Starting a dog

[DTrain]

You should have last word on this thread but I would like to ask what conclusion you have come to, what do you do from here. I think you had some great input from many members of this board. I went back and watched the video over and over. I see a very frustrated dog but a proud owner.

[Sue R]

Karrin - Remember that, even if you have a lesson or clinic somewhere that you feel or find is not productive for you, it will have still been a learning experience. Sometimes, it may be just as important to learn what doesn't work for you as to learn what does work for you.

 

I'm glad you posted your question (and I think there are many who would agree) because it led to a very informative, and pretty darn civil, discussion. Something like this that has been thought-provoking will have benefits for many who have participated or even only lurked. It's been a education!

[abcollie]

Candy,

Interesting point about the shape of the flanks...I'll analyze that further as I work in the future and see what I can discern about that aspect. At this time, it seems to me that a correct flank is determined by the sheep combined with the attitude and release of the dog. I don't actually see how the handler is making a flank "bad" just by being there. It may be making the flank "different", because the sheep are responding to the pressure of the handler...but then the dog is still correct in it's flank at that particular moment as determined by the sheep. Very interesting to consider!

 

So back to your point: assuming that the pressure and balance are significantly skewed by the presence of the handler, and let's say that you are correct in saying that balance is no longer being achieved by the dog: are you then saying that the dogs cannot advance in their learning by re-calibrating to the sheep and the pressure and making adjustments once the handler is no longer near them? That after working on a line for a bit that they are no longer capable of learning how to compensate for the different pressures? Do you think it would make a difference if the handler was next to the dog vs several feet behind the dog?

 

What about when we take them off of school sheep and put them on light sheep, or lambs, or 5 sheep vs 15 sheep? Or out of a small pen and into a small field then into a large field. Do they not make all those adjustments in the pressure by allowing the sheep to teach them, with some assistance from the handler as needed? What about when we teach driving by walking a parallel path to the dog while they are driving the sheep away? Would you then say that the dog is not really learning how to drive and balance sheep because the handler is in proximity? And that the dog cannot learn how to adjust to the handler moving farther away and still hold the balance?

 

If balance is defined as having control of the sheep without any input or influence of the handler, then do we speak about penning in a way other than balance? Or how about shedding? The handler is clearly and actively applying their own pressure to the sheep and the dog while a shed is being set up.

 

Thanks for the thought provoking post!

Kathy

 

Dogs learn to balance by controlling sheep ... they control sheep by catching the sheep's eye/head and turning them. If they started by doing nothing but following the "rear" (with the sheep running when the dog gets "too" close - as in the video) and never allowed to turn the heads they are NOT learning how to control sheep ... they are learning how to follow sheep. The sheep are always "getting away" and they are NEVER allowed to catch/control the sheep. Eventually they will give up that "reflex" that makes a good dog stop a breaking sheep.

 

After the dog learns to control the sheep ... slowly you start "breaking" some of that reflex. When you are driving you are stopping a dog from "totally" heading the sheep BUT the dog has learned HOW to control sheep by turning their heads. A good dog will hold a line by turning the heads just slightly (instead of going to the head) but they are in control and they know if from the beginning lessons.

 

Also sometimes it takes the slightest movement to make a sheep turn ... how is the person that knows less than the dog able to read the sheep pull the dog to the "correct" spot faster than a dog on it's own? By the time the person sees the sheep going left/right ... pulls the dog to the "correct spot" ... it's WAY to late.

 

I think you are trying to put the "cart before the horse".

[Lana]

Dogs learn to balance by controlling sheep ... they control sheep by catching the sheep's eye/head and turning them.

 

After the dog learns to control the sheep ... slowly you start "breaking" some of that reflex. When you are driving you are stopping a dog from "totally" heading the sheep BUT the dog has learned HOW to control sheep by turning their heads. A good dog will hold a line by turning the heads just slightly (instead of going to the head) but they are in control and they know if from the beginning lessons.

 

 

Well said MS Candy. That is why the thing i love to see most when starting a dog is the dogs ability to control the head. This may not be pretty, nor does it always look the same, but it is the raw stuff that makes good dogs. IMHO

 

Lana

[OurBoys]

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!

You see, as a newbie, this raises a red flag for me. I'm not taking Jake to herding lessons just for the fun of it (even though it is fun) or to be used as a guinea pig so someone can use him as *practice* to try out their method. That's not what I pay a trainer for. If that were the case, I would expect the trainer to pay me.

 

Karrin,

 

Again, thank you for starting this thread. It's been very interesting and insightful. It has made me feel even more confident that Robin is the right trainer for us. THANK YOU, ROBIN!!!

 

It's your money, dog and time and I know you'll do what you feel is best but as a couple of people have stated earlier, I think trying a different trainer would be a good idea too. There's nothing wrong with comparing different techniques and finding one you feel (more?) comfortable with. To me, you come across as someone who wants to do right by their dog first and yourself second. (Meaning it's easier to re-train yourself than it is your dog.) I'm the same way.

 

When I took Jake for his herding eval, that boy did me proud! I had a feeling he knew more about herding than I did and he proved me right. Jake learning to herd correctly from the get go is my #1 priority. I can only hope I can become the kind of handler that he sees fit. If Robin can't get me there, it'll be my fault, not hers.

 

FWIW, after Jake's 1st lesson, I was concerned about Jake not listening when Robin told him to 'lie down' (I didn't go into the round pen during his 1st lesson) so I pm'd her later. Her reply??? She wasn't concerned about. She told me Jake's disobedience told her how much he wanted to work. (See how good she knows dogs!!!) Because Robin can get Jake to 'lie down' quicker than I can now tells me #1-He is capable of listening even when he's around sheep and #2-I'm the one doing something wrong, not him, if he doesn't listen to me but, then again, that's how it always is in every day living anyway. If your dog(s) has what it takes and they aren't getting there, it's not the dog's fault. And after 8 lessons, I feel you should know if your dog can do something off leash.

 

Good luck in whatever you decide!

[denice]

I have read all 11 pages of this thread. The line or no line discussion I imagine is as old as sheepdog training itself. I believe these wonderful partners we have in these dogs are always learning in everything they do. I think we should do the same. We should not be so stuck with what we think should happen or how we think we should get to the point where we want to be that we are not open to try something different. Not every person learns the same and not every dog learns the same either. The basic tasks that we need our dogs to preform are similar no matter if we are using them for 15 sheep at home, 1000's on a ranch or on a trial field. I also think that most training methods have similarities of pressure and release be that on a line or not. Somehow both members of the team need to come to an understanding of what is being asked.

 

In speaking with some of the big hats I was encouraged to watch folks work their dogs. IF I liked the way they and their dogs worked then those are the folks I seek out and learn more about their training methods. There are clinicians and "trainers" I have watched that treat each dog exactly the same and do not adjust to the different dogs and handlers. I don't ask these folks for advise but there may be something I learn from them. Sometimes it is what not to do. I seek out those handlers who are quiet, confindent, encourage the dog, help the dog do the right thing, give a correction needed to get a change but not go over the top. THose handlers who are at the post and even when things are not going well they are helping the dog as much as possible, know when it is no longer a 'learning' experience for the dog and retire, shaking their head maybe, but still walk off the field pleased with some of the things their dog has done. That type of handler who also watches the more novice folks and encourages them I appreciate even more. I was recently at a trial and saw some nice runs and some that didn't go so well. There were two handlers that impressed me during the nursey runs while I was scribing. One was Alastair MacRae the other was Kathy. Alastair's dog was not listening to him and he took the time and much patience to impress very sternly but calmly to this yound dog that he must listen and will not be allowed to get away with that at a trial. He retired and still stood on the field as the dog ran to him and spent a couple seconds petting the dog and letting him know that he was pleased with the dogs efforts. Kathy's young dog was exuberant as well. He crossed over on his outrun and his drive was far from straight but Kathy calming gave his direction, encouragement, and corrects then retired when it was obvious that it was time to do so. She walked off smiling as she petted her young boy knowing that they both learned something and will the dog kept trying for her.

 

While I have not ever seen Kathy at home giving lessons I know she has the best interest of each and every dog and person that she has contact with at heart. She is always striving to learn and do her best and encouraging to others. There are many, many folks out there that are giving lessons/clinics and that is because there are many different folks out there wanting lessons. I am not sure it is a just critique to see a couple short videos and make judgements since we have not seen where this person and dog came from, the progress made and the challenges getting there. I would hope we would take a wider view and take all things into consideration. The end result of "success" does not justify all training methods. It is up to all of us to gather information and find those methods that resinate with us and our dogs. Hopefully our goals for us and our dogs are high and we all learn and evolve over this journey.

 

Best to all,

 

Denice

[juliepoudrier]

Denice,

You make a lot of sense, but I don't think people here are burying their heads in the sand and refusing to even consider Kathy's methods. If you read the entire thread then you know that Kathy herself has said that she doesn't use quite the same method on her own dogs or on dogs that show clear early talent. So I don't think this is really a situation of someone using a completely innovative method to get to the same end as everyone else and everyone else just shying away. It's a means of getting people with other breeds, etc., into training, for whatever reason. The critique started on the basis of a short video, but Kathy has since come on and elaborated on her method, so the discussion moved well beyond just the video.

 

J.

[Carson Crazies]

To the OP:

 

Even if I leave out theory on this one (and this has been a great discussion), and look at it from a lessonee standpoint I find that it's important to go to someone who is willing to relate to both me and my dog - and help us to both get what we need to get. I think as a handler-in-training we need to be discerning and if something feels intrinsically off it needs to be questioned - bearing in mind that much of it will feel foreign in the beginning. If things are not progressing over a length of time questions need to be asked, whether it's "do we have any more potential than this?", "are these methods OK?" or "is this a bad fit?".

 

If someone is a trainer and you ask questions about their methods they should be able to explain them - and if you don't feel like it's the right fit for you and your dog then you should walk. I commend you for looking for answers and trying to figure this thing out. I think it would behoove you to "shop around" so to speak and find a good fit for yourself and your dog. We've all (most of us anyway) done that - and still even when you find a "good fit" you still will have the opportunity to learn from others as well.

 

Shoot... I for one enjoyed the experience of bumbling around in the pen with my dog - because when things started to come together it meant something. I learned by doing - and yeah sometimes it's frustrating. Sure, sometimes I cry, but that's because I'm invested. It matters. And I'm a girl and I can cry if I want to, so there. The whole "I'm OK you're OK and lets not let things get out of control or let anyone feel bad" thing bugs me. We need to be allowed to be wrong so we can learn to be right (even if it hurts a little in the process). We all - us and our dogs - learn from our mistakes.

 

Oh, and another thing. Back a few pages ago it was mentioned about gymnasts and clickers and so on. Maybe that's the new wave these days - I don't know, but I was a gymnast for many years and I can tell you that the best marker and the best reward was when it felt just right. In some ways it was a lot like working a dog - the coach would help me by telling me what was wrong, telling me what was right (sometimes showing me, or helping me to get into position), and then when it WAS right I could FEEL it. It felt good, and I wanted to feel that every time. Not much better motivation than that as far as I can see. But then again I did gymnastics for the LOVE of it - not for the ribbons, trophies, or any of that (although I did get plenty of those).

[dracina]

The purpose of the thread was not to discuss one trainer, but rather discuss the pros and cons of a training method. I think that we all agree, Denice, that Kathy has had numerous successes with her dogs, and she is an excellent handler with those dogs she owns. That is a proven fact, not just an opinion. She deserves the respect as such from her peers because she has proven that she can train her own dogs successfully. She does love and care for her dogs, and I imagine that she is very impressive while running them in trials.

 

The questions were though; can this method of using a line to start a dog be successful? Is it really a method that should be used to train Border Collies; if so, why? And is this method doing anything to advance or even maintain the working ability of these dogs? I wanted the answer so that I could make an informed decision now and in the future.

 

I want to say also that I did not just invite Kathy to participate in this discussion, but I also asked Bobby Dalziel to participate, as well, since he was mentioned numerous times as someone who sometimes uses a line to start a dog. I know, I am crazy because he has no idea who the heck I am, but I really wanted to know the answer.

 

Most people who participated did not make assumptions; everyone had an opinion, but I don't think that most people made any real assumptions about this method until all the facts were presented, and Kathy spoke for herself. No one was unfairly critiquing her, and I think that there was enough evidence presented to allow people to make an informed decision one way or the other: Is this method effective? Why or why not?

 

For me, the answer was no. And as I said earlier, that was not the answer I wanted. I wanted this method to be effective because I want to learn, and I always want to progress. But, after eight lessons with Jack, I stopped to evaluate our progress. I realized that there was not any real progress, and I still had no idea how either of us would react when faced with actually having to work the sheep. I don't think it really matters if anyone else has an opinion on our progress, since I am not training him for anyone else. My opinion is the only one that matters, and I didn't see any progress whatsoever. Based upon my observations and after listening to the advice and comments of everyone in this discussion, I decided that this training philosophy was not for me. And I informed Kathy of that privately, and she was graceful enough to understand.

 

I have my own personal opinions on Kathy's motivations regarding this method, and I think others do to, but that is not to say that I am right. What you said is true: it is up to each of us to find a way that resonates and works with what we what to accomplish, not what others say. But as temporary stewards of the Border Collie training tradition, it is also our responsibility to ensure that we have the best interest of the breed in mind, and do what we can to preserve the integrity of the breed. I think that this applies to everyone who is involved with Border Collies at any level, from pet owner to trial competitor to breeder to trainer.

 

OK, that last part was bit corny, but I still think it's true.

 

Anyway, as for me, I am going to continue to train my dogs using a more traditional approach: I have a lesson booked with Vergil Holland in a few weeks, and I will start from there. I am realistic about what I have here as far as dogs: they are both rescues with so-called "questionable heritage", so I am not expecting to run at the Bluegrass anytime soon. My main training goal is to establish a strong working foundation, and these dogs will be used to work on our farm (which, BTW, will not be happening for about 1-2 years). If they happen to be really great, then maybe we will try trialing. But I will be involved with this breed and herding for a long time. So maybe the next dogs will trial...you never know.

 

By the way, Bobby Dalziel's wife did reply to me; she said that Bobby was out of town but would answer my email when he returns. Now, I am not holding my breath, but how cool is that?

 

Karrin

[Debbie Meier]

You go girl!! That quest for information and knowledge will payoff if you ride it through to the end and don't allow yourself to surrender to defeat. The answers are out there, you just have to find someone that will help you find them.

 

Deb

[Caroline Reichard]

...The questions were though; can this method of using a line to start a dog be successful? Is it really a method that should be used to train Border Collies; if so, why? And is this method doing anything to advance or even maintain the working ability of these dogs? I wanted the answer so that I could make an informed decision now and in the future.

 

...

For me, the answer was no. And as I said earlier, that was not the answer I wanted. I wanted this method to be effective because I want to learn, and I always want to progress. But, after eight lessons with Jack, I stopped to evaluate our progress. I realized that there was not any real progress, and I still had no idea how either of us would react when faced with actually having to work the sheep.

 

Hi Karrin,

 

I know I was clear enough in my posts about what I thought about leash training and that I thought your questions about it were great. But I wanted to point out something else, though: in eight lessons you and your dog can make a lot of progress from where you were as a total newbie. But this mountain is REALLY, REALLY high. For many interested in USBCHA trailing, walking up to the Open post is the beginning of their journey. But getting to that point is an ordeal in itself. Like a plan to climb Everest, even getting to Base Camp is a serious trek. (I myself am still carrying my stone up that mountain.) You should plan on hundreds of hours to get to the novice post, about which nobody really even cares because it is only a prelimiary to being a real person (a least, this is how I see it). I have been on the periphery of this world for a long time, and I have never seen a type of dog training in which the learning curve is even remotely as steep. I have taken dogs into collapsed buildings with the whole world watching; certifying for that is WAY easier than training a dog to an Open standard. So remeber the Boy Scout motto and Be Prepared. It is a long road and, at least from where I am standing, it goes uphill all the way.

[bcnewe2]

For many interested in USBCHA trailing, walking up to the Open post is the beginning of their journey. But getting to that point is an ordeal in itself. Like a plan to climb Everest, even getting to Base Camp is a serious trek. (I myself am still carrying my stone up that mountain.)

 

I love this analogy. It's very acurate, for me at least!

[Pippin's person]

It is a long road and, at least from where I am standing, it goes uphill all the way.

 

It does seem to get prettier and prettier the higher you go, though (at least from my vantage on the bunny hill)

[Debbie Meier]

It does seem to get prettier and prettier the higher you go, though (at least from my vantage on the bunny hill)

 

I have to agree with that, it sure was pretty watching Jake run this past weekend, Wayne just had to give him the basic directions, I don't think he had to correct him or stop him until he got to the shed. Problem is, instead of the guys Wayne runs with saying it was pretty, they said, "We're going to get bea..... whew, he didn't get them shed" I think we have arrived to a small plateau, one of many along the way, the plan is to take a little breather and rest here for a bit before continue lugging that big rock up the mountain. I could see where many would just make home base when they find a nice comfortable ledge that's just large enough to rest on.

 

Hey, forgot, Wayne is now talking about getting the rig licensed and updated with dog boxes so that we can start traveling again, if he does the home base may be going on a diet and the numbers will be getting pared down. At one point the policy around here was to only have as many as we could take with us (horses at that time, and that was 6). The old Jolly Roger (as it was named by our horse club members), might be leaving dock for the first time in 3 years. I think he has finally been bit by the bug, we will know for sure after the cattle trial this weekend!!!

 

Deb

[abcollie]

Well said MS Candy. That is why the thing i love to see most when starting a dog is the dogs ability to control the head. This may not be pretty, nor does it always look the same, but it is the raw stuff that makes good dogs. IMHO

 

Lana

 

Totally agree ... that's the dogs reward ... and it's what a good working dog is striving for. They want to control the stock, make it move in the direction they want it to go (as you said in the "raw form") and good trainers use that to their advantage. They mold that and work with it until you have a great open dog that can listen and move stock and 800 yards.

 

To this day it amazes me!!!

[ItsADogsLyfe]

Dogs learn to balance by controlling sheep ... they control sheep by catching the sheep's eye/head and turning them. If they started by doing nothing but following the "rear" (with the sheep running when the dog gets "too" close - as in the video) and never allowed to turn the heads they are NOT learning how to control sheep ... they are learning how to follow sheep. The sheep are always "getting away" and they are NEVER allowed to catch/control the sheep. Eventually they will give up that "reflex" that makes a good dog stop a breaking sheep.

 

Candy,

 

This was an excellent post. If you had a baby just starting to walk and you constantly sat it back down I think eventually it would cease to try walking. Learning to walk is the natural/instinctive thing to do, if you prevent it from achieving this step in its development it may not progress. Not the best analogy, but I think the point is understandable. If you stop the dog from this first natural step in its sheepherding development, you may impede further progress altogether.

[stockdogranch]

And if the idea with the line is to use it for those who are "less talented," if you never let it off the line, how would you ever know who has the talent and who does not? Even if you keep a dog on the line a time or two (in the fashion shown in the video), you may have already "mucked up" what may have been there in the beginning,

A

[Pearse]

I too just took the time to read all eleven pages of the thread and it was an interesting and enlightening read in many ways.

 

I think a key question that arose out of the discussion is:

 

"Is there anything wrong with encouraging people who have no real interest in putting in the years of work required to be a good handler or stock person, or whose dogs have no real aptitude for stockwork, to continue bringing their dogs to stock?"

 

I've been thinking about this a lot in the past year. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is and the basis for that conclusion centers around the stock.

 

Sheep and cattle don't like being worked by dogs. Even being worked by good dogs is exposing livestock to some level of stress. If it were not, it wouldn't work. I'm not talking about dogs gripping and harassing sheep. Just the mere act of a dog moving inside the flight zone of sheep or cattle puts stress on the stock.

 

We, as a community, claim that we do what we do (training dogs, holding trials) to perpetuate breeding lines of working dogs necessary to those who still need dogs to work livestock. To further that goal, we accept a certain amount of unnecessary stress to our livestock for use in training dogs or running trials while trying to set standards to minimize unnecessary stress (such has having enough sheep for trials, DQing unnecessary grips, housing stock appropriately etc).

 

However, what is the point in stressing sheep or cattle for the entertainment of dogs who will never contribute to the gene pool or further those goals in any way, because they have absolutely no aptitude for stockwork? Likewise, what is the point in allowing stock to be stressed for the entertainment of people who have no real interest in seriously pursuing this and who don't much care about the stock as long as they and their dog are enjoying themselves?

 

To my mind, there needs to be some level of commitment to learning "STOCKWORK AND STOCKMANSHIP" and not just "herding" on the part of the person, AND some level of aptitude on the part of the dog before it's worth it. Again, I'm not saying that any dog who can't be a potential National Champion should be neutered and sent to do agility, nor am I saying that anyone who doesn't run 500 head shouldn't be doing this, but some level of commitment to learn, and aptitude for, stockwork should be a prerequisite.

 

We ignore this at our peril. The more that this craft slides towards sport and entertainment and away from the support of stockwork, the less defensible our position.

 

Now some people here have mocked and ridiculed the very idea of online courses for "herding" students, but the discussion made me think about this ( I had a lot of time to think driving 1800 miles this weekend). First of all, what is this discussion (and many others on these foums) if not online courses about training dogs? So if it's useless to try and present that content online why are we all wasting our time here? Secondly, done well, many of the important concepts concerning stockwork and stockmanship could be introduced online so that potential students come to their first lesson with a better appreciation of what they are about to undertake, and the correct mindset with which to begin. It can't replace hands-on training just as reading Bruce Fogt's or Derek Scrimgeour's books cannot replace having them watch your dog work and instruct you on how to improve him/her but the idea should not be ridiculed simply because it's novel or because it's wrapped in marketing speak presenting it as "Herding 101" instead of a post in the "Ask the Expert" section. In my opinion though any such course ought to spend as much time on livestock and stockmanship as on how to train your dog.

 

Pearse

[ItsADogsLyfe]

I think the main problem would be a sheep herding course for beginners which I think both those courses were. When I started out I bought books. I always like to have as much information as I can when starting something new. I didn't really get much out of those books until I got into the pen with my dog and the sheep. As I progressed I was able to utilize more of the information in thse books. Most of the posts here relating to sheepdog training are from people that are already working their dogs and are having a problem in some area. Even then most of the experienced handlers will admit its very hard to give advice online because its hard to say exactly what the dog/sheep are doing unless you can see them. A beginner may not even know how to explain what exactly is happening. I personally would not be willing to pay that much for an online class in sheep herding because I don't think I could get enough out of it to make it worth the money. I'd rather spend that money going to a clinic or lesson and observing the real thing. The caliber of instructor would be important to me also. I'd like to actually see that person training before I'd pay to take an online course, and I probably wouldn't anyway. It seems to me just another way for someone to make some easy money.

[dracina]

Hi Pearse:

 

I am pretty sure that you are not directing your response to my situation directly (at least I hope not, because I am not learning for sport or entertainment, I don't yet know if my dog is "worth it", and my question/responses-I hope-did not lead you to think otherwise). But if you don’t mind, I would like to give an answer. My perspective is admittedly from the way, way outside, but I want to say just a bit.

 

Your response is very well written, and I think that you have gotten to the heart of a very interesting point. I agree with what you've said, for the most part. I will not try to discuss that about which I know nothing, but I want to say something about this:

 

To my mind, there needs to be some level of commitment to learning "STOCKWORK AND STOCKMANSHIP" and not just "herding" on the part of the person, AND some level of aptitude on the part of the dog before it's worth it. Again, I'm not saying that any dog who can't be a potential National Champion should be neutered and sent to do agility, nor am I saying that anyone who doesn't run 500 head shouldn't be doing this, but some level of commitment to learn, and aptitude for, stockwork should be a prerequisite.

 

We ignore this at our peril. The more that this craft slides towards sport and entertainment and away from the support of stockwork, the less defensible our position.

 

Now some people here have mocked and ridiculed the very idea of online courses for "herding" students, but the discussion made me think about this ( I had a lot of time to think driving 1800 miles this weekend). First of all, what is this discussion (and many others on these foums) if not online courses about training dogs? So if it's useless to try and present that content online why are we all wasting our time here? Secondly, done well, many of the important concepts concerning stockwork and stockmanship could be introduced online so that potential students come to their first lesson with a better appreciation of what they are about to undertake, and the correct mindset with which to begin. It can't replace hands-on training just as reading Bruce Fogt's or Derek Scrimgeour's books cannot replace having them watch your dog work and instruct you on how to improve him/her but the idea should not be ridiculed simply because it's novel or because it's wrapped in marketing speak presenting it as "Herding 101" instead of a post in the "Ask the Expert" section. In my opinion though any such course ought to spend as much time on livestock and stockmanship as on how to train your dog.

 

Pearse

 

I think that the difference between what we have here, in this forum, and on others like Bill Gary's, is that the knowledge shared is free. It is handed out freely by those who are actually doing stockwork, and know what the heck is going on. There is discussion, and arguments, and some really good information being exchanged. I think that yes, stock and stockmanship is under-represented here, but some information is still available. The winning idea here is that theories are practiced and challenged, and not just presented as some stuff you can think about doing someday when you see some sheep. Knowledge is a major factor in perpetuating the breed, not just genetics.

 

Unfortunately, the online courses that were mentioned here do none of that: they are one person's opinion, and they are specifically marketed to those who are exactly what you described above: people that probably don't really want to learn by doing, probably have no aptitude for stock, and possibly don't even have a dog. The end result will not enhance, but disparage the breed; and in the name of money.

 

By accepting that, we are definitely ignoring the past and future of the breed. To me, misinformation and improper handling of the knowledge we have now can do more damage than anything.

 

Karrin

[Wendy V]

Thank you, Pearse. I, personally, do not see much different between an online course and that of a book or DVD or other media. The fact that one pays money for it doesn't render it useless, as per Karrin's argument. One should beware of free advice, if you ask me. It could be worth just what you paid for it. And to go further, Karrin, all herding instruction is just one person's opinion, regardless of the venue. In fact, there is a book out on judging called just that, "One Man's Opinion". Worth a read, I would say.

[dracina]

Hi Wendy:

 

You are right: I do have a lot to learn, which is why I like to participate in these discussions. I know that you have lots of experience, so I hope that you will go back to the original question and respond to that. I am interested in what you have to say, and I like to think that I am open-minded enough to listen.

 

Karrin

[Pearse]

can think about doing someday when you see some sheep. Knowledge is a major factor in perpetuating the breed, not just genetics.

 

Unfortunately, the online courses that were mentioned here do none of that: they are one person's opinion, and they are specifically marketed to those who are exactly what you described above: people that probably don't really want to learn by doing, probably have no aptitude for stock, and possibly don't even have a dog. The end result will not enhance, but disparage the breed; and in the name of money.

 

Most vocational types of training mix fact with opinion. That's because there are more ways than one to do most things. It's why people study with particular music teachers, athletic coaches, or dog trainers. The trick is finding one whose methods you find appealing and still give you the results you want. That's often a trial and error process. In the beginning it's often not that important as long as the teacher is at least competent. As you get better and raise your expectations, you start to seek out the masters with whom to study. The masters are selective, demanding, and often expensive but by the time you are that far along you are already addicted, I mean, committed (or, in the opinion of many of our family members, committable).

 

The marketplace will take care of the posers and charlatans. People don't like spending money and not getting the desired result. Word gets around.

 

People with no interest in stockwork and no dog can't hurt "the breed". They'll just go away.

 

The target group is people who do have dogs, some of them well bred, who think they want to get into stockdog trialing for fun or because "it's what my dog was meant to do". Properly done, "dryland training" may not be any good for dogs, but it might be good for handlers. It won't replace hands on stockwork, but it could provide background, set realistic expectations, and put the focus on the stock where it belongs. It may well keep some of those people on track rather than them leaving discouraged.

 

Kathy (who I know quite well, not as a trainer so I can't speak to her methods but she's a good handler and a hell of a nice person), mentioned using the line to slow things down for beginners who don't know where or how to move. I'm not so long at this game that I don't remember what that feels like but I'd side with other people who recommended having those beginners move sheep without a dog. The problem with that suggestion is that too many of us have sheep so habituated to humans that people can't put enough pressure on them to move them, but if you are a beginner and get the opportunity to work light sheep without a dog, in setout pens (from which most dogs should be banned) or moving them around in barns for example, do it. You will get a better sense of where your dog needs to be to move sheep and how sheep think (and they do think) than in a dozen lessons with a dog because you aren't worrying about what the dog is doing. One of my biggest lightbulb moments in dog training came watching Richard Bailey from Colorado sort 2 lambs, 2 ewes in the setout pens at the Jordan MN trial. He did it for two hours and never touched a sheep. I spent the next two days trying to figure out how to do that using just body pressure. Totally changed the way I moved around sheep.

 

By the way Wendy, I have "One Man's Opinion". It is a good read.

 

Pearse

[dracina]

Hi again, Pearse:

 

I agree with everything that you have said in this post. I think that you are very knowledgeable, and quite thoughtful in your replies, so thank you for adding to the discussion.

 

Karrin

[Wendy V]

Well, Karrin, after 12 pages of discussion, I guess I would like to know what conclusions you have drawn. Your questions have been answers by many, including many thoughtful posts by Kathy herself. Do you still feel as if you have been lead down the wrong road? Do you feel that you have wasted your time and money? What will your next step be in the training process? Have you settled upon another instructor more to your liking? I feel that you are echoing our comments with compliments but I do not have the feeling that you are learning from them. Or, I feel that you are trying to keep the discussion going for whatever reason, I do not know. Time to wrap it up, maybe?