Starting a dog

[juliepoudrier]

Deb,

When I refer to the "traditional method" I am not referring to the "beat the dog to make it work for you method" (which I thought I made clear was from the past) but rather what most of us have already discussed doing in this thread: put the new dog in a pen or field with well-dog-broke sheep and let it work (go around the sheep, using its innate desire to gather) while shaping that work (by making the right easy and the wrong difficult) through pressure/release and timing. The traditional method involves gathering and balancing first, not teaching flanks with the dog on a line/leash and pushing/following sheep from behind. And judging from the posts to this thread, as well as what I've observed and discussed with the numerous handlers I know and trial with, the traditional methods as I've described it here is still used by a majority of folks. But as one of those quotes somewhere said: We're all competitive, and I guarantee you if a better method came along that could enable the likes of most of us to win the national finals repeatedly ala Alasdair MacRae, it wouldn't be a "best-kept secret" but instead would find itself moving into the mainstream of stockdog training.

 

I'm sure there are other "traditional" methods in use in the stockdog world. Penny pointed out one such method, and I imagine it would be appropriate if you never wanted your dog to head or gather your stock. But for a dog who is capable of doing the all-around work as tested by the traditional ISDS-type trial, so far no one seems to have come along with a revolutionary method that's proven itself to do a better or faster job of getting to the end point then that method I described above and that many folks have already posted to this thread.

 

From my POV, if I want to just teach a *handler* how to move stock, I'd put the handler in a smallish area with stock and without dog and let the handler figure out where the flight zone was, how square flanks vs. sliced flanks affect sheep, how much pressure needs to be applied to get them moving, how far forward on the sheep's body they need to be to stop forward motion, where they'd need to be to turn the sheep at a right angle vs. completely back in the direction from whence they came, how to pick up cues from the stock about what they're thinking of doing and so on. If the idea is that there's too much going on for the handler to grasp things when there's a loose dog and sheep in a pen, then let the handler learn how to move sheep first and introduce the dog after. I think that would be a much more effective means of helping the handler to get the picture of what is desired than attaching him/her to a dog who is likely to be excited and frustrated by the process and expect them to get it right.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Julie, I understand what you saying, I'm not trying to pick or cause an arguement, it just struck me as possible that when a person refers to their method as not being traditional it may not be that their view of traditional is the same as ours. I honestly was asking what is the "Traditional Method of Training", as hard as it is to consider I'm thinking that there may be more common ground then we realize. I don't know if you misread the tone of my post, it was meant to be in converstation and inquisative, not defensive or offensive, more of a "I wonder".

 

Oh, btw, I was just surfing around and I might have found why Jack is still on a rope after 8 lessons, here is a thread in regards to some aggression issues he has at home: http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.p...c=22906&hl=

 

I'm not trying to justify or defend, just looking at why, if his aggression problems have not been dealt with at home they probably will carry over into the working pen with sheep and he may not be able to be released with the sheep.

 

Deb

Edited, to rephrase something that didn't make sense, sorry if it still does not make sense..

[dracina]

Julie, I understand what you saying, I'm not trying to pick or cause an arguement, it just struck me as possible that when a person refers to their method as not being traditional it may not be what those of us reading consider traditional. I honestly was asking what is the "Traditional Method of Training", as hard as it is to consider I'm thinking that there may be more common ground then we realize. I don't know if you misread the tone of my post, it was meant to be in converstation and inquisative, not defensive or offensive, more of a "I wonder".

 

Oh, btw, I was just surfing around and I might have found why Jack is still on a rope after 8 lessons, here is a thread in regards to some aggression issues he has at home: http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.p...c=22906&hl=

 

I'm not trying to justify or defend, just looking at why, if his aggression problems have not been dealt with at home they probably will carry over into the working pen with sheep and he may not be able to be released with the sheep.

 

Deb

 

Hi Deb:

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, and others, Jack has had issues with reactivity and fear aggression. However, as I also mentioned in this thread, those are not the reasons that he was on a leash during training.

 

This method is, as Kathy pointed out, her chosen method of training. Not just for Jack, but for all dogs, regardless of behavior issues.

 

But thank you for trying to justify that, and trying to think of all possible options. I do appreciate your thoughtfulness in trying to help solve the problem.

 

Also, for what its worth, Jack's issues have been dealt with at home. Perhaps you could find those threads, too....I know that I posted a few updates.

 

Karrin

[juliepoudrier]

just struck me as possible that when a person refers to their method as not being traditional it may not be that their view of traditional is the same as ours.

 

Deb,

I really have no idea what you're asking. If someone says "My method is revolutionary; it's not like the traditional method," then one would have to assume that the person making the statement is referring to the (traditional) method that others in the relevant community would generally consider traditional. If I come up with a new way of baking bread not in an oven and I claim my way is revolutionary and not like the tradtional method and I post that on a baker's forum, then I think it would be safe to assume that most bakers are going to think that the "traditional method" refers to an oven. Otherwise the terms revolutionary and traditional have no meaning because they have no context.

 

I honestly was asking what is the "Traditional Method of Training", as hard as it is to consider I'm thinking that there may be more common ground then we realize.

And I believe I answered that question in my previous post. If what you're really asking is for Kathy to supply what *her* idea of the traditional method is, then ask her directly. I thought she made it fairly clear that what she considers the traditional method (putting sheep, new dog, new handler together in a pen and get started) is as I described it.

 

If it's really something else you're asking, then maybe you can try again or someone else will come along and understand better than I do.

 

ETA: And also I've never really found a dog's behavior off stock to correlate directly to its behavior on stock. I have one of the sweetest dogs in the world here who started out as an alligator on stock. I also have a dog with agression issues (he's bitten me, in fact) that NEVER put his teeth on livestock. I think the agression issue thing with Dracina's dog is nothing more than a red herring when it comes to this discussion.

 

J.

[Lenajo]

There is very little off stock behavior that correlates with consistancy to what a dog will do on stock.

 

Which is why there are umpteen million threads on this Board about why it is impossible to breed good working Border Collies without actually working them.

 

Can we get back to the methods of starting again please..... the red herring has been beached!

[Eileen Stein]

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.

 

I'm not sure Kathy would agree that it has nothing to do with teaching the dog. But even if she did consider it to be for the new handler's benefit only, the fact is that the dog is in there too, and the dog is learning something during those sessions too, and many are questioning whether what he is learning/experiencing might in the long run be detrimental to the full development of his abilities.

 

BTW, I fully agree with Julie's description of what the "traditional method" is.

[abcollie]

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.

 

Karrin

 

OK ... I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here.

 

It's NOT that anyone is objecting to "the rope" ... as we said a lot of handlers use it. So, it's NOT the TOOL that is being objected to ... it's the WAY the tool is being used.

 

A rope can be used to correct the dog when he's wrong BUT then you have RELEASE that pressure. To keep the dog "in check" every step he takes (even if it's to help handler/dog) is to take control AWAY from him and put it in YOUR hands. The dog should be learning to control the sheep and the handler should be learning how to control the dog. The "method" in the video is the handler is controlling EVERYTHING. The dog has NO impact on the sheep so how is he to learn that when he makes a move ... sheep react!

 

I'm sure a lot of people hate to give up what they perceive as control (that's why I think the analogy of the horse/bit came into play ... it feels safer to have something "in their hands" to control the dog with). A dog doesn't need a bit with reins ... he needs body language and a voice to teach him to control himself.

 

I agree novices have a hard time understanding where to be/what to say/when to move/etc. But as someone said ... if you want to teach a handler a correct flank or correct distance ... Just have them move the sheep themselves. They don't need a dog walking with them to learn that ... they are having more impact on the sheep than the dog is in that video.

[Debbie Meier]

Karrin dear, aggression, bouncing, wanting to get the sheep, all signs of a dog that should not have the cord relased or trusted to make right decisions around livestock and would need the dog to stay at your side, especially if you could not stop the dog once released. If your dog was not showing aggression, bouncing or trying to get the sheep but rather being thoughtful and trying something else, like stopping, rating or opting to go around the sheep he then would be rewarded by working away from you, yes still on the leash or cord maybe dragging it but atleast not held to your side. Yes, some will say that restraining the dog will cause the aggression, but if the dog wants to try something different they can, they can opt to stop, unless of course the handler eggs them on when they try to select that option, which means the handler has the wrong sense of what they are trying to accomplish. I'm really wondering if you and Jack just are not ready to progress to that point of working the sheep while dragging the cord yet, nothing to do with the training more to do with you and your dogs relationship or your ability to stop him. Yeah, the trainer could go out and try to show you how to do it, the trainer could form the right relationship with the dog so that she can get the dog stopped and thinking properly, but it won't do you any good, other then to know that it is possible.

 

There has been a lot of back and forth about cords, no cords, what open handlers do what they don't when we went to work with Pete Carmichael up in South Dakota he worked with a couple of my dogs, they were ACD's he strung a cord through their collar (btw, he had a few strings hanging on the fence) and took them for a walk around the sheep with them at his side, as they got interested he would call their name to check in to see if they were still factoring him in, if they did not respond he would stop and change directions giving a little jerk on the cord, as they stayed responsive he would allow the cord to feed out. Pretty soon he could stop change directions and the dog would change with him but still be very interested and watching sheep volunteering to move off ahead on the flank path. Over the course of a few minutes as the dog proved he/she would stay on the right path the cord was allowed to feed through the dogs collar and it was released to do as they wish, Pete would contiune to do little checks by quietly calling their name to see if they were factoring him in, if they did not he would factor himself in. Within 10 minutes the dogs were flanking around, changing directions and he would let them find a balance point, not to him, just a point where they could control the stock, if they pushed in and leaned too hard when the sheep started to move he would whap a hog paddle in their vacinity to get them to reconsider that thought. These were the same dogs that were idiots for me, he had in a matter of 1/2 hour what I couldn't even visualize being possible. In that time he told me that both had working instinct one was not prone to want to flank around to the top and was uncomfortable being on the opposite side of the sheep as the handler and the other was quiet happy to go around opposite and had a willingness to control the sheep.

 

Prior to that expirence I had been anti cord and anti tool, I had seen too many dogs exhibiting problems related to the use of the cord and the tools, previously we failed at using a cord and tools, and we were failing, as Pete showed us, at training without them, guess what it's not the tools, it's the applications. Anyway, I came home and tried to reproduce what Pete did, I failed miserably, at the time I could not see how important that communication was between he and the dog, how walking around the sheep at a proper pressure point was important, how the timing of the correction for pushing to hard on a balance point was important. All those little things that I could not see or understand. It's been 2 1/2 years since that time, it's just been in the last year that I feel like I'm getting it, thank god I was given a good dog that could take waiting for me to learn and that I had a slew of others to keep trying and testing discoveries on. Every day my dogs and sheep teach me a little more, we just keep trying to hone our skills of seeing and rewarding the little things.

 

There is a time to release the cord and pitch the reins away to see if the dog will make the right decisions when faced with options, there are times when the dog is not ready, I mentioned earlier that I would be concerned about having a dog still at my side at the 8 lesson mark,

I mentioned that it could be an issue with the trainer, the dog or the handler. Your past history with the dog leans toward dog and handler, I'm not saying anyone has to agree with the trainer or her practices, I don't know Kathy, never spoken to her, I would say that it would be interesting to see how another trainer would handle you and your dog and how far and how quickly he progresses. The hard deal is you never know what could have been, if I had just done this would it have made a difference, if I had not done that would we have gone further or would we have gotten there sooner? I have found that if the dog has ability and talent they adapt, it will shine through the mistakes when we as trainers figure out how bone headed we are or find the right person that can help us. The ones that don't have the talent or ability, it wouldn't have matter, you get what you get.

 

I still think that you should stick with your trainer, though I don't think you ever shared with us what your goals are, maybe I missed it. Are you wanting to do this just for fun, do you just want to work with the relationship between you and your dogs, do you just want to see what your dogs can do or do you want to eventually trial at the top levels?

 

Oh yeah, someone mentioned about Kathy not doing the same things with her dogs as she does with her students, who does, the student is not on the same ground as she is and can't start the same way, and every dog is different.

 

Deb

[dracina]

Again, Deb: please read through the entire thread before responding. All of these things have been covered.

 

Karrin

[Lenajo]

Karrin dear, aggression, bouncing, wanting to get the sheep, all signs of a dog that should not have the cord relased or trusted to make right decisions around livestock and would need the dog to stay at your side, especially if you could not stop the dog once released.

 

I'm sorry but this is just not true. I've started hundreds of dogs and their behavior on lead rarely indicates what you are going to get when you release them. In fact most of them are "leash tigers" and much better when released and staying on the perimeter of the stock with body pressure and release.

 

There are always exceptions, but in general I've found helping the dog to get in control of the stock is far more calming that marching it around on lead practicing obedience.

[stockdogranch]

What Pete did with ACDs doesn't surprise me. I doubt he would have been quite so cautious with a well-bred BC. That's actually what I was trying to get at the other day when I asked if your using a line originally came from working with ACDs. From those I've worked with, I, too, would be more prone to keep a line on them than I would with a well-bred BC. You had mentioned circling, diving in, etc., and that's what made me wonder. A well-bred BC pretty typically gets behind the sheep and starts to bring them to you. Sometimes, the dog is too close, and it's quite rash; sometimes you have a Landshark, but, still they just seem to understand going to something resembling balance.

 

A

[Caroline Reichard]

OK ... I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here.

 

It's NOT that anyone is objecting to "the rope" ... as we said a lot of handlers use it. So, it's NOT the TOOL that is being objected to ... it's the WAY the tool is being used. ...

 

A rope can be used to correct the dog when he's wrong BUT then you have RELEASE that pressure....

 

Candy,

 

This was a great post; thanks for sharing your insights. Releasing pressure is really hard for a lot of people. It's way easy to put the pressure on, but hard to know how to take it off, even though that release can be the most meaningful part of the process. Thanks for pointing out how this isn't happening in the video. It may seem like everything is very calm in that scenario, but keeping a dog on a short lead is a great way to build pressure and frustration in a dog. Schutzhund trainers do it all the time in agitation work.

[ItsADogsLyfe]

Ever watch a dog on a leash (an untrained dog) encounter another dog and see it lunge and bark and act crazy, but you let that dog off the leash and free to approach the other dog in a natural way? Usually they will approach the other dog, sniff and run off playing or go pee on a tree and that's that. Ever watch a dog behind a chainlink or other see through fence and it is barking and lunging at another dog outside the fence. That same dog usually won't act that way when outside of the fence. I learned that many many years ago at one of my first jobs at a boarding kennel. There were 2 GSDs in a large kennel together and their other mate in the kennel beside them. They were barking and lunging at the kennel doors and really freaked me out. The girl who was training me said they were fine, just put on an act when they were on the other side of the gate. When it came time for me to have to clean out that kennel I was very nervous and did not look at the dogs while they were barking and lunging at the gate. I just walked in and as I started to clean up those dogs had completely settled down and came up and licked me.

My point is you can amp a dog up while on a leash and it may very well settle down when not confined.

Karrin has said a couple times that her dog was not on the line due to aggression problems. How is she to know what the dog will be capable of if it is never let off the line to work the sheep? I think Karrin will be a very good handler as she came here to ask the right questions. Hopefully she will work with someone who will understand how important it is to let the dog have its sheep and learn, unconfined, how to do the right thing.

[kathykawalec]

All-

 

To answer the student achievement questions: I have border collie students who are trialing at the novice and pro novice levels...and I frequently help my peers who are trialing in open work thru challenges when they ask, and when I am able to help. Other breeds, including border collies, successfully trialing in the various other venues such as AHBA, ASCA, AKC at levels from started thru advanced. In addition, I have students who are raw beginners, some who are beginners, even some who have been at it for quite a while that I still consider beginners, some who are herding just for the pure enjoyment of it and will never trial, some who are training their dog to help with farm chores, some who are using herding as the environment to work thru behavior issues, such as impulse control, and some who are doing it because they feel obligated to provide their herding dog with livestock training...just because that is what the dog is bred to do. Mostly, I see border collies, aussies, shelties, cattle dogs.

 

Because I encourage my students to attend clinics of a few recommended masters of the field (as I continue to do myself) I do not assume to take all the credit, nor label anyone a "devotee"...since I believe that to be a self-appointed label. Beyond the novice level most folks are branching out (as they should) so it is difficult to separate who learned what from whom and where, since by that time dedicated handlers are reading, watching, discussing, experimenting, taking advice from many etc. I don't know of any trainer/clinician/coach who claims to have "made" a handler and their dog single-handedly. (or who would want to, really)

 

I definitely think of my work in this area as evolutionary, not established, or proven, or any such thing. I find it exciting, promising, inspiring and creative. What promise the future holds!

 

I do not feel attacked nor defensive! I voluntarily posted to the forum, willingly open to providing information and share freely. I am willing to ignore the snarks, (at least for now) and reply to the sincere inquiries that are posted. http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/style_e...fault/smile.gif

 

Eileen and others who mentioned this part: We can look to any area of human study: psychology, behavior, neuroscience, chemistry, anthropology, spirituality and find solid theories speaking about humans as creatures who are uncomfortable with the unfamiliar -- with responses ranging from mild stress to extreme fear. We can look at our history and easily find examples of the latter. In fact, we can see that all around us today. Let's start with the middle east. This information about humans reacting adversely to change or perceived difference is widely accepted truth as we know it today. It is what keeps us safe. That is not a "good or bad" judgement...just an "is". This human experience is why folks are picking up segments of my posts and fully explaining why they don't think this concept is likely to work. And, that is just fine, isn't it? As I perceive it, we start with the familiar and slowly and gradually begin to explore the edges of that boundary.

Do you see the human experience differently? How so? Why? Can you express examples?

 

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

 

So: let me ask these questions in response to some of the comments and questions posted here, in all sincerity, and as a means to create a real dialog where learning from one another is the goal:

 

Is it somehow a "bad thing" that folks who do sports/conformation with their dogs want to learn about sheep herding? Are they somehow "less qualified" to engage in herding than those who do not? Are those of us who don't engage in agility or flyball somehow more qualified to work stock dogs? Why should there be a separation or distinction between different groups of people who want to learn? Or, why not?

 

Why is it implied to be "wrong" or "less than" for a person with border collies who lives in town or the suburbs to keep their dogs fit, active and mentally engaged by participating in agility or obedience or any other sport?

 

Why is learning in a environment that enables new handlers (of any demographic) to feel comfortable, something to be scoffed at? We spend billions on learning how to do this for adults in business environments, and for our children and young adults in educational settings. Should we not apply the contemporary education protocols that are established in these other learning environments to herding? If you disagree, why not? Just take any sport activity that humans participate in...where else does the "coach" take a person who has not the slightest idea of what to do, by the arm and pull them around into position again and again as things are swirling around them, as the primary means of teaching? (I do this myself with my students, so I am not being critical...but I now only do it after they have practiced the moves without the dog and sheep, but need further help...and I'd love to find another way)

 

Why is it OK to pull the above mentioned handlers around, but not OK to help dogs learn to make good moves with gentle guidance from a line?

 

Exactly why is it inappropriate for a dog to learn basic skills in a way that is supportive and educational? (such as using a line) In other environments where dogs are used as working dogs, we don't put them into situations that they have never experienced and expect them to "figure it out" by trial and error, because it is supposed to be genetically embedded. Such as: a hunting retriever is not turned loose in a field with hunter, guns and birds for the first time they have ever seen such things and expected to know they are supposed to go search to find the birds that are shot and bring them back to their handler unharmed, with no prior training, just because they come from a long line of great retrievers. Won't the more naturally talented dogs just "get it" a lot easier and much sooner then those less than talented with a given training protocol?

 

(To recap again, so that we don't have to keep rehashing what this is or is not: What I'm talking about is to allow the dog to WORK the sheep, CONTROL the movement of the stock by flanking and walking in, learning to seek and feel the bubble, find balance, make mistakes, learn what works to move and control the sheep AND take advice from their handler while on a line. It is NOT, I repeat again, pulling the dog around on a line out of context of the sheep or using the line to correct inappropriate moves or choices. )

 

When a handler or dog do not execute the "natural" good moves that we so covet in our border collies (rightly so) that enable things to go smoothly with the first lessons, as mentioned by those of you who were fortunate enough not to have a confusing or frustrating first dog experience, what shall we do with these handlers and their dogs? Shall we just tell them: you or your dog have no natural aptitude for this activity, so go home and play frisbee? (yes, I am quoting what I was told by a highly respected "expert" about my first border collie...the one I mentioned in my original post that went on to do wonderful work at the open level, and have heard countless times since, from my students who started elsewhere at various clinics then came to me with their 'reject' dogs) Or, shall we have them keep trying, while our sheep are being chased around and harmed by frantic dog and person? Or, shall we harshly correct these dogs for not knowing what to do naturally? When do we cross the line between teaching and abusing? Where is the line? Would it not be better to not approach that line at all, and find a better way to teach? Do we take our four year old child who doesn't even know the alphabet, hand them a book, and because her parents are competent english teachers or accomplished authors, expect her to read it to us...now...and apply pressure and correction when she cannot? Is this a reasonable analogy? If you think not...why not?

 

(The way I handled that was to start the dogs myself, while the handler watched...and the more talented dogs could fairly easily transition to working with the newbie handler under my guidance ...while the others could not, because they needed to first rehearse good moves and learn to relax and trust the process...something nearly impossible for many of them because the handler still had not learned enough by watching me work these more challenging dogs.)

 

Why is it perceived to be ineffective and somehow wrong to look for good moves or good choices the dog or handler are making and give positive feedback on those moves...encouraging that dog or person to duplicate that move or make that choice again? That's all positive reinforcement is...noticing the good moves and saying "yes, that's it!"...can you do that again? Using a clicker to mark good moves is commonly used these days to teach human athletes to feel and duplicate precise moves, such as those required by gymnasts. It is instant feedback at the choice point, creating sharp precision. This is the concept used in electronic games, so popular with kids and some adults...instant feedback on both your problem solving choices and your dexterity. I have "clicked" good moves for a few of my fellow open handlers while they work their dogs and they were amazed on how much it helped their focus and ability to not only handle better, but to train their dogs, because they began to notice the details in thin slices. Why not apply these contemporary learning/teaching tools to our work with herding dogs?

 

===========

 

Oh, and to define my interpretation of the meaning of revolutionary: to cause or bring dramatic change. And, I use that term in reference to the beginning part of starting new handlers with their new dogs on a line, and using the line both as a teaching tool, keeping a connection of communication between dog and handler, and as a safety net for keeping things calm and manageable while this new and eager team learn and make mistakes. (as opposed to other methods referenced in this thread who use the line for the purpose of correcting a dog for making a bad choice)

 

For the other concepts related to teaching, both dogs and handlers...I have used the term innovative, meaning: creative and fresh -- I use it in reference to applying solid and contemporary methods of teaching and learning to a field where those methods are not yet regularly employed.

 

Kathy

[Debbie Meier]

What Pete did with ACDs doesn't surprise me. I doubt he would have been quite so cautious with a well-bred BC. That's actually what I was trying to get at the other day when I asked if your using a line originally came from working with ACDs. From those I've worked with, I, too, would be more prone to keep a line on them than I would with a well-bred BC. You had mentioned circling, diving in, etc., and that's what made me wonder. A well-bred BC pretty typically gets behind the sheep and starts to bring them to you. Sometimes, the dog is too close, and it's quite rash; sometimes you have a Landshark, but, still they just seem to understand going to something resembling balance.

 

A

 

 

When I talked about the circlers and divers I was referring to dogs of the border collie breed, more due to being allowed or people just trying to work with border collies that could be from BYB's that are not being bred to work. For the most part, ACD's just dive , so many of them around here can't even feel their stock anymore, kinda sad, just big thick lugs.

 

I very rarely bring my acd's into the mix when I'm thinking training, their world has come crashing down, they are held to the same requirements of the border collies, honor and respect your stock, a flank is a flank and a drive is a drive, it's about control first, movement second, when I ask you to stop, you stop, not necissarily stop in your tracks, just derail yourself from that idea. They really don't like it very much but are getting used to it, when you start holding them to the standard of approaching stock properly you get a pretty good idea of who to cull, if you can't figure out how to do the job right then we will find someone else that can. When I'm working with the ACD's I think to myself, how would the border collie handle that, they would have stopped back there, then they would have leaned out or flanked over a bit, which comes full circle to rather "How should that have been done based on the livestock", it don't matter what breed of dog you are using it's still about how the stock responds to it and the adjustments the dog makes to get the stock to do the proper thing.

 

As far as Pete putting my dogs on a cord, it was just laced through the collar and fully released, meaning Pete held it while he let it feed through leaving the dog free, he did not keep them on the cord, and it was not dragging it ended up wadded up in Pete's hand to be placed in his pocket, it's kinda a handy little trick and I have used it occassionally when I want to check the dogs mindset before giving them free rein, just established a relationship and an ability to get them stopped.

 

The way we use the line now has come about soley since we started working Border Collies, we had Larry Painter try to show us how to use a line on our ACD's early on in a clinic, it was not pretty, alot of frustration, lunging, barking and pissed of cattle dog, at that time I made better ground without the use of the cord then with (actually Larry didn't use a cord, it was more of a heavy rope and wide 2 inch collar saying that it would be less likely to injure their throats compared to a thin collar). Oh yeah, that was our first rake expirence too, the good old three R's. From there I went anti rope, anti tool, Pete let me see that it could be used to get a different end, then Marc showed us that it could be use for even more, but you have to be careful, it's realy easy to end up full circle back at the frustration, lunging, barking and pissed off. That's why early on I said, don't force, you have to give options and you reward with release, I think that some are visualizing me dragging a dog around and controlling it's every move, that don't work. Not every one uses it correctly, some use it better then others, and there is always room for improvement.

 

Oh, can I count spending a day with Pete as going to a clinicianer?

 

Deb

[kathykawalec]

Deb,

When I refer to the "traditional method" I am not referring to the "beat the dog to make it work for you method" (which I thought I made clear was from the past) but rather what most of us have already discussed doing in this thread: put the new dog in a pen or field with well-dog-broke sheep and let it work (go around the sheep, using its innate desire to gather) while shaping that work (by making the right easy and the wrong difficult) through pressure/release and timing. The traditional method involves gathering and balancing first, not teaching flanks with the dog on a line/leash and pushing/following sheep from behind.

 

 

I forgot to add this comment...that yes, I agree with Julie in the definition of traditional...well put!

 

Kathy

[kathykawalec]

I'm not sure Kathy would agree that it has nothing to do with teaching the dog. But even if she did consider it to be for the new handler's benefit only, the fact is that the dog is in there too, and the dog is learning something during those sessions too, and many are questioning whether what he is learning/experiencing might in the long run be detrimental to the full development of his abilities.

 

Julie and Eileen...you are both on the right track of what I was trying to say...new handlers are the primary focus and reason for the development of this way of using a line. But, it is impossible to remove the dog from the equation, as Eileen says here. So, my goal was/is to develop a way to satisfy both aspects of this dilemma, and I believe it is possible to do so.

 

If you look at Karrin's video again with fresh eyes, you will see that her dog is working mostly on a loose line, and even though you can't hear her verbal cues, Jack is responding to her flank cues, and the steady cue. In the corner where you see Jack blow up a couple of times, you can see Karrin is not correcting him for doing so, simply putting him back to work allowing him to settle with the sheep. The reason he is blowing up there is because the sheep do not want to leave that corner, and he has to push on them, which makes him very uncomfortable. Teaching Jack to calmly and confidently lift and push on the bubble of sheep has been his main trouble spot. You can see the last time around, he does a great job with help from Karrin.

 

I like the handlers to move into a jog when flanking the dog, so there is a clear change of pace for the dog, but sometimes that is challenging for new handlers, because they are really focusing on reading the sheep and giving their dog cues to move the sheep in the prescribed pattern.

 

The next step would be to have the handler closer to the sheep, with the dog out on the edge of the bubble, still taking the flanks, stops and steadies...while the new handler learns how to apply and release pressure to help the dog stay out on the bubble. Then, the line is dropped and the dog is worked in the same calm manner. If the dog needs additional help to stay mindful and working while the handler learns the moves of helping the dog to flank and get to balance, then I will pick up the line behind the dog, to ensure things stay settled while the dog and handler learn together. Mostly, the border collies do not need the extra help, but sometimes the other breeds do.

 

In addition to natural aptitude and personality of the dog, the existing relationship between dog and handler is a large factor. If the handler is an inexperienced dog person, usually there is a leadership issue, and sometimes even when the handler is experienced with dogs, sometimes simply because the handler is in an unfamiliar environment and has no confidence while they learn the new skills.

 

Kathy

[kathykawalec]

There has been a lot of back and forth about cords, no cords, what open handlers do what they don't when we went to work with Pete Carmichael up in South Dakota he worked with a couple of my dogs, they were ACD's he strung a cord through their collar (btw, he had a few strings hanging on the fence) and took them for a walk around the sheep with them at his side, as they got interested he would call their name to check in to see if they were still factoring him in, if they did not respond he would stop and change directions giving a little jerk on the cord, as they stayed responsive he would allow the cord to feed out. Pretty soon he could stop change directions and the dog would change with him but still be very interested and watching sheep volunteering to move off ahead on the flank path. Over the course of a few minutes as the dog proved he/she would stay on the right path the cord was allowed to feed through the dogs collar and it was released to do as they wish, Pete would contiune to do little checks by quietly calling their name to see if they were factoring him in, if they did not he would factor himself in. Within 10 minutes the dogs were flanking around, changing directions and he would let them find a balance point, not to him, just a point where they could control the stock, if they pushed in and leaned too hard when the sheep started to move he would whap a hog paddle in their vacinity to get them to reconsider that thought. These were the same dogs that were idiots for me, he had in a matter of 1/2 hour what I couldn't even visualize being possible. In that time he told me that both had working instinct one was not prone to want to flank around to the top and was uncomfortable being on the opposite side of the sheep as the handler and the other was quiet happy to go around opposite and had a willingness to control the sheep.

 

 

There is a time to release the cord and pitch the reins away to see if the dog will make the right decisions when faced with options, there are times when the dog is not ready, I mentioned earlier that I would be concerned about having a dog still at my side at the 8 lesson mark,

I mentioned that it could be an issue with the trainer, the dog or the handler. Your past history with the dog leans toward dog and handler, I'm not saying anyone has to agree with the trainer or her practices, I don't know Kathy, never spoken to her, I would say that it would be interesting to see how another trainer would handle you and your dog and how far and how quickly he progresses. The hard deal is you never know what could have been, if I had just done this would it have made a difference, if I had not done that would we have gone further or would we have gotten there sooner? I have found that if the dog has ability and talent they adapt, it will shine through the mistakes when we as trainers figure out how bone headed we are or find the right person that can help us. The ones that don't have the talent or ability, it wouldn't have matter, you get what you get.

 

I still think that you should stick with your trainer, though I don't think you ever shared with us what your goals are, maybe I missed it. Are you wanting to do this just for fun, do you just want to work with the relationship between you and your dogs, do you just want to see what your dogs can do or do you want to eventually trial at the top levels?

 

Oh yeah, someone mentioned about Kathy not doing the same things with her dogs as she does with her students, who does, the student is not on the same ground as she is and can't start the same way, and every dog is different.

 

Deb

 

Great post Deb...thanks for sharing your experience! What Pete did for your dogs is similar to what I might do myself with a dog on a line. And the corrections are addressed at the attitude of the dog, not the dog itself. My own dogs don't need such corrections typically, because we have already established our relationship with me as the benevolent and firm leader.

 

Thank for you the simple insight on the difference between working my own dogs or with experienced handlers and their dogs vs new handlers and their dogs. Completely different.

 

And, lastly, just to be clear, Karrin's dog had 8 lessons over about a one year period, four one year ago, and four this year. Her dog is a rescue who had intense reactive and aggressive responses to many different stimuli, including people and dogs. And sheep. He is on a rehab program with Karrin, and doing remarkably well, considering.

[abcollie]

(To recap again, so that we don't have to keep rehashing what this is or is not: What I'm talking about is to allow the dog to WORK the sheep, CONTROL the movement of the stock by flanking and walking in, learning to seek and feel the bubble, find balance, make mistakes, learn what works to move and control the sheep AND take advice from their handler while on a line. It is NOT, I repeat again, pulling the dog around on a line out of context of the sheep or using the line to correct inappropriate moves or choices. )

quote]

 

What about the SHEEP ... the dog and person both on one side is TOTALLY different than a dog balancing sheep to the person. The PRESSURE is different!!!!

 

So, if the dog "is controlling the movement of the stock" why does the person have to be there controlling the dog???? A dog KNOWS he's being controlled with a leash and reacts differently ... the person KNOWS they have a leash in their hand and reacts differently ... the sheep KNOW there is a dog AND a person and react differently.

 

The SHEEP should be the ones to teach a dog balance, feel, distance, NOT the handler! It's the handlers job to GUIDE the dog NOT control the dogs movements ... the sheep will show a dog when he's wrong.

 

So, pressure, control, feel and everything else these dogs have been bred for ... is being taken over by a "novice person" (even if you do it in the name of "help"). I'm sure it's easier for the students but our goal should be to bring out what is best in the dogs NOT what is best for the students. I'm ALL for making things easier for novices but not at the expensive of what these dogs have been bred for.

[Smokjbc]

So, pressure, control, feel and everything else these dogs have been bred for ... is being taken over by a "novice person" (even if you do it in the name of "help"). I'm sure it's easier for the students but our goal should be to bring out what is best in the dogs NOT what is best for the students. I'm ALL for making things easier for novices but not at the expensive of what these dogs have been bred for.

 

 

Thank You!

[Caroline Reichard]

Why is it OK to pull the above mentioned handlers around, but not OK to help dogs learn to make good moves with gentle guidance from a line?

 

Exactly why is it inappropriate for a dog to learn basic skills in a way that is supportive and educational? (such as using a line)

 

 

I can't speak to others, and I can't respond to everything in post, but I can speak to this point, for me. (I'm not one of the very frequent posters on this thread, though, so take it for what it's worth): What is bothering me is that the dog is never allowed to be right. That is unfair to the dog and makes learning difficult.

 

I think the idea of gently encouraging either the novice dog or the novice handler into the correct position is great.

 

But the novice dog cannot get into the correct position so long as the handler is holding onto the other end of the leash to guide it.

 

If the dog has any sense of balance at all, it is doomed to always be wrong, always be out-of-balance.

 

The dog cannot ever make a good flank: a flank that will take it to the heads of the sheep.

 

It can have a good feeling about the handler if/when it decides to focus in on her and do exactly as she says.

 

It can never have a good feeling about the sheep, as it is physically impossible to get to balance.

 

So the only way out of the "puzzle" is for the dog to give up on the thing that many of us think is most important: feeling the sheep and thinking right about them.

 

The dogs who will suffer the most are the dogs with the most talent. I would hate to punish a dog for being talented.

 

To me, this is an obedience driven way to think about starting a dog. Even though it appears very sweet and gentle, it is really taking the sheep away from the dog and keeping them until the dog gives up on wanting to get to balance. In a way, it is really quite similar to a force-training method, except that it uses sweetness rather than knocking a dog on the head. But the result is ultimately the same: making a dog respond to you, not to the sheep. It's Dolores Umbridge instead of Lord Voldemort.

 

Why not let your students do basic exercises with a trained dog and learn from that dog what to expect. Then take them in the pen with their dog. Use the line only to stop a dog from harassing the stock.

[dracina]

And, lastly, just to be clear, Karrin's dog had 8 lessons over about a one year period, four one year ago, and four this year. Her dog is a rescue who had intense reactive and aggressive responses to many different stimuli, including people and dogs. And sheep. He is on a rehab program with Karrin, and doing remarkably well, considering.

 

Hi Kathy,

 

I agree with everything you said in the part I quoted above, except for the "and sheep" part. I don't remember any sort of aggression or reactive issue when Jack was on sheep. And I don't recall you ever mentioning that you witnessed an issue to me, either. In fact, his issues away from sheep never surfaced while he was "working", nor did you ever witness an occurance of this aggression or any form of aggression from Jack. It is hard to recount accurately something second-hand, which is why I prefer not to.

 

Also, you were training Jack and my other dog (that, as I mentioned has no such issues) with a leash last year, all before any sort of aggression issued surfaced, so I really don't think the aggression card is a fair one to play. Please don't use that as an example, or an excuse, because this is a method that you use with all of your students. Also, the fact that the lessons were spread out was covered earlier.

 

Kathy and Deb, I have tried to be fair about this, but I think that you are really reaching here.

 

Karrin

[kathykawalec]

I can't speak to others, and I can't respond to everything in post, but I can speak to this point, for me. (I'm not one of the very frequent posters on this thread, though, so take it for what it's worth): What is bothering me is that the dog is never allowed to be right. That is unfair to the dog and makes learning difficult.

 

I think the idea of gently encouraging either the novice dog or the novice handler into the correct position is great.

 

But the novice dog cannot get into the correct position so long as the handler is holding onto the other end of the leash to guide it.

 

If the dog has any sense of balance at all, it is doomed to always be wrong, always be out-of-balance.

 

The dog cannot ever make a good flank: a flank that will take it to the heads of the sheep.

 

It can have a good feeling about the handler if/when it decides to focus in on her and do exactly as she says.

 

It can never have a good feeling about the sheep, as it is physically impossible to get to balance.

 

So the only way out of the "puzzle" is for the dog to give up on the thing that many of us think is most important: feeling the sheep and thinking right about them.

 

 

 

I think a good way to answer this is with another question:

 

What is balance, from the perspective of the dog?

 

For me, as I understand it, and was taught by my mentors and simply put:

it is the dog being in just the right place where the dog has control of the sheep.

 

It only involves the handler when we are asking the dog to hold sheep to us. Otherwise, it involves holding a line toward a gate, or holding the sheep off the feeder. It could be driving or gathering, or simply holding still, depending upon the task.

 

Kathy

[kathykawalec]

Hi Kathy,

 

I agree with everything you said in the part I quoted above, except for the "and sheep" part. I don't remember any sort of aggression or reactive issue when Jack was on sheep. And I don't recall you ever mentioning that you witnessed an issue to me, either. In fact, his issues away from sheep never surfaced while he was "working", nor did you ever witness an occurance of this aggression or any form of aggression from Jack. It is hard to recount accurately something second-hand, which is why I prefer not to.

 

Also, you were training Jack and my other dog (that, as I mentioned has no such issues) with a leash last year, all before any sort of aggression issued surfaced, so I really don't think the aggression card is a fair one to play. Please don't use that as an example, or an excuse, because this is a method that you use with all of your students. Also, the fact that the lessons were spread out was covered earlier.

 

Kathy and Deb, I have tried to be fair about this, but I think that you are really reaching here.

 

Karrin

 

 

Sorry to bring it up again Karrin, it just seemed that Deb had missed those parts, and from the perspective of a herding coach both of those things are important. Yes, I do think that Jack reacted aggressively to the sheep when you first brought him out, which is why I worked with him myself the first couple of times. There was no reason for you to remember that, really, it was a long time ago and I did not make a big deal of it, because I knew he would get over it. And he did! As far as the timing of the lessons go...it is like starting over when so much time passes between lessons...that is the only reason I mentioned it, since in your posts you brought it up quite a bit as a factor in being concerned about the progress you and Jack were making.

 

My sincere apologies for mentioning it again.

Kathy

[Caroline Reichard]

I think a good way to answer this is with another question:

 

What is balance, from the perspective of the dog?

 

For me, as I understand it, and was taught by my mentors and simply put:

it is the dog being in just the right place where the dog has control of the sheep.

 

It only involves the handler when we are asking the dog to hold sheep to us. Otherwise, it involves holding a line toward a gate, or holding the sheep off the feeder. It could be driving or gathering, or simply holding still, depending upon the task.

 

Kathy

 

But Kathy, the dog in this video does not have control of the sheep.

 

There are really only two ways it could have control in this pen: holding them against the fence(which is bad), or holding them to the handler. This dog is only being allowed to trail them.