"Herding" with random breeds

[Root Beer]

I think that to really understand the reason why those with other types of dogs want to try herding with them, one needs to be able to set aside his or her own mindset and point of view and really look at the reason why it is, to one extent or another, attractive to those people. Those who most likely do not share the same mindset or point of view since they have not had first hand experience with livestock or stockdogs and so don't really know much, if anything, about it.

 

From within the dog sport world, the idea of trying a lot of different things with one's dog is popular. And while it may be - from an objective standpoint - different in that the stock are also live animals, most of those folks simply aren't looking at it from that perspective. And herding is one of the things that a lot of people want to try right now. Many that I talk to in passing have either tried it or want to, regardless of their dog's breed. Not most people, but quite a few. For some it may well be about bragging. Some of us will brag about anything and everything. I was just bragging today because my newest girl, who was deathly afraid of cars when she got here in October, happily went to a drive-in movie with us last night. Those who want to brag aren't too hard pressed to find things to brag about!! But for most who want to try herding it's not really about that, but more of a desire to try it and learn about it, and to see what their own particular dogs will do with it.

 

The fact that there are so many other things to try won't really deter the desire to try it for those who want to. One can, after all, try herding, and frisbee, and dock diving, and Agility, and Rally, and Musical Freestyle, and Lure Coursing, and Tracking, and Flyball, and Triebball (spelling?), and just keep trying things until something catches the interest of the dog and handler and/or until everything the handler can think of has been tried.

[brndlbc]

But sheepdog trials test the abilities of different dogs doing complex tasks that change due to multiple varying conditions to show what the dog has in an effort to combine the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of the dogs in question. The course is judged on the outrun, lift, fetch, drive, shed, and pen, but what is being judged is the dog's style, desire to partner up with the handler, courage, tension, come forward, feel for the sheep, decision-making and judgment, eye, response to pressure, grit, treatment of sheep and sheep's response to the dog, and numerous other attributes that may combine in different ways with the similar and dissimilar traits of other dogs. A pass/fail score tells you none of these things, but sheepdog trials test all of them.

 

 

 

Quicky type example of a hunt test using just 5 categories:

Hunting (desire-usefulness)

Bird Finding Ability

Pointing

Trainablity

Retrieving

 

0-10 points max each category. Must average 7 or better for the whole test. Scoring less than 5 in any one category fails the test regardless of average.

 

Dog A scores 7 in each-passes test.

Dog B Scores 8 in two, 7 in one, 9 in one 6 in the last-passes test

Dog C Scores 7 in 3 of the categories, 8 in one and 4 in the last- Fails test

Dog D Scores 10 across the board- passes test

 

Dogs A,B, D pass the test and shown they have what it takes to be good working gun dogs. Dog C fails the test.

 

As a base line, how does this not tell you about the working ability of the dog? By ranking them brings in to greater extent the handler and makes it a competition. Could you not remove any of the above categories and substitute any from a herding trail and judge them in the same manner? Could this be a way for newbies to "get their feet wet" beyond instinct tests and possibly venture deeper into the herding world? I know it does for the pointing breeds.

[Laurae]

So although the test is pass/fail, ultimately gun dog trials are scored, and presumably that is how educated people make breeding decisions. Not just whether they scored high enough overall to pass or fail. Correct? So it's pretty much the same thing--testing the dog to determine its particular strengths and weaknesses.

[Gloria Atwater]

alright, alright, i have re-decided. i was going to go to a herding clinic next month with my border collie given by a well known and respected trainer. after much soul searching and in-head arguements, i'm going to decline. at best, i'm a hobbist at herding. i have no sheep and probably never will. my dog was started by a pro, so she does not harrass the sheep, but we will probably never surpass hobbist status. as much as i enjoy the time with my dog and trying to do something very challenging, and as much as she enjoys it-and she does, will will give it up. we will pursue our other hobby of agility. it was my aim when i adopted her and she is well suited to it. i will miss herding, and probably so will she, but we'll not be scaring the livestock. by the way, she is spayed so we're not taking anything out of the gene pool.

 

 

Please tell me you're not serious! That would be an unhappy decision to make, based on the strength of a single discussion involving people who dislike seeing livestock harassed by non-working breeds. I didn't read anything in this thread that discourages "hobby" herding. After all, a minute percentage of us are shepherds, so even if we compete seriously, we're not shepherding for a living!

 

Keep doing what you do. You are not part of the problem. Now, if you were planning to bring your golden retriever to this clinic, then maybe you'd have something to flinch about.

 

~ Gloria

[Maralynn]

alright, alright, i have re-decided. i was going to go to a herding clinic next month with my border collie given by a well known and respected trainer. after much soul searching and in-head arguements, i'm going to decline. at best, i'm a hobbist at herding. i have no sheep and probably never will. my dog was started by a pro, so she does not harrass the sheep, but we will probably never surpass hobbist status. as much as i enjoy the time with my dog and trying to do something very challenging, and as much as she enjoys it-and she does, will will give it up. we will pursue our other hobby of agility. it was my aim when i adopted her and she is well suited to it. i will miss herding, and probably so will she, but we'll not be scaring the livestock. by the way, she is spayed so we're not taking anything out of the gene pool.

 

Why?

 

If you have herding breed dog that has natural talent, enjoys it, you both respect the stock and you want to learn the discipline of stockwork IMO there is no reason not to continue with it.

 

I think that is quite a bit different than trying out herding just to see what your non-herding breed does when they're in a pen with sheep.

[brndlbc]

So although the test is pass/fail, ultimately gun dog trials are scored, and presumably that is how educated people make breeding decisions. Not just whether they scored high enough overall to pass or fail. Correct? So it's pretty much the same thing--testing the dog to determine its particular strengths and weaknesses.

 

Yes, field trials are judged, scored and ranked but no, not all breeding decisions are based on field trial results. I produced puppies that when placed in the right hands went on to successful competition careers even though their mothers never competed. It became much more about the handler in the competition world. The focus of my breeding was to produce solid working gun dogs bred for their intended purpose...hunting. They never had to earn a ranking to prove their worth as the majority went into sport homes where they put in a full day of "work" versus competition homes. One of my best pups went head to head in a hunt test with a young field trial bitch (both pretty green) and cleaned the bird field putting up 3 of the four planted birds to the field trial dogs none. Good day for us, bad day for the trail dog and handler. Trail dog went on to have a great career in field trials. My dog never did anything but hunt tests. Her value to me was proven in that venue.

 

I have no issues with competition. I have years worth of it in both dogs and horses. I don't call it by another name. I just don't use it as the sole measure of judging value. I don't even have an issue with the majority of people using herding trials as the measure for breeding stock. I just feel there are other ways out there to do it. JMO

[rufftie]

thanks for the support. i will think somemore-despite it making my head hurt!

[Gloria Atwater]

I think others have already voiced much of what I've thought. But after pondering this thread for the past couple days, I figured I'd toss in my two cents.

 

When I hear of "any-breed herding," the first thing I see is money. It's a way for someone to make a few bucks, by permitting John Q to bring his boxer or poodle or whatever to "herd" sheep. Do I think it's a good thing?

 

To be honest ... not really. If, for example, a person hosts this as a once-yearly or occasional event and they keep the welfare of the livestock foremost, I can shrug and turn away. But if someone keeps their gate open to this sort of thing as a regular business, I cast a jaundiced eye. Dogs bred to work livestock, even if they're seeing sheep for the first time at age 5, can theoretically be encouraged and/or guided to approach livestock in an acceptable and controlled manner. Dogs who are NOT bred to work livestock simply do not have any hereditary components to coax forth. Instead ... at best they'll bark a few times and then eat poop. At worst, they'll chase and terrify and harry the livestock in ways that I cannot condone.

 

See, to me the difference between working livestock and treating them as "toys" lies in the respect we do or don't extend to the animals in our care. The average pet owner who just wants to let his dog "play" with sheep has no understanding of livestock and certainly no understanding of how to manage the dog/sheep dynamic. In my humble view, there is a nearly unlimited number of things pet owners can do, without subjecting sheep to being chased by Max the St. Bernard or Fifi the Borzoi. Unless very carefully managed by a trainer who respects their sheep more than they value the dollars of pet-owner clients, letting the non-herding-breeds have a go at sheep is little more than treating sheep as toys.

 

We owe our livestock our respect and care. The definition of "shepherd" is that of a care-taker. Whether we are but hobby herders or aspiring trialers who don't own a single lamb, or if we're professional trainers who make a living training and breeding working stockdogs, or if we are farmers who need our dogs to help us perform our work ... we are all carrying the torch of that tradition. Our touchstone is shepherding and preserving the skills, techniques, knowledge and bloodlines that spring from that ancient profession. My view, anyhow.

 

Yes, keeping sheep to work our dogs, instead of the other way around, may seem to make livestock our "toys." But I believe the attitudes that go into their handling create the separations. Letting people bring their pet dogs to chase livestock just for "fun" falls on the other side of that divide, in my mind.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Gloria

[Cynthia P]

alright, alright, i have re-decided. i was going to go to a herding clinic next month with my border collie given by a well known and respected trainer. after much soul searching and in-head arguements, i'm going to decline. at best, i'm a hobbist at herding. i have no sheep and probably never will. my dog was started by a pro, so she does not harrass the sheep, but we will probably never surpass hobbist status. as much as i enjoy the time with my dog and trying to do something very challenging, and as much as she enjoys it-and she does, will will give it up. we will pursue our other hobby of agility. it was my aim when i adopted her and she is well suited to it. i will miss herding, and probably so will she, but we'll not be scaring the livestock. by the way, she is spayed so we're not taking anything out of the gene pool.

 

I would disagree with your comment about not doing this because you are a hobby herder. I once was a hobby herder as well. Now I have a sheep farm where I have 240 ewes and recently worked for a shepherd with 2000 ewes lambing out his flock. If I had not pursued it I wouldn't have come to the world of USBCHA trials, working dogs and the joys of a farm. I started with a less talented alternate herding breed.

 

Pursue it as it will give you a better appreciation of the qualities we all find important in a working dog

 

Cynthia

[Sue R]

Yes, field trials are judged, scored and ranked but no, not all breeding decisions are based on field trial results...I have no issues with competition. I have years worth of it in both dogs and horses. I don't call it by another name. I just don't use it as the sole measure of judging value...I don't even have an issue with the majority of people using herding trials as the measure for breeding stock. I just feel there are other ways out there to do it. JMO

Maybe I am missing something but where did (or has) anyone ever said that stockdog trials are the only "measure for breeding stock"? I've never heard anyone advocate that (although people will often state "being successful at Open level" or similarly challenging farm or ranch work as being criteria for breeding).

 

I don't understand your statement, "I have no issues with competition...I don't call it by another name." Are you saying that trials are simply competition and therefore also simply just another form of sport? I beg to differ - I consider trialing to be another test of working ability, along with farm and ranch work. Is there an element of "sport" in trialing? Yes, I am sure there is - just like there is an element of sport in anything that involves or includes competition of some sort.

 

Maybe I'm misreading your comments here but, as I have seen with certain other individuals on these boards, I get the impression that you are dismissing trials as an evaluation of breeding stock, while most people I know consider them part of a package of criteria involved in testing working ability. Of course, no one should discount the effect that the handler/trainer has on the dog that trials and that works stock on a farm or ranch.

 

One additional value that trials provide (and have done so for years) is that they allow people to see dogs/bitches "at work" under "neutral" conditions (non-home field, non-home stock), that they would otherwise not have the opportunity to see, and allow a much greater range of choices in making breeding decisions than simply to have to make them based solely on local opportunities - particularly in days gone by but also very valid today.

[Sue R]

As for "herding" with random breeds, just because someone wants to do something is not a justification that they should do that something. Choosing to do many activities with a dog directly affects just the person and their dog - choosing to do stockwork of any sort with a dog directly affects the person, the dog, and the stock involved. Choosing to do "herding" with a dog that is not suited for it directly affects the person, the dog, and the stock involved - and the person who owns the stock and gives the lesson, as they pocket the fee.

 

JMO.

[geonni banner]

I think there's a bit of confusion here as to the terms test and trial.

 

There are herding instinct tests as well as stock dog trials. As brndlbc points out about hunt tests, one is scored entirely on the dog's performance at a certain task and the other is judged as a contest with the best dog and handler team being judged and ranked in order of their joint performance.

 

The problem with herding instinct tests - and it may not be a problem with hunt/retrieving tests - is that they are designed and carried out by the AKC. They prove nothing about the dog as a working dog, (except possibly whether or not it will flee and not engage the stock at all.)

 

I don't know of any serious person who regards an passing AKC herding instinct test as a criterion for selection of breeding or working Border Collies.

 

Even if the hunt/retrieve tests are much better describers of a dog's ability in the field I would be very surprised if a dog was chosen to breed or hunt strictly on the strength of such a test. I would imagine that one would want to shoot over and/or see placements in field trials in order to reach that decision, just as I would expect to find those interested in working sheepdogs or breeding stock to see the dogs in question perform their duties at home and/or on the trial grounds.

 

As a side note: The herding instinct tests put on by the AKC may be used by breeders of sport collies, pet Border Collies and breed-ring Border Collies to be held up as evidence that their dogs "have the right stuff." But it is no more than a marketing ploy for them, and people who have actual working stock avoid them as pointless and ridiculous. They tell you about as much about a Border Collie's working ability as "your" German Shorthaired Pointer retrieving a plush replica of a pheasant in your living room would tell you about his worth as a hunter.

 

No doubt there are those who regularly enter sheepdog trials to secure bragging rights and a nice shiny buckle. But that does not lessen the trial as a proving-ground for great dogs and great dog & handler teams.

[juliepoudrier]

Rufftie,

The fact that you actually think about the situation and are worried whether you are doing right by the livestock puts you light years ahead of the "dog toy" attitudes that have been mentioned here. I see nothing wrong with someone working a herding breed dog on livestock even if they never own livestock or trial. Presumably while you're training your dog, you're keeping the welfare of the livestock in mind, and perhaps you're even interested in learning about the livestock themselves--their care and management. Maybe you even note that they have individual personalities. All these things put you in a different category than the person who just wants to take Fluffy out to have some fun, with little or no regard for the animals pressed into the service of training dogs.

 

And I think this is what prompted the OP's question. If you (the general you) has no interest in livestock save as something that provides fun for your dog, then perhaps there are other fun activities you should consider.

 

I know a person who offers all-breed training; that person told me that she hated sheep. And yet the person kept them because a living could be made from offering lessons to all sorts of breeds. The livestock were kept like animals who were disliked by their owner. This is an extreme example, but my heart just broke for that person's sheep. They were making a living for the person and weren't given the slightest bit of regard at all. And when the trainer has that attitude toward the stock, imagine the example they're providing for their students and the students' dogs. It makes me sad.

 

Regarding the discussion about trials vs. competitions, sure, stockdog trials are competitions, and sometimes that even works to their (and the dogs' and livestocks') detriment. And although the origins of trialing are probably based in farmers wanting to see who had the "better" dog, the fact remains that taking one's dog to a different location to work unfamiliar livestock is a test of a dog's training and mettle. Yes, competitions can end up being about the handler (at least if all you care about is who wins), but I believe that most people who are looking at dogs at trials aren't just looking at the winner--they are evaluating all the dogs (at least those that interest them), regardless of where they end up in the placings. It's a way to do some "one-stop shopping," so to speak. Interested people can compare and contrast a large number of dogs in one place under similar conditions. Granted there are some who would only breed to the winners, but I think there are plenty of people who would do otherwise, because they see a dog or dogs who have the qualities that would nick well with their own dogs. That's the real point of stockdog trials--the bragging rights for the winners are just icing on the cake.

 

J.

[brndlbc]

I get the impression that you are dismissing trials as an evaluation of breeding stock, while most people I know consider them part of a package of criteria involved in testing working ability. Of course, no one should discount the effect that the handler/trainer has on the dog that trials and that works stock on a farm or ranch.

 

I no way am I dismissing trials as an evaluation of stock, I think more along the lines of what you are saying. I am simply saying that I do not use the results from competitions as my only basis of judging quality or workability and that there are other ways other than the results from field trials, which as you say are greatly influenced by the handler, to evaluate the same thing. I suppose much of it is in what you are looking to achieve with your goals. If I was looking to breed field trial dogs (gun), I probably would have looked harder at field trial stock. My goal was, as I said previous, was to produce a solid working gundog who was going to do a days work in the field under a variety of conditions. Neutral conditions is not what we hunted under.

[Mark Billadeau]

My goal was, as I said previous, was to produce a solid working gundog who was going to do a days work in the field under a variety of conditions. Neutral conditions is not what we hunted under.

I believe "neutral conditions" are much like your "in the field under a variety of conditions". Stockdog trials are the easiest way for us to evaluate the dogs "in the field under a variety of conditions" other than our own farm on our own stock. There are not flocks of sheep or herds of cattle in the wild that we can go evaluate our dog's abilities in the field all day like one can with hunting dogs. You can't get a herding license and go out west to work range sheep or cattle. Unless we are invited to go to someone else's farm to work their stock or hire on as a professional shepherd (stockman) away from home; trials are our only other venue to evaluate our dogs on different stock on different terrain.

[Sue R]

I no way am I dismissing trials as an evaluation of stock, I think more along the lines of what you are saying. I am simply saying that I do not use the results from competitions as my only basis of judging quality or workability and that there are other ways other than the results from field trials, which as you say are greatly influenced by the handler, to evaluate the same thing. I suppose much of it is in what you are looking to achieve with your goals. If I was looking to breed field trial dogs (gun), I probably would have looked harder at field trial stock. My goal was, as I said previous, was to produce a solid working gundog who was going to do a days work in the field under a variety of conditions. Neutral conditions is not what we hunted under.

So then perhaps we are much more in agreement than I interpreted from your statements (and "interpreted" is the operative word).

 

By "neutral" I was meaning conditions that were neither the home field nor the home flock/herd - but location and livestock that were similar to all dogs being run that day/trial but (in general) not familiar to the dogs being run that day/trial. Like when our two Morgantown high schools meet for their annual football game, and it's held on the university field - no home field advantage for either team involved.

[Sue R]

I'm wondering just how much semantics play a part in all this. To say one is going "herding" with their dog sounds like a rather enjoyable and perhaps justifiable activity. To say that one is going to utilize and encourage predatory behaviors on livestock with their random breed dog doesn't sound quite so righteous and defensible.

[Pam Wolf]

While some individual dogs of non working (stock work) breeds may have some instinct, it needs to be coupled with training and trainability in order to be useful. I have (had) neighbor dogs that chase sheep, but that does not mean they are 'herding'.

 

Since learning of treiball, I now advocate the people who want "Fluffy to have a good time playing with the sheepies" to go try 'herding' balls. Honestly, people get many of the same benefits for their pet dogs, distance control, impulse control, off lead obedience all without harming a single animal. It is also far more user friendly for the average pet owner as keeping a few pilates balls requires little in way of housing (they can deflate), no feed/water, no special zoneing or moving out to buy the farm and there are no vet bills. If the dog 'kills' a ball,it is easy to buy a new one and no real harm done and the balls are fairly inexpensive.

[wsp]

What an interesting and great idea.

Here are a few links to some dogs in action.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5k7GWp4a04

[juliepoudrier]

Actually that does look like a good substitute activity, even for herding breed dogs who lack talent, but whose owners still want them to work, so to speak.

 

J.

[Cynthia P]

I'm going to suggest that to some of the people that are interested in their show bred (but were born on a farm) border collies that don't have a lot of talent.

 

I think this would be ideal for them and not so upsetting for my sheep

 

Cynthia

[kajarrel]

Oh my goodness, that's just too funny! Wonder what purpose the stick serves? Kim

[juliepoudrier]

I wondered that too, Kim. Maybe as a pointer to give the dog directions or something?

 

J.

[toney]

Brndlbc is talking about hunt tests, not field trials. While I don't do pointing dog hunt tests, I have competed in retriever hunt tests. These tests are usually involve minimal objectives the dog must navigate thru, such as Started Retriever (SR) tests being three marked retrieves of 75 yards or less and two easily marked water retrieves 50 yards or less. There are additional levels of difficulty the dog can progress thru, as they gain "passes" in the lower levels.

 

There is no "winner" or best performing dog of the day- and that's the way it is set up- the most minimally effective dog gets a pass, just as the absolute best dog in the level will get the exact same pass. The idea of "spread the wealth around" is what a hunt test is all about.

 

Hunting retriever field trials are judged- true, they have become somewhat ridiculous with their ridiculously long, complicated marks, but there is one dog that wins that day, not a group of dogs, of varying abilities that are all given the same "pass".

 

Now, having hunted over a Grand Master hunt test dog in a blind, he was an excellent dog, at the highest level of hunt testing available. He received his "Grand Master" title by receiving 300 points of Master level passes, but I have no way of knowing if he was really the top level performing retriever at each of those tests or on the borderline of failing each test. He did, however, keep me from having to retrieve my own ducks in the cold water, of which I was and still am, profoundly grateful.

 

 

However, like the people who feel that a novice or pro-novice win equates with breeding worth, there are many Started Retriever or Bird Dogs whose owners feel that they have a breed worthy individual.

[juliepoudrier]

Toney,

I suppose in many breeds, where purposefulness has largely been bred out, a dog that actually passes simple purpose tests probably could be considered more breedworthy than one that could not--at least the dog passing the test shows some minimal aptitude for the job at hand. Sad, but I guess better than nothing, and if the dog can get the job done, like you say, it does save the human having to do it.

 

J.