Anti merle prejudice

[emilyfalk]

If I had to pick a single thing that I would pinpoint as lacking in trial dogs, if such a thing actually exists, is independence. No trial person wants a really independent dog and most farmers need one and some farmers need a *really* independent dog. Stamina would not be high on my list except in the big picture way.

Hi, CMP,

 

I'm wondering what trials you have attended. There certainly are plenty of trials where the most biddable dog with the most precision on it wins: these are usually trial-broke sheep where scores in the high 90s are needed to place. I had 2 dogs who were very successful at these types of trials. However, there are LOTS of very prestigious trials that have really difficult sheep or terrain, and in those trials, you will see these "independent" dogs succeed. They can read the sheep and field better than the handler standing at the post, and knowing this, the handler trusts the dog to work appropriately on its own. There will be teams who don't get scores, and the placing scores may be really, really low. This is my preference for a trial, but it doesn't make the other trials wrong, just different. I wanted to provide an example to non-triallists that there are many trials where independence is not only necessary, but also rewarded in the outcome.

 

Another thing: how do we know that the dogs wouldn't be more or less biddable with a different trainer/handler? I like to leave a lot of natural in my dogs, and they can work independently because I allow it. But that doesn't mean they're not biddable. I just get them out before a trial and we all do some fine-tuning.

 

Lastly, I have been in farm situations where the dog thinks he knows what the job is, doesn't listen to my commands, and as a result, the job gets messed up. Or we have been on or near a road, rocky ground, river, etc. and the dog must listen to keep us all safe.

 

I don't think you can generalize what farmers and triallists need unless the breadth of their work is limited.

[mum24dog]

First sketch here -

 

 

Substitute full timers, part time / hobbyists and those who don't work their dogs on stock and you pretty much have the hierarchical attitude of some people on here.

 

There are many different paths to knowledge and understanding and they should all be respected but not necessarily agreed with.

 

Someone posted earlier that sometimes outsiders see more clearly what is happening than those closely involved and it bears repeating.

 

It's a pity that we don't have a higher proportion of full timers taking part in these discussions but I guess they're probably too busy.

[Mark Billadeau]

What trials have people been observing where you have not seen dogs (even those of top handlers) ignore or question a command and the handler allows the dog to do what it thinks is best, for I see it consistently at most trials. Either it does not occur at trials I do not attend or some observation skills are better than others.

 

I don't know how many times I've discussed with dog people viewing herding trials for the first time about how we handlers don't always expect dogs to lie down everytime we give that command. Is this not an example of allowing the dog to do what it thinks is best for the situation?

Have you never seen a dog look back at the handler while approaching the panels when the handler has given a command which will clearly turn the sheep in front of the panels and instead of insisting on compliance the handler give a different command?

[mum24dog]

Dear Aspiring Sheepdoggers,

 

There are many reasons a dog crosses over on his trial outrun: viz; dog gets lost/loses sight of the sheep, believes the sheep are nearer than they are, doesn't like facing sheep, senses the sheep pressure to the let out; but right off I can't think of a circumstance where such a dog might be right. The handler will know the course and if it's a complex course or a very important trial likely will have walked it.

 

I've never run at a trial where I didn't know the hidden fence, the haha, the dangerous bank, the sheep pressures before I sent my dog.

 

Once the dog has reached the sheep it may very well read circumstances better than I can but not before.

 

Donald McCaig

 

 

Have you checked that reference I gave? If so you will know how that arose.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Ms. Mum,

 

No. When you cite or quote it I'll be happy to.

 

Donald McCaig

[Mark Billadeau]

What about a handler sending their dog on a long outrun (ca. 600yrds) and never giving a command until the sheep are at the post? Or a handler never giving a command on the drive away until the panels?

 

Have you never seen these at a trial? (I have)

Doesn't this take a dog thinking on its own to get the job done?

[Debbie Meier]

I believe that if you take a step back and try to think about what a dog that follows his own ideas vs. being easily told what to do looks like to someone who does not have as much time and experience in the culture, it will look to them, like one thinks more then the other.

 

One may have more feel or a stronger drive to get to the head and stop or control livestock, more eye to a fault, locks up, refuses to give up what it wants to. Lots of times I've heard mention that those traits are less then ideal and hence not wanted in a trial dog, granted not everyone has the same view, but some have that view. Or they feel that certain types are easier to trial because they are less apt to disobey (think). Those same traits may actually be valued by a farmer whose dog has learned the job and executes it flawlessly.

 

Why would he want the dog to do what he says, the dog is right, proves it every day, and why would he want a dog that he has to tell it every little move, which is what it looks like from the perspective of someone who does not completely understand what is going on at a trial. More then once I have heard someone exclaim, "what good would a dog like that do me? I have to tell it every little move" From their standpoint, they don't see that you don't have to, but instead you can, so you do because you can preserve more points that way.

 

Anyway, maybe consider that there is a different view point and also consider that there are dogs out there that are valued and successful who do require a lot of help and input and honestly do not show a huge aptitude to think and problem solve, they have been taught to execute certain tasks in a certain way.

 

May look great most of the time, but do they show problem solving skills when something out of the reach of their experience? Maybe they are great thinkers, maybe they aren't, what percentage of dog trials test thinkers? Certain some do, but do you expect people to know that not all trials are like the ones they themselves have seen?

Edited November 13, 2014 by Debbie Meier

[Debbie Meier]

I think of one of our dogs, he is a pill, he wants to do what he wants to do, he sucks when it comes to trialing and it has nothing to do with lack of ability it has to do with his refusing to follow direction and marching to the beat of his own drummer. Each person looking at him may see different reasons as to why he is not a good trial dog and in turn take a different opinion away as to what people want in a trial dog when they hear the opposing arguments.

[Sue R]

I believe that if you take a step back and try to think about what a dog that follows his own ideas vs. being easily told what to do looks like to someone who does not have as much time and experience in the culture, it will look to them, like one thinks more then the other...

 

Why would he want the dog to do what he says, the dog is right, proves it every day, and why would he want a dog that he has to tell it every little move, which is what it looks like from the perspective of someone who does not completely understand what is going on at a trial. More then once I have heard someone exclaim, "what good would a dog like that do me? I have to tell it every little move" From their standpoint, they don't see that you don't have to, but instead you can, so you do because you can preserve more points that way...

 

Anyway, maybe consider that there is a different view point and also consider that there are dogs out there that are valued and successful who do require a lot of help and input and honestly do not show a huge aptitude to think and problem solve, they have been taught to execute certain tasks in a certain way.

 

May look great most of the time, but do they show problem solving skills when something out of the reach of their experience? Maybe they are great thinkers, maybe they aren't, what percentage of dog trials test thinkers? Certain some do, but do you expect people to know that not all trials are like the ones they themselves have seen?

I'm feeling that a lot of what Deb said here has a great deal of merit, at least in my opinion as a fairly low-level person in this game...

[Mark Billadeau]

Maybe they are great thinkers, maybe they aren't, what percentage of dog trials test thinkers? Certain some do, but do you expect people to know that not all trials are like the ones they themselves have seen?

When we have tried to indicate that there are trials that do test these aspects that farmers want we are told that cannot be so because it was not observed in the limited number of trials that have been observed.

 

Just like farms have varying degrees of difficulty in the tasks dogs will need to complete (or how much thinking they will need to do) there are varying degrees of difficulty in the tasks trials require dogs to complete.

 

The tasks for a dog on Farm A may not be same (or of the same difficulty) as on Farm B.

The tasks at Trial A may not be of the same difficulty as at Trial B.

 

 

 

 

 

As I (and others) have said before, those that do well at a wide range of trials ALSO farm (they have tasks for their trial dogs that is comparable to what a livestock grazing operation will have). Until someone has defined what a "farm dog" (based upon what work is needed) is you all will have to just take my word for it. I also suspect the definition of a "farm dog" (and the work said dog will be required to do) will vary greatly by region which many farmers will not know unless they travel extensively around the country visiting various working farms.

[Debbie Meier]

You can tell people what you know all day, it's not going to help them understand that what they have seen is not the way it is when instead of trying to relate folks are trying to discredit and belittle.

[juliepoudrier]

Hi Pam,

I've never known a dog to be disqualified for crossing over on an outrun, but I suppose it could happen, especially in a trial that is being run to a standard. I think the outrun may not be the best choice as an example for disobedience because the outrun is really part of the "natural" work a dog should do. I have seen plenty of references from hill shepherds regarding safety issues and the dog needing to go the way it was sent, which is why I believe the outrun is penalized for a cross over.

 

In a trial situation, the handler should have assessed the terrain, the stock, the pressure, etc., before sending the dog and likely would have sent the dog to the side the dog would naturally go (because the dog would also recognize the pressures, etc.). Generally as you're walking to the post the dog will make its opinion clear about which way it wants to go, and speaking only for myself (clearly Donald and I differ here, for example) I will generally listen to my dog, unless I know something (e.g., dangerous terrain) the dog doesn't. It's funny that you mention Andy, because I think he was the one who recently wrote an essay on sending his dog to the side the dog didn't want to go and the disastrous consequences of having done so. And how he initially blamed his dog but later came to realize that it was his mistake as a handler?

 

Anyway, if we look at other elements of work at a trial, as Emily has already mentioned above, the smart handler listens to his or her dog. If you know your dog then you can generally tell when the dog is simply being disobedient and when the dog believes it is right (and when that's the case, the dog usually is right). Again, it's about trusting one's dog. <--This is important to me because I sometimes ask my dogs to work in situations where I can't see what's happening, and so I have to trust the dog to do the right thing and do it well.

 

I think where people get caught up with trials is watching someone successful like Bev Lambert, who has publicly stated that she wants "millimeter tolerance" on the fetch, and assuming that all trialers have the same aspirations. My aspiration is actually for my dog to do a silent gather and more often than not I leave my dog completely alone (or nearly completely along) to do that phase of the work. If the judge prefers a dog who is whistled every step of the way and keeps the sheep within millimeters of the center line of the fetch panels, my silent gathering dog probably is going to lose points, but that's okay, because to me a silent gather, showcasing the dog's innate ability, is what I like and is something that I consider to be an important characteristic of the breed--a characteristic worth maintaining within the breed. Just as Debbie noted how pleasing it was for people to come up to her at a cattle trial having recognized the good work her dog was doing, so I too like it when people remark to me how nice my dog is to do that work herself, and beautifully, with minimum input from me.

 

It's frustrating to me when people who don't trial assume that all trialing folk are the same, train the same, want the same type of dogs, and have the same goals. My goals and training style aren't the same as Bev's, or Alasdair's, or Donald's. I have had success on the trial field even so. But I am not trying to make a living out of trialing, so I don't need to bend to what might be popular, even if the average spectator thinks we all think and act the same. I would never make that assumption about farmers because I recognize that even two people with similar sized operations and the same types of livestock might have very different needs and ideas about how they want to run their show.

 

J.

 

 

Say in a trial you send your dog out to the right but it crosses over to he left because it really does know better then you, do you not lose points at a trial?

If it repeatedly ignores you and crosses over do you not risk disqualification?

Andy Nickless addresses the point in " Farm dog vs Trial dog". Google should find it as I can't post a link.

[Debbie Meier]

lol "the smart handler", nice put down to everyone who has a dog that goes into business for itself, clearly they are not owned by one of "the smart handlers"

[Sue R]

lol "the smart handler", nice put down to everyone who has a dog that goes into business for itself, clearly they are not owned by one of "the smart handlers"

What? Wherever was this a put-down of anyone? It is common sense that a handler takes into account what the dog, the one who is bred for stock sense and instinct, and who also has preferences and individual strengths and weaknesses, is communicating. This is a partnership, two working together, not in opposition. And it's the same with the stock, that the handler needs to take into account what the stock are communicating for the best results, on the farm/ranch or on the trial field. But there are certainly handlers who do neither, and they are either ignorant, inexperienced, or stubborn.

 

And I do have a dog that "goes into business for himself" because he's in the hands of myself, who is not really qualified to make the most of this dog and his strengths as well as his weaknesses.

[Pippin's person]

As Maxi noted some pages ago in a very fine post, we are united in our passion for these dogs and for preserving what is great about them. Our understanding of that greatness, as similarly revealed through this discussion, varies in lots of ways.

 

I learned immensely when I first came here (now a decade ago) from people who were willing to answer my questions and point out where my understanding of something was incomplete. My observation is that over the last several years there are far fewer questions asked here about stock work and far more assertions made. This leads to conversations taking different turns than they otherwise might. As most learning science shows, we can only learn from being wrong and then trying again.

 

I was wrong to react to something I perceived as disrespectful a page or so back and I apologize for that.

[Mark Billadeau]

You can tell people what you know all day, it's not going to help them understand that what they have seen is not the way it is when instead of trying to relate folks are trying to discredit and belittle.

I have tried telling people what they have seen is not the way it is everywhere; and what I get in return is they know and I don't know. When we have inquired as to how many different trials have been observed we are told, enough to know how it is. (Clearly not belittling)

 

 

 

 

So now I wait to read what constitutes enough work to be considered a farm dog. There needs to be a clearly defined standard for farm dog and the work required for a farm dog for an outsider (since those who trial do not seem to be considered farmers) to know how to select the right dogs for breeding farm dogs? Simply saying "get the job done" does not help since "the job" is not defined nor is the quality of the work defined (and these will vary greatly by farm and farmer). Without a standard each farm is left to breed its own dogs to satisfy their own standards.

 

 

While you consider these keep in mind that only 6% of the sheep operations east of the Mississippi (ca. 1200 farms) keep more than 100 sheep and these farms hold only 39% of the sheep east of the Mississippi.

[KnottyClarence]

we have talked in this story about courses made too easy--what would constitute a trial course made too hard?

[Eileen Stein]

Re: Independence.

 

One morning I walked into a field with my dog Spot, to worm sheep. Spot would certainly be considered a trial dog, as I do not make my living or any significant part of it from my sheep. As I walked in at the top right of the field, I saw that the sheep (30 or 40) were down at the bottom right, maybe 400 yards away, communing with their buddies in the next field. I decided that we would worm in a pen (really an airlock) at the top left of the field instead of in the chutes in the bottom left. I walked over and opened the gate of that pen, with the thought that after I'd gotten my supplies out of the upper barn (halfway down the right side of the field), I would send Spot to bring the sheep up to the pen, and they'd probably arrive there before I did, so it would be better if the gate was already open. We walked to the barn, and I went in and assembled my supplies. When I came out, I saw that without a word from me Spot had gone down to the sheep, peeled them off the fence, driven them up to the pen, put them in, and was lying outside the gate waiting for me. Although we had not wormed in that pen before, he must have inferred from the fact that I'd opened the gate that I wanted the sheep in there. I suppose he could have been wrong, but even if he was I'd have been happy with him, because who wouldn't value that kind of initiative and independence in a dog?

 

Nearly every trial handler I know has told admiring stories about how their dog disobeyed them on the trial field and the dog was right. Sometimes the dog has saved their bacon, sometimes not, but they are still proud of the dog as being the smarter member of the partnership on that occasion.

 

There are times in real work when a dog must not cross over on its outrun -- on the hill, for example, when there is a cliff on one side that the handler knows about and the dog does not. That is why crossovers are severely penalized. And I agree with Donald's post #300 that a cross-over is rarely if ever the result of a dog knowing better than the handler: "Once the dog has reached the sheep it may very well read circumstances better than I can but not before." But in general the smart handler does listen to his or her dog.

 

Finally, I know this conversation has been frustrating to many during the course of its progress, but please do not resort to berating one another any more. I don't want to have to play the heavy-handed moderator.

[juliepoudrier]

Thank you, Sue.

 

J.

[Sue R]

Your story about Spot, Eileen, makes me smile. It makes me think of Dan who is not and has never been an easy dog for *me* to understand and work with, but who is very much a dog that can grasp the concept of *the job*. He's the dog that when a calf (or cow) is out, whether it's obviously out by being in the road or not obviously "out" by just being in an adjacent pasture. He sees the animal I'm looking at, he sees where the herd is, and all I have to do is send him to "put her up". Sure, I could direct him with a flank, and sometimes I do "help" him out a bit with a redirect, but he knows that he's got to take her from A to B and does just that. And then he stops right there when she's where she should be because he knows that job is done.

 

I may struggle with him (and myself) for many other tasks but when he knows a certain job and recognizes it, he gets it done with little input needed from me. Those are some of our "magic moments".

[Debbie Meier]

we have talked in this story about courses made too easy--what would constitute a trial course made too hard?

For us, with most of our trialing on cattle, it is a combination of the livestock being too broke and the course to easy where there is no challenge. If the cattle are real broke we look for ways to make the course more difficult, try to set up things that will challenge the cattle so in turn the dogs are challenged.

 

but if the cattle are not real broke then we need to consider that the course may be asking the dog to do something that they just can't do. For example, if the set out is too close to the back pens, it might be unreasonable to ask the dog to be able to both prevent all three of the cows from breaking back and also create forward motion down the field, so we may need to set the cattle in a different place actually making the outrun shorter. With that said, we still have to look at things else where in the course to make certain that we didn't just allow dogs that were inferior to gain a unfair advantage over better dogs, that will usually right itself on the drive and cross drive so long as you don't go overboard trying to protect the dogs.

 

I think it's one thing to test dogs, but quite another to set them up to fail.

 

At cattledog finals this year the first day the at hand obstacles were opened way up, if the cattle had been broke like other years the course would have been too easy, but if we had set up the obstacles like we did for the years where the cattle were more broke it would have been near impossible for any dog to get the at hand obstacle completed, the cattle were too fresh and to ready to run in three different directions. With each round we then tightened things up, raising the difficulty to compensate for the cattle gaining a education, we also changed the angle of obstacle entrances which changes the balance and control points.

 

When we look at the obstacles we also factor in handler assistance, to make certain that we don't set it up where the handler does more work then the dog or can make up for weakness in the dog, with that said we also have to make certain that we don't set it up where the handle can't help when it truly is needed and the requirement is unreasonable for the dog to handler without the handler. Example would be like if you were to ask the dog to pen without the handler at the pen, we have that with cattle with some obstacles, there is just no way that the dog can cover all the draws and force the cattle into the obstacle at the same time.

 

I ideally would like to see each obstacle or requirement take some dogs out of the game, maybe not entirely but have it where they clearly took more time so then they have less to complete the other obstacles or where they lose points for those obstacles/requirements actually identifying where the dogs weaknesses, struggles are.

[Eileen Stein]

Your story about Spot, Eileen, makes me smile. It makes me think of Dan who is not and has never been an easy dog for *me* to understand and work with, but who is very much a dog that can grasp the concept of *the job*. He's the dog that when a calf (or cow) is out, whether it's obviously out by being in the road or not obviously "out" by just being in an adjacent pasture. He sees the animal I'm looking at, he sees where the herd is, and all I have to do is send him to "put her up". Sure, I could direct him with a flank, and sometimes I do "help" him out a bit with a redirect, but he knows that he's got to take her from A to B and does just that. And then he stops right there when she's where she should be because he knows that job is done.

 

I may struggle with him (and myself) for many other tasks but when he knows a certain job and recognizes it, he gets it done with little input needed from me. Those are some of our "magic moments".

 

Yes! I especially love it when you're engaged in a specific task with the dog, one that may not be going well, and you make a very small movement, and based just on that movement your dog grasps what your plan is, what your part of the plan is going to be, and what his part needs to be. Magic indeed.

[mum24dog]

Dear Ms. Mum,

 

No. When you cite or quote it I'll be happy to.

 

Donald McCaig

 

Post 299. Giyf.

[Eileen Stein]

we have talked in this story about courses made too easy--what would constitute a trial course made too hard?

 

Interesting question.

 

Usually the sheepdog finals rotate around the country, but ten years or so ago the finals were held for three straight years in Sturgis, SD. The first year not one handler-dog team was able to complete the international shed. I was scribing at one point for a judge from the UK, and it was his opinion that the range ewes being used were so large and belligerent that no dog could be able to accomplish it. There was much discussion about whether the task was too difficult. It was not good fodder for the spectators. But it was felt that the dogs should be able to manage it, so it was retained for the next two years with the same type of sheep. IIRC, no one was able to accomplish it the second year either. But the third year, several dogs (five, I think) were able to do it. So I would say it wasn't too hard after all -- it was extremely challenging and demanding, but it could be done with strong dogs + experience + a lot of analysis + stepping up your game. Everybody learned from it. (I think I'm recalling the details accurately, but if not, somebody correct me.)

 

So I'm trying to think of what would constitute a course made too hard, and the only thing that comes to mind is if you made a course where it was impossible for a dog to get where he needed to be to control the sheep -- for example, if you put panels too close to a fence for the dog to get into the right position. Or maybe if the vegetation prevented the handler from seeing where the dog and/or sheep were for a prolonged part of the drive, so s/he couldn't direct the dog and the dog would have no way of knowing where it was supposed to take the sheep (out of sight for brief periods is not a problem). I've seen many modifications of trial courses to use natural features of the terrain (driving sheep up a rock face, for example, or zig-zagging through three big rocks, or fetching sheep across a dam between two ponds), and never felt they were too hard.

 

I dunno -- what do other people think?

[Liz P]

This past spring I ran in a trial in the Northeast (gasp! hot bed of "weak trial dogs"). Due to weather conditions, the field had not been hayed at all. The grass was up to my chest in places. In others, there were bog like conditions with deep standing water. It was interesting to watch, though frustrating at times as a handler. The judge did make concessions. Because you couldn't see the dogs or sheep standing at the handlers post during the cross drive, you were allowed to walk back up the hill and stand near the judge's tent once you finished the turn at the post.

 

Many a dog was lost before their run really started. They refused to even attempt an outrun or got lost during the outrun, never finding the sheep. My dogs, who are technically trial dogs (had the dogs before I got into stock work) ran out with confidence. My dogs have been used plenty of times for real work on commercial farms. I've never taught them to do this, but they slowed up several times during their outrun and porpoised through the grass to catch sight of the sheep and readjust their course. One even paused at the top of a hill to stand on his back legs and have a good look.

 

Yes, you really could tell the difference between dogs who train only to trial (mostly novice level dogs with novice handlers) and dogs who had real work experience. All you had to do was sit and watch the runs unfold. The dogs with real work experience just dealt with the tall grass and went about their business.

 

At another trial this spring there was an extremely long outrun for the Northeast region. Not 100% sure of length (500 + yards), but I couldn't see my dog at the top. Problem was, the roar of a waterfall right near the set out was so loud that dogs could not hear their handlers until they were well down the course. It was a silent gather except for maybe 2 handlers with exceptionally loud whistles. During the drive and cross drive on that course you encountered dead spots and came close to the river again, making hearing difficult. I found the course challenging but very enjoyable because of those challenges. Had I not moved, I would make a point of going back to that trial in the spring.

 

This fall we ran in a trial with fresh sheep that are hardly if ever worked by a dog. They behaved much more like range sheep. Again, very fun to have a new challenge. No fencing and woods at the edge of the field made for a situation in which the sheep were determined to escape and hide. The successful dogs held the pressure and stood up to sheep that charged, stamped and did their best to not cooperate.

 

More later...