Anti merle prejudice

[TEC]

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).

Maxi, what do you mean by, " ...when he apparently writes... "?

Somehow his name, subsequent to my post, began to be incorrectly spelled "Goute". For anybody wishing to locate the entire article in ISDS News Magazine, it is correctly spelled Goutte'.

Reference flighty sheep that disappear to the sight of a "real" dog, the sentence just following your bolded section is, " 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". So the entire quote in context is:

"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."

In essence Goutte' says that weak breeding accomplishes superficially good things in competition for bad reasons. The dog , inherently weak and bred to the handler's trial needs, requiring training by experienced trialers to be completely commanded around almost every leg of the course, it stays well off flighty trial sheep to, inspite of its inherent weakness, win the trial. That same dog may, in my view, wince at being asked by an inexperienced handler/farmer to move a large heavy flock in farm terrain, not having sufficient power or technique due to its inferior breeding and push button training.

In contrast, Goutte' is saying that strong well bred dogs accomplish good things in the farm environment for which all BCs should properly be bred, for good reasons. Because they do not show well at trials, they are not contributing to a robust breeding program. A strong by nature dog, accustomed to largely using its brains/initiative in its work environment, it has not had the training of an experienced handler to command every inch around a course in order to keep off flighty trial sheep, and likely, IMO, has the same relatively inexperienced handler for competition. Regarding farm bred dogs, Goutte's states:

"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."

In full context it becomes clear, according to Goutte', trial ability of farm bred vs. winning trial dogs is not merely about temperament of trial sheep, but about: 1) quality of their handlers, 2) ability to work completely command-driven around entire trial course, or use its brains/initiative and, 3) having trial breeding, or learning to trial like a weak dog whose strength is in laying well off its sheep.

Do these factors put the weak dog to a competitive advantage, and farm bred dogs to a disadvantage?

Did the farm-bred dog really lose, and the trial bred dog really win? Does the breed win?

I believe there is a lot more discussion in this than has been seen in this thread. -- TEC

[TEC]

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.

Scratching publicly in inappropriate places can be inadvertent bad manners or direct intentional disrespect to those in the room. It is easy to tell the difference. One sign is direct eye to eye contact. -- TEC

[TEC]

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.

You are saying that open sheepdog trialers will ignore and/or deep-six the suggestion of a beginner, yet the same proposal by one of their elite could be well received, and courteously considered?

 

Sounds medieval, like the guilds and secret societies of the middle ages who had monopolistic grips on the economy. A novice/apprentice competitor would never be accepted into the fold, or be expected to do more than his/her fair share to be considered as somewhat of an equal? Folks who suddenly go quiet or leave to walk the dog believe they are the only ones who genuinely have commitment to the breed? The beginner who does some of the things enumerated above, and additional equivalent substitutes, would not have done enough to show commitment to the breed?

 

It is so rigid, military in structure. Not in fact country courteous. Narrow minded. (ETA: see the following post #179, if there is any doubt)

 

A little guy, according to your description in the view of Big Hats, wishing to understand the inner circle. -- TEC

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Aspiring Sheepdoggers,

 

Mr. TEC has written, "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."

 

And, more recently, "I believe there is a lot more discussion in this than has been seen in this thread."

 

I called some fellow strident voices who were kind enough to pause briefly from getting rich in the sheepdog industry to consider whether "farm dogs" were more useful than "trial dogs" and whether trialing, which was explicitly intended to improve the shepherd's dog was having the opposite effect.

 

One said, "Oh dear. That again?" Another suggested I'd use my time more profitably training my dogs. Several of the more influential, I'm sorry to report, hung up on me.

 

If there is to be more discussion of this topic, alas, I shan't be part of it.

 

Donald McCaig

[Maxi]

@TEC "Maxi, what do you mean by, " ...when he apparently writes... "?

I was reporting and commenting on Mr Goutte's words based entirely on your earlier post (apologies for incorrectly spelling his name previously).

However, I do not have the original article to hand. I am therefore inevitably getting his comments 'second hand' from you. Although you probably have quoted his words accurately, I cannot prove this.

IMO it seems entirely prudent for me to clarify this position in the way that I did.

IMHO I think the original ISDS trials were well devised over 100 years ago by working shepherds/farmers. They have stood the test of time.

There is sufficient variety in different trial venues to test any dog to his limits should the handler really wish to do so.

I have given my views on this topic.

As far as I am concerned my part in this debate is now at an end.

[TEC]

 

@TEC "Maxi, what do you mean by, " ...when he apparently writes... "?

I was reporting and commenting on Mr Goutte's words based entirely on your earlier post (apologies for incorrectly spelling his name perviously).

However, I do not have the original article to hand. I am therefore inevitably getting his comments 'second hand' from you. Although you probably have quoted his words accurately, I cannot prove this. (my own emphasis added above - TEC)

....

As far as I am concerned my part in this debate is now at an end.

 

What's wrong with you, dude? Smarten up. I have never heard of anything like the underlined sentence/phrase above anywhere or anytime. I have lived a long time in wide and scholarly circles, and that is a new one on me. If you can't tell, I have taken high offense. My God...I've got a lot more to say, but in the interest of sparing gentle ears, I'll leave it at that.

 

I sense fear in your last sentence.

 

I wish you a wonderful life, and take my permanent leave of you.

 

-- TEC

[TEC]

Dear Aspiring Sheepdoggers,

 

Mr. TEC has written, "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."

 

And, more recently, "I believe there is a lot more discussion in this than has been seen in this thread."

 

I called some fellow strident voices who were kind enough to pause briefly from getting rich in the sheepdog industry to consider whether "farm dogs" were more useful than "trial dogs" and whether trialing, which was explicitly intended to improve the shepherd's dog was having the opposite effect. (my own emphasis added - TEC)

 

One said, "Oh dear. That again?" Another suggested I'd use my time more profitably training my dogs. Several of the more influential, I'm sorry to report, hung up on me.

 

If there is to be more discussion of this topic, alas, I shan't be part of it.

Strange reply, above. An issue (see underlined portion above) that has been discussed since at least 1912 and as recently as 2012 in a respected periodical, and the influential put a lid on it. Their silence makes me question their commitment to the breed, which they hypocritically espouse to the world. I sense folks who do not know, or who do not want to know the answer. Very odd. Why? I am really perplexed and intend to get to the bottom of it.

 

Thanks for getting back to me. I enjoy your books. I appreciate the "alas".-- TEC

[Eileen Stein]

What's wrong with you, dude? Smarten up. I have never heard of anything like the underlined sentence/phrase above anywhere or anytime. I have lived a long time in wide and scholarly circles, and that is a new one on me. If you can't tell, I have taken high offense. My God...I've got a lot more to say, but in the interest of sparing gentle ears, I'll leave it at that.

 

I sense fear in your last sentence.

 

I wish you a wonderful life, and take my permanent leave of you.

 

-- TEC

TEC, you are a lawyer, are you not? I can't believe that a lawyer cannot distinguish between first-hand knowledge and second-hand knowledge. It is all too common for people to believe they know something to be true because someone told them it was true. I appreciate Maxi's distinction. [ETA: Since Maxi was going on to question the logic of what Goutte was quoted as saying, he didn't want to state that Goutte had actually said it without knowing for a fact that he had said it. So he said that Goutte had apparently said it. Seems reasonable to me.]

 

And speaking of someone believing they know something to be true because someone told them it was true, what is it that causes you to put such credence in what Roy Goutte says? Is it just because he has written columns in International Sheep Dog News? What do you know about his background and the extent of his knowledge that would make him an authority on whether trials are a good test of working ability?

 

Normally I would ask you to refrain from personal disparagement, but I suppose you would just regard me as part of the money-making sheepdog-industrial complex hypocritically trying to shut up an unwanted voice, so for now I think it's better to let you continue to reveal yourself in your own words.

[juliepoudrier]

And we circle back 'round to the conspiracy theory....

 

I think one poster has managed to effectively shut down an entire discussion and not even for the right reasons.

 

Sad.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Eileen,

I suspect that Goutte''s (sorry, but to keep everyone happy, that's an intended accent *and* a possessive) reputation among the international sheepdog crowd is of less concern than the fact that his comments support a particular set of beliefs.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

deja vu........Destructo

[juliepoudrier]

^^Yep. Probably best for everyone just to step away now. That may prove the conspiracy theory in some minds, but at least it will end the madness here (except then we also all miss out on the promised missive on how trials could be improved)....

 

J.

[Sue R]

I think there have been some real gems in this topic and I've been glad to be able to read and ponder them. Thanks to those who contributed words of worth and wisdom.

 

Now, everybody into the air-raid shelters, and who hid my tin foil?

[TEC]

TEC, you are a lawyer, are you not? I can't believe that a lawyer cannot distinguish between first-hand knowledge and second-hand knowledge. It is all too common for people to believe they know something to be true because someone told them it was true. I appreciate Maxi's distinction.

Stein, when something is put in quotes, as I did, that means it is verbatim of the original. I need not say that I have the original in my possession, or anything further. I need not have the original, or a photocopy (which I do) in my possession. The quotations marks are my certification that it is in Goutte' 's words. That is how quoting something works all over the world. -- TEC

[juliepoudrier]

Ah, and now we're back to more rudeness because someone asked a genuine question. Tom, I do hope you realize that most discussions like this in which you are involved seem to devolve in this same way. And then you wonder why people don't take your ideas seriously?

 

J.

[Pippin's person]

Until we moved into the fascinating alternative universe where the big bucks are being hoarded by a bunch of guilded masters, this was exactly the kind of conversation that made/make these boards such a great source of information and discussion on stockdog matters. Perhaps it signals an increase for such topics in the future.

[Gloria Atwater]

Um ... what?

Okay, no idea what happened here, so I'll just go vacuum up some dog hair.

[Debbie Meier]

I really don't like seeing novices being dismissed based on lack of experience. Their thoughts and ideas should be received and discussed the same as anyone else's. Sometimes someone who has little to no experience can offer a fresh approach that those within the community can't see because they are too close to the issues and have learned to accept the way things are.

 

We see it often, folks that don't have any experience clearly seeing that there is a problem where as those with all the experience can't see it.

[Sue R]

I've never felt that novices were dismissed here simply because they are novices. I do see and understand people becoming a bit irritated at novices (and I am one myself in terms of the range of my experience levels) who insist that people with experience are wrong (not to mention being part of the money-grubbing elite of the sheepdog world) and they are right, and apparently the only one that sees things clearly. A dialogue goes two ways, not just one.

 

When people of any level of experience put forth good ideas here, they are generally well-received and a good discussion ensues which is oddly civil in our internet world. At least that has been my experience.

[juliepoudrier]

IMO, novices with ideas are great. Novices with attitude are not.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

In some cases it's a defense mechanism that has history behind it. I don't think some realize that they may bring animosity from previous conversations with them into a new conversation actually causing negativity. And it's not always done by the so called novice with the attitude.

[Eileen Stein]

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.

Just wanted to circle back to this before the topic dies. I don't think that we need judges education; I think we need judges who don't need education. One of the ways we keep the trials a good measure of working ability is by having judges who know working ability because they have real experience with raising and managing livestock. I think most -- not all but certainly most -- trial hosts tend to select judges who have this kind of experience and background. Heaven knows there are plenty of them in the trialing community -- it's not all hobbyists, as some have portrayed it. I know that I always prefer to go to trials where the judge knows good quality work and how stock should be handled because s/he's lived it.

[toney]

I'd like to know how to become one of those elite money making sheepdog entrepreneurs. All I've ever noticed is how much raising sheep and cattle and trialing occasionally TAKES out of my pocket. Come on someone! Spill the beans!

[Sue R]

Brief and to the point.

 

IMO, novices with ideas are great. Novices with attitude are not.

J.

[Sue R]

Yes, it's easy to get tired and irritated by the same old thing coming up yet again. But I don't really see attitude on the part of the experienced posters unless there's attitude expressed by the novice first. I might be wrong but that's just not my impression.

 

PS - Friends I know on other animal-related and other boards have said to me more than once that this board is extremely civil and polite compared to much of what they see elsewhere. I think it usually takes a lot to get people acting cranky here.

 

In some cases it's a defense mechanism that has history behind it. I don't think some realize that they may bring animosity from previous conversations with them into a new conversation actually causing negativity. And it's not always done by the so called novice with the attitude.