Anti merle prejudice

[GentleLake]

As for last names, that individual...

 

Except it's been more than one individual . . .

[Sue R]

I stopped because I had no intentions of being a perennial Novice. We had our successes and we had our losses, all of which were educational. I don't consider it "sad" but my choice. No one discouraged me; in fact, my friends all encouraged me and were quick to point out positives in our work and help in recognizing things we needed to fix. It was totally my decision, for my own reasons. Like riding a bike, if I was never capable of taking off the training wheels, I might have chosen to try a different form of transportation.

 

I will make the decision to try it again when I feel I want to; I have the time, resources, and dog to do so; and if I want to compete. I am not a competitor at heart and so that is not something that would drive me to trialing - testing myself and my dog on different stock, at a different location, under different conditions, would be the reason, not the desire to compete. Wanting to compete was never a motivator for me. Wanting to learn more about myself as a handler and my dog as my partner in getting a job done better was the motivator.

 

Preparation for trials was never a motivator, either. Training to be able to do a job better was a motivator: to understand my part as handler and my dog's part in our team; to understand the stock better (I do a lot of stockwork "on foot" and learn a lot about stock as I am acting as the "dog" sometimes); and to be able to prepare for the work the our farm requires.

 

Meanwhile, that dog has been my right hand on our small farm for eleven years now, getting the job done helping us to manage a herd of 30 Angus cows and their calves (plus a bull). Some of our jobs are easy, some are challenging. Some of the work's been pretty, some's been not-so-pretty. I would not trade him for the world.

 

As for Mark, I've know Mark for over ten years now and admire and respect him enormously. He doesn't waste a lot of words and I find him to be worth listening to when he has something to say.

 

Sue, you should not have stopped trialling for the reason given. Everybody has their own life and considerations, but that is sad. I think competitors unintentionally give signals that impact on beginners, who are already in vulnerable places. Perhaps it was completely your own decision, others urging you to stay. Over the years, that is not what I have seen in this craft.

 

I say get back to it at whatever level you feel comfortable, with whatever dog is able, within the driving distances and time you have available. If you never get that dog you mentioned, or sufficient time to practice and travel, it doesn't matter. If you like competition and preparation, stick with it.

 

As for last names, that individual in private initiated a good deal of disrespect toward me and my lifestyle as it relates to border collies, trial prep, and competition. Having taken enough, I responded in kind. My feelings toward him will not change. -- TEC

[Sue R]

So, back to merles, anyone?

[TEC]

Preparation for trials was never a motivator, either. Training to be able to do a job better was a motivator: to understand my part as handler and my dog's part in our team; to understand the stock better (I do a lot of stockwork "on foot" and learn a lot about stock as I am acting as the "dog" sometimes); and to be able to prepare for the work the our farm requires.

Well spoken. As I like to say: me, my dog, sheep and stockmanship. That is a good day.

 

Practical work on a farm, and occasional trials with the needed prep, for me, is a balanced approach. -- Regards, TEC

[Mark Billadeau]

CMP, the one thing that should be clearly stated for you is that in order to excel as a trial dog regionally or nationally, that dog is also being used for farm chores at home.

[GentleLake]

So, back to merles, anyone?

 

 

LOL I was thinking the same thing. Talk about a thread taking a tangent.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

>>>You and a couple others on this discussion board have already indicated they wish to go after the fact that my dog and I are very happy running USBCHA nov-nov, pro-nov, and informal unsanctioned arena and open field trials, all a reasonable distance of my home. I have given so-called moving-up a good deal of thought/consideration over the years, and decided that we are satisfied just as things are. I will not go into all the reasons for now. <<<

 

Wrong. I wanted to know your recent trial experience as last time I saw you, I judged your Novice run a few years. By your postings, it seemed like you had advanced to perhaps to the Upper classes and how you and Josie did.

 

 

What I dont like is if some disagrees with you, how you respond.

 

Back to Merles and candied colored dogs

[juliepoudrier]

I agree with Mark. I don't think anyone has been denigrating farm dogs, or dogs who work on farms for a living, if that's more acceptable. One of my own dogs has done nothing but farm work and set sheep at trials so other people could compete for the past four years. Last weekend, I set sheep with a different dog and ran him in open. We did so-so on Saturday, and on Sunday we tied for first, tied in the run off, and I conceded the win because my dog was showing lameness. So it is possible for a dog who does mainly (or only) farmwork to be trained sufficiently to do well in an open trial.

 

But the fact remains that trials test versatility in the dog when it comes to unknown terrain and unknown stock. That doesn't mean that farm dogs don't work hard or don't work well; it just means that they are being tested with less variety (generally) compared to dogs who also go to trials. I think I remember you, CMP, mentioning that your family actually even chooses different dogs who excel at different jobs to get the work done. All anyone is saying is that trials may actually help showcase the dogs who are able to excel at more than one type of job.

 

J.

[CMP]

Unless "the job" is pretty simple and easily mastered due to constant repetition with the same stock, fields, and situations day after day, week after week, year after year. I am not suggesting your father's dogs work solely under those circumstances, but many, many "farm dogs" do. And to believe that is the most valid test of a border collie is doing the breed a gigantic disservice.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree, I suppose. It's all good.

 

It seems to me that the best way to test dogs bred to do a certain type of work, is to get them to do that work.

 

But others have other opinions and I read them and see the merit in the arguments. I admit to some drift, if not shift, in my perceptions of late.

 

I do not believe I am doing the breed a disservice but I will be thinking carefully about what you have said because of all the things in this world I would hate to have done, that would probably be on my list.

 

Maybe here (in this thread and others - not this specific conversation) we have a fairly good example of the divide between non trialling farmers with their dogs and trial people and trial farmers with their dogs. It's a lack of respect and it seems to go both ways.

 

I know I seem like I am sticking my nose in where it has no business as someone who does not trial and does not work stock - and that makes sense - but I actually have the same aim as all of you and I would very much like to see the divide removed as it stands in the way of the breed's future, in my opinion.

 

And yes, I am done now. Back to ... what was it ... Merles?

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Posters,

 

I can't say I'm particularly interested in the MERLE QUESTION which is unresolvable and hasn't been resolved in previous discussions here. I think there's more juice in the questions: do trials actually improve our bloodstock or weaken it. If the former or latter, how?

 

Sheepdogging is done on an apprenticeship model. It, though country courteous, invariably defers to the Big Hat though he/she may be inarticulate (none are unintelligent) and scratches where he/she probably ought not publically scratch.

 

This can frustrate intelligent, studious, kind natured novices whose opinions may be carefully considered and, in fact, true.

 

When I was a novice I'd walk into a Big Hat confab and they'd shut up or go walk their dogs.

 

Ideas of how we ought do things, however well thought out and potentially useful simply won't be considered until and unless their proposer has demonstrated his/her commitment to the dogs. One need not win trials. Many, who've rarely won trials but have hosted trials or clinics, been there for the grunt work at trials, served on those time sinks: state, regional and national boards, or otherwise shown our community that their love of the dogs is large and genuine will be heard. Do the work and you'll be heard.

 

Donald McCaig

[Sue R]

I've given more thought than I should to the concept of what being a lower-level participant in an activity along with being a viewer of the activity or videos of the activity actually does in terms of making one knowledgeable about the activity. Mind you, there's nothing I enjoy more than watching a sheepdog trial (especially the outstanding handler/dog teams in a challenging trial) or watching training videos, or reading books about it. but I've come to these conclusions.

 

Let's liken it to figure skating - let's say I have done some figure skating, going around in circles at a rink, doing a little skating backwards, changing direction, doing some small circles, just beginner stuff, for the enjoyment of it. And I've watched a lot of videos of figure skating competitions, especially enjoying watching the Olympics. I've kept a keen eye on what each skater was doing, listening to the commentary as good moves and bad moves were described. And I can absolutely enjoy every moment of what I am doing on the ice.

 

But no matter how much I piddle around at a low level of skill and achievement, no matter how many videos I watch of even the highest level of competitors, none of that makes me a "figure skater", none of that really allows me to understand all the dynamics of what is going on when someone is training and then competing at a high level of performance and skill.

 

And I'm certainly in no position to tell someone who competes at those high levels just what needs to be changed in the world of figure skating.

 

Maybe that's a bit like what I am in the sheepdog world - a low-level achiever, a lover of watching trials and videos, but not someone in any position to make judgment calls on what sheepdog trials should or shouldn't be.

 

Pardon me for rambling but I've had a lot on my mind very recently and sometimes I just diverge to keep myself thinking about something else...

[Liz P]

"But no matter how much I piddle around at a low level of skill and achievement, no matter how many videos I watch of even the highest level of competitors, none of that makes me a "figure skater", none of that really allows me to understand all the dynamics of what is going on when someone is training and then competing at a high level of performance and skill.

 

And I'm certainly in no position to tell someone who competes at those high levels just what needs to be changed in the world of figure skating." <-- THIS

 

I would love to see some new obstacles and elements added to Open trials just to add variety, but I fully understand the limits of time. Longer courses mean fewer runs available. Sometimes I enter AHBA trials just for the variety, but I don't see them as an adequate test of breeding quality.

[TEC]

I suspect many farmers have the same problem as I sometimes do on this board. (No, they don't talk too much and annoy people, the *other* problem).

 

The disparaging attitude many trial folks seems to have for working dogs. Farm dogs, I believe they are referred to, and not usually in a positive way. In this very thread I have seen suggestions that the *real* test for a BC is a trial.

 

I believe the real test for a BC is work. A trial can prove the test, a trial can cull out the best working dogs, a trial can show off a handler's skills, but that dog - if he cannot work on a farm - is a useless (in context) dog, no matter how lovely and stylish his outrun. Full stop.

 

I do believe trials, in conjunction with real work, are an excellent way to establish good breeding lines. But if farm dogs are considered "less than" because it's just about "getting the job done" then .. meh ... I don't understand. It *IS* about getting the job done.

 

Isn't it?

You are correct. As I understand it, you are saying the ultimate goal of trials and breeding is to produce the very best Border Collie to work the farm. That should be what USBCHA and breeders are working toward. Do not let anybody tell you differently.

 

In March-April 2012 issue of International Sheepdog News Magazine, the official publication of ISDS, Roy Goutte' in his article entitled, "The Farm Dog - what's the story?" examines the "slow demise" of the all-round farm dog. Goutte' is a regular contributor to that respected periodical.

 

Goutte' states:

 

"Shepherding with dogs is on the decline as we all know, and the use of the four-wheeled bike is taking over gradually from dogs, except those regularly working on the more rugged terrains; 'the real dogs', as it was once put to me. A comment I don't totally disagree with. Born and raised on a farm rather than in somebody's town house they are introduced to stock and work from the word go, and develop wonderful balance, foresight, a seamless gear-change and brains. They are not robotic or push-botton dogs, but dogs that fit in with their working environment and master it. These are the dogs that we should be breeding from, not the weak dogs pushing a few light sheep around a trial course on a Saturday and often looking back, continuously waiting to be told exactly what to do next."

 

Goutte' says that the farm dogs he trains are a joy to handle and that their work ethic is matchless. They have a thirst for work, and boundless enthusiasm. He says "without hesitation" that the unregistered farm dogs who come to him for training, are for the most part better sorts than those registered ones he sees, and that they can "work all day". Goutte' uses the successful example of unregistered farm dogs' line-breeding to suggest changes to registered dog breeding practices.

 

"What we often see in the registered dog today, it seems to me, are inferior working bitches being put to often soft or weak dogs, but in masterful hands, they are winning trials on flighty sheep that almost disappear over the horizon when a 'real' dog appears. The stronger powerful type of dog is at a disadvantage, and the weaker type that lies well off its sheep in those good hands, and is commanded around the course every inch of the way wins many trials. Consequently, these are then the dogs that are being bred from to the detriment of the breeding programme. I feel and find it very disheartening. I call it 'breeding to the handlers' and not to the dogs at all."

 

His article, IMO, calls for a look at the way trials are conducted. They should be fairer test of varying types of dogs. He condemns over-commanding. He also lays a good deal of responsibility at the feet of breeders to improve the BC. In order to obtain farm dog qualities, Goutte' wants to see less outcross breeding among champion trial dogs and more line-breeding back to suitable targets. He decries an inherent tension between need for a "weak" "commanded" trial-bred dog, and breeding more-so for farm qualities. I understand his heart-break.

 

CMP, you nailed it. That guild hierarchy nonsense top trialers want you to believe is complete BS. Guilds (which flourished in Middle Ages) were monopolistic secret societies that controlled cities/towns. Truth is truth, and doesn't depend on how many USBCHA trials you have competed or won, or even a secret handshake. And think about it, "just piddlng around" your family's farm (in post #161 she claimed that I and many others are piddlers ) you have arrived at a great truth. Clearly, you are in fact not piddling, and have accumulated a wealth of experience from your farm, and have learned from your family's masters. As to breeding, you will hear cries that line-breeding = inbreeding, as if it's something bad. Don't believe it. In responsible breeders hands, it isn't. As you know, all dogs are inbred. You vastly underestimate your dog knowledge and hands-on experience. Don't apologize, please. As far as I am concerned, you have earned your stripes. Hang in there. HIgher level trialers than me will learn to value your words. -- Kind regards, TEC

[DeltaBluez Tess]

I hope people realize that quite a few of the Open folks have sheep farms and use their dogs. If y trial dog couldn't work on the farm, then she/he would not be a trial dog.....my dogs have to be able to do farm work first....in fact, my top Open dog (Tess now deceased) was from farm stock, mainly cattle farm lines......if they didn't work, they were taken behind the barn and *gone*....best farm dog and trial dog I have ever had. If we would do a poll, I would bet most of the Open folks have a farm or worked with stock as well as their dogs. I know for a fact that having this farm has made me a far better handler than when I was a city gal who had some part time access on sheep when my dog was a Novice dog.

[TEC]

I've given more thought than I should to the concept of what being a lower-level participant in an activity along with being a viewer of the activity or videos of the activity actually does in terms of making one knowledgeable about the activity. Mind you, there's nothing I enjoy more than watching a sheepdog trial (especially the outstanding handler/dog teams in a challenging trial) or watching training videos, or reading books about it. but I've come to these conclusions.

 

Let's liken it to figure skating - let's say I have done some figure skating, going around in circles at a rink, doing a little skating backwards, changing direction, doing some small circles, just beginner stuff, for the enjoyment of it. And I've watched a lot of videos of figure skating competitions, especially enjoying watching the Olympics. I've kept a keen eye on what each skater was doing, listening to the commentary as good moves and bad moves were described. And I can absolutely enjoy every moment of what I am doing on the ice.

 

But no matter how much I piddle around at a low level of skill and achievement, no matter how many videos I watch of even the highest level of competitors, none of that makes me a "figure skater", none of that really allows me to understand all the dynamics of what is going on when someone is training and then competing at a high level of performance and skill.

 

And I'm certainly in no position to tell someone who competes at those high levels just what needs to be changed in the world of figure skating.

 

Maybe that's a bit like what I am in the sheepdog world - a low-level achiever, a lover of watching trials and videos, but not someone in any position to make judgment calls on what sheepdog trials should or shouldn't be.

 

Pardon me for rambling but I've had a lot on my mind very recently and sometimes I just diverge to keep myself thinking about something else...

Sue, I do not know whether you are talking only about yourself, me (I first mentioned videos in this thread) or people in general.

If about you, don't fall into the trap of so many in this discussion group, always putting disclaimers and apologies at the end of remarkably sage posts. Remember there is a status quo here, which supports a large money-making industry. It has great inertia, and there are strident voices out there wishing to keep it just as it is. It becomes important for those who have influence and power to suppress unwanted voices of those who they do not believe measure up to a standard which is irrelevant to the intended purposes. They have motives to impose numerous false obstacles to the right to speak and be heard. Keep their inherent biases in mind, and it will lift your spirits.

Sorry if something is awry in your life, and hope that your worries evaporate or get better. Look at your big picture. You know it well: A working farm using BCs to manage cattle. Knowledge of canine health matters of which you keep us so well apprised, along with countless caring hours of rehabilitation/therapy work. Selfless volunteer work at many trials, and observing when time permits. You have run a dog in competition. Have numerous friends in trialing, with whom you discuss matters of all sorts, and obtain advice. A good deal of higher education -- post grad if I recall correctly. You are a valued member of the forum, and have been for years and years. You have a lot more in your portfolio than you mentioned above. You have much to be proud of. Erase "low-level achiever" from your vocabulary; hit the delete button. I am impressed, and any sensible person is as well. You have a right to speak and be heard in sheepdog circles. Their problem if they did not take a good BAER test. If you have ideas to make something better, speak them, and keep the pressure on.

You are a figure skater, who is taking a break and intend (based on how much you enjoyed it) to return. Evidently you elected not to take it very far at that time (or perhaps life got in the way), nor did you work hard to broaden/deepen your activities/knowledge beyond the practice rink and watching TV and video. But nobody can take your accomplishment away from you. Be positive about yourself.

Sue says, "And I'm certainly in no position to tell someone who competes at those high levels just what needs to be changed in the world of figure skating." I believe that if you had continued with skating to gain a wide/deep background, you would have observed and collected facts, discovered a way to make things better for the sport (people like improvements, not mere change), researched, developed an entire plan, and submitted it. That word "tell" sounds so unpleasant and final. It rhymes with "yell". Instead, you would have proposed, or suggested, and have kept proposing/suggesting. If interest was shown, you would have clarified questions, and in event part or all was accepted, you would have offered assistance implementing it.

If about me, let's stay on the ice. I have already set-forth my qualifications to speak and be heard about Border Collies, and others can take it or leave it. They are darn good by reasonable standards, regardless whether I have sent dogs from the open post or not. Ice hockey, I love it and am good at it. Played since a kid on the pond and in organized leagues, continuing at college level. Kept it up recreationally far past the minimum of the 50-and-up league. Helped coach little kids. Decided recently that I still had my knees, back and neck, and elected to not test the odds any farther. I have season tickets for our local WHL team, and you can't pry me from the TV for Wednesday Night NHL Hockey. I was an active hockey player, now retired. That is set in stone. A good hockey taunt is, "Hey, learn the game". Nobody says, "Get off the ice, you're no hockey player." I do not just watch a game, I literally mimic in my own muscles the moves a player makes toward the net, or loading for a slap shot. I see blown checks, missed opportunities and clear penalties unnoticed by refs and crowd. Last year I was talking with my buddy in an adjoining seat, who attends practices and never misses a game. Far more than me, although he never played. I mentioned that the defensemen had all season been badly off-net with their slap shots. "Never a bad idea to put the puck on net", is a common coach's refrain, and the assumption is the goalie will be forced to try to make a save, but when he can't see the puck due to a screen or he is is too slow, the red light comes on -- and GOOOAAAAALLLL. I told him that their composite sticks were overly flexible, so that when ice is slapped the stick bends to such an extent that the blade unpredictably snaps back at weird angles, whipping the puck almost anywhere. They needed to get stiffer sticks and/or take more wrist shots. He listened with interest. Wrist shots are slower velocity, but a rocket that completely misses the net is clearly a wasted shot, which may turn-over possession. This year they are making accurate wrist shots from the blue line, and carrying better sticks for slap shots, getting more pucks on the net, meaning greater chance of -- GOOAAALLLL. Hey, I do not know what happened for sure, but the friend goes to practices. Whether relayed to the coach or not, it was the truth, and it worked. Doubt if I can say that I have the proper kind of broad/deep knowledge of hockey and that I have made sufficient contributions to the sport to claim speaking rights. I do not care who takes credit or whether anybody does. Truth and improvement are more or less floating around out there, and it is hard to assign credit. It generally has little to do with one person, or even a group.

Your ice rink story is nice and conjures a pleasant picture, but you did little to grow yourself beyond a few basic moves, watched TV and video (books as well?), never competed at all, and did nothing to gain a really broad/deep grasp of the entire sport such as: talking to advanced skaters, watching live competition, learning the physics, ballet lessons, skating lessons, writing, teaching, giving demos, and a multitude of things associated with learning and contributing to the entire sport. This list is simply illustrative and not exhaustive. It's about the entire package, not merely checking-off items. No one item is indispensable, and a weakness in one area is compensated by unlisted relevant items, or excellence in another area.

You have done and contributed amply in the sheepdog world to speak your mind. People should take notice. That's my opinion. -- Regards, TEC

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Aspiring Sheepdoggers,

 

Mr. Goute isn't on the forum to defend himself so I must content myself by noting the earliest version of his thesis I've read was an article published in 1912 deploring sheepdog breeding that produced soft, too biddable dogs instead of the "grand hill dogs of yesteryear".

 

More recently, I have noticed that those who make most of their livelihood from livestock (here and in the UK) and trial successfully (when they find the time) use the very same dogs for both endeavors.

 

Donald McCaig

[Maxi]

^^THIS^^ I agree with Mr McCaig.

 

Similar to Mr McCaig as far as I know Mr Goute is not on the forum to defend himself, but I do find it slightly odd when he apparently writes (according to TECs post) "What we often see in the registered dog today, it seems to me, are inferior working bitches being put to often soft or weak dogs, but in masterful hands, they are winning trials on flighty sheep that almost disappear over the horizon when a 'real' dog appears" (my emphasis).

 

But Many of the hill sheep (Blackies, Swaledales) are flightly.. A good "working" dog on a farm in the North of England +Wales + Scotland will probably have to be able handle these "flightly sheep" as part of his day job.

 

IMO A good allround dog who can read his stock & use his own initiatve should also have sufficient skill to deal with these in addition to having the power to cope with the heavier commercial breeds that Mr Goute may farm down in the South of England (I don't personally know Mr Goute's circumstances)

 

As is often the case, it's a matter of "horses for courses".

 

However, I've been thinking about the issue over night.. and it seems to me that perhaps the underlying issue is not about 'working' versus 'trial' dogs.. but more what defines a dog as a working/trial dog. (I am presuming here that a Sheepdog trial IS a good demonstration of working skills)

 

If the aim is to promote working ability then is the fact that the grand or great grand parents were able to work &/or trial sufficient reason to justify inclusion in the Stud book?..

 

Obviously this opens a whole new can of worms... but if individuals are really interested in the genetics of the breed and how it relates to work ability then perhaps pedigree alone should not be sufficient i.e. dogs need some "test of merit" in order to remain registered in the stud book

 

just a thought...

 

(but I guess by speculating on this.. it could even get the discussion thread back to discussing Merles!)

 

ETA.. and if asked what test of merit is appropriate..I personally would suggest something with minimum command like 'a silent gather' combined with a drive nd some close work elements (e.g. pen)

[Sue R]

Remember there is a status quo here, which supports a large money-making industry. It has great inertia, and there are strident voices out there wishing to keep it just as it is. It becomes important for those who have influence and power to suppress the unwanted voices of those who they do not believe measure up to a standard irrelevant for the intended purposes. They have motives to impose numerous false obstacles to the right to speak and be heard.

 

Conspiracy theories in the sheepdog world? Oh, my...

 

I think you have missed the entire point of my discussion. I'm sorry if that's my fault for communicating poorly or I wonder if you really didn't want to see the point I was trying to make or just couldn't see the point I was trying to make. I don't think others had a problem understanding it.

 

My part in this dialogue within this topic is over.

[Mark Billadeau]

CMP I have a couple of questions.

 

 

Does your family's attitude about needing to breed dogs for specific tasks stem from the desire to spend as little time as possible training any individual dog?

 

 

Could your family's attitude about needing to breed dogs for specific tasks stem from an exposure to a limited number for lines (or breeding programs) of dogs which may not be as well rounded talent wise as what is available from other lines?

 

 

Wouldn’t is be more economical to have dogs capable of performing every task as opposed to finding/breeding dogs for each specific task?

[Sue R]

Mark - Not CMP but in my case, I have one dog is who is very good at certain tasks (for instance, the outrun and lift, and working pairs diplomatically) and one dog who is very good at certain other tasks (for instance, putting errant calves back into the fence and just working calves, which the other dog does not do well). I would be much happier to have one dog (or two) that I could use for any job and every job, than to have to decide which dog for today's job, and maybe be choosing a dog that falls short of being to help me in a particular aspect of that job.

 

I often joke that if I could take characteristics from each and make two new dogs, I'd have one very good dog and one not-so-good dog. But I'd rather have two dogs that I could count on for any job, even if one was a little better for this job and one a little better for that job.

[Pam Wolf]

Mark/Mr. Billadeau , If you read my post you would see that I knew (in the past) that there was room in the rules for different types of courses and I think the guidelines are fine, however I think the change that needs to be made are towards judges education.

 

Judges education would eliminate the fear (or greatly reduce it anyway) that the judge will allow unsuitable gripping, and would educate judges how to judge better than simply keeping the stock within the line, but rather HOW the stock was kept within the line.

 

I am one of those sheep producers who is leery of having people use my sheep for trials. For the reasons Donald/Mr.McCaig has posted along with an attitude I see too often from the hobby people and that is that the dog is more important than the stock and how it is handled.

 

 

[juliepoudrier]

 

More recently, I have noticed that those who make most of their livelihood from livestock (here and in the UK) and trial successfully (when they find the time) use the very same dogs for both endeavors.

 

Donald McCaig

 

 

But Many of the hill sheep (Blackies, Swaledales) are flightly.. A good "working" dog on a farm in the North of England +Wales + Scotland will probably have to be able handle these "flightly sheep" as part of his day job.

 

IMO A good allround dog who can read his stock & use his own initiatve should also have sufficient skill to deal with these in addition to having the power to cope with the heavier commercial breeds that Mr Goute may farm....

 

I think the above two quotes say what at least some of us have been saying all along. I don't know of any folks personally who keep one dog at home to do the work and another they take to trials (and I can't believe I'm saying this exact thing, yet again, that I've said every time these sorts of discussions come up here and elsewhere). I was on an AKC-oriented herding list for many years. Some of the comments Tom makes (or attributes to Ray Goutte) are remarkably similar to the arguments those folks would make regarding their breed of choice and why X, Y, or Z trial venue (or sheep) wasn't appropriate for their breed (because, for example, the sheep would take one look at the big, black, hairy, upright dog and run for the hills). The AKC folk would routinely point to AHBA trials as being the best test of "real" farm work compared to the so-called "border collie trials." I don't see that either.

 

As people keep saying here, no standardized trial is going to be an exact match of what every farmer or rancher might use a farm dog for. It was never meant to be. Trials were meant to test the basic elements of work that any dog might be expected to do on a farm (gather, drive, separate, pen) but at a high enough level to show real proficiency at those tasks. I've yet to hear a farmer only type say that those tasks aren't ones they do at home. They may or may not do them with the precision and flow one sees at a trial, but that doesn't negate the fact that the skills being tested are the skills one would use at home on the farm.

 

=====================

Sue,

I agree with you on the conspiracy theory thing. As I read that I pretty much stopped reading. I am all for reasoned arguments, but once someone breaks out a conspiracy theory, they've pretty much lost me.

 

=====================

I'm not sure what the relevance is of argument about line- or (in-) bred to this discussion. Plenty of people, me included, use dogs who are more or less line bred. I like the dogs I like because of the attributes that arise from the line breeding that created them. I'm sure others have lines they like for the same reason. But again, I'm not sure what that has to do with whether trials are a good test or whether farm dogs are unfairly kept out of the breeding population. (In fact, I plan to get a pup from a bitch who because of an injury has never trialed and by a dog who had a very limited trial career, but was a main hand on the farm. That dog is a littermate to my very successful, now retired, trial dog, who was also my go-to farm dog during most of her life.

 

The dog I mentioned above is the product of my successful open trial dog (who was also my farm dog) and a dog who was trialed successfully on cattle but as far as I can remember never (or almost never) completed a sheep trial without being retired by his owner, usually for being too pushy and not listening. I chose him as a sire because of the work I saw him doing on his home farm on numerous occasions, NOT because of what I saw at trials (obviously, since those always seemed to end badly at least when the stock were sheep).

 

I don't think I'm alone in making decisions about what dogs I want based on what dogs I like, no matter whether they're trialing or not. And sometimes that makes me wonder if at least on some levels the entire farm dog vs trial dog thing isn't something of a false dichotomy.

 

Yes, there will always be the people who choose to breed trial dogs to trial dogs, but I suspect that many of us who raise sheep (or cattle or goats, or even poultry) do recognize the need for a dog who can do the real work on the farm, too, because we also want dogs who can do that work. Being able to trial successfully is just icing on the cake (for those who can afford to trial), IMO.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Pam (and others),

I think Donald presents a good argument for why producers don't really want to allow their sheep to be used at trials. I know I wouldn't necessarily want mine used at any trial except one at my own place where I could retain control over their care and management during the trial.

 

That said, I think if there were a dialog between sheep producers and folks who want to host trials, some of those concerns could be allayed. Many trials have dropped N/N (don't meant to start another argument on that one) because they were uncomfortable with the handler attitudes toward sheep. I'm embarrassed to say that those attitudes aren't limited (or exclusive) to newcomers to trialing, but inexperienced dogs really are generally harder on stock than fully trained dogs.

 

But, I know of a couple of cases where once handlers went and talked with potential hosts, showed them how good dogs working stock can make chores easier, helped with those chores, and just really opened a dialog, those producers were willing to let their stock be used. I used to help with a demo at a farm near where I lived. Every fall we'd do the demo at this farm's open house. They provided the sheep, which were that year's un-dog-broke ram lambs (usually corriedales or similar). They would get the sheep up to the barn with grain, and I would proceed to dog break them with my fully trained dog(s). They trusted me not to damage their sheep, but also understood that my dog would likely have to bite the occasional nose. The point is that they trusted me and by extension, my dogs. When I work Donald's trial, the owner of that flock regularly stops by to visit with those of us working the top to find out if we've seen anything he should be made aware of because he knows we'll pay attention to those sorts of things and report it to him for the good of his sheep.

 

This subject has come up recently locally as we have been approached by several land owners who would like to host trials but need us to provide the sheep (as I said earlier). The early contacts, who meets the farmer and discusses the use of the land and/or sheep, is of course very important.

 

I would like to think that Donald or Pam would talk with me, see my care and concern for livestock first, watch my dogs work, and then decide that I would be a risk worth taking. But none of that will happen without humility, diplomacy, and dialog/communication on the part of the person/people asking for the use of a flock.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

Judges education would eliminate the fear (or greatly reduce it anyway) that the judge will allow unsuitable gripping, and would educate judges how to judge better than simply keeping the stock within the line, but rather HOW the stock was kept within the line.

 

Some of this will be out of the judge's control if the host has accepted a large number of entires and has therefore set a course time that does not allow the sheep to be walked.

[juliepoudrier]

Agreed, Mark. I know often times are set so that the team who walks or walks/trots the sheep around the course is likely to run out of time at the end.

 

The judge this past weekend specifically stated that he didn't want to see running sheep and would take points for handlers who weren't careful about pace. Refreshing....

 

 

J.