Jump to content
BC Boards

Dual Sanctioning for One Trial (USBCHA and AHBA)


MagRam

Recommended Posts

I was responding to these comments made earlier in the thread. Cow dog trials "Out West" are no better than out East, or out in the middle somewhere, and my "real" cowdog folk friend wasn't in Reno. These type statements are made in a vacume, and are not good for trialing.

These statements were made by someone who actively trials on cattle in the West, who interacts annually with people who actively trial on cattle throughout the country, and is familiar with people who trial on cattle in numerious parts of the country. I doubt the statements were made "in a vacuum" but rather with knowledge - about genuine, USBCHA cattledog trials, not AHBA "bragging rights" events masquerading as USBCHA trials (like the one that prompted this discussion).

 

I'm saying it's a bad trial because of dual sanctioning, and because cowdog trials in general are a bad idea, in my opinion. Fred said he won because he was the only one who didn't have one big, long wreck.

You are getting no argument from anyone on the point of dual sanctioning, for reasons stated by others - it was an AHBA event that got sanctioning by USBCHA (and shouldn't have - I, for one, have written Hub and my District Directors with my concerns over dual-sanctioning, cattle or sheep).

 

And no, I don't agree that cattledog trials are a bad idea - but a bad trial is a bad trial, cattle or sheep. JMO.

 

Like everyone keeps saying in this thread; Cattle work differently, and asking a dog to manuever 3 or 4hd through some obstacles is just begging for injury, especially when you have a hand who knows less about cattle than I know about brain surgery. I saw a vid on FB, I believe, of a guy carrying his injured dog off the field at the finals this year. I had a very nice dog given to me that had it's hip dislocated in a train wreck with a steer while being handled by one of the esteemed cow dog handlers. He was a tremendous dog with power to burn, fearless and athletic. It was tragic to see what had been done to him as a result of misusing his skills. A cowdog convert to sheep told me he did so, because all too often trials offered a set of cattle and circumstances guaranteed to get his dog hurt. He had made his career in

the cattle business and knew what he was talking about.

Ron Green's Ruby got stepped on turning a cow at a panel. He carried her off the field. Did you know that a dog was carried from the cooling tank at the end of a prominent sheepdog trial this year because the dog collapsed at the tank from overheating? Fortunately, no lasting damage happened. Did you know that a dog should have been retired (or DQ'd) from a National Sheepdog Finals because that dog was staggering blindly (in front of the judges, no less) with overheating? No one, judges or course director or handler stopped that dog when it showed physical and mental distress. Did you know a dog had a sheep leap into the air and land on her, breaking her pelvis during a sheepdog trial several years ago? If the owners had not been able (at the time) to afford the very expensive treatment needed for her to recover, she would have had to be put down. Potentially permanent or costly injuries happen in stock work way too often, sheep or cattle. They also happen jumping in and out of pickups, racing through rough fields, stepping in ground squirrel holes, entering and leaving crates, playing with other dogs. Life-threatening injuries and other issues are not confined to cattledog work although, admittedly, the size of cattle makes the potential for injury more likely in certain situations.

 

If you are talking about the "convert" that I am thinking of, he chose to not run on cattle any more because he did not want that potential for injury, and that's his own choice. If a trial does not offer reasonable stock and courses, a person can vote with their entry and not enter. Don't condemn all cattledog trials for the substandard ones anymore than you would condemn all sheepdog trials because of the substandard ones. My dogs work cattle because I depend on them on the farm and we could not manage the farm's cattle without them.

 

Any animal can get hurt, particularly when misused - I think the dogs that overheated were misused because they were pushed beyond what was reasonable under the conditions - on sheep, by prominent and well-respected sheepdog handlers (and, at least one, was in your list of names named).

 

A contest between cattle and a dog is a poor way to treat cattle and dogs, imo. I feel the same way about team penning. If I ran through cattle like team penners do, or allowed cattle to be harassed by a dog like time and points does, or let a good dog get hurt for bragging rights, I would have heard about it.

Then all I can see is you haven't seen good dog work on cattle, judged or time/points. I watched Bill Reed win an arena class, time and points only, with the smoothest, quietest, calmest run of the day. Every winning run I've seen has been won by the nicest work of the class, never by harassment of cattle. But, again, my experience is limited - much more limited than yours.

 

I do agree that there are likely trials where good work is not encouraged if for no other reason than that the trial is poorly designed so that good work is not rewarded. I have not seen any such trials but can readily imagine they occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

While I do not have a problem with the USBCHA ruling that dual sanctioning trials should never occur, I would suggest that the wording used, if this becomes the case, be carefully considered. Many states and geographic regions have local trial clubs (Georgia Stockdog Association, Texas Stockdog Association, Wyoming Stockdog, etc.) that host both sheep and cattle trials, and assess their own brand of point system for members' dogs. To blanketly prohibit dual sanctioning could adversely affect those groups. The wording used in the USBCHA rules right now prohibits the sanctioning of trials from groups that have or condone conformation showing. This excludes the AKC and the ASCA, since they have a conformational group in the Aussie club. I think this was originally done to allow local clubs to continue to give their own year end awards and such without problems. AHBA, with no conformational component, has slipped through this barrier.

 

As far as having an Aussie show up qualified and ready to work at the Cattledog Finals, well, more power to him. There have been Kelpies that have run at the Sheepdog Finals before, and nobody really cared. The USBCHA is a unique organization in that it does not discriminate against breeds. If the work is of a quality to win enough points to qualify, then that animal should be welcome to compete.

 

As far as whether the USBCHA should sanction cattle trials, that was decided several years ago. Who better to determine the future of cattle working border collies than the USBCHA? Yes, it is still in its relative infancy, but the cattle program will be bringing the border collie as a working partner to the masses this fall on RFD-TV. This unprecedented exposure should be useful and beneficial to all border collie people, as well as ranchers and farmers who never see a dog trial, but use their dogs on a daily basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for how the HA would know whether trials are sanctioned by other organizations, that's simple -- have a question to that effect on the trial-sanctioning form.

 

What sanctioning form?

 

The USBCHA does not have a process for sanctioning trials. You want a trial sanctioned? You email Francis with the dates, the number of Open and Nursery trials, and contact information. As long as it is on the website 30 days in advance of the opening date for accepting entries, it gets sanctioned near as I can tell. To get points, you need a minimum of ten open dogs or five Nursery dogs and you need to submit the sanctioning fee.

 

There is no requirement that the course be judged.

 

There are no minimum requirements for course size or elements.

 

There is no rule banning dual sanctioning by AKC or anyone else.

 

Here's the whole rule as it appears on the USBCA site.

 

SECTION 2: SANCTIONING OF TRIALS

A. These rules and regulations apply only to HA sanctioned trials and approved events.

 

B. New trial hosts, as well as existing hosts, must apply for sanctioning to the HA Secretary at least thirty (30) days prior to the trial entry opening date. They must specify the number of trials to be offered in each sanctioned class (e.g., 2 Open trials and 2 Nursery trials).

 

If the HA Secretary deems it necessary, an Approval Trial Committee will review the request and either approve or disapprove. Errors or omissions by the trial host may be waived by the Trial Approval Committee and their decision will be final.

 

All trial information must be published thirty (30) days prior to the trial opening date on the USBCHA website for Upcoming Trials. Trial information should include trial name and dates, contact name, phone number, email or web site address, and location.<s style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; ">.</s> Upon request, the HA may furnish local district mailing addresses to the trial host.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do not have a problem with the USBCHA ruling that dual sanctioning trials should never occur, I would suggest that the wording used, if this becomes the case, be carefully considered. Many states and geographic regions have local trial clubs (Georgia Stockdog Association, Texas Stockdog Association, Wyoming Stockdog, etc.) that host both sheep and cattle trials, and assess their own brand of point system for members' dogs. To blanketly prohibit dual sanctioning could adversely affect those groups. The wording used in the USBCHA rules right now prohibits the sanctioning of trials from groups that have or condone conformation showing. This excludes the AKC and the ASCA, since they have a conformational group in the Aussie club. I think this was originally done to allow local clubs to continue to give their own year end awards and such without problems. AHBA, with no conformational component, has slipped through this barrier.

 

Actually Rule 2H applies to any organization "which advocates or supports conformation breeding or showing of Border Collies," so it would not apply to either ASCA or AHBA. I agree with you that any USBCHA rule barring dual sanction would need to be worded in such a way that it did not include the CBCA and our local and regional trial associations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for how the HA would know whether trials are sanctioned by other organizations, that's simple -- have a question to that effect on the trial-sanctioning form.

What sanctioning form?

 

The Trial Approval Form found on the USBCHA website.

 

Simply include on that form a question about whether another organization is sanctioning the trial. If it's true that Francis accepts an email in lieu of that form, simply require that info to be included in the email.

 

The USBCHA does not have a process for sanctioning trials.

 

Yes, it does. It may not be as formal as some think it should be, but there is a process, as the portion of Rule 2 which you quote makes clear.

 

There is no rule banning dual sanctioning by AKC or anyone else.

 

Yes, there is a rule banning dual sanctioning by AKC. See Rule 2H:

 

H. Trials hosted or sponsored by, affiliated with, or benefiting any organization which advocates or supports conformation breeding or showing of Border Collies, and trials held in conjunction with any event sanctioned or sponsored by such an organization, are ineligible for sanctioning by the USBCHA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say there were 11 entries and he won the class. If there had been 11 entries in the Open class (or whatever they called the equivalent), then he should have gotten 2.2 points

 

I stand corrected. 2.2 it is.

 

As for your opinion that there should not be cattle trials at all, you're certainly entitled to your opinion

 

Thank you. And I absolutely don't think they should be sanctioned by the HA.

 

I have not really seen all of these "dangerous" obstacles that you mention; the obstacles that are used in cattle trials are always made of cattle panels--panels that allow room for the dog to scoot underneath and out.

 

I find it hard to believe you thought I meant the panels were dangerous, but just for the record, I don't.

 

The smart dogs learn early on how to do that, same as they learn to not get kicked.

 

What happens to the dumb ones?

 

allowed cattle to be harassed by a dog like time and points does

 

Without a judge to DQ you, there is nothing to stop a dog from harassing cattle as long as they're doing it within the time allowed. Allow me to respectfully suggest that you, Anna, watch a cowdog trial with both eyes open.

 

Cheers all,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the cattle finals this year the judge refused to "judge" the outrun as was required per the rules. This meant that many dogs that ran up the middle received the same points as the dogs who did a proper outrun. Most years there are major battles between the cattle dog committee and the HA. It seems the cattle side wants the prestige and ready made structure of the HA, but not the rules that go along with the program.

 

 

 

Since my name was mentioned in this thread i will add that i am for a fully judged USBCHA cattle finals, but if we can't even get compliance with a judged outrun and lift...... i don't see the point. Each year there is also some major controversy surrounding some portion of the time and points sections of the trial. This year was no exception.

 

 

 

The us vs them cattle vs sheep runs too deep to change.The cattle program is not in it's infancy, it is 10 years old.

 

 

 

I was on the cattledog committee many years, and have been on several local and trial committees for the sheep finals. I have put on cattle and sheep trials, and we use our dogs on the ranch on sheep and cattle. I have tried for years to be an ambassador for both sides, and with very little luck.

 

 

 

I respect many of the people and dogs in both camps, but in general the majority of people on both sides are very set in their point of view. Herbert has been an excellent ombudsman, but there is only so much he can do.

 

 

 

It is time for the cattledog program to set out on its own.

 

 

 

re the AHBA dual USBCHA sanctioning i cant see the excitement about that. Many AHBA courses are quite similar to arena time and points cow trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the cattle finals this year the judge refused to "judge" the outrun as was required per the rules. This meant that many dogs that ran up the middle received the same points as the dogs who did a proper outrun. Most years there are major battles between the cattle dog committee and the HA. It seems the cattle side wants the prestige and ready made structure of the HA, but not the rules that go along with the program.

 

Since my name was mentioned in this thread i will add that i am for a fully judged USBCHA cattle finals, but if we can't even get compliance with a judged outrun and lift...... i don't see the point. Each year there is also some major controversy surrounding some portion of the time and points sections of the trial. This year was no exception.

 

I think this is the part that bothers me the most about cattle trials--at least those I've experienced or observed (not to mention what I've heard about the finals from folks who have run there): if you want the prestige associated with the USBCHA then follow the rules. Don't make them up as you go. At one time, I thought well of the cattle finals (or at least felt neutral), but I've come to believe that so much finagling (for lack of a better term, although the controversy Lana refers to is certainly the end result of the finagling) goes on behind the scenes that it's difficult to respect the program or its outcomes. And that's a real shame, because there are plenty of good people and dogs that run in cattle trials. And that makes me wonder why the controversies are allowed to happen. Is it just that a few strong personalities try to take over and run things the way they want them run?

 

And just so this isn't so much an us vs. them thing, I'll add that I think the sheepdog nursery program could also use a serious shake-up. There's too much of playing fast and loose with the rules there was well. But of course that's a whole 'nother thread....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the cattle finals this year the judge refused to "judge" the outrun as was required per the rules.

 

Be careful about making public statements like that unless you heard it directly from the mouth of the judge. That contradicts what many others have said.

 

I am not old enough to have lived through it, but many have said the standards at sheepdog trials in the USA were quite poor in the infancy of the program. Over time handlers and dogs got better. Via judged trials the bar was raised higher and higher, until people from the UK admitted that there were teams in the USA and Canada who could compete against them and win. Why can't the same thing happen with cattle dog trials? Keep raising the bar and people will rise to the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very disheartened to find that people do not follow the rules with regards to the Cattledog Finals. I surely hope you are mistaken, Lana, but if you are correct, then there has been a real loss of integrity somewhere.

 

Meanwhile, my sheep-bred Celt gathered thirty pair and the bull, moved them across the neighbor's driveway and into the driveway pasture; flanked to move them diagonally across the field, down and across the road, into the recently-baled hayfield; flanked again to gather the calves who were quite fascinated by the new big round bales, and put them into the new pasture with their mothers (who were busy stuffing their faces) and the bull. No dashing, no gripping, minimal stress, just helpful, good dog-work on his part - that got the job done. And no stress on the two humans directing the move. Thanks, Celt! And don't worry, Dan, you will have your turns, too.

 

My dogs may not trial, may not be trial material, but they get the job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liz: it's fine to draw a comparison back to when US sheepdog trials were points and time because there weren't enough competent judges, but the fact is, the sheepdog trialers strove to get better, took instruction from those more seasoned, and the handling, training, trialing AND judging got better.

 

What Lana talks about, and what I also have found to be true, is that there are too many entrenched folks on the cattle side of things that will NOT EVER accept that judging a cow dog trial is something that could be a good thing. I was an HA director at the inception of the Cattle Finals, and I supported it at the time. I qualified and ran dogs at the 2003 Cattle Finals, making the double lift with Pete. But I was always a proponent of a fully judged trial, and over time, it became clear that no amount of logic, persuasion or demonstration was going to change some peoples' minds. So I gave up, and a few years ago I too decided that the HA should cut the program loose.

 

The HA keeps it because it supposedly doesn't cost them any money, but the potential for damage to the prestige that the HA name lends IS costly...and the current HA board doesn't seem to care about that.

 

Amy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, who told you that?

Not Lana, but I heard something similar, at least in substance, which was if the dog got behind the cattle, it got full points for the outrun. Whether that was the choice of the judge or of the cattledog committee I don't know, but it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the scores on the judged part to see what is true.

 

You were there, Debbie, were there outrun scores other than 20 (not counting crossovers, which were surely penalized if they occurred)? And if the outruns were all perfect scores, would you say that the outruns of all the dogs at the finals were equal?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Deb, but there were a number of crossovers, which were not penalized as heavily as *I* would have done (seems 10 off was the usual). I did not see any "straight up the middle," outruns, but there were a few dogs who seemed to get lost entirely on the outrun (you know the ones--where the dog does not seem to have any clue where the stock are), which were penalized fairly heavily (I don't recall exactly how many points, but it seemed reasonable, given the amount of "lost-ness" of each individual dog). The one thing I *did* note, and was not happy with, was that redirects were not pointed at all. So, all 20 point outruns were *not* the same.

 

I do not know why this was the case, but I do know the judge fairly well, and it did not seem consistent with what I know of his standards; either way, without concrete evidence of who was "behind this," I think the statement that the "judge refused" to judge according to the rules is presuming a bit much, and is unfair to the judge.

 

So the system is not perfect. I would add, however, that I certainly hear about "issues" with sheepdog judging, as well, the biggest of which is the "somebody" points, as I've heard it referred to. You know how this works--some big name has a mediocre run, but gets a pretty high score, while a "nobody" has what most watching would agree is a better run, but gets a considerably lower score. I hear it all the time, and it seems to be a well accepted "fact." People I ask about it just kind of shrug and say, "well, that's just the way it is." That seems really wrong to me. So, is that reason to "cut the program loose"?

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Anna, you beat me to it and saved me some typing..I agree with Anna's view of the redirects, my memory of Jake's first run was that his outrun landed in the right place at the top (comebye) but he didn't come through the horses, Wayne sent him "come by" a little further tried again, then back "away" before he could get him to clear the horses and pick up the cows. There were 4 set out riders to navigate around.

 

After Wayne/Jake's run I spoke with both Pete Carmichael and Rick Strohl about the scoring of Jake's run, each had a different opinions and offered explinations, personally I expected to see a deduction for redirects and was surprised to see the 20.

 

The information that I heard as to who issued the scoring directive for the outrun is inconsistent with Lana's claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the system is not perfect. I would add, however, that I certainly hear about "issues" with sheepdog judging, as well, the biggest of which is the "somebody" points, as I've heard it referred to. You know how this works--some big name has a mediocre run, but gets a pretty high score, while a "nobody" has what most watching would agree is a better run, but gets a considerably lower score. I hear it all the time, and it seems to be a well accepted "fact." People I ask about it just kind of shrug and say, "well, that's just the way it is." That seems really wrong to me. So, is that reason to "cut the program loose"?

A

 

I have certainly seen this happen, and it has made me question how involved I want to be in the sport of trialing. After much careful consideration, I decided to continue to compete as time and money allow for 2 reasons; to test my dogs and to see other people's dogs work under a variety of conditions. I have to have faith that at the end of the day people will recognize a good dog whether it wins or not.

 

Out of curiosity, is this one reason cattle dog people don't want judged trials?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, is this one reason cattle dog people don't want judged trials?

 

 

Liz, I think that there are as many reasons as there are people. Some have a very strong opinion others are pretty impartial. It's easy to tell who is who in our part of the country, just go to a Judge Cattledog Trial in Missouri and then to a point/time one here in Iowa. Some of the same players will be at each but there will be a handful that only go one way or the other.

 

This past weekend I was listening to a horror story from a Judged Cattledog Trial that was held in this past spring, very frustrated handlers. Originally I had planned on going to it but it ended up conflicting with something else. Based on the comments I'm glad I saved my money and didn't travel the 9 hours.

 

We have been going to trials in South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa and Indiana, almost all are time or point/time. The only judged cattledog trials that there are that we have gone to in this area were Lyle East's & Larry Moore's both of MO. The last judged trial I ran at we had the same basic top 5 handlers/dogs as we have at our Point/time Trials, much to the dismay of some of the handlers that are judged format purist who believe that the point/time folks run to a lower standard. IMO the competition was easier and the overall quality of work and dogs was lower at the judged trial then it is at our point/time trials.

 

We were just at the SE Iowa Cattledog Trial, time trial, had to complete the obstacle with all three head before moving on, we had a 3 minute time limit to get to the fetch panels or we were DQ'ed. I think we had about 24 open and 18 nursery yesterday, 21 open and 15 nursery today. Handlers from Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, South Dakota and Nebraska. Thinking about who was there I bet only 1 maybe 2 would prefer judged over point/time. One of which is known to not want to set a course time, feeling that if the dog is making progress that they should be able to continue for as long as it takes, yippee....just what we want to do, run until midnight....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all have trial horror stories, but I don't think that means the rules should be ignored. Heck, I've beat some of the folks who get "name points," so it's not impossible. And I don't think anyone would deny that the folks in question have raised the bar for all of us--with a good result. If judged trials are anathema to the cattledog folks, then don't judge the trials. But don't claim that the trials (or parts of them) are being judged when in fact they are not. That really does diminish the whole program. The reports I've heard from practically every cattle finals have been of committee members playing fast and loose with the rules, changing rules as they go, etc. That doesn't inspire confidence in the quality of the work being done, and it certainly puts a different light on the winners, and that's a shame because I imagine the folks who win are deserving, despite the stuff that goes on behind the scenes.

 

As someone else pointed out, had the OL actually been judged at the cattle finals, then there likely wouldn't have been a 3-way tie in nursery. And really, the border collie is a gathering breed, and the outrun is a very basic part of that genetic package. If the ability of the dog to do a decent outrun is unimportant to the cattledog folks, then fine, but I hope someone realizes that by not requiring a trial to test the most basic component of the genetic package that makes up the breed they will start creating a genetic drift that most of us wouldn't want. (And I know for a fact that at least some of the dogs that run in cattle trials have good outruns, but of course the tight outrun does save *time.*

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last judged trial I ran at we had the same basic top 5 handlers/dogs as we have at our Point/time Trials, much to the dismay of some of the handlers that are judged format purist who believe that the point/time folks run to a lower standard. IMO the competition was easier and the overall quality of work and dogs was lower at the judged trial then it is at our point/time trials.

 

You do realize that these statements are somewhat contradictory? If the same dogs and handlers win no matter what, then I don't see how the quality of the work could be lower for one type of trial than the other. Or are you saying that the top handlers at the judged trials just don't try as hard and do sloppier work at the judged trials than they offer up at P/T trials and still win? Or that the top handlers won because the competition was easier, rather than simply because they are in fact top handlers?

 

I've run in cattle trials and have qualified dogs for the finals (with more than a fraction of a point), so I'm not just talking out of my butt. The good handlers are good handlers no matter what. The P/T trial does reward the dog/handler team that gets the job done, no matter what, but I do wonder if the "luck of the draw" aspect wouldn't be mitigated somewhat by having some parts of the trial judged. It would be an interesting experiment to run some trials with both a *real* judge (someone not likely to be influenced by anyone else--and yes, there are top open sheep handlers who actually raise and work cattle on their farms, even if they don't go to cattle trials and so would be qualified to judge such a trial) and the P/T format together and see how the results compare.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And really, the border collie is a gathering breed, and the outrun is a very basic part of that genetic package. If the ability of the dog to do a decent outrun is unimportant to the cattledog folks, then fine, but I hope someone realizes that by not requiring a trial to test the most basic component of the genetic package that makes up the breed they will start creating a genetic drift that most of us wouldn't want. (And I know for a fact that at least some of the dogs that run in cattle trials have good outruns, but of course the tight outrun does save *time.*

 

Amen

 

Start your own association, make your own rules, spend your own money and create your own dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...I didn't realize that setting a small packet of dog broke or held sheep/cows out in the middle of an open field and sending the dog out to bring them back was really testing or proving a dogs gathering ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...I didn't realize that setting a small packet of dog broke or held sheep/cows out in the middle of an open field and sending the dog out to bring them back was really testing or proving a dogs gathering ability.

 

There is a subtle but critical difference between holding stock and setting stock. Sheep and cattle should be set, not held, so that the judge can really see the effect that the dog has on the stock from the moment they first notice it.

 

A natural gather is what defines a Border Collie. Driving and shedding go against their instinct and must be trained, but a Border Collie with no training whatsoever should be able to bring stock back to the handler. Dogs that run straight up the field in a farm setting can scatter the stock into the trees and brush, send then running off a cliff or through the fence and onto the neighbor's land. While an outrun at a trial is not the ideal test of gathering, it at least shows that the dog can cast out to fall behind the stock rather than chasing them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While an outrun at a trial is not the ideal test of gathering, it at least shows that the dog can cast out to fall behind the stock rather than chasing them away

 

taught or natural? How many dogs that have scored perfect outrun scores would have run right up the middle and split the sheep if left to their own devices?

 

If we were testing for natural gathering dogs we would be seeing an increase instead of a decline as indicated by many. I can't say it is true that natural gathering dogs are harder to come by as I was not there many years ago, but I've definately heard from many that say they are harder to come by, but maybe they always were hard to come by. Still, if we were testing for it and if the breed was truely defined by it's gathering ability then they should be easier to come by.

 

If your gonna blame genetic drift on anything blame it on lack of real work and breeding for sport and show. The issues that some stand in defiance against in the cattledog program are equal or even worse in the sheepdog program, it all depends on what shade of rose colored glasses you are looking through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Fellow Handlers,

 

Ms. Meier asks: "How many dogs that have scored perfect outrun scores would have run right up the middle and split the sheep if left to their own devices?"

 

Almost none/none. That's why redirects are pointed. While young dogs often run up the middle or fishhook, almost all/all mature into a serviceable "left to their own devices" outrun. Curving out to get behind stock is strongly genetic. My obedience friends tell me its hard to train a Border Collie to go out straight for that fetch.

 

I'm of two minds about whether our trials/training encourage poorer gathers. After running the Portage 735, I decidedt our sport dog training didn't train for such an outrun. Jack Knox corrected me, "No. We don't train our dogs to look for sheep"

 

Fair enough. . But - sheepdogs outrun and gather over their heads successfully all the time.

 

I remember training with the Henrys and Billadeaus on an up-down-rumpled hayfield that was nearly a mile from end to end and the practice outrun was 1000 yards. None of our dogs had ever run out so far but, somewhat unhandily, and with a crossover about half the first attempts, they gathered their sheep..

 

At the Dakota trials I saw "sport" dog after "sport" dog that had never outrun so far or so blindly before do so successfully. Commands were inaudible in the wind and distance. Of 75 dogs only a few couldn't get out there.

 

You can argue, I think, that the continual infusion of "big gather" sheepdogs from the UK has preserved the ability but most UK sheepdogs don't do that many big gathers. Most are "trained" as they are here and even those who do the big gather do so once, maybe twice a year.

 

The more I study these dogs the more they puzzle me.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me pull off my rose-colored glasses for just a moment and say that (as I've said numerous times before) if the cattle program wants to be respected, then it needs to have some rules and then abide by those rules. All the other arguments, tangents, etc., notwithstanding, the cattle program is doing itself no favors by playing fast and loose with its own rules. As I said previously, it's a real shame that the folks who win have to have the behind-the-scenes (and apparently not-so-behind-the-scenes) shenanigans hanging over their wins. It reflects poorly on everyone. And sorry, it's not the same things as "Alasdair points" or whatever you want to call it.

 

As for whether it's hard to find natural gathering dogs, I don't find that to be the case. Every one of my working dogs has had a natural gather, some better than others. Even those who went straight up the middle on their first few times on stock widened out on their own into a nice natural outrun. No need to teach it. Perhaps in some circles it's more difficult to find such dogs, and I imagine if trial scoring systems actually act as a disincentive for the dog that does a pear-shaped, more time-consuming outrun and rewards the tight outrunners, then the former will be more difficult to find and the latter will not.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...