"Trial bred" and "farm bred"

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I thought I'd throw out something interesting, for possible discussion. I really didn't intend to - but when I decided to get two pups this summer, I ended up with one on each end of the breeding philosophy scale. One pup with a pedigree that looks like a who's who of trial champions. I jumped on this breeding not for that reason, but because the lines were similiar to my old Ben dog, who will be eleven soon The other pup I started just raising, because the breeder, bless her heart, had me convinced that her cattle dog line couldn't possibly suit me. Lo and behold Rocky's personality suited us just fine! But his breeding on the surface seems the exact opposite of Ted's - few dogs "proven" on the trial field, though hard working dogs all the way back.

 

Now both of them are old enough to really compare notes on their personalities and even a little of their attitude on stock (even Ted's had some sheep time, at 20 weeks).

 

Surprise. I find little difference between the two. Both have the same combination of balance between being a team player and keenness for stock, an ability to adapt to correction, "cunning" as Rock's breeder calls it, potential for impulse control, and sturdy, confident temperaments.

 

In dialog with the breeders, I've found that although they had radically different goals for the pups they wanted to get - they wanted the same characteristics in their pups. Rocky and Ted are not identical, but they are amazingly similiar in the points that both breeders desired to pass on in the next generation. Notably, these points are ones that they've found important for top level trial work AND some of the toughest farm work there is.

 

It got me thinking about how important it is to get to know your pup's breeder well enough to find out what goes into the decisions they make. It also made me think about the wisdom of the early breeders who developed the trial as a place to showcase skills they felt the top breeding stock needed. I don't think the breed can survive without the proving ground of the farm/ranch, but I also think it's unwise to dismiss trials as irrelevant to farm breeding. I believe the two can and should intermingle if done with the goal of producing the best possible genepool for the future.

 

How's that for pie-in-the-sky? Maybe I've just smelled too much puppy breath since summer.

[Bill Fosher]

Interesting thoughts, Becca. I tend to agree with your initial observation. Seems to me that the breeding is the clay. The training is the sculpting, molding, and turning that produces the final product. If the breeding is poor or mediocre, the clay will have faults -- it will crumble when it's pinched or pulled or it won't support its own weight.

 

I also know that back when I was trialing, everything that I did to prepare for competition made me a better handler on the farm. I don't see why the same wouldn't hold true for the dogs as well -- provided that they are trained sensibly and not as robots.

 

The very nature of the ISDS trial tends not to reward extremes the way appearance-based animal competitions do. For instance, a judge in a sheep show might have five market lambs to place, and they are all very close to the same quality. So he has to look for something to differentiate them. Gut is waste on the kill floor, so the one with the least gut gets put up. Over time this leads to the kind of sheep known even in the show world as a gutless wonder, which needs to have Ensure shakes to get enough calories to stay alive.

 

But if you take any single characteristic in the working style of a Border collie, that alone will not win trials consistently. Wide running dogs are penalized by the clock, but favored in venues where there are spookier sheep. Strong-eyed dogs might do fine on the at-hand work, but some will have trouble shifting their sheep on the lift. Etc., etc.

 

Just as the farmer or rancher wants a well-rounded dog, so does the experienced trial breeder. Frankly, I don't know of any decent "trial breeder" who would breed a litter strictly based on the winning records of the parents, and the better ones are always looking for good farm dogs to breed to. But you're right that a certain amount of prejudice does flow in the other direction -- many farmers or ranchers wouldn't give you the time of day for an excellent dog if it comes from a trialing background.

 

This is truly unfortunate, because there are some really good dogs out there winning (and not winning) open trials. But you do have to be a bit more attuned to what's going on with the dog to be able to separate dogs from handling. I know when I was first looking at sheepdogs 15 or 16 years ago, I didn't want anything to do with Border collies based on what I saw at trials, because I was looking at the wrong things. I was seeing handlers standing at the post yelling "LIE DOWN," not dogs that had natural ability and talent and sometimes needed to be held back a little bit.

 

And, in fairness, the quality of the training and handling at local trials I was attending all those years ago was a damn sight poorer than what is common today.

 

But it's still hard for a farmer who doesn't see many dogs to distinguish between style and ablity, handling and talent, rote obedience and biddibility, etc. On the other hand, go to a friends farm, watch some rough-and-ready work, and they know what they're getting into. So it's understandable that they might want to stay away from trial dogs simply because they don't know what they're looking at and whether it would suit them.

[Firchow]

Similarly, Bill, I think it's hard for someone who trials in absence of real ranch work to go to a ranch and recognize the qualities in an unpolished dog.

 

Rebecca and I had a similar conversation recently and my contention was that there are an awful lot of high-quality ranch dogs out there (or at least out here) and ignoring them as potential breeding stock just because they're not all shiny and haven't seen a trial field is doing a disservice to the "breed."

 

GF

[justdogs]

I was wondering after reading those posts, what you look for in a trial dog that would say it could be a good ranch dog?

 

There are a lot more novice handlers out there and many that move up to open handlers who only go and practice a couple times a week. These dogs never get real work, some never even get to have good trial records because the handling never makes the cut, but they could be great dogs?

 

If the posts are right, then the moderate style, and great balance are bred for in all working bcs. But I tend to think that something could be lost with the way trialing is going. Either too many people will over look good dogs with poor handlers or the ranch dogs will not be bred because less people know how good they are.

 

So how does one really determine if they have a great dog either on a ranch or at a trial? Say for someone looking for a stud dog?

[stockdogranch]

In his post earlier, Bill said that preparation for trialling helped make him a better handler at the farm. Absolutely. And doing jobs on the ranch will certainly teach you to be a better handler at a trial, too. And justdogs noted that there are handlers who run dogs in open at trials who don't get "real work." Also true, and that's too bad. I think doing "real work" is one of the best things one can do in training a dog, even if the goal is "just" trialling. Even if you have to "invent" jobs for the dog to do. If you have a dog that listens, takes a down when you tell it, takes its flanks when you tell it, walks up without hesitation (which is a whole 'nother discussion), and so on, then that dog should get itself around a trial field pretty nicely, too, as long as you don't let it be sloppy at home just because it's a "ranch dog." But I see too many dogs that have no idea how to take stock out of a tight area, or don't understand that now that we've put stock into a pen of some sort, that we're not finished, and there might be other stock to go do something else with. Or dogs that don't understand that even thought there is livestock in sight, they might not need to do anything at that moment with them. We might just be hanging out or fixing a fence.

 

So, yes, justdogs is right in that most of us probably try to breed for the same sorts of good characteristics, BUT the training/handling then makes ALL the difference. Lots of potentially really nice dogs probably do get messed up because of less than stellar handling. So, to get to the question, to choose, say, a stud dog...you have to consider to whom it will be bred--what are the qualities in the bitch, and how can you complement those? But the bottom line really is, if the dog CONSISTENTLY does what you ask, when you ask, in the way that you want it done, then for you, it's a good dog.

 

Sorry for the rambling,

Anna

[Pipedream Farm]

IMHO, it's not the venue that is important in breeding decisions but the scope and honesty of the evaluation. If the evaluation is only a few small trials on trial-wise sheep, then IMHO the scope is insufficient. If the evaluation is the same tasks on the same flock in the same field, then in IMHO the scope is insufficient.

 

Breeding choices made with these narrow scopes may produce dogs up to the tasks in these small worlds (a few small trials or a single farm on one breed of sheep), but without having evaluated the breeding pair with greater scope there is no way of knowing if you're doubling up a deficiency. Also without being able to see lots of other dogs, how does one know just how good their dog really is? You'll know you can get the job done, but perhaps the job could be easier.

 

Mark

[justdogs]

One reason I posted to this string was also that I have a young male from both trial (dogs the were in the international) and ranch working lines. I bought him only knowing he was already turned on to live stock and would work.

 

I have taken him to a few trials and clinics. The first two people whom I ever trained with did not like him and told me to neuter him. They saw him from age 1-2. Since I bought him on a stud contract that was not possible until he was three when the breeder was going to decide if she wanted a litter out of him. She decided he was too small, sensitive and had too much eye for her line. Since then I have had three people ask to buy him at trials/clinics. Mostly people now say he is a really nice dog (what they mean by that I have no idea). He has been called a top working dog, and a hard dog. At age 4 he is finally to the point where he could do well at a trial (if I could get through it), but I do not know many trial "only" people who would have put up with him that long. On the other hand he has been working well on ?ranch? work since he was 2 and a half. Huge outruns and would bring sheep to me not matter what the issue, but ask him to drive, and that better make sense to him or he will just bring them back regardless of what I say.

 

I find it interesting to know what my dog is really worth based on such differing opinions based on seeing him once or twice.

To me he is the best, of course.

 

Also do you see a difference in the natural size of the outrun or eye in ranch bred vs trial bred dogs? Or would that just be line specific?

 

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

[Bill Fosher]

Being from the East I haven't seen many ranch bred dogs, except for ones that people bought as trialing prospects, and of those dogs I guess I'd say there's no way to generalize. Perhaps I see less evidence of dogs having been pushed out than in many dogs that are bred for trialing, but that probably has more to do with the nature and pace of training than with the nature of the dog.

 

If trialers have a fault in training dogs, it's that they rush things and take short cuts, which can often lead to a dog that's out of contact with the stock on the outrun, or even on some flanks.

 

All that said, I still feel that the better breeders who trial are able to recognize the diamond in the rough on the farm or ranch. Perhaps those who have come to working sheepdogs from other venues (horses, agility, etc.) might have a little more difficulty, but the men and women who are fixtures in the firmament of breeders got there because they have the eye for the good 'uns.

 

And of course, we're all grateful to them.

[Pipedream Farm]

There are trialers who only see good dogs when they are laying down placing runs and there are trialers who can see good dogs even when things are running amuck (their potential or their ability to handle a "bad" group or situation).

 

The ability of these handlers to see the diamond in the rough does not change when they go to a ranch.

 

Mark