Starting a dog

[jdarling]

Kathy,

 

We used to travel by horse and carriage...we used to wash our clothes in the river...we used to train dogs with choke collars and hanging...

 

And now, we can learn to herd right from our very own desk chair.

 

THIS is your brainchild?

 

Jodi

[Liz P]

Kathy,

 

Have any of your students, using entirely your training methods, taken a dog from the round pen all the way to Open?

[PennyT]

"A long string attached to the pup's neck, in the hands of the shepherd, is often necessary to make it become acquainted with the language of the various evolutions connected with his work. With this contrivance it may learn to 'Hold away out by!' 'Come in!' 'Come in behind!' 'Lie down!' 'Be quiet!' 'Speak to'em!' 'Get over the fence!' It will, if due patience and consistency are exercised, learn all these terms and others in a short time....The rudiments of training consist in bringing him to promenade back and forth from one side of the flock to the other at the motion of your hand. The next will be to have him pass up the side of the flock....By degrees the dog will be urged up towards the head of the flock, and partly around. While there, change your position at the rear of the flock, towards the right--supposing you were at the left side--and call him down towards along the right side, by making a motion towards you, and crying, "Come in!" A sweep of the arm from the side you wish him to start to the other, is the proper motion, when you want him to ahead and around them, and the motion should be accompanied with the cry--"Around them!" It requires some time and patience to bring the dog up and ahead of the flock. It will come by degrees."

Paaren, N.H. "Training Collie Dogs." Southern Cultivator; May 1876; 34, 5.

 

No matter how polished the marketing, before pointing a new age finger, it's a good idea to know whether methods really are revolutionary.

 

Note that Dr. Paaren, who was Illinois state veterinarian around the time of the article BTW, acknowledged he had difficulty getting the dogs to head after teaching them to promenade in back.

 

I have several more similar references from different people. I suppose now the slant could be the rebirth of herding techniques long shrouded in mystery.

 

I also have directions for the safest way to hook a young dog to an older one if anybody wants them.

 

Penny

[Pippin's person]

I also have directions for the safest way to hook a young dog to an older one if anybody wants them.

 

Penny

 

Now, that sounds very promising....

[Eileen Stein]

As with any revolutionary method in the history of humans on earth, there is much misunderstanding, suspicion and great discomfort in exploring the unknown...humans rarely will step out of their comfort zone willingly, and will work hard to convince others in their community to stay there with them.

 

Hmm. I was thinking that the chief selling point of this method would be that it would appeal to newbies with a background in dog sports, who could by its use avoid the uncertainty and relinquishment of control that is necessary in stockdog training, but foreign to the type of training they're used to. If they can keep their dog on a leash next to them, keep him from the sheep, and keep anything unexpected from happening, then they can stay in their comfort zone. Discomfort in exploring the unknown is minimized. Everything is going very smoothly, and they have their coach's assurance that their dog is really herding and is mastering all kinds of new skills.

 

But if you're saying that experienced stockdog trainers and handlers would resist your method out of fear and discomfort with the unknown, I think you're both overestimating the novelty and complexity of your method, and underestimating the dedication and openness to new and better methods that is typical of good trainers and handlers. From what I've observed over the last 20-25 years, most are eager to try an unfamiliar method if it has shown itself to be better than the ones they are using, or if they can even see a reason why it MIGHT be better. I think that accounts for the gradual improvement of training methods from the era of the passage Penny quoted up to today. But if they see no evidence that it works better, and based on years of experience can see obvious risks and pitfalls that could result from it, they are not likely to embrace it -- for reasons having nothing to do with comfort zones. And I think that posters who questioned what they saw here were not "working hard to convince others in their community to stay [in their comfort zone] with them"; they were simply saying that while it may be an optical illusion, from where they're sitting it looks as if the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

[Wendy V]

Liz P writes;

 

Kathy,

 

Have any of your students, using entirely your training methods, taken a dog from the round pen all the way to Open?

 

Does this question even reflect reality? How many open handlers do you know that use only one trainer's method exclusively? And as Penny T pointed out, rarely is a method unique, but more a conglomeration of different training experiences. Seems to me you are just picking a fight.

 

Kathy, dear friend of mine, you were brave to post here, and your explanations were carefully detailed and reflective of your truest intent to teach what is in your heart, but I am afriad that you are going to be slaughtered by this band of ruffians. Keep your chin up, sweetie, and continue doing what you do best.

 

Wendy

[Eileen Stein]

Does this question even reflect reality? How many open handlers do you know that use only one trainer's method exclusively? And as Penny T pointed out, rarely is a method unique, but more a conglomeration of different training experiences. Seems to me you are just picking a fight.

 

Really? I disagree. Maybe it would be better to ask the question more broadly -- something like "How many of your students who have trained with you from the start are trialing now, and at what level are they trialing?" -- but surely results are relevant in assessing a training method, not just the good heart or promotional materials of its developer/practitioner.

[Wendy V]

Eileen,

 

I agree that your question is better stated. Perhaps an informative thread would be one titiled "How many teachers did it take to get you to Open?" In my case, I learned from at least a half a dozen. I know of no one that drank the Kool-aide from just one instructor.

[Eileen Stein]

Drank the Kool-aide?

[Liz P]

Really? I disagree. Maybe it would be better to ask the question more broadly -- something like "How many of your students who have trained with you from the start are trialing now, and at what level are they trialing?" -- but surely results are relevant in assessing a training method, not just the good heart or promotional materials of its developer/practitioner.

 

Much better way of asking! Thank you.

 

I don't mean to pick a fight and I agree that most people learn from many instructors, not just one. I guess my scientific mind was getting the best of me. I want to know of her training methods alone are adequate for getting a dog to Open. If her students are using methods from other instructors we don't really know which ones had the most impact on the dog.

[Liz P]

Drank the Kool-aide?

 

An expression some of us use for people who so idolize others that they are unable to see their faults. It's a reference to those people who drank poisoned kool aide for that mass cult suicide.

[Wendy V]

Drank the Kool-aide?

 

A la "Jonestown". Surely you remember. Common expression in the midwest.

[Eileen Stein]

Right. I'm familiar with its usage referring to poison, or to swallowing poisonous teachings. It struck me as an odd way to refer to training help that "got you to Open." I actually know of several people who got to Open with the help of only one trainer (it was probably more common in the past than today). I guess I just don't get why you would say they were drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

The question you propose would be an interesting one, but, as you say, one for another thread. "How many of your students who have trained with you from the start are trialing now, and at what level are they trialing?" would be relevant to this thread.

[RMSBORDERCOLLIES]

Hmm. I was thinking that the chief selling point of this method would be that it would appeal to newbies with a background in dog sports, who could by its use avoid the uncertainty and relinquishment of control that is necessary in stockdog training, but foreign to the type of training they're used to. If they can keep their dog on a leash next to them, keep him from the sheep, and keep anything unexpected from happening, then they can stay in their comfort zone. Discomfort in exploring the unknown is minimized. Everything is going very smoothly, and they have their coach's assurance that their dog is really herding and is mastering all kinds of new skills.

 

But if you're saying that experienced stockdog trainers and handlers would resist your method out of fear and discomfort with the unknown, I think you're both overestimating the novelty and complexity of your method, and underestimating the dedication and openness to new and better methods that is typical of good trainers and handlers. From what I've observed over the last 20-25 years, most are eager to try an unfamiliar method if it has shown itself to be better than the ones they are using, or if they can even see a reason why it MIGHT be better. I think that accounts for the gradual improvement of training methods from the era of the passage Penny quoted up to today. But if they see no evidence that it works better, and based on years of experience can see obvious risks and pitfalls that could result from it, they are not likely to embrace it -- for reasons having nothing to do with comfort zones. And I think that posters who questioned what they saw here were not "working hard to convince others in their community to stay [in their comfort zone] with them"; they were simply saying that while it may be an optical illusion, from where they're sitting it looks as if the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Hi folks and I really like your post Eileen. You are right when you say that the top trainers are always searching for new and better methods. I remember a conversation I had with Bobby D at his place in Ettrick a couple of years ago when he surprised me by saying that he lays in bed at night sometimes never getting to sleep trying to figure out a better way to solve a problem with a specific dog. The man never sleeps much anyway but he is a master with a dog of any kind and especially with strong dogs. As far as the long line is concerned which seems to be the subject being discussed in this post, it is only necessary to use a long line on some dogs, not all require it. At a clinic years ago Bobby was insisting that most handlers use the line on their dogs due to the fact that most had no control whatsoever. Bobby is very adamant that a dog be under control and have a good stop when they go to sheep and I fully agree with him. This is not to say that all dogs need this but all my dogs need it. There are virtually hundreds of ways to start dogs and there are vitually hundreds of different types of dogs and not all methods work with all dogs. I train quite a few custom dogs during the year, most on cattle but some on sheep and some for trialling and I would say that most of those that I start for cattle start with a line and about 50% of the sheep dogs I just start out in a 1 acre field without a line. Get the drift! There are those dogs that will stay off their sheep and have nice built in flanks and are biddable right from the get go and I wouldn't consider using a line on them at all and then there are those that run straight up the field at the sheep or cattle with absolutely no thought that there is a person out there. Out comes the line. There are lots of other scenarios that would take too much time to prove my point but when it comes down to what is right and what is wrong, the dog will tell you that pretty quick. So don't be afraid to try a few things that you think might work. You're not going to ruin the dog for life. These guys are pretty resilient and the proof is that we are still training them and they are still working and there are better dogs and handlers today than years ago and that isn't so because we have been afraid to try new things. It's because those top handlers and trainers have had to be very inovative to try to beat the next fellow or girl coming up behind him threatening to take the throne. Competition is fierce today and all the better for the folks and dogs coming up 'cause you're only as good as your competition and there's lots of it out there......Bob

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Maybe it would be better to ask the question more broadly -- something like "How many of your students who have trained with you from the start are trialing now, and at what level are they trialing?" -- but surely results are relevant in assessing a training method, not just the good heart or promotional materials of its developer/practitioner.

 

My question, actually, would not be as much whether students were trialing at the open level (although that's significant too of course). Rather, I'd be interested to know what work dogs finished primarily with this method, were doing - type of stock, size of operation, how many other dogs used, what sort of daily work done, etc. Plus trialing achievements.

 

I've seen three clicker-trained dogs "work." None of them could handle my non-school sheep outside a round pen. The other thing that struck me was that the handlers spent all their time watching their dogs. If I'm trying to pick out a limper to check feet, or split off the rams, or make sure a set of newborn lambs isn't wandering off from the group - I don't want to have to constantly ask for behaviors and reward them.

 

The striking thing about these dogs was that they were highly uncomfortable if they didn't get that confirmation, in spite of the fact that all three of them were pretty decent dogs.

 

There are a few things you can do with a clicker that apply to training for stock work - mostly troubleshooting. I'll admit to having used it (mostly because it was a successful experiment ). But I feel strongly that depending on it messes up how the dog's ability to handle pressure and its problem solving skills.

[kathykawalec]

The innovation of what I am doing lies in the intent of creating an environment of calm, focused learning for a new student teamed up with a new dog. Rather than putting this team into a pen with a loose dog whose focus (hopefully) transfers to the moving sheep and a handler who has no clue on where to step, how to help the dog...has never even seen sheep, and certainly has never seen her dog behave in this way before.

 

That is the point. It helps a new handler learn in a clear and progressive way how dogs effect sheep, how sheep react to the dog, how to recognize and teach a flank, how to have the dog control the movement of the sheep. The basics of it all. Learned in a classroom-like environment, as close as a pen with livestock will allow.

 

Can each of you remember starting your first dog? The confusion, chaos, frustration, the crying on your way home perhaps? That is what I am operating on here...attempting to create a better way for this beginning part.

 

After this first part...the rest of the teaching (as I offer it) of dog and handler is similar to what we are used to...and I simply add in my own intention for calm, mindful and connected partnering between handler and dog in the context of sheep work. Always looking to setting up the dog and handler for success each step of the way. Looking for ways to add depth of understanding to the concepts and application.

 

I often have handlers come for a lesson, they may be at the novice or pro-novice level, and they cannot even recognize a good flank, or other good move on the part of their dog. They have been learning about herding for one, two, four, or more years. It's not because their instruction was bad, or they just can't get it...it's simply because many details got lost in the confusion of everything moving way too fast from the beginning. This is remedied in new handlers by teaching in thin slices, ensuring the lesson is learned each step of the way. That's the innovation.

 

The other innovation, stepping away from tradition, is that almost any dog of any herding breed, teamed up with a willing human partner can learn the basics of herding and have fun trying. Not all of them are capable of going on to advanced work, but that's OK. Even amongst our border collies: How many times have we heard a herding trainer tell us or others: your dog is really not good enough to do this. Maybe sometimes that is true, but other times that dog just needed more patience and more clarity, allowing it to blossom in it's own way. So, for me, it's about giving every person and every dog a solid chance at working if they choose to try.

 

Communicating in person with full auditory nuance and facial expression is challenging enough for us...and a computer screen flatly displaying words can often lead to misunderstanding. I don't typically spend any time on forums etc, because so often is seems perfectly nice people forget their social skills and manners, and disrepectful comments and rude remarks are delivered in a way that would never happen if folks were standing face to face...or even on the phone. Dialog and debate is a beautiful thing...the other stuff, not so much. I try to imagine that I am speaking directly to a real, live person when I send written correspondence, and it helps remind me of my intent to be respectful, compassionate and peaceful...not always easy!! :-)

 

Kathy

 

PS: thank you Wendy...it's a little scary in here!

[Little Bo Boop]

and although many may find a new system of training too odd, my time is fully booked, and clinics full with keen folks wanting to learn a better way

(the bold type I added.)

 

Since the OP's post was about this 'better way' of training, could you or would you answer Liz P's query, and tell us what level of trialing your students and their dogs have attained. You say your 'time is fully booked, and clinics are full'. That would lead me to believe that there must be a lot of KK devotees out there on the trial field? Also, I'd be curious to know if you take in dogs for training or if you breed or have a particular line you like, and what have their accomplishments been?

 

Betty

[bcnewe2]

Hmm. I was thinking that the chief selling point of this method would be that it would appeal to newbies with a background in dog sports, who could by its use avoid the uncertainty and relinquishment of control that is necessary in stockdog training, but foreign to the type of training they're used to. If they can keep their dog on a leash next to them, keep him from the sheep, and keep anything unexpected from happening, then they can stay in their comfort zone. Discomfort in exploring the unknown is minimized. Everything is going very smoothly, and they have their coach's assurance that their dog is really herding and is mastering all kinds of new skills.

 

This is very simular to how MC advertises his methods to the all breed or newbie crowd.

THis is a direct quote off his website:

 

Is there something better than the traditional methods of training stock dogs? Tired of watching enthusiastic young dogs racing sheep toward you out of control? Had enough of yelling, running at your dog and throwing things at him? Well, then you most likely will greatly enjoy and appreciate the training methods of Marc Christopher. Quiet gentle maneuvers that make doing the wrong thing difficult and the right thing easy, highlight Marc's very intuitive way of schooling dogs. The dogs learn to handle livestock and then commands are put to the correct actions. All of the progressive steps are just as important for any breed of dog with some just moving through them faster than others. I believe understanding and utilizing Marc's methodology step by step provides the ultimate in training information.

 

And he appeals to the sport or conformation type people all over the US.

As I stated earlier, his methods (which seem to be very much like the method that is being discussed) can and do work, but I did not find they worked for me when I was just starting out. It didn't do anything to help me understand the "partnership" that you need to develope with your dog. Or the fact that these dogs need to be able to make decisions for themselves, wrong or right, they have to learn by doing or experiencing, not being told exactly what to do when to do it by someone that had no idea what they were talking about (me).

 

I do know of several, ok maybe I can think of one person in particular that wrote the above statement that is successfuly running in open.

 

The methond in my opinioin has great appeal to the sport or confromation type people for exactly why the reasons Eileen stated earlier. Stepping out of your comfort box is a hard thing to do when training dogs. BUt a must if you want to progress.

 

Eileen please feel free to delete my post if quoting something off a public website is not appropriate. Or mentioning names is not acceptable.

[ItsADogsLyfe]

Communicating in person with full auditory nuance and facial expression is challenging enough for us...and a computer screen flatly displaying words can often lead to misunderstanding.

 

Yet you hold "online" courses where you never see the people and you are trying to teach sheepherding with no sheep or dogs?

 

 

When I took my first Border Collie to sheep, I did not work him myself. I did not go in with him till his 5th lesson and then I went in the field with a top handler at a clinic. He guided me around by my arm and as "we" worked the dog he explained what was happening and why. My dog was only 9 mos old and yet he was working like a trained dog. The clinician explained why when we moved a certain way the dog did this. Or if we did something else, it caused the dog to do that. It was all working with the dog's natural instinct and how my movements affected that. I could never ever have learned all I did that day by having my dog on a short line in a small round pen where my dog could not have had freedom of movement. That dog and I went on to be very successful working together. I'm not a big trialer and my life at that time was not conducive to allow me to fullfill that dog's potential on the trial field, but if I had started him out on a short line walking behind sheep in a small round pen I'm sure I would never have gotten as far as I did by working with the dog's natural abilities in the beginning.

As to the Bobby D thing. I took a clinic with him when my dog was young. We allowed him to work the same way as with the other clinician, only on a long line. By long I am talking 150 feet of small line. This allowed my dog to work naturally, get behind his sheep and fetch them to me, but if he did not take my downs I had a means to get him up with and let him know he was wrong. The line never hindered my dog's work, only allowed me to have control of him if necessary. If the dog was right, the line never got picked up.

I've been very happy with the people I have been able to work with in the past 9 years and although some of the things we did were a bit different, mostly there was a main theme for the training and that was let the dog work and more mould that work and put a name to it rather than exert complete control over the dog. I can't see how keeping the dog on a short line and never letting it get to its sheep can do anything but frustrate a dog. If there is tension on that line, then that dog knows he isn't truly working those sheep. I try to let my dogs think for themselves and learn for themselves and just guide them. I believe you develop trust with that dog and form a working partnership.

[dracina]

PS: thank you Wendy...it's a little scary in here!

 

Hi Kathy,

 

It is a bit scary sometimes, but I think that everyone here has the same goal, which is to preserve, enhance, and promote the working ability of the Border Collie.

 

That is why there are so many questions: people want to know how your methods are meeting that goal (that is assuming that you also share that goal, which I think you do). I think people are curious, because not many have seen this type of training. Perhaps you could look at it as a way of sharing your vision, not as defending yourself from an attack.

 

As with any new idea, if you think you have a better theory, you have a responsibility to share that with your peers if you are truly concerned with the welfare of the working Border Collie. If you say that your methods are a better way, you should provide the proof to back it up.

 

I feel sorry that you feel scrutinized and on the defense. I did not want to cause you any harm; I was merely looking for answers. I am a beginning handler, so I can not make a judgement on your methods. But as in any business, if you hang your shingle as a trainer or expert in that field, you have to answer to your peers.

 

I will leave it to the professionals from here on out.

 

Karrin

[Lenajo]

While I'll agree that the first few session for a novice dog and handler combo can be a bit hairy, I'm not sure that managing on a lead is the answer. The first method invariably will show improvement with a good instructor - the handler starts to learn the "dance" and the dog starts to function as a teammate. When you work a dog on a lead, when does the improvement and understanding of *working* (not just being obedient) get to occur and be rewarded by successful movement of the sheep/release of pressure from the handler? After all we've got the same Novice in charge, so the timing and understanding is not going to be any better than it was off leash in the other method. That bad timing and understanding is just going to be inflicted on the dog _more_ if the dog can't get any further away than a leash.

 

It would seem that avoiding the "hairy" novice/novice sessions as much as possible were the main goal it would be simpler, and more effective, to have the instructor work the novice dog, while the human student works a trained dog. After a few sessions, the two novices shall meet again - both with better understanding of what working sheep is about. They will still have to learn to work together, and yes the learning curve may be steep, but that's where good instruction will fall into place.

 

One example given in defense of training on a rope was that handlers were coming to lessons that were already trialing, but did not understand a proper flank. I agree this happens, but I'm not sure how working on a rope can solve this. The number one thing to understand regarding flanks is to understand what flight zone is and where your dog is in relation to it. I just finished a series of clinics with another well known open handler/judge and the this was a huge discussion point. And the number one point was that you cannot get your dog to understand/feel a flank right until you get out of the round pen and off the rope and actually start watching your sheep and dog at the same time.

 

There is a misconception in sport dog training (where a lot of the newbies are coming from) that learning is only done when no mistakes are made. "Never let them fail" is the motto for many. I think that's because sport/pet training is about mechanics _ sit- down- heel- stay. You either do it, or you don't. Praise, reward, correct etc - its all black and white. Working stock feels a lot more like art. There are mechanics, but more importantly there is Feel.

 

There are methods for everyone out there. What doesn't change is this is, should, be about the dog controlling the stock.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

There is a misconception in sport dog training (where a lot of the newbies are coming from) that learning is only done when no mistakes are made. "Never let them fail" is the motto for many.

 

I am in complete agreement here. I've seen this quite often hampering progress for "crossover" students.

 

The confusion, chaos, frustration, the crying on your way home perhaps?

 

Not my experience at all, and seldom have I seen it at the fun days, lesson days and clinics I've attended (Jack Knox, Robin French, Julie Poudrier, and a couple of old timers that aren't around any more). Nor has it ever happened when I help someone "try out" the working experience for the first time with their dog.

 

My first time was with my old Ben dog. He was a balancing fool, but was nervous about pushing - he'd flank around beautifully, you'd think he was good to go, then he'd go CRASH in the back of them. The instructor showed me how it was that my standing like an idiot in the middle of the sheep was confusing him and causing the wrecks - he needed somewhere to take the sheep once he had them. "MOVE! Pick somewhere to go! He got the sheep for you - now where do you want them?"

 

Ben was an extremely practical worker and never, ever learned anything unless there was a context. Anything that looked like drilling and he politely said, "I'll go through the motions, but I'm not even gonna look at those sheep until there's something real to get done."

 

By the end of the weekend I was far from confused or frustrated. Instead I'd learned something I'd never known about my champion frisbee dog. I had a very clear picture of what had happened, and though the sheep had been hussled a few times, I didn't have an impression of chaos from the experience.

 

If I cried at all (I do think I did the last day) it was from happiness. I remember taking some pictures of Ben because it was his birthday, sitting on the farm drive with the sheep pastures in the background. He had just had his turn and he was splashed with mud. His expression was one of such joy and delight and an extra layer of "something" had lit up in his eye.

 

I still have those pictures and treasure them now that he's gone - in fact it's the one I framed to hang his collar on. I can still look at him and see him saying to me - "You are my team mate - we are going to have an incredible adventure together" - which we did for the next eleven years with him as my number one working partner here.

 

I don't think my experience was unique. I read, every week just about now, people reporting on their first experiences with working stock with their dog and I hear much the same feelings, I believe.

[juliepoudrier]

My first time was with my old Ben dog. He was a balancing fool, but was nervous about pushing - he'd flank around beautifully, you'd think he was good to go, then he'd go CRASH in the back of them. The instructor showed me how it was that my standing like an idiot in the middle of the sheep was confusing him and causing the wrecks - he needed somewhere to take the sheep once he had them. "MOVE! Pick somewhere to go! He got the sheep for you - now where do you want them?"

I had this exact same conversation with a newbie who was here working her dog last night. She didn't even realize she was standing in one place and not giving her dog a chance to bring the sheep to her, so when the dog got behind the sheep and she stood there and the sheep passed her, the dog's response was to race back around the other way to try and contain the sheep. I think she probably was a bit frustrated by what her dog was doing, but once I pointed out why the dog was doing what she was doing, it was like a lightbulb moment for the handler and I'd be willing to bet she won't make that mistake again--because the consequences were so obvious once pointed out.

=================================

 

When I asked the questions I asked about Kathy's techniques I didn't know who the trainer was, so my questions couldn't really be considered an attack on her or anyone else. Most of the top handlers I know and clinicians I've taken lessons from have mentioned how their methods have evolved over time as they figured out what things worked and what didn't, so it's not as if the working border collie community is completely averse to change. It wasn't so long ago that the commonly held belief was that you had to beat a dog before it would work properly for you. I'm sure some of that still goes on, but I think most of us are a bit more enlightened than that now (i.e., we are as a community capable of recognizing when a training technique is no longer suitable/vaild and moving on to a better method). Someone mentioned Bobby Dalziel talking of lying awake at night trying to figure out a particular dog. I've heard Jack Knox say the same thing. Most of us are asking the questions we've asked because we're genuinely curious about whether the long line method works. If students/practitioners of this method are succeeding on the farm and trial field in good numbers, then that's an indication that the method has merit and perhaps we should explore it further. If not, well, then the result speaks for itself.

 

Kathy herself noted that she uses the long line in a more limited fashion when she's training her own dogs. This says to me that the method she's using for her students is more about what the students can handle or find comfortable (inside their comfort zone) than whether the rest of us find it revolutionary or not.

 

==================================

Kathy, I appreciate you coming here and explaining your philosophy. You shouldn't feel as if you're being attacked if folks then ask for the proof of the pudding. Isn't that generally how revolutionary thinkers gain followers--by proving that their ideas work? (For example, even though some nutritionists pooh-poohed low carb diets, people still tried them because they worked, at least over the short term.) Your own accomplishments notwithstanding, how are your students doing on the trial field?

 

To be honest, I see this as someone (you) having come up with a training method for *people* (per Eileen's comments) that those people find acceptable (within their comfort zone) and are willing to pay for. The students who stick around must feel like they're getting something out of it (making progress) or they wouldn't keep coming back. I think you are doing these students a service, since through you they are getting out and doing some sort of stockwork with their dogs, and it's clear that at least the livestock and the students themselves aren't overly stressed by the program. If it's working for you and your students, then I say keep at it--it's not as if you're causing great harm. But I still think that if you want to claim that your way is better than more traditional methods you should be willing to back up that claim.

 

J.

[Liz P]

Sure, at first I was a bit confused. The instructor took my dog in, she ran a bit, but then within minutes she was flanking and looked great. At that point I went in with her and she showed me what to do. The woman giving me the lesson told me where to stand and what to do in order to control my dog.

 

I learned what a proper flank was by watching fully trained dogs. During lessons, while my dog was cooling off in the water, the instructors were pulling out their own dogs, working them and showing me what I needed from my dog.

 

I went home from my first exposure to sheep, with a 6 month old green dog, happy and excited for my next lesson. That one time was enough to get me hooked.

[Debbie Meier]

Thanks for making your last post Julie. I just had a thought strike me...

 

"Traditional Method", the cord as Kathy is using it has nothing to do with a method of teaching the dog, it has to do with the method of introducing new handlers to stock dog training and livestock. We kinda get wrapped up in that, I tried pointing earlier that it's about teaching handlers to train.

 

If we ignore the cord and look at the method of training, is there a variation in her "Method of Dog Training" that varies from others or the "Traditional Method", and exactly what is the "Traditional Method" of training, or is that the beat down deal that you mentioned? Is it possible that many of us no longer follow the "Traditional Method" of training stock dogs.

 

I hope that wasn't confusing, it was just a "whoa, wait a minute moment, let me look at this from a different vantage point to see if I can see around the tree"

 

 

Deb