More women handlers - is it changing the border collie?

[Tommy Coyote]

I have been following a discussion over on the Kensmuir board about the influence that more and more women handlers is having on the working dogs. The basic argument is that women prefer a softer, more biddable (sp?) dog. Men prefer a harder dog. The result is that the dogs being bred are getting softer.

 

There are a lot of women handlers on this board. What kind of dog do you pick?

 

If I have a chance to pick a puppy for myself I always go for a softer dog. But my dogs are companions not working dogs. I think, though, that if I was picking a dog for working and maybe for trialing, I would just want to pick the best dog I could find - and definitely not the softest.

[Ooky]

I'm not sure it has to do much with me being a girl, but right now I'd prefer a softer (or at least more biddable) dog because I'm so new to not only stockwork, but dog training in general. As time goes on, I think I'd like to have different types of dogs to learn more and have more canine tools in my arsenal when working with the stock.

 

However, the whole soft-hard discussion confuses me. One thing I've learned about Odin (props to Julie P for helping me with this) is that he is sort of a mirror on people's own behavior. That is, if you come down on him really hard, he gets hard back at you and starts acing like corrections don't phase him. But if you treat him softly, he's very responsive. I don't know what that says about breeding or anything, or what his "true" state is, but it is interesting. I am a bit of a wimp with him and treat him pretty relaxed, also because I don't want to muck with his natural feel too much by correcting him wrongly. Another trainer I've seen multiple times used to treat him like a very hard dog, but recently saw what I meant and realized if you back off him a bit, he really starts wanting to do whatever you need him to do to be right, rather than bucking corrections or evading them.

 

Finally, rather than a soft or hard dog, the main thing I think that is way less negotiable imo would be the desire to partner with you. I can imagine both hard and soft dogs wanting to do this (and have observed as much), so I think its a different trait.

[Smokjbc]

Here is my opinion and preference-

 

First of all, I believe there has been a leap not just in women handlers but in fairly novice/non-trainer handlers that have figured out that in order to "play with the big boys", they have to purchase a trained dog. Now, if you are a top trainer, are you going to sell them your best dog, one that is probably too much dog for them, not to mention a top contender for you? Or are you going to look to that dog's littermate or another dog in your kennel that is also quite nice but easier to handle? In order for everyone to be happy, the dog that will be sold will most likely be the easier one for the non-trainer to handle.

 

If you pay attention to which dogs are related, you might be surprised at how a particularly good, strong dog can have a fairly average or even weak littermate. It doesn't mean anyone bred the litter for the intention for easier to handle dogs, it's just the natural range of abilities that you get and now, with more people active in the sport and wanting to go further than just arena and novice trials, more of those dogs are getting entered into Open level than were before. From what I've observed, most of those trained dogs are not being bred, or are being bred carefully with the supervision of their breeder/trainer and when the non-trainer handler (trying to think of a better term for it !) wants another dog, they are more likely to purchase another trained dog than to raise one themselves.

 

Plenty of women handlers are on top in the National rankings from the west, with stock out here that traditionally requires a strong dog, so I think the idea that more women handlers mean breeding for softer dogs is a bunch of b.s.

 

Personally, I like a partner dog, one that is concerned with my opinion but that is not afraid to work independently. I don't like dogs that are snuggly/clingy as far as living with them. I definitely would rather have a two year old driving me crazy with push then one that is perfect all of the time. Mostly, I want an intelligent dog that lives to work sheep .

[Tommy Coyote]

Just to throw this out there. I think the first time I went to the Nationals was in St. Louis probably about 1988. I don't remember that there were any women competing. The next time I went was probably 1990 and I know that Kathy Knox was competing but I don't remember any other women competing. And I think it was kind of the same out in the regional trials - no women at all.

 

Now there are tons of women and they are winning at all levels. And they are winning against the men.

 

I would think that those women would have to have really good dogs in order to do what they are doing - soft little mechanical trial dogs simply couldn't make it at those levels.

 

So, unless the trial requirements have changed over time so that soft dogs have some kind of advantage, I would think that those women who are out there and winning would not necessarily have particularly soft dogs.

[Tommy Coyote]

Here is my opinion and preference-

 

First of all, I believe there has been a leap not just in women handlers but in fairly novice/non-trainer handlers that have figured out that in order to "play with the big boys", they have to purchase a trained dog. Now, if you are a top trainer, are you going to sell them your best dog, one that is probably too much dog for them, not to mention a top contender for you? Or are you going to look to that dog's littermate or another dog in your kennel that is also quite nice but easier to handle? In order for everyone to be happy, the dog that will be sold will most likely be the easier one for the non-trainer to handle.

 

If you pay attention to which dogs are related, you might be surprised at how a particularly good, strong dog can have a fairly average or even weak littermate. It doesn't mean anyone bred the litter for the intention for easier to handle dogs, it's just the natural range of abilities that you get and now, with more people active in the sport and wanting to go further than just arena and novice trials, more of those dogs are getting entered into Open level than were before. From what I've observed, most of those trained dogs are not being bred, or are being bred carefully with the supervision of their breeder/trainer and when the non-trainer handler (trying to think of a better term for it !) wants another dog, they are more likely to purchase another trained dog than to raise one themselves.

 

Plenty of women handlers are on top in the National rankings from the west, with stock out here that traditionally requires a strong dog, so I think the idea that more women handlers mean breeding for softer dogs is a bunch of b.s.

 

Personally, I like a partner dog, one that is concerned with my opinion but that is not afraid to work independently. I don't like dogs that are snuggly/clingy as far as living with them. I definitely would rather have a two year old driving me crazy with push then one that is perfect all of the time. Mostly, I want an intelligent dog that lives to work sheep .

Do you think where you live makes a difference? Is there a difference between the dogs competing on the East Coast and those competing in the West? I live in farm country and I think a lot of the dogs competing around here are still working dogs at home. They have got to be able to work in order to get their job done.

[Mark Billadeau]

There may be a difference in the types of dogs that do well on the two coasts in smaller trials (mostly local competitors) or in the lower classes (due to differences in the nature of the sheep used at trials); but by the time you have progressed to the top levels you and your dogs really need to be doing well on all types of sheep (in order to reach that level).

 

Mark

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

[My thought would be From a true beginner prospective looking in but, I wonder if it isnt a perception that the dogs are softer because women prefer their dogs also to be their companion/pet. A dog who was running in the final heats of Sheepy hollow with a woman I didnt meet kept trying to give me a stick to throw. She had to tell me to ignore him as he needed to compete again soon. Dogs that I've met that I've been told are hard dogs dont appeal to me. They are about business only. I like a dog who can move a bull one second and play with a toddler the next.

[juliepoudrier]

^^What Mark said. Too many east coast dogs (many with women handlers) do quite well out west and at the finals running range sheep for the east-west argument to hold. Frankly, I think it speaks highly of east coast dogs that they can perform well on typical east coast sheep (often hair sheep) and go out west and adapt to and perform well on western range ewes. That is, since range ewes are the de facto standard for the national finals, east coast dogs have to be able to perform well on them, even though they are not the type of sheep typically encountered here in the east.

 

And I know plenty of women open handlers who prefer a hard dog. (Note: Most of the open handlers I know and know of in the east do have farms and raise sheep and other livestock. I don't think one can assume that east coast = no real work any more than you can assume west coast = loads of work. It's more likely that novice handlers and title chasers don't have their own sheep and don't have regular real work for dogs, but as Mark said if you are competitive at the open level you likely have work for your dog and your dog is skilled at handling all sorts of sheep.)

 

Oh, and on the topic of woman handler = weak, biddable dogs, I would say this: If women handlers have had any great influence I think it's in the realm of helping to curb abuses in training. That's not to say that there aren't women out there who can be rough on dogs, but in general I think the influx of women in trialing has had a positive outcome for the lives of the dogs. I suppose one could stretch that argument to say "Well, if you don't have to beat a dog to get it to work right then you're creating a softer dog" and my answer to that is that if you have to resort to abusive training techniques then there's something wrong with the dog/breeding program in the first place. I know there are plenty of male handlers (mostly old school, but some younger ones as well) who want a dog "who can take a licking and keep on ticking" (and we're not talking about a licking from the stock either), but that doesn't mean that the type of dog they preferred is better than what the average competitive woman open handler would prefer.

 

J.

[bcnewe2]

I agree with Mark and Julie and will add

We came from the east, moved to the south now out west.

Starting in the east had me as a green trainer working on keeping the "power" out of my dogs cause I didn't know any better and hair was the norm sheep out there. I had been told to let the dog learn to rate but with all simular sheep that wasn't clicking with me or the dog.

Moved to the south and had farm flocks that were a bit tougher but not like the sheep out here. Mick learned to work big in AR. Not much fencing and big spaces.

Move here....sheep are tough and your dog better be right cause if they're in to close they'll challage that, and not close enough and off they go so....

I feel I've had the best of both/all worlds to learn about different sheep. So has Mick and it showed the last time I worked him. He didn't know the sheep but rated well, which he didn't do so much in AR or MO.

I've never really knew just how important is was to get the dog out on as many different sheep as you can find. I thought different places did the same thing. Moving all over the country has helped us allot.

 

I HATE my sheep right now. But after watching Mick be able to handle sheep like these when we went somewhere else, I've decided they've earned their keep. Poor Dew has a long way to go and I don't have good sheep for a green dog. I will be growing my flock and I've changed my ideas on what I want. I'll take a little bit of this and a little bit of that. I used to just grow sheep with butchering in mind. Now I've seen how important the sheep are in making a dog, I'm thinking differently.

The last trial I was at there were allot of spectators that really didn't know anything about trialing. I was amused when one couple came up to me and asked why was there mostly female handlers...wasn't this a man's sport? I don't have an answer for that one. Except they were there after open had ran and I wonder if women mind less making a fool of themselves in the lower classes. Do men wait longer to get out there cause they are less inclinced to make fools of themselves? Being a fool in this stitution is not a bad thing in my mind, just something you have to go through to get somewhere else. Maybe men do that in private?

 

eta: I think I strayed off subject so my answer about power being bred out of our dogs. When more people are trialing without real work, there isn't the need for as much power so IMO I think it's just being over looked a bit when there's only easier sheep available. Not cause of women handlers. IMO anyways. Is it east or west related? Maybe because of the different needs of sheep in different parts of the country.

[Mark Billadeau]

Is it not possible that the apparent loss of the "tough dog" is simply an improvement in the North American handlers/trainers to where the behaviors observed (lots of gripping and/or difficult to control) to label a dog as tough are no longer needed to get the job done in other words we now have more control through better training? And the perceived correlation with the apparent gender shift of handlers is not really correlated.

 

Just because two things change at the same time does not automatically mean there is a causal relationship. There has been a significant rise in blogging over the past couple of years AND there has been a significant increase in unemployment. Clearly, if people would stop blogging employment would increase and so would mortgage rates.

 

Mark

[bcnewe2]

Ok Mark...no more blogging for me!

I kinda think it's due to the increase of new/green handlers and the sport of trialing growing quicker than our need for really good farm dogs. Mick is one heck of a tough dog. He came from the east, bred by a woman, and he's got me, a woman as a handler. I spent the first half his life trying to squish it out of him cause I was lacking the ability to use it to our advantage. He was a hard dog to start but I think it was mainly cause I was trying to make him into what I precieved I needed, not letting him teach me what a dog was all about.

 

JMHO

BTW Sheryl, Mick would love it if you'd throw a stick for him or a ball and he loves kids but when it comes to sheep he's all business and yep...he's not a lovie dog. He loves kids but I think it's casue they come with food on their faces or they're gonna drop some food on the ground sooner or later but as far as being a multipurpose dog...he's not. It's about work. He plays cause that's how I rehabbed him when he had the awful TBD's. I think he'd bite a kid if they got in the way of his work. I've seen him go off on the white dogs when they were blocking his ability to do his job. Don't get in the way of his job. It's all about the sheep or cattle or chickens...whatever it's all work to him.

[Amelia]

Hello all

I appreciate what Julie said, especially the bit about training abuse. This discussion is such an over-simplied generalization as to be laughable and I've stayed out of it up till now for that reason. My feeling is that there is a pervasive, sexist, predjudice against women in dog trialing that is even perpetuated by women.

 

We have tremendously talented women handlers in this country who not only can and do run "hard" dogs, but "soft" dogs as well and beat all comers handily with either and make it look easy. But who do you see in the judge's/clinician's chair? More often than not, it's a reasonably attractive man with an "aw shucks" persona who may have an accent or a well-shaped cowboy hat and may or may not have the slightest idea what they're doing. Some don't even have real success on which to hang that well-shaped hat. Others have just some veiled perception of success that may be 20 years old and far beyond actual knowledge of the woman who hired him.

 

Culture overseas has kept many women out of dogs, but international exchange and the likes of Anna Krueger, Karin Mattson, Julie Hill, and the Croppers are changing that slowly but steadily. We don't have that excuse over here and I think it has more to do with pettiness, jealousy and ego. Women have been evenly competing against men in the horse world forever, and it's never a question of who rides the harder horse. Talent is talent and it's the same with dogs.

 

Whether man or woman, everybody has a preference for a particular type of dog, but real talent shows when you can be successful with anything. For me, it's not about a hard or soft dog, but how well I can train and handle a good dog.

[workindogs]

Frankly, I think it speaks highly of east coast dogs that they can perform well on typical east coast sheep (often hair sheep) and go out west and adapt to and perform well on western range ewes. That is, since range ewes are the de facto standard for the national finals, east coast dogs have to be able to perform well on them, even though they are not the type of sheep typically encountered here in the east.

 

 

Just a small correction......the Finals in Klamath Falls in 2001, 2006 and 2009 were run on Coopworth ewes. These are not range ewes, but rather a commercial wool flock. So, I don't believe it is correct to say that range ewes are the de facto standard for the National Finals....even in the West!

[kelpiegirl]

Range ewes, I keep hearing about them, and saw some pics. Tall, mean looking things, and when pushed will either fight every step, or flee, because their fit.

 

It isn't the geography of where the dog came from, it's the exposure to sheep of that ilk which will prepare the dog. There *are* undogbroke sheep in the east. I have worked them. A sensible dog with fortitude, and a good handler, so as to prevent wrecks, goes a long way.

 

I have seen people with weaker dogs handler rougher sheep, simply because they knew how to finesse it.

 

I say bring some of the western dogs out here to work on certain flocks of Katahdin sheep, and then we'll even the mark. IF you get your dog halfway out to them, before they bail in utter terror, you will be in good shape

 

Regional differences exist, but increasing the scope of your dog will diminish the divide.

[Lana]

Range ewes are not just un broke sheep. The thing that makes them different is they live in the wide open spaces and are rarely handled, or even see humans.

 

I agree that exposure to these sheep is a factor, but not all dogs can handle them no matter where you live. I have seen Beverly and Candy write eloquently about this on this board and others.

 

A good dog should be able to handle fire eating dragons and dog broke lil deer sheep, but most don't do realy well at both. I just don't have the need or enjoy handling a dog of the second type.

 

Most of us don't have the money to travel the country working these different types of sheep, and thus usually have and like dogs that can compete in the trials that we enjoy.

 

I cant seem to get this back around to what women do or don't like, but i would agree sexism, especially in judging( as in who is judging) is very alive and well in this country.

 

Lana

[bcnewe2]

I say bring some of the western dogs out here to work on certain flocks of Katahdin sheep, and then we'll even the mark. IF you get your dog halfway out to them, before they bail in utter terror, you will be in good shape

 

I think this is an old argument. I've heard it in the east and now i hear it in the west.

It's handling and work on both. A good dog should be able to do both reasonably well but not all can because of exposure.

[SoloRiver]

Is there a difference between the dogs competing on the East Coast and those competing in the West?

 

Keep in mind that (1) I am basically still a novice handler and (2) my trial dog has issues particular to herself that color my impression of east vs. west differences. Specifically, she's a very stylish dog with tons of eye who is very kind to her sheep. Fly does really, really well on flighty sheep that many other dogs can't get anywhere near, and has a wonderful calming, almost hypnotic effect. Fly has absolutely no idea how to move sheep who turn around and look at her. I have also had relatively little time to train and trial since moving west in 2005 (and now that I have more time I am scrambling for opportunities), so much of my experience has been as a spectator since then. I would actually really appreciate it if someone who knows better would disabuse me of my more erroneous notions as presented below.

 

In my experience, there are plenty of strong, difficult wool sheep on both coasts but they tend to be difficult for different reasons. There aren't range ewes or really big commercial operations on the east coast that I know of, and the tough difficult to move wool sheep tend to be that way because they are smaller farm flocks and they are overdogged and maybe quite sour. On the west coast it seems like the tough sheep are tough because they are essentially wild, or because they are parts of large farm flocks that are, as individuals, worked less often and less directly. Either way, they are very challenging for dogs.

 

There are a lot of hair sheep on both coasts on they seem to be the same on both coasts. They all seem to mostly belong to small farm flocks. Katahdins are popular on both coasts, as are similar breeds like St. Croix. I was surprised when I got to CA that people were still keeping Barbs. When I started working dogs in 2001 there were a lot of Barbs in the mid-Atlantic (PA and thereabouts) but it seemed like everyone soon got rid of them for obvious reasons. The hair sheep that are used for trials on both coasts tend to present the same sorts of challenges to the dogs.

 

The biggest differences between the coasts lie in the scope and terrain of the fields, either in real working or trial contexts. It is very, very difficult to field anything bigger than a 400 yard outrun in many areas of the east coast. In many areas of the west coast, outruns of 600 yards or more are quite possible. Most east coast fields are "flat" (and I put "flat" in quotes since we all know that fields can be deceptively "flat") while many west coast fields include enormous hills (think Zamora). I don't think that east coast dogs are inherently worse at performing on enormous, hilly fields but many don't have any opportunities to do so at home or near home, so east coast handlers need to go farther out of their ways to practice on such fields and I think most of the east coast handlers who do well when they come out west are handlers who spend a LOT of time hauling their dogs to as many different kinds of fields as they can. It seems like doing that is a lot harder to do on the east coast than it is out here.

 

There ARE smaller fields and lighter sheep out on the west coast (and if I get Fly back into trialing those are the ones we'll be shooting for at least at first), so on either coast I think it's quite possible to pick and choose your trials so that you technically have a very successful Open dog who never really faces tough challenges (not that light sheep can't be tough -- they can). If you want to throw your dog up against enormous fields and giant wild wooly sheep on a regular basis, it's a lot easier to do that on the west coast than on the east.

 

I have my favorite dogs on both coasts and I think that all things being equal in terms of training opportunities that the east coast dogs are just as good as the west coast dogs and vice versa. There seems to be plenty of cross-pollination in terms of dogs and bloodlines as well and not nearly as much regionalism as I would expect if the definitions of "good dog" were wildly different between the coasts.

[Sue R]

Back to the OP question, I wonder if there are changes not only due to the increased presence of women with working dogs (on farms, ranches, and the trial field) but also due to the presence of people (men and especially women) who have come into working Border Collies from a pet/companion/performance (and, occasionally, show) background.

 

Are there changes reflected in the dogs? Certainly, across the spectrum of dogs being bred, as many are being bred for something other than stockwork. Are there changes reflected in working-bred dogs? Maybe, but I wonder if there isn't more influence due to the interest in trialling more as a sport or hobby with a life of its own, rather than as a proving of practical work dogs. Are there changes because more handlers are coming from non-farm or ranch backgrounds?

 

Maybe yes to all three questions. Maybe no. I don't have the experience to know, but I do wonder.

 

Some people feel that as long as there are people that need dogs for work, there will be good working dogs. I think there is some truth in that but I'm concerned that there are too many pressures that are not beneficial for the breed, such as desire for softer, more biddable and less thinking dogs for new handlers; lack of proving grounds in real work for many dogs; breeding for superfluous characteristics (color, coat, and so on); and breeding for other purposes (show, sport, pets); and breeding with trialing as the goal, not working.

 

My hope is that there are, and continue to be, people who prove the dogs in real work and on the trial field, and who breed and train dogs that can not only do the work but that can become better and more consistent working dogs with succeeding generations.

[herdcentral]

I dont get this whole women, men thing. Surely the idea is to have a dog that will perform at a top level across all types of sheep. A talented handler will have preferences on what they prefer but the outcome still has to be the same. There seem to be top women handlers competing against and beating the top men, so the dogs must be good regardless of their soft, hard or whatever. Why anyone would have a dog able to take a licking from its trainer as a criteria in picking a good working dogs is a mystery to me. I thought it was all about the sheep and a talented handler will be about training the dog for the sheep.

 

A trialing dog seems to have to cope with a wider range of sheep breeds than the strictly farm dog that stays in situ on the farm. There seems to be lots of myths that abound about women. The professional female trainers I know want to win and they look for dogs that they believe will get them where they want to be. They are very talented women and know their way around dogs without being abusive and their dogs are often a whole lot of dog.

[kelpiegirl]

I agree, and one the old handlers don't get involved in- they simply train their dogs...

 

I think this is an old argument. I've heard it in the east and now i hear it in the west.

It's handling and work on both. A good dog should be able to do both reasonably well but not all can because of exposure.

[Tommy Coyote]

Just as an aside: remember Susan Butcher who ran and won the Iditarod? The good ole boys made horrible fun of her because she treated her dogs well. The assumption was that if you are soft on your dogs they will not be tough enough. And boy did she prove them wrong. She was always good to her dogs and they paid her back by winning over and over.

 

I absolutely hate the abuse of these dogs. The only thing it proves is that the handler is out of control of his temper.

[Tommy Coyote]

Hello all

I appreciate what Julie said, especially the bit about training abuse. This discussion is such an over-simplied generalization as to be laughable and I've stayed out of it up till now for that reason. My feeling is that there is a pervasive, sexist, predjudice against women in dog trialing that is even perpetuated by women.

 

We have tremendously talented women handlers in this country who not only can and do run "hard" dogs, but "soft" dogs as well and beat all comers handily with either and make it look easy. But who do you see in the judge's/clinician's chair? More often than not, it's a reasonably attractive man with an "aw shucks" persona who may have an accent or a well-shaped cowboy hat and may or may not have the slightest idea what they're doing. Some don't even have real success on which to hang that well-shaped hat. Others have just some veiled perception of success that may be 20 years old and far beyond actual knowledge of the woman who hired him.

 

Culture overseas has kept many women out of dogs, but international exchange and the likes of Anna Krueger, Karin Mattson, Julie Hill, and the Croppers are changing that slowly but steadily. We don't have that excuse over here and I think it has more to do with pettiness, jealousy and ego. Women have been evenly competing against men in the horse world forever, and it's never a question of who rides the harder horse. Talent is talent and it's the same with dogs.

 

Whether man or woman, everybody has a preference for a particular type of dog, but real talent shows when you can be successful with anything. For me, it's not about a hard or soft dog, but how well I can train and handle a good dog.

I was reading McCaig's Border Wars yesterday and he stated that in the early years of the trialing thing here in this country that women were " barely tolerated." That's kind of the way i remember it, too. Ethel Conrad was out there and there were a few other women but they seemed to be real characters and I don't know how well they did.

 

And Liv in Scotland was really making a name for herself and was well respected, I think.

 

Do you think that the judges still disciminate against women? Or are the women at least getting a fair shake there?

[Pam Wolf]

Just as an aside: remember Susan Butcher who ran and won the Iditarod? The good ole boys made horrible fun of her because she treated her dogs well. The assumption was that if you are soft on your dogs they will not be tough enough. And boy did she prove them wrong. She was always good to her dogs and they paid her back by winning over and over.

 

I absolutely hate the abuse of these dogs. The only thing it proves is that the handler is out of control of his temper.

 

LOL! You are dating yourself Remember my old dog, Pi and how the GOB's would sneer when she sat in my lap or did stupid pet tricks then went out and beatthe pants off them.

[Tommy Coyote]

LOL! You are dating yourself Remember my old dog, Pi and how the GOB's would sneer when she sat in my lap or did stupid pet tricks then went out and beatthe pants off them.

Sigh! Pi was such a good dog. I really miss all those old guys. We had such a good time with them.

 

Did you see where Ethel Conrad died this year? Boy, she had a good run. She must have been in her 90's. I think Susan Butcher died a couple of years ago of cancer. She died way too young.

[Jeanne Joy]

It seems the lack of real work is the largest contributor for breed changes. In today's hobby world, most people have to create jobs for their dogs. Their flock is maintained on a small number of acres in fenced properties. The sheep could be managed just as easily with a grain bucket. Strong, determined dogs need consistently hard, continuous work to keep the edge off. Otherwise, they are a fist full of reins. Difficult stock in rough terrain weeds out weak dogs.