2006 National Sheepdog Finals

[bcollie]

I started this discussion on the other boards but thought I would move it to here to get more input. Has anyone given a thought to the 2006 USBCHA National Sheepdog Finals and where it should be held or what you would like to see changed? We (Amy Coapman and myself) are probably going to put in a bid to host the 2006 Finals in Klamath Falls, OR. Call us crazy. We enjoy organizing big trials and we have heard from a lot of people out here that they would like to have it back on the west coast. We have access to the great sheep that we used in 1997 and 2001. (Who could forget Scott Glen's amazing International shed in 2001 and Bev Lambert's Lark's amazing finals run in 1997?) We have great big fields and a lot of local support. The downside is of course that it would be a long ways for those on the east coast but that is why I have always felt we should have an east, central, west, central rotation of the Finals. It makes it easier for more people to attend, gives a variety of sheep and courses and assures that we aren't breeding for a single type of dog that does well on a certain field on a certain kind of sheep.

 

Sturgis has done a tremendous job the last 2 years and will do so again this year I am sure. I understand that Sturgis may be bidding for another 3 years. I do not know if any place else is thinking of bidding. We feel it would be best for the sport if it were to move around as long as the HA doesn't lose money in the process. We have done the Finals twice with very little financial help from the HA and would propose doing that again. As a matter of fact, in 1997, the HA made quite a tidy profit from the Klamath Finals and given their current financial situation, it sounds like they need to do this again. It is a lot of work to raise the $60,000 it cost us to put the event on but we feel confident we could do this once again.

 

Any one have any suggestions or comments? Any thing they would like to see changed in how it is set up? How about the idea of running Open and Nursery concurrently in order to lower the number of days from 8 to 5? This could be done by starting the Open on Wednesday and starting the Nursery on Thursday, using Wednesday's Open sheep for Thursday's Nursery and so on. We are in the midst of putting together our bid and we would like to hear your thoughts.

 

Thanks

Geri

[Denise Wall]

Hi Geri,

 

Since my daughter's going off to college next year I'll have more time to try to make it to the finals in the future. I appreciate you guys' hard work and think you do a great job with the finals. I came in '97 and tried to come in 2001 (couldn't fly the dogs because of 9/11). If you have it there in 2006, I'll try to come again.

 

I think it's important to have a viable bid for 2006 or else it'll end up being in SD for three more years. While I understand they've done a wonderful job, and I look forward to going there in 2005, I hope it won't be there for three more years after that. Personally, I feel it will cause a further drop in USBCHA membership as many people will never have a chance to go to the finals there so they won't join. Rotating the finals has always worked well, except for the re-inventing the wheel thing when it's at a new place. This won't happen if you guys host the finals.

 

As far as the Nursery running concurrently -- I won't have a Nursery dog so take this for what it's worth. For myself, I would have trouble concentrating on the Open if I also had to run Nursery overlapping the Open. It's a pretty big deal, and a long trip. I'd want to give my full attention to each one, one at a time, if I were running in both.

 

Just my humble opinion. Thanks for asking.

[Eileen Stein]

I think it's great that you guys are putting in a bid. Even though I'd rather the finals were moving closer to me rather than farther away, I think it's really important for the finals to move. The folks in Sturgis have done an excellent job, and I'd be all for it going back there in some future years, but I don't think it should be in the same location for three years straight, let alone six. It should move around for the sake of the handlers, so that the same people don't always have a geographical advantage/disadvantage, and it should also move around for the sake of the dogs, so that they are challenged in different ways, with different kinds of sheep and fields. So thanks for bidding! I wasn't at either of the two previous Oregon finals, but I've heard nothing but good things about them.

 

As for the question about running Nursery concurrently -- 8 days is a long time for a lot of folks to be away from home, so I think many would welcome concurrent running. OTOH, Denise's point is a good one, and some people would rather not have to worry about scheduling conflicts and a split in their concentration. My guess is that the numbers with strong feelings in both directions would balance each other out, so you can't go wrong. I do think it's a good idea that, whether concurrent or consecutive, the sheep should be run first in Open and then in Nursery, rather than the way it has been being done. Sounds as if you think so too?

[amc]

Thanks Denise and Eileen for your input! We hope to hear more from lots of folks.

 

Geri and I both think it makes for a better Finals when the dogs have a chance at success. It's a shame that there have been no completed courses in the last two Finals despite the quality of handlers and dogs. We feel that our sheep are quite manageable if handled deftly, and therefore would provide a great test and a great opportunity to showcase good dog work.

 

As far as shortening the duration of the trial by running Open and Nursery concurrently...we are aware of the problems encountered by those who cannot leave their homes for such an extended period. Plus, the Finals staff are burdened by a long event. The HA would save a fair bit of money by not having to provide housing and upkeep for the Secretaries, Officials and Judges for the additionals days. Our bid would not be contingent on this plan, but we are hoping the HA will consider it as an option.

 

We actively solicit more input, so please feel free to fire away!

[Jennifer Glen]

When they first asked everyone if they wanted it for 3 years in the same place, I was against it but after I went to Sturgis, I changed my mind. I like that it is central and it could build an audience if it stayed in the same place. They know they messed up on the vendors and advertising. The Chamber of commerce just didn't realize that you have to hustle in our sport to get vendors. They figured that people would find it an honor to have a booth at the National finals and now they know. They have experience in building a public following, it's just been a long time since they have had to do it. I would expect them to improve upon that by next year (if they didn't then it would be time to move it) HOWEVER, before this past year, the only other finals I have been to was the 2001 Klamath finals and that kicked butt in overall presentation and spectator attendence (something that trialers may poo-poo but is necssisary for this sport to grow i.e. make money). If it wasn't going to go back to Sturgis then I would love it if it was back in Klamath. They did a great job the last time.

Jenny

[Denise Wall]

Amy wrote:

 

It's a shame that there have been no completed courses in the last two Finals despite the quality of handlers and dogs.

I've debated whether to express my point of view on this but I've decided I'm going to.

 

I fully support the finals moving from SD as I've said, however, I firmly believe that if the sheep are too hard, then we should get better not find easier sheep. It is the finals after all, and it shapes the breed. It should showcase the best dogs and handlers. If the dogs and handlers need to change to work hard sheep, then so be it. Isn't that the point of trials? To improve the breed for work?

 

If those sheep used in the SD finals were my sheep, I'd find a way to work the sheep I had. And if I couldn't, I'd either work harder until I could, breed dogs who could, or both, whatever is the problem. I think you should be expected to work whatever sheep you have, be it at home or at a trial. I'm not saying I can always do that, but it's goal I strive for. JMHO.

[blackacre]

Well, I've heard it said that while the first year the sheep were impossible to shed, the second year they were difficult to shed but still sheddable, it just so happened that nobody accomplished it within the time allotted. Sounds like pretty good Finals sheep to me.

A.

[Valhalla]

SD is not really centrally located and Oregon is further away than that. Of course, I've only been in the sport since 1999, so besides VA and TN, when has the Finals been on the East Coast?

[amc]

I did not mean to imply that we need easier sheep at the Finals; indeed, the sheep should be of the highest quality so as to offer the most consistent and challenging test of the dogs. Those of us who work finewools frequently are aware of their traits, just as Barbados are different from St Croix or Dorpers, wool sheep have their unique idiosyncrasies when it comes to their responses to the dogs. I believe the Purdue website catalogues several sheep breeds viz. their handling characteristics.

 

My experience with Rambouillets is that they become very tame rather quickly when handled judiciously with good dogs. When they are unaccustomed to dogs, or when the canines they are used to seeing are coyotes, they are easily put into survival(fight or flight) mode, and these are the conditions the dogs face in the first go-round of the National Finals (and at other great trials as well). Many times the luck of the draw can come into play with ultra-fresh sheep. Sheep from commercial flocks are still testy with strange dogs but at least they are somewhat accustomed to people, sounds, and just being handled in general. Poor or substandard work is not going to be rewarded, yet the stellar runs will really shine.

[bcollie]

National Finals Locations:

1982 Savannah, TN

1983 Ramer, AL

1984 Crawford, TX

1985 London, OH

1986 London, OH

1987 ??

1988 Belleville, IL

1989 Belleville, IL

1990 Belleville, IL

1991 Sheridan, WY

1992 Fort Stockton, TX

1993 Meeker, CO

1994 Lexington, KY

1995 Sheridan, WY

1996 Lexington, KY

1997 Klamath Falls, OR

1998 El Reno, OK

1999 Middletown, VA

2000 El Reno, OK

2001 Klamath Falls, OR

2002 Lebanon, TN

2003-05 Sturgis, SD

[Denise Wall]

Sorry, Amy. I wasn't trying to pick on you personally. I've heard several people say the finals should be moved because no one was completing the course in SD. I was expressing my own personal views on that sentiment.

 

I know the sheep are also challenging in Klamath Falls. The finals should be moved so the top dogs can have an opportunity to show themselves on all the different types of challenging sheep around the country. Thanks again for being willing to allow USBCHA that opportunity.

[Shoofly]

Hi Amy -

 

I like the idea of running Open and Nursery concurrently. If it's going to be soooo far from us here in the East, at least we won't be away from home for quite so long. I'd like to see the Finals move too, i don't like seeing it in the same place year after year for a lot of different reasons. I heard great things about the last Oregon Finals.

 

I actually like the idea of having the Nursery and Open finals as totally separate events. I think the top Nursery dogs would be a lot more celebrated that way. 10 minutes after Nursery ends, with the way it's set up now, everyone's forgotten about it and started concentrating on the Open.

[Eileen Stein]

A couple of the handler/dog teams came close to completing the international shed last year, and Scott Glen would have had it in another minute (IMO as a spectator). However, you couldn't help being impressed with how very, very hard it is, given the size of the sheep (bigger than any sheep I've seen at the Internationals, that's for sure), and their lack of respect for the dogs, and the gripping strictures. It IS a downer, from the audience's point of view especially, never to see the shed completed, and while I wouldn't advocate moving the trial for that reason, and I do take Denise's point, I think it's a legitimate consideration. Mainly I think it's good to have varied types of sheep for the finals, rather than always having the same type.

 

I guess Sturgis is central, if you look at the whole US and Canada landmass, but I'm not sure that makes it more desirable than a moveable finals. If it were permanent, that means people near SD will always be at an advantage, and people on the coasts will always be at a disadvantage, and some of them will rarely if ever be able to go. Moving it around would at least even it out a little. I have some hope it might come back to VA in a few years, or at least to KY.

 

The audience at Sturgis was interesting. I made it a point to hang out in the public seating for part of the time both years. The first year it was striking how little the spectators knew about sheepdog trials, and yet how much they knew about sheep. A combination I hadn't run into before. By the second year they knew about sheepdog trials, or at least enough of them did that they could explain a lot to those that didn't. I have no doubt that the Sturgis folks would work at building up a following, and would do a good job, but they're inevitably going to be limited by the low-density population of that area. Venues where there's a higher population density who did as good a job would inevitably get a bigger gate, I should think.

 

Just a few thoughts, and very rambling ones they are.