Eye vs. Power

[Carson Crazies]

I posted this in General too (haven't had any decent working posts there in...) but I thought I'd bring it over here because I REALLY want to hear what you guys think.

 

Which is more important to you in a dog? Eye or Power? Or a combination of both? What sort of combination do you look for, and why? (BTW, I understand what eye is, but I'm not as clear on what power is, so if you guys could help me on that too I'd appreciate it)

 

Thank you in advance for sharing with me.

[cgt]

It seems to me that most people want plenty of power, while the amount of eye that is desired varies from person to person. To some extent, what you want in your dog depends on the sheep you are working. Light sheep, e.g., most hair sheep, tend to favor a dog with a bit of eye and will often not cause trouble for a relatively weak dog. Range sheep (like we have here in the west) tend to favor a powerful but "loose-eyed" dog. I have a dog with a bit too much eye and who is a bit under-powered. She does quite well on flighty sheep; she rarely does well on range sheep. Just my relatively inexperienced opinions, of course.

 

charlie torre

[bcnewe2]

I gave my opinion in the general area.

[Carson Crazies]

Thank you both. Charlie, that is what I was kind of figuring would be the case... kind of a depends on the sheep kind of thing. What do you prefer generally?

 

And Kristen, I think I get it based on what you said over there. I've seen a dog holding sheep before that was lying down, weight over his front feet, leaning forward intensely... periodically looking around. The sheep weren't thinking of moving, but every so often he'd sort of look around a little, and then back to his sheep. The dog that I have appears to me to be moderately loose eyed, but I'm not sure about the power thing yet. I've got to get us some learning, bad (me even more than her).

[Denise Wall]

Laura,

 

You may find some of the definitions in this article helpful:

 

http://www.stilhope.com/heritabilitysummary.htm

[Carson Crazies]

Awesome Denise, thank you. I will take a close and careful read here shortly.

 

Edited to add: I did read it Denise, thank you. I will have to sit down in my quiet space at home to make sure I get out of it everything I can later tonight, but my first readthrough told me some of what I was hoping to learn. Thank you (nice work, too, BTW).

[juliepoudrier]

On personal preference, I like a dog with a bit of eye simply because it seems to give the dog better balance (feel) on stock. It's a fine line, though, between enough eye and too much eye, with the latter leading to stickiness/clappiness if not managed properly.

 

Regarding Charlie's comments, I know people who have gotten loose-eyed dogs specifically because they have seen such dogs do better on the range sheep used at finals. Then again, I have also heard comments about surprisingly weak dogs doing well on range sheep because the sheep did not feel threatened by the dog.

 

A dog with a lot of eye can cause sheep/cattle to turn and fight because dogs with eye tend to, well, eye the stock, which the stock see as threatening. For my personal dog with eye, I manage this simply by keeping her back a bit and not letting her work the heads as much as she'd like. For me, personally, I'm happy to trade that necessary management on certain stock in order to gain the benefit that eye gives for things like silent gathers (that is, I can send this dog out blind to gather in a field and turn my back and go about my business and know that the stock will arrive with little or no fuss and no intervention on my part) and few or no commands at the shed (save calling the dog in).

 

I don't think power and eye are necessarily related. You can have powerful dogs that are loose-eyed or strong-eyed. I think some people may use "power" and "presence" somewhat interchangeably, but they aren't quite the same thing. In my mind, a dog's presence can affect the stock for good or bad, whereas a dog with power can move stock, period.

 

In other words, a dog can cause stock to move by its mere presence because the stock will read the dog's intent, which may not be good. So stock will move away from a dog that the think has the intent to do them harm, but the fact that the stock move away from such a dog can't be interpreted as the dog having power. Likewise stock will turn for the more powerful dog because they can read its intent to make them move (i.e., grip). I saw this in action one day where a dog was trying to push sheep through a gate where they did not want to go. The dog wouldn't grip or otherwise really take control of the sheep. Another dog was brought out and this dog was able to push the sheep right through the gate. The second dog didn't actually need to grip, but I think the stock read in that dog the intent and/or willingness to grip and so moved through the gate for that dog. Some folks would say the second dog had more power than the first, but the way I see it, the second dog simply had an intent that the sheep could read. But the second dog could have a bit much eye in which case the eye could cause the stock to turn. Some would see the stock turning as a sign of weakness in the dog; whereas others would say it was caused by the dog having too much eye.

 

That said, to me power is the ability of the dog to move stock in a *controlled manner* under any circumstances. I don't even necessarily consider a dog's willingness to walk into the faces of stock as power so much as fearlessness--a dog with power may not ever have to walk into faces because the stock isn't as likely to challenge a dog it perceives as powerful (but this isn't the same thing as the stock moving away out of fear for their lives). And of course, stock aren't as likely to turn and face a loose-eyed dog as they might be with a strong-eyed dog.

 

Where a dog with eye, whether powerful or not, will catch you up is if the dog causes the stock to turn (with too much eye) and then proceeds to walk into the stock very slowly (that is, very nearly locking up) to turn the stock back in the direction desired. This is the kind of thing that a handler must manage.

 

Anyway, I think herding attributes are so complex that it's difficult to pull out one aspect (eye, for example) and discuss it without also considering the rest of the package.

 

All of this is just my novice opinion of course.

 

J.

[Carson Crazies]

I agree, Julie, it looks to me like the whole package is way too complex to seperate too much, but I needed somewhere to start I'll take discussion of the rest of the package any day and any time if you all are willing to have it with me! You got right to the heart of what I was asking.

 

The way you explain it makes sense, too, so thank you (all of you) for having mercy on this total beginner. I have a lot to chew on, and that's a good thing... keeps me out of trouble.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I agree that it's hard to talk about one part without discussing (and usually getting into heated arguments!) about the rest of the package. Power especially is a really hard one because few people are willing to define that quality in such a way as to exclude a favorite dog.

 

My favorite game recently is to identify something I really like in a dog and then watch for the same thing in other dogs, in different settings. It's often pretty easy to see problems - I've found it's harder to define strengths.

[juliepoudrier]

Originally posted by Rebecca, Brook Cove Farm:

IIt's often pretty easy to see problems - I've found it's harder to define strengths.

Could part of that difficulty be because it's hard to separate the handler's influence from the natural strengths a dog may have? That is, the way a dog is handled while working might serve to give the *impression* of strengths that aren't really there save for the excellent handling? Whereas most folks can pick out good things in a dog that's being poorly handled (or perhaps just not perfectly handled)?

 

J.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Often I think you can watch similiar dogs being handled by totally different handlers, or the same dog in different hands, or the same dog on completely different stock, and see a lot. I watch for the moments when the dog is NOT being handled and does something cool, or works WITH a particular bit of handling in a nice way. Again, handling is really part of the package too - what is it in the dog that helps it perform well with its handler's particular handling methods?

 

I'm longing to get back into all this again - it's been such a while that I've about forgotten what a trial looks like! I'm embarrased to say I spent most of Seclusival walking around asking, "Who's that?"

 

Anyway, it helps me to think of it organically, a function of each interaction with stock and handler and environment - otherwise I would drive myself crazy trying to put everything in little categories. That's what I used to do, actually. Which probably expains a lot.