Trial Classes?

[juliepoudrier]

First off, it's not my new rule,

I'm sure that most people reading my comments would have understood that by "your" I meant your club and not you personally.

 

J.

[Journey]

Thanks for all the ideas! It's been brought to my attention that some club members are lurking on the boards and have reported to the club directors that I am posing a negative image for the club. There was never the intent of that. So, I thank those that have replied, the club is fully aware of this conversation which explains all the hits this thread has. I copied the link so they could "all" read it as the lurker never came forward in a email that had been generated. Hopefully everyone can read beyond this perceived negative image and grow with some of the ideas and info shared here.

 

Thanks!

[juliepoudrier]

Karen,

It seems some will look for and find negativity no matter what. I thought you were doing a good thing by trying to find out what other folks do and then taking that to present to your club. Good luck!

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

And there shouldn't be any payout for novice classes...For Open we recommend payout schedule, after the other bills have been paid. The first person to be paid should be the person with the farm and the sheep.

 

Cynthia

I missed this earlier and wanted to comment on it. IMO, if trial competitors want to have more trials and places open to them, they should make sure that the trial host gets *paid* before anyone else. I know a lot of open handlers who won't even consider a trial without payback, and it never ceases to amaze me that anyone would think a competitor deserves to get money before the host (and even the paid help) do. If it werren't for the host, the host's property, and the host's stock, there couldn't be a trial. Generally hosts lose money on a trial, not to mention the time and expense they have to go to in preparing for a trial, ensuring facilities and help during a trial, and for clean up/recovery after a trial.

 

I've seen situations where the trial host felt a need for paid help to minimize complaining from open handlers but then felt that it wasn't possible to cover the cost of paid help and also pay out the money *expected* by those same handlers. The choice was have volunteer set out and listen to the handlers complain about the unevenness (and therefore unfairness) of the set out or pay someone to set sheep and pay out less money and then have handlers complain about the lower payout. See a theme here?

 

Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with Cynthia that no competitor should get money before all expenses are paid, and those expenses include everything the trial host has to spend to get the trial up and running and clean up afterward. People are always lamenting the fact that there aren't more trials, but hosting a trial isn't easy, and it's certainly hard on the stock and the property (I'm always amazed by the fact that people leave *trash* behind), so why not pay the host first?

 

/end of rant.

 

J.

[Cynthia P]

A key difference with NEBCA system is the definition of good runs; in NEBCA good is defined by your score given to you by the judge not how well you placed against the other handlers. If you're doing well enough to get good scores you should be getting ready to move up.

 

That's the one fault of the NEBCA system I don't like. It doesn't take into account the dog that wins against several (or many) dogs with very tough sheep. In Ontario we have some very undogged large commercial flocks and in one trial last year with over 20 PN dogs the winning score was 45; So no points at all for the winning dog in the NEBCA system.

 

Cynthia

[Mark Billadeau]

On the other hand it prevents rewarding poor performance when the sheep are easier. Since grading the toughness of sheep could be highly subjective, I would rather not award points when the sheep are tough and scores are low than award points when the sheep are easy and the scores are low.

 

The other issue with the NEBCA system is the points are highly subjective since judging/scoring is subjective. However, the system compares your performance against the livestock and not your peers which is more likley to push you to improve.

 

No one system is without issues; the trick is to minimize the egregious faults of a system.

 

Mark

[kelpiegirl]

You've got a point there Cynthia. Seems a shame, as just finishing the course with undogged sheep, in a novice class would be an accomplishment (at least with novice handlers like me).

 

That's the one fault of the NEBCA system I don't like. It doesn't take into account the dog that wins against several (or many) dogs with very tough sheep. In Ontario we have some very undogged large commercial flocks and in one trial last year with over 20 PN dogs the winning score was 45; So no points at all for the winning dog in the NEBCA system.

 

Cynthia

[ThunderHill]

You've got a point there Cynthia. Seems a shame, as just finishing the course with undogged sheep, in a novice class would be an accomplishment (at least with novice handlers like me).

 

Here's my take, speaking as somebody who just moved up to NEBCA's Pro/Novice level.

 

I totally agree that just finishing a course with challenging (if not outright "undogged") sheep is an accomplishment. That's well worth walking tall and grinning wide for 5 or 10 minutes at least. (And possibly a cackling outright gloat, after you reach somewhere private where you can express yourself more freely. <G>)

 

But truly, NEBCA novice points aren't relevant to that particular, very genuine, kind of success.

 

I have two "home schooled" dogs. I started both of them myself, and I'm training both of them myself. (With the kind advice of assorted advanced handlers, and as many clinics as I could (formerly) afford to attend.) My older dog (4 years) would have been close to pointing out of Novice/Novice in the NEBCA system after basically one year of light trialing. (Not last year, when I was between houses and not competing, but the year before.) I moved him to P/N because I thought we were both ready and because I needed the challenge, not because of our NEBCA points. I know I stayed in N/N longer than I should have, but that was partly because I'd never trained a dog to drive before. (In fact, I'm still learning. So are my dogs.) My younger dog (bitch, 2 years old) went directly to P/N, because I had better facilities to work her, knew a little more about what I was doing, she's more intensely focused, and I thought she could probably do the P/N course already. Her first time out she managed fine so P/N is where she'll run for a bit.

 

This past weekend we went to the Turbotville trial Mark mentioned earlier, and ran in P/N. The second time out in P/N for all of us.

 

There were originally 47 dogs listed in the P/N running order. 39 ran. 24 got scores. I've seen worse and I've seen better. My older dog (who is less confident) got a score. (Not the lowest, but close.) My young bitch got a score -- and also one NEBCA point.

 

The sheep were by no means "undogged" by that time (after two previous days of Open trials) but they were a bit tricky. The winning P/N score was 69. (Out of 80? I'm not sure.)

 

You're absolutely right about just finishing the course being a thrill. I was ECSTATIC about both my dogs. Not sure which one I was happier about, the insecure older dog firming up as his run went along, or the precocious teamwork of the keen but inexperienced bitch. (Never mind the shortcomings of the neo handler. At least I remembered to breathe, even if I almost forgot to go to the pen after making the drive.)

 

As for that NEBCA point... Emerging from this particular trial, under these particular circumstances, with one point for one dog is just fine. I'm more thrilled with getting two scores.

 

At my present lowly stage, I confess, I'm not that anxious to have to move up any time soon. My pay-off for now is both the charge of finishing a course (wobbly lines a given; success on tricky sheep a bonus), and also the education my dogs and I are getting in the process. If the NEBCA system pushes more accomplished teams along to Ranch a little faster, that's fine with me. But if the sheep take some handling and I manage adequatenly but don't pick up points, I'm definitely getting something else which will likely do me more good in the long run.

 

I don't think the novice classes should be about "winning" (and points, and payoffs) anyway -- to my mind the progressive levels are really training goals. If you can do the work decently and are a potential threat to place high whenever you enter, you should probably move up to the next level. Hang the points. Speaking as someone who moved out of the suburbs and has come this short distance with an infinite number of baby steps, I think we (the urban/suburban/crossovers) are lucky to have these intermediate stages, to help us build (and even measure) our confidence and handling skills. But the point is to progress. Not to "win."

 

Liz S in S Central PA

[juliepoudrier]

But the point is to progress. Not to "win."

 

Liz S in S Central PA

Well said, Liz (the whole post, but these two sentences in particular).

 

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Fellow Sheepdoggers,

 

I am grateful to Ms. Sharp for: "I don't think the novice classes should be about "winning" (and points, and payoffs) anyway -- to my mind the progressive levels are really training goals. If you can do the work decently and are a potential threat to place high whenever you enter, you should probably move up to the next level"

 

She is modest. By the second day at Turbotville, the sheep were difficult and by the third (PN) they were very difficult. If the novice dog lost control for an instant, they took advantage and galloped to the exhaust where bloodless retrieves were infrequent.

 

I sweated my dog around. Anyway, congratulations for beating me and many "letter score" open handlers.

 

See you on down the road.

 

Donald McCaig

[debp]

I like the VBCA rules....mostly. I think all clubs try to come up with the best way to encourage Novice handlers/teams while at the same time trying to have incentives or rules to get people to move up as they progress. We don't want teams to linger in a lower class and keep gathering up all the ribbons and year end awards. On the other hand, there are teams that never progress to OPEN because of lack of talent on the part of the dog and/or handler, but they are out there enjoying the best they can do.

I think we all might have a few too many rules. VBCA has a rule that you have to move up the year after 3 wins in a class. Also another rule that if you get Champion or Reserve Champion for the year in a class, you have to move up the next year. There may be some other rules about moving up also in there. I think you could add rules for every scenario that you could think up and you'd still have issues. Why not throw out most of those rules about moving up, and just say that you can stay in a class as long as you want, but after the first year in each class until you reach OPEN, you are not eligible for placement (your run would be treated as a non-compete) nor year end awards.

[Journey]

Interesting thoughts DebP, thanks! I like the thought of the NC aspect after a year in a class...While pondering this today I have another question if you all don't mind

 

WRT sheep rental (NEVER an issue with paying the host or for the sheep - just to keep the record clear). What do people charge for sheep rental or what do clubs pay? Per the head, per the day, per run? Does the party supplying them pay to bring them? Do they get runs at no charge? If they are the hosts sheep do they take a fee as well?

 

Thanks!

[Donald McCaig]

Usually per head per trial. While there are sheepdoggers who will rent their flock, when one rents from a commercial man, he'll be (rightly) nervous. You won't be able to rent during breeding or from just before lambing until post weaning. Some - hell, make that many - trial hosts run their sheep too often. Most commercial men won't put up with that - it's their living. A good general rule for wool sheep in moderate temperatures is 2 runs per day in a multiday trial; three if a one day trial. That includes novice runs which are shorter and quicker but more stressful on the sheep. Hair sheep can take more stress and hotter weather - say three runs per day?

 

You'll want to have marking paint handy so unsound sheep aren't rerun, wound spray and needle and thread. You'll need somewhere to confine and treat any injured sheep. There may not be any but may be one or two.

 

Trucking can cost as much or more than sheep rental. Hire a cattle hauler or horse hauler. Sheep haulers who don't steam clean their trailers might be carrying footrot which will make your sheep supplier extremely grumpy.

 

Price will vary depending on convenience and one's kinship with the supplier. Figure 8-12 a head per ewe for a three day trial, plus per mile trucking.

 

Donald McCaig

[juliepoudrier]

Why not throw out most of those rules about moving up, and just say that you can stay in a class as long as you want, but after the first year in each class until you reach OPEN, you are not eligible for placement (your run would be treated as a non-compete) nor year end awards.

This is a great idea, IMO.

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Donald

Thanks for spelling all the details that go into this, out for all of us. I had wondered about trucks and issues with pathogens. Now I know. This really makes clear just how big an undertaking this is.

 

 

Usually per head per trial. While there are sheepdoggers who will rent their flock, when one rents from a commercial man, he'll be (rightly) nervous. You won't be able to rent during breeding or from just before lambing until post weaning. Some - hell, make that many - trial hosts run their sheep too often. Most commercial men won't put up with that - it's their living. A good general rule for wool sheep in moderate temperatures is 2 runs per day in a multiday trial; three if a one day trial. That includes novice runs which are shorter and quicker but more stressful on the sheep. Hair sheep can take more stress and hotter weather - say three runs per day?

 

You'll want to have marking paint handy so unsound sheep aren't rerun, wound spray and needle and thread. You'll need somewhere to confine and treat any injured sheep. There may not be any but may be one or two.

 

Trucking can cost as much or more than sheep rental. Hire a cattle hauler or horse hauler. Sheep haulers who don't steam clean their trailers might be carrying footrot which will make your sheep supplier extremely grumpy.

 

Price will vary depending on convenience and one's kinship with the supplier. Figure 8-12 a head per ewe for a three day trial, plus per mile trucking.

 

Donald McCaig

[Little Bo Boop]

In Texas, our trials consist of --Open, Nursery, Open Ranch (same course as nursery) Ranch, and Novice. The Ranch course requires OLF and a short drive. The Novice class is always OLF and pen, never required to drive. Handlers garner points for placement, and the points are based on number of entries. Each class has a max number of points you can earn before you have to move up. I'm running in Open Ranch right now, and I believe the number is 56 pnts, and then I must move up to Open. We also allow nursery dogs to run in two classes (at the same trial) A nursery dog can run in both Nursery and Open Ranch. We payback in all classes, Novice through Open, but the entry fee is also the same for all classes, btwn. $35-45 per entry, so personally I think that only fair. It seems like our club is always trying to tweak things, but for the most part I think we have a pretty good system in place...

 

Betty

[Journey]

Thanks Betty! I see major differences in how points are earned. OSDA and TSDA base points on placements where as NEBCA is on score. With some tweaking I think a good blend and compromise can be obtained. The cost of the non sanctioned is less at the trials here, I can see if they are paying full cost PB "might" be warranted, you also have a move up policy in place. Just a clarification when I asked about removing payback from Novice I also asked it be removed from PN and Ranch (a new class I believe) as well. However, it was removed from Nursery under the assumption those handlers were seeking qualifying points and that was good enough for them. So all classes but Nursery are on the payback schedule now.

[juliepoudrier]

However, it was removed from Nursery under the assumption those handlers were seeking qualifying points and that was good enough for them. So all classes but Nursery are on the payback schedule now.

Well, by that reasoning, wouldn't open competitors be seeking points and not *need* payback? (Not that I'm arguing for payback in nursery, but if the reasoning is that one doesn't need payback if one is getting points that count toward something--finals--then it seems odd to not allow payback for nursery but allow it for open.)

 

Of course I'm the heretical one who feels that handlers should be grateful that other folks are willing to open up their farms and allow their stock to be stressed for tirals and should look on payback as icing on the cake *if* it's offered and not as some sort of right *due* them.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Oh Karen, I guess one question no one answered is numbers of sheep. Ideally it would be nice to be able to run on 4 or 5 sheep since at that number they will behave more like a flock. Many trials run three sheep simply because the numbers work out better that way, but if there's any way to manage it, I think you should aim for at least four sheep per run.

 

J.

[Journey]

Thanks Julie

 

Just looking for ways to help and iron out wrinkles so that all handlers feel good about the trial they enter. I am seeing it's much more than this though, sorta trial by fire! I suppose if things are good people will come and a club can only do so much.

[Little Bo Boop]

Oh Karen, I guess one question no one answered is numbers of sheep. Ideally it would be nice to be able to run on 4 or 5 sheep since at that number they will behave more like a flock. Many trials run three sheep simply because the numbers work out better that way, but if there's any way to manage it, I think you should aim for at least four sheep per run.

 

J.

 

 

I have a question for you, do you all, either trial hosts or your organization have a min. number of sheep that should be supplied for your trials? IOW, if you have X amount of runs, you require X amount of sheep as a minimum. Also do you all set limits on how many times the sheep may be run? For my part, that is something that I'd like to see put in place in Texas. Nothing worse than showing up at a trial that is full up with 100 or more runs scheduled, and you go by the set out and see 40 or so head of sheep ;-( It seems to me if you can't supply enough sheep, then you need to make a cut-off in your entries....pretty simple. I was at a trial not too long ago, where they really didn't have enough sheep for the amount of runs. Luckily the weather was unseasonably cool, but had it been hot, as it usually is in Texas this time of year, I would have pulled my dogs and gone home. I just could/would not, in good conscience, abuse livestock in that manner. Just wondering if any of you all have encountered the same/similar situation.

 

Betty

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

Miss Betty asked if: "either trial hosts or your organization have a min. number of sheep that should be supplied for your trials? IOW, if you have X amount of runs, you require X amount of sheep as a minimum. Also do you all set limits on how many times the sheep may be run?"

 

I don't know if any organization has min numbers. Some years ago three USBCHA directors produced a guidelines for sheep management but it disappeared. I have always counted my sheep before deciding on entries. In the past with my own small flock I'd run them three times in one day and host a one day trial. Handlers were forever after me to add a day but next morning, after everyone left, I'd inspect my weary, dirty sheep and the temptation was quenched. I had sheep before I bought my first sheepdog and would rather restrict entries than overstress sheep.

 

It can be hard to get enough sheep. Although it won't swell your admirers, it's easier to restrict the entries.

 

Donald McCaig

[Cynthia P]

We try to run the sheep 3 times in 2 days at our farm trial. I would rather use a larger group of sheep (5) and run them one more time on the weekend so they are a little less stressed. I have 220 ewes to choose from of which about 20 are "non participatory" for herding trials...or someone will complain about the large dorset udder that never seems to get small enough, or a couple I know are not great dog sheep. If they are used less, have a good full belly before hand, and a place to unwind for a few hours after their run they stay in pretty good shape.

 

I have heard fees for trials of $2/head/run; We usually include in the budget about $4-5/head used for the weekend. That barely pays for the extra worming we do..not to mention the wear and tear on the pasture, the time to set up, the couple of sheep that need doctoring (usually pretty minor so far), and any extra's. The set out we built was out of our own money so we tried to make it as versatile as possible; When I look at the list sometimes I wonder why we do it...but it is fun; and I love to see everyone...and every trial I do I'm slightly less stressed than the last time.

 

Limiting the numbers is the best way. put it on the entry form; there are only so many sheep and if your sheep aren't used to working all day the runs after number 2 or 3 recycling ewes will be disasastous

 

Cynthia

[Little Bo Boop]

Well kudos to you Donald for taking such good care of your stock ;-), I for one greatly appreciate that. Any idea why the guidelines were scrapped? I would think having some kind of animal welfare guideline in place would be most advantages, especially in today's climate, in regards to abuse of animals/livestock. I just know that, not too long ago I ran on some sheep under conditions, where I thought the sheep were on the verge of being what I would call mistreated, it left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I drove home not feeling very proud of myself or of what we do...I should have pulled my dogs, but I didn't...I didn't like that feeling very much.

 

I know it's unpopular with limiting the number of entries, but even if you're not overly concerned with the welfare of the stock, you would think you would be concerned with the quality of the run you would get...tired, sickly injured, young what have you, sheep aren't going to allow you to lay down a stellar run...so why not get your entry in in time, and run on nice healthy, happy sheep? Makes sense to me!

 

Betty

[Little Bo Boop]

double post.