run past me when I try to apply pressure to a place in front of him, because he does not understand that he should acknowledge your pressure.

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

It is my expirence that making the ground dangerous does not work well or takes a lot longer for the dog to get the idea of what your trying to teach when a dog leans or goes to pressure.

Could this be because of a lack of training experience? The method seems to work quite well for the likes of Derek Scrimgeour and Jack Knox (and others who use variations), but of course they have tons more experience training dogs than the rest of us do.

 

ETA to reply to your response to Becca above. I am by no means in league with the folks I mentioned, and yet I can make the method work with my dogs. And no, I don't spend time off stock teaching them to step away from my pressure. I think timing has a lot to do with the success of this training method.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Could this be because of a lack of training experience? The method seems to work quite well for the likes of Derek Scrimgeour and Jack Knox (and others who use variations), but of course they have tons more experience training dogs than the rest of us do.

 

J.

 

Refer to my reply to Becca, it's not about whether the method works or not, it's about setting the dog up so that he understands what is expected so that the method works better. I'm pointing out where the expirence could be lacking that causes the method to fail or not work as well as it could and why it would work better for some then others, the understanding of what you are trying to accomplish.

 

As far as my expirence (or as some would like to flag my lack of ), if I take a dog that someone brings in that is leaning on pressure and just apply the technique of making the ground dangerous on them, yes I can get them to figure it out. If I first take a step back and teach them to move off pressure and not lean I can then apply the technique and get immediate results.

 

Deb

[Debbie Meier]

ETA to reply to your response to Becca above. I am by no means in league with the folks I mentioned, and yet I can make the method work with my dogs. And no, I don't spend time off stock teaching them to step away from my pressure.

 

Julie, it's not about you, I trust that your dogs are not allowed to be rude and barge into your space or ignore your existence, I would imagine that you don't have to teach them at a later age, they already understand it. It's about the other people that don't have that built in, and then will skip the step of teaching the dog to acknowledge them in hopes that they can get it with the draw of stock adding intensity. If it's not right, away from the stock it won't be right when you bring the stock into the picture. By recognizing and dealing with the problem (leaning into pressure) away from the stock there is a better chance of identifying the problem when you go to the stock.

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Debbie,

I get that. What I, and I think Becca, was taking exception to was your blanket statement:

 

It is my expirence that making the ground dangerous does not work well or takes a lot longer for the dog to get the idea of what your trying to teach when a dog leans or goes to pressure.

 

because while that may be your experience, it doesn't necessarily mean that in general the method doesn't work well or takes a lot longer (even for pushy dogs), as evidenced by how well it works for some. In other words, I took exception to the dismissive generalization of your statement, when appaently what you meant was that "making the ground dangerous" might not work well for some people/dogs.

 

Now that you've clarified your comments, your generalization above makes more sense.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

I reread it and don't get out of it what you guys did, but I read for what it is and I don't add an assumption of malice. To me, it was pointing out that little thing that will make the difference between success and failure (or anything inbetween, the sorta works). Making the ground dangrous infront of the dog only works if the dog is willing to yield, heck I can't think of any training technique or method that will work to it's potential without the dogs willingness to yield.

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Debbie,

I don't get why you think there's some intention of malice in my interpretation of your comments. I don't know you and so couldn't really have any malice toward you and simply read your words and responded to them. This is a large forum with a lot of people who have little or no experience training dogs on stock. I don't think generalizations are helpful in that regard. If someone read your statement above (the one I originally quoted) and then got the idea that "making the ground dangerous" doesn't work or takes too long, I think we'd all be doing them a disservice, especially if somewhere down the line they end up with a trainer who uses that technique. We ought to be able to discuss different training ideas and philosophies without anyone getting bent out of shape or feeling picked on over it. In the world of stockdog training, as you well know, there are lots of different ideas about what's useful and what's not. I think all of us realize that if we post our thoughts on training, someone is likely to disagree. But the folks following the disagreement will surely get a much better education on the subject than if those discussions never took place, wouldn't they?

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Just kinda thinking about this yield deal, poor Narita keeps coming back looking for help with her Aussies, Virgil tried to explain that she needs to get her dogs to yield and factor her in when working, but she still does not get it. Plain and simple, her dogs are not willing to yield, and I am willing to bet on any level, not just on stock. If she could acknowledge lack of yeild, identify and eliminate every place in the relationship between her and her dogs where the dogs do not yield or give and change it, she will have a better chance of success when she takes her dogs to sheep. IMO, it's why when you take your dog to an instructor the dog mysteriously understands or conducts himself in a workmenlike manner rather then trying to run the show, the instructor demandand yield and acknowledgement, if they don't get it they hold the dog from the stock until he/she get's it, it might only take a second or two, but, because the instuctor knows what they are looking for it can be specific and quick, just that little thing. If you don't understand why you are holding your dog off stock, or what your looking for your not going to have success in teaching, your release will be just random.

 

I'm not trying to question other trainers techniques or methods, I'm trying to help point out the little things that make those techniques and methods work that in many cases are missed. It's really about relationship building with the dog, if that dog is unwilling to yield, give or acknowledge your pressure, your relationship with the dog is not in the best place for training it on livestock. IMO, when you are using a technique such as making the ground in front of the dog dangerous you are factoring in the relationship between you and the dog to help show the dog that he needs to change. If the relationship is not there, the method is going to not work to it's potential.

 

Now that I have rambled, sorry everyone, I'm not trying to preach just trying to add insight based on discoveries I have made while trying to help myself and others connect the dotes, I guess I look at what is preventing or inhibiting success and how can we change it in places away from livestock (great for people that don't have full time access to livestock) so that we can have success when we have access to stock, I'm lucky to have stock right out the door. I guess I could just settle with people being wowed when their dogs are handled by instructors and not try to help them to see what was done to create that wow, but that's just not my nature. On that note, as long as I'm sharing discoveries, when a trainer gets yield in your dog and then helps you get it you will make gains at that session, if when you go home you don't maintain that level of yield or being factored in, when you go back for you next training session you will be right back in the same place you were before your trainer helped you get your dog to yield. Maintain it at home and in all aspects of your relationship and you will be able to build on the previous lesson rather then spending the time going back over what you did last time.

 

Becca is right this probably should have gone to a new thread, but imo it's how hard dogs are made, by allowing allowing a dog to be hard, now if you do everything to disallow it and your dog still chooses to be hard then you have a true hard dog. Personally I don't think many dogs are true hard dogs, I think most that have been labled as hard have been allowed to be, or basically man made hard. (excluding those that have been labled hard by those that understand good working relationships, typically if they say a dog is hard after working it, it's hard).

 

I hope someone get's something useful out of the time I took to type this and think about it, if you don't, just ignore it.

 

Deb

[Debbie Meier]

Debbie,

I don't get why you think there's some intention of malice in my interpretation of your comments. I don't know you and so couldn't really have any malice toward you and simply read your words and responded to them. This is a large forum with a lot of people who have little or no experience training dogs on stock. I don't think generalizations are helpful in that regard. If someone read your statement above (the one I originally quoted) and then got the idea that "making the ground dangerous" doesn't work or takes too long, I think we'd all be doing them a disservice, especially if somewhere down the line they end up with a trainer who uses that technique. We ought to be able to discuss different training ideas and philosophies without anyone getting bent out of shape or feeling picked on over it. In the world of stockdog training, as you well know, there are lots of different ideas about what's useful and what's not. I think all of us realize that if we post our thoughts on training, someone is likely to disagree. But the folks following the disagreement will surely get a much better education on the subject than if those discussions never took place, wouldn't they?

 

J.

 

But you intentionally chose to discount part of my quote, "when a dog leans or goes to pressure" and you went on to bring yourself into it "And no, I don't spend time off stock teaching them to step away from my pressure"

 

No matter how hard you try to write in a method to discourage misinterreptation it's going to happen. I choose to identify an issue that stands in the way of making a method effective to enable help enable the success of the method, I was not trying to discredit it. By you assuming that I was trying to discredit the method I then have reason to imply malice in your post, why else would you worry about it being read from the direction of it plain not working or working well?

If someone read your statement above (the one I originally quoted) and then got the idea that "making the ground dangerous" doesn't work or takes too long, I think we'd all be doing them a disservice, especially if somewhere down the line they end up with a trainer who uses that technique.

 

I'm not bent about you bringing up the possiblity of misinterreptation, I did get alittle bent about the way you did it, and I understand that some may get put off by the way I do it. So we learn by it and move on, right? BTW, honestly, why did you and Becca think I was discrediting the method of making the ground in front of the dog dangerous? Was it the words I typed or the assumptions that have been made and applied when the words were read?

 

ETA: It's those little twists of the knife

"But the folks following the disagreement will surely get a much better education on the subject than if those discussions never took place, wouldn't they?"

The statement stands on it own with out the "wouldn't they?", that little twist or extra adds the bite or the poke. Maybe you don't intend it, and maybe I should ignore it, but in real conversation it would be unwarrented, also the "surely" adds alittle on it's own, and depending on how it is spoken could add a level of sarcasim or higher then thou attitude, especially where it is placed in the sentence. I'm not trying to spar on the subject, just telling you how I read it.

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Oh good grief. I give up. You're right. I deliberately misinterpreted your words so I could make you look bad and discredit you in front of the world. In fact, apparently Becca and I both deliberately misinterpreted you. ISTM that if two people take what you say the wrong way then perhaps the misunderstanding is in the delivery and not in the "malicious interpretation." I'll say it again. I responded to your words. I'll say this again: I don't know you personally and so have no reason to make assumptions about you, even though you persist in thinking that's what I'm doing. According to your assumptions, I then deliberately twisted the metaphorical knife because that's how I get my jollies. Just FYI, that's how I talk in real life too. I honestly think you've gotten your feelings hurt here even though that wasn't my intention and now you'll be looking for percieved "pokes" in everything else I write. So I'm stopping now. If someone wants to start a training discussion in the training section, I'll be happy to contribute, but I won't spend hours trying to word things so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities.

 

J.

[1sheepdoggal]

Just FYI, that's how I talk in real life too.

 

J.

 

I can personally vouch for this statement!

 

As I have on occasion been on the recieveing end!

[AdmiralGonsiorowski]

It is my expirence that making the ground dangerous does not work well or takes a lot longer for the dog to get the idea of what your trying to teach when a dog leans or goes to pressure.

 

I don't have any experience with anything to do with stockdogs, but I do have some experience with English and writing, and I think this is the sentence that may be causing misinterpretation.

 

If you read it without stopping to think about the "when a dog leans or goes into pressure" it does seem like a pretty rash generalization. If you're the kind of reader who reads paragraphs instead of sentences, it's an easy thing to miss.

 

It seems like everyone is agreeing on the topic but is disagreeing about the words, you know?

[Sue R]

I second you, Darci - Julie is plainspoken, means what she says, isn't prone to double-talk, and I have been on the receiving end - and I deserved it!

 

Come on, folks, don't look for offense where it isn't intended. In fact, don't look for offense when it is intended because it will only bother you. If Julie meant to offend, believe me, everyone would know it because she'd come right out and say it.

[1sheepdoggal]

I second you, Darci - Julie is plainspoken, means what she says, isn't prone to double-talk, and I have been on the receiving end - and I deserved it!

 

Come on, folks, don't look for offense where it isn't intended. In fact, don't look for offense when it is intended because it will only bother you. If Julie meant to offend, believe me, everyone would know it because she'd come right out and say it.

 

 

Then you certinly know what Im talking about!

[Debbie Meier]

I don't have any experience with anything to do with stockdogs, but I do have some experience with English and writing, and I think this is the sentence that may be causing misinterpretation.

 

If you read it without stopping to think about the "when a dog leans or goes into pressure" it does seem like a pretty rash generalization. If you're the kind of reader who reads paragraphs instead of sentences, it's an easy thing to miss.

 

It seems like everyone is agreeing on the topic but is disagreeing about the words, you know?

 

Hey, that's interesting, taking into account how people read, paragraphs instead of sentences. I keep going back over it and think that maybe I should have added a comma, but that would allow the first part to stand on it's own, as in "such as" as oppsed to the end being a qualify of the beginning (is qualify the right word?). If I had expressed it this way would it have made a difference?

 

"It is my expirence that when a dog leans or goes to pressure, making the ground dangerous does not work well or takes a lot longer for the dog to get the idea of what your trying to teach."

 

BTW, I'm not hurt, maybe a little frustrated that I am misunderstood, though for as many people that misunderstand what I am getting at I get those that say they understood it. I just keep trying to learn how to best communicate myself to the people that have the most to gain.

 

ETA, I just went back and read my entire post, the sentence/statement was not meant to stand on it's own. So I guess I don't understand why someone would take just that part out of the paragraph, it takes it out of context.

 

Oh well, life goes on...

 

Deb

[AdmiralGonsiorowski]

Hey, that's interesting, taking into account how people read, paragraphs instead of sentences. I keep going back over it and think that maybe I should have added a comma, but that would allow the first part to stand on it's own, as in "such as" as oppsed to the end being a qualify of the beginning (is qualify the right word?). If I had expressed it this way would it have made a difference?

 

"It is my expirence that when a dog leans or goes to pressure, making the ground dangerous does not work well or takes a lot longer for the dog to get the idea of what your trying to teach."

 

BTW, I'm not hurt, maybe a little frustrated that I am misunderstood, though for as many people that misunderstand what I am getting at I get those that say they understood it. I just keep trying to learn how to best communicate myself to the people that have the most to gain.

 

Deb

 

 

I think writing it with the qualifier at the beginning definitely makes the statement easier to understand. "Leans or goes into pressure" is a little vague, too. It makes sense, but specifying that you mean the dog is responding to pressure in the wrong way would help you get your point across. It might make the sentence kind of long, but that's okay if it makes it more understandable.

[Debbie Meier]

I think writing it with the qualifier at the beginning definitely makes the statement easier to understand. "Leans or goes into pressure" is a little vague, too. It makes sense, but specifying that you mean the dog is responding to pressure in the wrong way would help you get your point across. It might make the sentence kind of long, but that's okay if it makes it more understandable.

 

 

I guess I gotta keep in mind the "if/then" statements, "If the dog leans or goes to pressure, I should say "Then the dog is responding to pressure incorrectly." But then, does that leave the second part out there for question? It's kinda neverending.

 

Deb

[AdmiralGonsiorowski]

I guess I gotta keep in mind the "if/then" statements, "If the dog leans or goes to pressure, I should say "Then the dog is responding to pressure incorrectly." But then, does that leave the second part out there for question? It's kinda neverending.

 

Deb

 

 

Yeah, you could probably spend all day moving your words around and still someone will misunderstand your meaning. I think the main point of your post was that teaching the dog to give into pressure outside of stock training will make it easier for him to understand the "make the ground dangerous" training, right? So you could restructure the statement to take out the negative implication of "does not work well or takes longer", and instead say something like "It is my experience that teaching the dog how to give into pressure away from stock makes it easier and quicker to teach him to respond correctly on stock. That way, you say the same thing but there are no negative phrases to be taken out of context.

 

I don't think there was anything wrong with your original wording, really, especially if you were to say it out loud. It made sense. It just happened to leave an opening for it to be taken the wrong way.

[Debbie Meier]

I think the main point of your post was that teaching the dog to give into pressure outside of stock training will make it easier for him to understand the "make the ground dangerous" training, right?

 

 

Yup, exactly.

 

Deb

[Little Bo Boop]

From reading Debs post, it would seem to me that she is trying to apply a techinque or method of training, that is generally seen applied in horse training; watch any one of the horsey gurus on the tube, and you'll see what I mean. On the face of it I guess I don't see how that approach would applicable in stock dog training. I totally don't get this statement

 

"You can test your dogs pressure response at home before ever going to a lesson or work, step into the bubble of space around your dog, does he move off, does he ignore you or does he come to meet you, if he does not move off or if he comes to meet you correct him, what does he do, does he move off and yield to the pressure or does he assert more pressure back. If he asserts more pressure back then you have a dog that has a tendency to lean into pressure and not stop or make a change when you try to apply pressure but rather accelerate on the wrong path. IMO, people train dogs to lean into pressure by allowing them to come into their space, demand attention and invade the space of others, the ruder the dog the worse it will be about leaning into pressure."

 

I would dare say that 90% of the trialing dogs on this board, would fail your test. I'm not saying your method won't work (hell for all I know you're a national finals winner) but I can't see where this would be a valid 'test' of your dog's response to pressure when working stock.

 

Betty

[juliepoudrier]

I would dare say that 90% of the trialing dogs on this board, would fail your test. I'm not saying your method won't work (hell for all I know you're a national finals winner) but I can't see where this would be a valid 'test' of your dog's response to pressure when working stock.

I tried to say something like that about my own dogs, Betty, but was accused of inserting myself into the discussion inappropriately--you know after "discrediting" that part of the statement I deliberately misinterpreted by having ignored the part about dogs leaning into the pressure. My attempt at answering the part about my dogs at home giving to my pressure on a regular basis off stock was apparently just another slam. But whatever. Maybe it's just more acceptable coming from *someone else.*

 

J.

[Shoofly]

I would dare say that 90% of the trialing dogs on this board, would fail your test. I'm not saying your method won't work (hell for all I know you're a national finals winner) but I can't see where this would be a valid 'test' of your dog's response to pressure when working stock.

 

Betty

 

Yep, i'd agree with Betty. My experience has been almost directly the opposite, in that my one and only dog that pushes into pressure is my softest, mushiest dog off stock. I'd say i've experienced no correlation at all between pressure reactions on and off stock. I can also say that about 90% of BCs will give to pressure on stock *applied correctly*, so teaching a dog to move away from a person before stockwork could easily be irrelevant to what it does on stock in regards to pressure. I'd guess it might teach a dog to fear his handler a bit more and get the handler more respect around stock but i've started dozens of dogs that i've only met 2 minutes before letting them loose around sheep and my 90% estimate of "pressure givers" is based on that. Just my experience. I do know certain lines of dogs lean into pressure so perhaps if someone is dealing with a lot of dogs out of those lines, their experience would be different. It's also possible to make dogs hard and fight pressure if your timing and application is off.

 

That's what i like about the "dangerous ground" application of pressure. It's not about pressure on the dog so it doesn't teach a dog to fight it. Teaching a dog to move away from you off stock and the dangerous ground training method really aren't the same thing.

[Denise Wall]

This may be a huge mistake on my part but here goes.

 

I have had plenty of dogs that move into pressure, especially starting out. The thing is, they tend move into pressure from both me AND the stock. I used to fight with them but I don't anymore. I normally find that instead of *forcing* these dogs to move off of me, I look for the amount of pressure or a way (such as dangerous ground) where I can get some response and build on that to get the dog in the right place to feel the proper effect on the sheep. In other words I don't try to overdo it, run the dog off too far and then let the dog come back in close enough. I try as hard as I can to not turn it into a battle between me and the dog but instead one where my presence is sufficient to get the dog where they need to be *while still thinking about and feeling the stock.* IOW, not turn it into a battle between me and the dog having nothing to do with the stock. I think this "you and me battle" is pretty common, ending up where the person feels they have to "break" the dog to make them listen. I can't imagine forcing a dog off me with no stock there at all as Deb describes. I especially don't want "you and me" battles that don't even include the stock in what I want to be a three way relationship between me, the dog and the stock.

 

The thing is, I suspect many of these dogs that move into handler pressure, especially when too much pressure is put on the dog, are also dogs that naturally do this on stock. I don't want to take too much of this wanting to pressure stock when stock is pressuring them out of the dog. I just want them to learn to read how to react appropriately to pressure from me and stock. If the stock puts too much pressure on them, I WANT them to pressure the stock back, not give to the stock. I expect this last statement will be met with "they know the difference," "need to learn to respect the trainer," etc. Maybe that's true. However, the pressure of training a dog to the highest levels takes a lot out of a dog. I don't think a lot of people realize how much it takes out of a dog. Training should be as efficient as possible. Even if I start with a lot of dog, I still try to keep as much dog there as I can all the way to the end. JMHO.

 

A big hat once described a technique for widening an outrun that I have never forgotten. It really requires nothing but a lie down, patience and commitment. Perfect timing is not needed. The sheep need to be held somehow though. Send the dog, and as soon as you notice the dog coming in too tight, lie the dog down. Keep the dog lying down as you walk out there. Use as soft a voice as you can to keep the dog down until you get to the dog. Then take the dog out to where they should be on that outrun at that point. Lie them back down and keep them down. Walk back to where you started from. Send the dog again from that correct point. If the dog starts to come in tight, repeat the process. What you're doing is putting the dog at the proper distance while leaving it calm and in a frame of mind to feel where it should be in relation to the sheep. The dog needs to have the inborn talent to feel the sheep for this to work. The idea is to remove the outer layer of excitement or inappropriate response to handler or sheep pressure or whatever that is getting in the way of the talent.

 

Denise