Finding Balance - In training that is

[Debbie Meier]

I was putting more thought into Bob's post regarding lookback's and double lifts, Amelia's post about introducing shedding early on (quite awhile ago) and Darci's post about how much is too much and I realized that until we understand everything our dogs will be expected to do and the mechanics of it we really won't know how much is too much.

 

I was thinking about when we first start a pup and teach it to not leave anything behind, but we also have to be careful that we did not teach it to never let anything go, calling off, sheeding and double lifts are about releasing sheep. We want to teach the dog to keep the sheep together, but not to the point where they refuse to let them seperate, it's really hard to shed with a dog that insists that keeping the sheep together is a rule that should not be broken. We want to teach the dog how to move the sheep but not to the point where they can't control or stop them, along with teaching them how to stop them but not to the point where they refuse to move them.

 

When I first started to understand the foundation exercises and read the training books my first thought was to try to get my dog to do them perfectly and unconditionally, I realize now that that would have been a mistake, trying to use those exercises to set rules for my dog which later I would have to ask him to break. I think the rules are suppose to be about pressure using the exercises to help teach the dog how to handle certain pressure situations properly, not using the exercises to teach a particular manuver. If you teach a manuver and the pressure is not right all you have is an action that may not be relative to the sheep or cause adverse reactions from the sheep.

 

Anyway, the exercise I did with Jake to help him hold the pressure of the sheep made me realize that I taught him to reflank directly to the pressure and hold straight on rather then to support it to maintain a line. Yeah the reflank was right to prevent the line from going off, but I used it to a fault causing incorrect work in other areas and inhibited his ability to handle pressure. Sorry if that didn't make sense, I guess it's just real difficult to convey. I realize he's not ruined, I just have to teach him that the rules have changes and go back to expanding his toolbox.

 

I really need to thank Carol for being there and understanding, first the different philosiphy I train under and how it effects my dog, second for giving be great advice that makes sense to me to help me through my training hiccups (or atleast I think it makes sense, Jake says it does, he's had a change in confidence over the past few weeks). Taking lessons directly helps me a bit, but often time they leave me with more questions the answers. For me thinking through, proofing it in my mind and getting an understanding of cause and effect before I go out into the field works better for me, private lessons just don't work well for that type of learning process.

 

Deb

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I''m not sure whether this applies. But, I've been trying to go with an approach where I let my dog know what I expect - as a default - and then train the ability to follow commands to allow me to ask him to do things that run contrary to that. Default - bring all the stock. Ted has a few different commands that will let me "mess" with that under various cirumstances. "Leave it" "These" or "In here - these!" Or simply his name and "These!"

[Denise Wall]

Deb,

 

A lot good has been going on on the boards lately in the training sections but I've been otherwise occupied so I haven't been able participate. However, I'll jump in here. In general, IMO, you take too much of a technical approach to your training and thought processes about training. There are lots of ways of course but here's my take:

 

If you have a well bred border collie, the only thing you will actually need to *teach* the dog are inside and off balance flanks. Everything else should be in there and just needing to be developed. All of these things can be developed quite naturally using pressures from you and the stock. I realize this is a pretty sweeping statement and I've gotten a lot of flack before for making it. Regardless, I think of training as being more about feel, communication and proper attitudes from dog, handler and stock.

 

If you concentrate more on the work or the job as a whole, the dog will learn the variations and that there are no hard and fast rules. Many dogs have an inborn understanding of the work. I'll give an example. Mick was never a dog to run through sheep, even when he first started. Going around all of them and keeping them all together was very natural for him. He was a good shedder, but knew the difference of when the sheep should stay together and when the job was to separate and hold them. He was also the most honest dog I've ever had about staying on the correct side to catch sheep no matter how hard that was. As in, he would give the extra it took to catch the sheep the right way and not cross over even if crossing was the easiest way. I say all this to set up my example.

 

At Edgeworth at the Wilson's trial, the shedding ring is often perilously close to the exhaust gate which is often open. If the shed is before the pen, you really have to watch that the sheep your dog is not holding don't leave the course. Mick, not being a very mild dog, can cause the unheld sheep to spurt off on occasion as he comes in on the shed. This happened at Edgeworth one year and the unheld sheep took off for the exhaust gate. It was clear there was no way for Mick to catch them before they ran through the gate if he flanked around either direction. So he ran *straight through* the middle of them and stopped them before they got through the exhaust gate, put them back together, and brought them back for the pen.

 

An example of feel and communication is my old Zeke dog. If I was sorting sheep at a gate, I only had to indicate very subtly which sheep I was trying hold back and which sheep I was trying to let go and he would start helping me with those specific sheep. When I say very subtly I mean I would look at that sheep and he could tell what I wanted. He just picked up on it. No commands or me even thinking about him or where he was.

 

There is so much natural in these dogs. It just delights me to no end to see it come out depending on the situation without needing to be "trained" specifically.

 

Again, just my humble opinion.

 

Denise

[Debbie Meier]

I''m not sure whether this applies. But, I've been trying to go with an approach where I let my dog know what I expect - as a default - and then train the ability to follow commands to allow me to ask him to do things that run contrary to that. Default - bring all the stock. Ted has a few different commands that will let me "mess" with that under various cirumstances. "Leave it" "These" or "In here - these!" Or simply his name and "These!"

 

Just thinking about how to reduce anticipation, I'm thinking outloud here, if we program a default of keep them together will the dog resist moving them apart? If the dog has a default of fetching us the stock will he keep anticipating it making us constently managing the default through commands. Or do we want the dog to be open to which ever command and freely move from keeping them together to releasing them.

 

Just thinking that a default of bringing me the stock could cost me later on, what happens if the dog didn't understand what you wanted, would he bring you the stock, or would you rather he stopped and go into neutral staying engaged to the sheep?

 

I'm probably overthinking again, but it is a question, what do the open handlers/trainers want the dog to default t? Is Bob or Carol around???

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Great post, Denise. Thanks from grabbing some time to join in.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

In general, IMO, you take too much of a technical approach to your training and thought processes about training

 

Thanks Denise for posting, I could understand you having that opinion, but the technical approach is not for the dog, it's for me so that I can allow my dog to be natural. I'm trying to understand the expectations ahead of time so that when my dog offers the right thing I can recognize it.

 

Deb

[Debbie Meier]

Great post, Denise. Thanks from grabbing some time to join in.

 

J.

 

 

Oh lord, here comes the mechanical vs. natural lecture. Spare me.

 

Deb

[Shoofly]

Great post, Denise. Thanks from grabbing some time to join in.

 

J.

 

I'll second that.

 

I also agree that you're only going to "change" a dog so much with training. As the years go by and more dogs get trained, i believe it more and more.

 

Something i've been pondering on myself lately is how much more our dogs are capable of that we don't know or understand or ask for.

[Shoofly]

Oh lord, here comes the mechanical vs. natural lecture. Spare me.

 

Deb

 

That was uncalled for.

[cgt]

Is it hot in here, or is it just me?

[Denise Wall]

Thanks Denise for posting, I could understand you having that opinion, but the technical approach is not for the dog, it's for me so that I can allow my dog to be natural. I'm trying to understand the expectations ahead of time so that when my dog offers the right thing I can recognize it.

 

Deb

 

Deb,

 

I'm a scientist, a biochemist to be exact. I'm perfectly capable of being too technical and over thinking things. To a fault. I understand what you're saying and appreciate the effort you make.

 

What I'm saying is all that mental energy you're spending on the technical approach takes away from the mental energy you need to teach and allow yourself to feel and be flexible to each situation in the moment. It's hard, I know. But that's my take on it.

[Debbie Meier]

That was uncalled for.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't think it was, forgive me is I was misunderstanding the direction things were going. Isn't that were these things usually go, try to teach to much and your dog will be mechanical?

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Not Bob or Carol, but as an open handler, I can perhaps address this too. I think my training style is much more along the line of Denise's and I try to use practical work to teach the things I want. I hate drilling and so I just don't do it, or very rarely. With respect to the concept of teaching a dog to always bring everything and then that becoming the default, I think if you are always mixing things up and not drilling on one particular concept, then there's less of a chance tha certain default behaviors will develop.

 

For example, if I am working a very young dog on a large group and a nice hole opens up, I won't hesitate to call the dog through. We might not even be driving well yet, and so some might consider that going outside the normal progression of things, but if you take advantage of such oppportunities when they arise (and you work with varying size groups, etc., so that such situations might arise) then the young dog learns to become flexible from the start. It's never all about "you must keep them all together" because throughout the course of training, you are also teaching the youngster that they can separate them, drive some off, gather them back, drive some off and go gather another set, sort at the gate, and so on.

 

In my mind, the gather is the default for a well-bred working dog (in general). If you add other elements in as the dog learns and as the opportunities arise, then you will have a well-rounded dog that doesn't fight you when you ask it to do the unexpected (I realize that's something of a generalization, but I have found it to be mostly true).

 

I have a youngster who was having difficulty driving beyond a certain point, most likely due to a combination of lack of confidence and lack of a clear picture of what the job was, so he got the job of pushing the sheep off feed bunks in the morning. The flock is mixed hair and wool sheep and the hair sheep stay pretty fat and don't really need feed. So when we started out, his first job was to gather the flock so we could separate the hair sheep from the wool sheep. Separating was made easier for him by the fact that the hair sheep usually hang to one side of the flock, so I could send him around to gather the flock, and when they got close to me flank him around and call him through the space that usually exists between the hair sheep and the wool sheep. After penning the hair sheep, I'd turn him back on the wool sheep and ask him to push them away from the bunks. Later, I got lazy and didn't want to always pen the hair sheep up, so instead I'd have him push the whole flock away. The hair sheep would usually hang to the downhill side, so after I got the flock pushed away a good distance, I would flank him slightly toward the hair sheep but still between the slight opening between them and the wool sheep to apply just enough pressure to push them a little farther off of the main flock. Once there was a sufficient opening, I'd flank him between the two groups (the wool sheep would easily move away from the hair sheep as he went through), stop him on the point between the two groups, and then ask him to drive the hair sheep away across the ditch at the bottom of the field and down the other side a ways. This effectively meant that it would take them some time to get back to the feed bunks, by which time the wool sheep would have eaten most of the feed. As soon as he completed that task I called him back onto the wool sheep and either asked him to drive them a bit further away or gather them to the bunks (some of this work required a second, trained dog stationed at the bunks to prevent the wool sheep from coming in for the feast while Pip was busy managing the hair sheep). Of course such an exercise requires a dog to know its flanks, and in the beginning I had to be up close to help him understand what I wanted, but now I can ask him to do these tasks at 75 yards away and he understands. In this case, I was building flexibility in him through practical work and what was expedient for me as well. At two, one might think he should be doing only certain things in his training, but really if there's a way to challenge him and make him think and ask him to do things he might never even do on a trial field but that are still helpful to me at home, then I think it will make him a more well-rounded dog in the end. It's a more open-ended, less technical approach to training, but it's how I like to train.

 

ETA: While I was posting this missive, I see we've gotten to something about mechanical vs. natural and I just want to add that this is not about one or the other. In the above example, I am expecting Pip to be somewhat mechanical in that he has to listen to what I want, even if it may go against his instincts (e.g., *go* through the sheep on command and take one set away). But the end result should be a dog who is adaptable and thinking, which is probably *my* definition of a natural dog. So no, I don't think this is about natural vs. mechanical. I think it's about training expectations and approaches to get a desired end result that probably is pretty much the same for all of us.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Deb,

 

I'm a scientist, a biochemist to be exact. I'm perfectly capable of being too technical and over thinking things. To a fault. I understand what you're saying and appreciate the effort you make.

 

What I'm saying is all that mental energy you're spending on the technical approach takes away from the mental energy you need to teach and allow yourself to feel and be flexible to each situation in the moment. It's hard, I know. But that's my take on it.

 

 

Denise, thanks for elaborating. It's probably a difference in learning style, I need to understand what I am looking for, otherwise I miss it. If I have an understanding before I go out it increases the chances of me seeing what I need to see. I guess it's like Carol's suggestion on helping the dog to feel the weight of the sheep, I couldn't go right out and do it, I needed to think through it, weight it out, look at the cause and effects so that I could have an idea of what I was trying to help the dog with and then make the necissary adjustments, I needed to check to make sure my dog was stopping, releasing on his inside flank, etc.... The end result was not how I envisioned it, but I was able to recognized that it worked or was working, so I can now change my vision of the end result, which also changes my vision of the entire picture.

 

 

 

Deb

[Shoofly]

Julie brought up one of my favorite words in dog training - flexibility. The dogs come into training with a certain mindset of how they want to do things. We ask (train) them to work with us and to be flexible enough to do lots of different tasks at different times, and we ask them to be flexible and creative in their thinking to accomplish tasks (for example Denise's Mick going against all his natural desire to keep all stock together by running through the sheep at Edgeworth so he could complete the job at hand).

[Belleview]

One of the things that I get the biggest kick out of when working with new handlers is hanging out with them before their novice trial runs. We watch the runs before theirs and talk about the goings on. The conversations usually goes alot like this.

 

If we see a dog over-run the top and lose its sheep, I will inevitably be asked something like...

 

NN: "So, I should stop my dog short at the top?"

 

me: "Well, if you see your sheep starting to break early, yes. If your sheep are standing nicely, then, no."

 

We see a dog not cover on the fetch.

 

NN: "Um, so should I flank my dog over right away to cover that pressure?"

 

me: "Well, if your sheep are pulling that way, yes. If not, then no."

 

We see a handler misjudge the post and the sheep turn in front.

 

NN: "So, should I send my dog around to stop the sheep from slipping past?"

 

me: "Well, if your sheep are doing that exact same thing in that exact same spot, then yes. If they're doing something else, you'd better handle that instead."

 

Now, all this is good spirited, but still really valuable and fun to watch as the lightbulb starts to come on in the new handler's head when they realize that you really can't always have a concrete plan. In training and trialing, you have to play the cards you're dealt and take advantage of the myriad of opportunities you'll be offered and likewise, manage the mountain of problems and holes that will surely appear. Obviously, you have to understand the foundation stuff, but training your brain to think on fly and handle things as they come instead of expecting something particular is an enormous part of what gives me a high when training & trialing my dogs.

 

Flexibility is the key, for sure.

 

have fun.

 

Lori Cunningham

Milton, PA

[Guest carol campion]

My name has been mentioned here so for what its worth, let me add this.....

 

There are no two dogs or people alike. Every dog and every person learns a little differently and the training of each is a blend to see what it takes to get a point across—dog and/or person. Some people need analytical, some need purely visual, some need being taken by the arm and dragged about to get a point. Once a certain idea resonates it can often open up the other aspects of learning that may not originally have been the key way for an individual to learn.

 

I post with the hope that my ideas and experience will help someone out there who is struggling. They are not posted as bible as to how anything has to be done, but sent with information based on dogs and people that I personally have worked with and helped through issues that might be similar to what the poster is mentioning. Part of being a good teacher is being able to sense what the question is before the person really knows what they need to ask.

 

With these dogs, the difficulty is that everything is constantly changing. What worked one day may be useless the next day. So you need to be willing to find what is working and change as soon as you need to.

 

But change to what?

 

Herein lies the problem. Unless you have different tools, you are sometimes at a standstill for lack of knowledge as to how to procede.

 

What I want from my dogs is a blend of both natural and mechanical. I want to be able to turn the instinct and obedience on and off like a switch when I need it. Because I teach my dogs to stop & flank does not mean I have to ask them to. But I do believe these dogs need to be able to do that—if asked. Then it's up to the handler to find how much of each is wanted and needed with which dog, to create the best partnership. And to decide at what point to introduce this training, if at all. And that will depend on how natural a particular dog is and what type of dog a person enjoys handling. I think that's an important concept for anyone starting in this to try get their head around.

 

Some people like a dog with less feel so the dog doesn't argue with them so much. Some people like a dog with tremendous feel and opinion and then use commands to merely adjust the dog. Personally, I want a dog with tons of natural ability. I want them to be smart so to learn fast and to be biddable enough to partner with me. I want to be able to use flanks to put the dog on a specific pressure point when needed and then give the dog the sheep from that point and have all that opinion/natural take over. I want to be able to move the dog to wherever I need based on the task at hand. If natural and feel will get the job done best, that's what I want. If commanding to help or to avoid a situation is necessary, I want to be able to have that. I want a blend of obedience and instinct. That is how I handle; and I train my dogs for how I handle.

 

Because I like to handle and work a dog this way doesn't mean it is for everyone. And to the newcomers, you will change your ideas as you come along.

 

One thing to remember is that because someone is good at training or handling doesn't mean you are inferior. It just means they have acquired the "sickness" of training dogs earlier in their lives than you, so they might have more experience problem solving—they have maybe seen more scenarios. And rest assured you will see the trainers and handlers that came before you messing up like anyone else. Dogs are dogs and people are people. To be good at this, one needs to be self critical and open to change!

 

My post are sent with the intention of offering an option that may have been overlooked.

 

Best wishes

 

Carol

[Amelia]

Hello all, good discussion this. I like it. I believe also that well bred dogs are born with everything that they need, but with each particular skill and trait in different amounts. It's up to us to balance the dog through training, and the better we are at that, the better the dog we end up with.

 

I read a lot of discussion about the dog's this and the dog's that, and not near enough about our skill as handlers. What are we doing to become more skilled? Because the way it looks from here is that our dogs are a reflection of our ability to train them and nothing more. In other words, it's never the dogs, it's always us.

 

Example: When I started Price, I used a poor steady whistle. Price would run through it causing my drive lines to be crooked as hell and a lot of missed panels. When the opportunity presented itself, I paid a lot of money to ask a world class handler this question; "How do I drive a straight line?" He watched me drive my dog 30 feet and said 4 words that fixed the problem immediately and forever; "shorten your there whistle." I had been sure he would show me how to correct the dog.

 

The first thing I ask myself when I come up against a problem is what am I doing/not doing to cause it, and then I set about finding the answer.

 

Denise, great story about Mick running through the middle. I did that once myself a-horseback. We were gathering a bunch of wild steers off 3,000 acres and had a couple hundred headed into a shipping pen. Somebody (not me) had left the gate at the bottom end open and while we were driving them in at the top, they were beginning to escape out the bottom. Me and another guy ran down there and would have lost a bunch had we gone around to stop them. I knew better than to run through cattle, but it was the only way and we got them stopped and turned. I thought my ex would kill me for that and was preparing my best defense. I wonder if Mick felt the same way?

 

Cheers all

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I knew better than to run through cattle, but it was the only way and we got them stopped and turned. I thought my ex would kill me for that and was preparing my best defense. I wonder if Mick felt the same way?

 

I know this was a joke. But it made me think. Actually, knowing the relationship Mick has with Denise, if he were capable of such thought, he'd feel confident that Denise would feel nothing but pleased at his decision. He knows he is free to work "outside the box" from the way Denise trains, which kind of gets to the heart of the topic at hand.

[RMSBORDERCOLLIES]

Just thinking about how to reduce anticipation, I'm thinking outloud here, if we program a default of keep them together will the dog resist moving them apart? If the dog has a default of fetching us the stock will he keep anticipating it making us constently managing the default through commands. Or do we want the dog to be open to which ever command and freely move from keeping them together to releasing them.

 

Just thinking that a default of bringing me the stock could cost me later on, what happens if the dog didn't understand what you wanted, would he bring you the stock, or would you rather he stopped and go into neutral staying engaged to the sheep?

 

I'm probably overthinking again, but it is a question, what do the open handlers/trainers want the dog to default t? Is Bob or Carol around???

 

Deb

Yep, I'm here and I imagine a few more are also. Let's make this a little simpler for you Deb. Forget about default and program and resistance and anticiaption and all that stuff and let's look at what makes a border collie. The good ones come to you with the desire to work stock inherently built in. They want to fetch sheep to you. They also, most times, want to fetch ALL the sheep to you. As a trainer it is your job to get to know your dog as well as humanly possible and also to let your dog know what your expectations of him/her are. The KISS method works really well for me as I am a slow learner at times and I like to keep it simple. The simplicity of what we love to do is just this. We want to nourish and improve on what we started with which means that we have a goal of having a dog that will

#1 and I emphasize this strongly; The dog must do as he is told by the handler ALL THE TIME!!!

#2. We must leave the dog to do what he is bred to do except when he needs help or direction.

#3. Don't confuse obedience and being a good listener for mechanical. I tell most or all of my students to be in control but not controlling.

#4. Train your dog to work, not to trial.

#5. Challenge your dog at all times and keep your training periods interesting to both you and the dog. In other words, mix it up.

#6. Praise your dog for work well done in WHATEVER FORM WORKS FOR HIM/HER! I say this because there are so many different types of dogs out there that react well to many different forms of praise that you need to figure out what form of praise you use.

#7. Learn to read sheep so you can help the dog when he needs it and not get in his way when he doesn't need it.

#8. Your goal should be to have a dog is able to take a command at any place at any time and you need to know that you have the confidence in your dog to do that. That is what you need to aim for.

 

Now to get to some of Deb's specific questions:

(if we program a default of keep them together will the dog resist moving them apart? )

 

Not if he is trained to do as he is told and he is trained to understand what a shed or split or single is. Of course when you start training to shed he is going to resist coming through especially if he is a strong eyed dog but we won't get into that here right now.

 

(If the dog has a default of fetching us the stock will he keep anticipating it making us constantly managing the default through commands. Or do we want the dog to be open to which ever command and freely move from keeping them together to releasing them.)

 

I will quote you one this one: "we want the dog to be open to which ever command and freely move from keeping them together to releasing them." In other words, DO AS HE'S TOLD!

 

(Just thinking that a default of bringing me the stock could cost me later on, what happens if the dog didn't understand what you wanted, would he bring you the stock, or would you rather he stopped and go into neutral staying engaged to the sheep?)

 

If the dog didn't understand what you wanted, he is not trained yet and you need to carry on further with his training. Don't want a dog going into neutral at any time for sure. You need to remember when you go to the post with your dog, you are in charge. If you have done your homework before hand and brought the dog to the stage in training required for the class in which you run then you will go to the post with as much self confidence as possible, both in yourself and the dog. There's an old saying - "smell the roses" which in dog trainers' language means enjoy your training sessions and your dog and don't put any more pressure on either one of you than you can handle.

 

Hope I have anwered some of your questions Deb and remember; I don't have defaults on my dogs. They are all very flexible, not perfect, just flexible. They know what gathering is but they will push back the other way if I want them to. And they'll do a lot of other things if I want them to. That is what a trained dog is.

 

Good luck......Bob

[DeltaBluez Tess]

Once, the UPS had let the gate open at my farm. I had shut it earlier and he did a delivery and left it open. I didn't know he had left it open. I had let the sheep out to graze and they saw the open gate. I saw it after the sheep were bolting for it...they were going to the other pasture down the road (1/3 mile away)

 

They were hauling ass, so to speak, there was two 90 degree corners and then a long flat stretch...all on a road...I had Tess and she looked at me and I said "get them"

 

She ran like her tail was on fire and I ran after her. I saw cars on the road...I was sure they would slow down but you never know.....Tess ran straight through the middle of the sheep, scattered them right and left, then 20 feet in front of them, faced them and stopped. She leaned forward and froze. The car that was appoaching stopped and watched.

 

The sheep skidded to stop and I was huffing up the hill, one block away.

 

The sheep did an about face and then bolted back home, almost running me over in the process, followed by Tess. As she ran past her, she glanced up at me as if to say "Get your ass in gear"

 

 

I ran after her. She drove the sheep to the lower pasture gate and held them. She was laying down with her tongue hanging out and once again, her eyes said "Open the damm gate to put them in the pasture or shut the damm entrance gate to keep them in"

 

I shut the entrance gate and let the sheep free graze. Tess keep a close eye on the sheep and should any wander near the entrance gate, she put it back on the front lawn.

 

Later I had a wee chat with the UPS guy about his error and told him that he would be liable for 65 Registered Clun Forest ewes plus any car damage since he was at fault. He never left the gate open again and Tess has never busted through the sheep again. And the ewes have never made the break away escape again, even when I have the gate open to drive them down the road.

 

The "Get them" command is my command to her to get the sheep anyways you can, just get them...usually they are in high brush or marsh or stuck on an island surrounded by water.

[Wendy V]

Amelia writes:

 

I read a lot of discussion about the dog's this and the dog's that, and not near enough about our skill as handlers. What are we doing to become more skilled? Because the way it looks from here is that our dogs are a reflection of our ability to train them and nothing more. In other words, it's never the dogs, it's always us.

 

I quoted this statement from Amelia in order to emphasize its importance. In most cases, a training problem is a failure of understanding by the handler. Because my journey of understanding has been so slow and painful, I tend to approach every problem in a spirit of humbleness; seeking to understand where I have failed to read the situation correctly and/or where I have created confusion in the dog. In most cases, the dog is trying its heart out to please the handler and to work the situation in the capacity to which it has been trained. It is our obligation as handlers to dig deeper into ourselves to learn the subtleties of the training situation and to make our adjustments from that greater point of understanding.

[Denise Wall]

Not being one of the OP's chosen ones, I debated over coming back to this thread. However, I'd just like to tell everyone how much I appreciated reading all of their posts. All the different viewpoints were interesting, with many coming to the same conclusion - leave your dog alone to work naturally as much as possible and help when you need to, and expect your dog to be willing to comply when you ask. It's hard to leave your dog alone at trials, admittedly. It's in practical work and training where you mostly figure this balance out. And it's a fine line to maintain over a dog's life and as your own skills develop.

 

We've all been novices and heard the things we needed to do that we couldn't do yet. We did the best we could with what we had at the time. But I think it's important to remember these things people say that we can't do yet and keep striving toward these goals. Perhaps it's an endless journey that none of us quite reach. I know I'm no where close. However, in the end, it needs to be second nature as much as possible to really dance the dance. There's no time to think, just feel and react in the moment.

 

I've seen people get into the technical/mechanical stuff pretty exclusively and make it work well for them with certain dogs. Some of them do well initially but get stuck at a certain level and never advance because of it. Some of them have the feel and knowledge of livestock to make it work at high levels because they're putting the dog in the right place and not conflicting with what the dog wants/needs to do anyway as much.

 

IMO, it's a higher form of skill to assess if the dog is doing or going to do it right first and then step in if needed than to just take over and run the whole show yourself. In my experience watching people both in three day eventing with horses and with working border collies on stock, once you get yourself into that 100% (or close) control, it's hard to go back wards and give any control back to the animal.

 

 

 

Denise, great story about Mick running through the middle. I did that once myself a-horseback. We were gathering a bunch of wild steers off 3,000 acres and had a couple hundred headed into a shipping pen. Somebody (not me) had left the gate at the bottom end open and while we were driving them in at the top, they were beginning to escape out the bottom. Me and another guy ran down there and would have lost a bunch had we gone around to stop them. I knew better than to run through cattle, but it was the only way and we got them stopped and turned. I thought my ex would kill me for that and was preparing my best defense. I wonder if Mick felt the same way?

 

Cheers all

 

Becca is right. Mick and I understand and trust each other. I know his character well. He's the most sound minded dog on stock I've ever had.

[Sue R]

Not being one of the OP's chosen ones, I debated over coming back to this thread. However, I'd just like to tell everyone how much I appreciated reading all of their posts. All the different viewpoints were interesting, with many coming to the same conclusion - leave your dog alone to work naturally as much as possible and help when you need to, and expect your dog to be willing to comply when you ask. It's hard to leave your dog alone at trials, admittedly. It's in practical work and training where you mostly figure this balance out. And it's a fine line to maintain over a dog's life and as your own skills develop.

 

We've all been novices and heard the things we needed to do that we couldn't do yet. We did the best we could with what we had at the time. But I think it's important to remember these things people say that we can't do yet and keep striving toward these goals. Perhaps it's an endless journey that none of us quite reach. I know I'm no where close. However, in the end, it needs to be second nature as much as possible to really dance the dance. There's no time to think, just feel and react in the moment.

 

I've seen people get into the technical/mechanical stuff pretty exclusively and make it work well for them with certain dogs. Some of them do well initially but get stuck at a certain level and never advance because of it. Some of them have the feel and knowledge of livestock to make it work at high levels because they're putting the dog in the right place and not conflicting with what the dog wants/needs to do anyway as much.

 

IMO, it's a higher form of skill to assess if the dog is doing or going to do it right first and then step in if needed than to just take over and run the whole show yourself. In my experience watching people both in three day eventing with horses and with working border collies on stock, once you get yourself into that 100% (or close) control, it's hard to go back wards and give any control back to the animal.

Thank you, Denise, I always appreciate what you contribute.

 

We have had several excellent, thoughtful topics posted lately that all deserve multiple reads by folks like myself who really need to take some time to get our minds around the matter discussed.

[RMSBORDERCOLLIES]

Not being one of the OP's chosen ones, I debated over coming back to this thread. However, I'd just like to tell everyone how much I appreciated reading all of their posts. All the different viewpoints were interesting, with many coming to the same conclusion - leave your dog alone to work naturally as much as possible and help when you need to, and expect your dog to be willing to comply when you ask. It's hard to leave your dog alone at trials, admittedly. It's in practical work and training where you mostly figure this balance out. And it's a fine line to maintain over a dog's life and as your own skills develop.

 

We've all been novices and heard the things we needed to do that we couldn't do yet. We did the best we could with what we had at the time. But I think it's important to remember these things people say that we can't do yet and keep striving toward these goals. Perhaps it's an endless journey that none of us quite reach. I know I'm no where close. However, in the end, it needs to be second nature as much as possible to really dance the dance. There's no time to think, just feel and react in the moment.

 

I've seen people get into the technical/mechanical stuff pretty exclusively and make it work well for them with certain dogs. Some of them do well initially but get stuck at a certain level and never advance because of it. Some of them have the feel and knowledge of livestock to make it work at high levels because they're putting the dog in the right place and not conflicting with what the dog wants/needs to do anyway as much.

 

IMO, it's a higher form of skill to assess if the dog is doing or going to do it right first and then step in if needed than to just take over and run the whole show yourself. In my experience watching people both in three day eventing with horses and with working border collies on stock, once you get yourself into that 100% (or close) control, it's hard to go back wards and give any control back to the animal.

 

 

Becca is right. Mick and I understand and trust each other. I know his character well. He's the most sound minded dog on stock I've ever had.

My sentiments exactly Denise. Thanks for your great posts......Bob