Red Zone Dog

[workindogs]

Donald,

 

I am appalled that you would repeat such a comment on a public Board....no matter what point you think you're trying to make.

 

Patrick and Riggs have been nearly unbeatable in the West for many years. They deserve better respect than your suggestions.

[Crawford Dogs]

I have seen dogs I thought hopeless win open trials. I have seen promising youngsters ruined by Big Hats who tried to press them into a too narrow mold.

 

Clinics, lessons, and retraining sheepdogs mean Big Hats understand a greater range of sheepdogs than you or I likely do. But their chosen trial dogs fall within a narrower range: the dogs that suit one particular humans skills and understandings.

 

Every of us has a dream of a great dog and no two dreams are identical. When your dream finds your dog, you might just get a National Champion.

 

Donald McCaig

 

I totally agree about pushing dogs at a young age and the relationship (I am NOT getting into the Riggs thing). Loki (the one Debbie was talking about) is (almost) 15 months. I'm learning with him as his breeder, Mary Bolton, teaches us what to do. My experiences before with other dogs are so different that they haven't really set me up for what I'm learning with Loki. When Loki was 7 months Mary said I could send him for a month to her and he would be titled but as brillant as Loki was then I wanted him to grow up and bond with me before embarking on "formal" training. Now that he's 15 months I'm not sorry I waited because we have a bond and working relationship that, although in the beginning stages, is going to be so important in our life together. Loki is now starting formal herding training and might even get lucky enough to stay with Mary to train a bit (Mary may not be "big name" but she's one of the best trainers I know and I'm so lucky to have her training Loki). He will also begin jump grids (agility) with me, begin therapy work, and be my little red man. In 10 yrs when Loki is getting past it, the ribbons won't matter. People will recognize Loki's talent despite my beginner mistakes if they are looking. I feel that its my relationship with him that will make his oneday senior years wonderful and they come faster than we think!

[mjk05]

I am appalled that you would repeat such a comment on a public Board....no matter what point you think you're trying to make.

Really? I can't imagine anyone would read that in the context it's written and possibly think any less of Riggs- or any top dog, because I'm sure that similar things have been thought/said about others.

 

I thought Donald McCaig's comment was interesting and valid, both with and without the specific anecdote, and reflects the universal phenomenon that not everyone's target/bull's eye/Red Zone is located in the same place.

[Eileen Stein]

1. According to Denise's definition, red circle or bull's eye dogs are "the very top working border collies. A working definition might be dogs who are exceptional enough to save a great deal of time and manpower for a livestock operation."

 

2. Donald's point, as far as I can tell, is a commonplace one: Different people have different preferences in dogs. Some find one type of dog easier to work with, some another. They also can disagree somewhat in their evaluation of a dog.

 

3. There must be at least a hundred anecdotes that would illustrate this simple and obvious point without informing Patrick, and the world, that after the Finals a Big Hat was going around saying that s/he was sorry Riggs won because Riggs was not good enough. They would also illustrate the point better, since there's no reason to believe that even this Big Hat whom Donald quotes would not consider Riggs to be a red circle dog.

 

4. The term "red zone dogs" has an entirely different established meaning than Denise's "bull's eye" or "red circle" dogs. It is used to describe dogs who are seriously and perhaps irremediably aggressive and dangerous. To avoid confusion, it would probably be better to use Denise's terminology ("bull's eye" or "red circle") when talking about the top tier of working border collies.

[Crawford Dogs]

1. According to Denise's definition, red circle or bull's eye dogs are "the very top working border collies. A working definition might be dogs who are exceptional enough to save a great deal of time and manpower for a livestock operation."

 

2. Donald's point, as far as I can tell, is a commonplace one: Different people have different preferences in dogs. Some find one type of dog easier to work with, some another. They also can disagree somewhat in their evaluation of a dog.

 

3. There must be at least a hundred anecdotes that would illustrate this simple and obvious point without informing Patrick, and the world, that after the Finals a Big Hat was going around saying that s/he was sorry Riggs won because Riggs was not good enough. They would also illustrate the point better, since there's no reason to believe that even this Big Hat whom Donald quotes would not consider Riggs to be a red circle dog.

 

4. The term "red zone dogs" has an entirely different established meaning than Denise's "bull's eye" or "red circle" dogs. It is used to describe dogs who are seriously and perhaps irremediably aggressive and dangerous. To avoid confusion, it would probably be better to use Denise's terminology ("bull's eye" or "red circle") when talking about the top tier of working border collies.

 

Thanks for the great information!

[Maja]

Far away from both the US and Australia, I understood Mr. Donald's post the same way mjk05 did.

Maja

[juliepoudrier]

Far away from both the US and Australia, I understood Mr. Donald's post the same way mjk05 did.

Maja

Same here.

 

Bashing other people's winning dogs seems to be a sport unto itself in this country; Riggs isn't the only dog (and not the first, nor last) to receive that kind of ugliness from another handler (usually one who was just beaten by said dog, of course). It says more about the person saying it than the dog it's being said about, IMO.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Bashing other people's winning dogs seems to be a sport unto itself in this country; Riggs isn't the only dog (and not the first, nor last) to receive that kind of ugliness from another handler (usually one who was just beaten by said dog, of course). It says more about the person saying it than the dog it's being said about, IMO.

 

Agreed. But should the ugliness be repeated and spread more widely? Dragged into a topic to which it has no obvious relevance, when one can make one's point just as well if not better without doing so?

 

I think much of the sweetness of winning the Finals must come from the thought, "Everybody is happy for me, and can see how wonderful my dog is." The ideal of good sportsmanship is to foster that feeling, not to squash it. I have to say it's nearly incomprehensible to me that someone would post on a widely-read public forum that an anonymous Big Hat said that Riggs shouldn't have won the Finals because he's not good enough. And then say, "But let's not stupidly talk about [i.e., defend] Riggs -- if you do, it'll mean I've overestimated you."

[G. Festerling]

I also did not take the comments in the post as anything else but a report of how people will see (and at times express their opinions wether they are right or wrong but they are theirs to express) things differently. Nothing else.

Don't quite get the fuss.

But on another note, I suppose that if someone is on a forum which is obviously a written format, it may be nessecary to actually read most if not all words and posts for a good comprehension of what is said and suggested. I find myself getting things wrong when I am hurried and skip over posts. Open mouth, insert foot. I am very good at it.

This being only silly and slightly embarrassing when going off the general topic. But quite another story when lashing out in an personal attack or jumping to conclusions.

[juliepoudrier]

Agreed. But should the ugliness be repeated and spread more widely? Dragged into a topic to which it has no obvious relevance, when one can make one's point just as well if not better without doing so?

I don't know, Eileen. To me, the comment was a very clear way of pointing out that even when a dog wins the most important trial in this country and rightfully recieves much acclaim for doing so and also clearly has lots of admirers, there will *still* be someone highly regarded (hence the name "Big Hat") who finds the dog objectionable. I thought it was a prime example of how one dog isn't going to please everybody (that is, that even the big hats will disagree over what constitutes a great dog), which is relevant to the context of this discussion. I guess I disagree that the point could have been made as well without naming names. If, for example, I had tried to make the same point using one of my own dogs as an example, probably many of the folks reading wouldn't know my dog and so wouldn't have any real context in which to place the example. It's unfortunate that readers of this thread took it as a personal affront when I'd be willing to bet that most of us know someone whose dog has been the recipient of such nastiness, or have been recipients ourselves. I doubt Patrick is lying awake at night worrying that some anonymous Big Hat out there doesn't like Riggs.... And if he is, well, I would note that the proof of the ability of his dog is in his consistent winnings over time, with a culminating national finals win, not in what one person thinks of his dog, even if that has been repeated in a public place (and I sincerely doubt that the Big Hat in question confined his/her opinion to just one other person; that is, Donald).

 

J.

[Laurae]

I've noticed that everyone who has expressed disgust that such drivel would be repeated, with the sole exception of Eileen, trials in the West of the United States. It may seem like a "hey, nothing personal meant to Patrick" illustration was being made when you haven't personally competed against the dog in question or seen him time and again dominate the trial field. But when you have, and you read such gossip, repeated by another handler on a public forum, it's hard to not find it disrespectful.

[juliepoudrier]

Laura,

Speaking for myself, I have seen Riggs plenty, have taken lessons from Patrick (have even driven 8 hours one way to go to a clinic with him), and run when Patrick was the judge, and have a great deal of respect for anyone who wins the finals and other big trials, east or west. So I actually do get why people would be offended that someone had the audacity to say something nasty about Riggs, and so I don't think there's some real east-west divide that results from some of us "not having competed against Patrick and Riggs."

 

I would feel the same way if the comment in question had been made about, say, Bev Lambert, or Amanda Milliken, or Tommy Wilson (and trust me, such comments have been made, but I won't repeat some of the more famous ones I heard for fear of starting yet another firestorm). The comments reflect on the speaker and not on the dog/handler team. If someone started a real campaign to convince the world that a particlar person's dog was a POS, then yeah, maybe a group opinion could be formed or changed, but I think one person trying to provide a vivid example and so repeating something said by one other anonymous person isn't going to ruin a dog's or a handler's reputation.

 

The reason I made the comments I did about it being a sport in this country is because it happens a lot, at least IME. No, such comments don't often get posted to public forums, but I guess where I diverge from everyone else is in my belief that such a comment being repeated on a public forum isn't somehow going to make everyone else on the planet suddenly believe that the comments were/are accurate WRT to the actual abilities of the dog.

 

As I noted in my previous post, I think it's often difficult to make a point if you can't give a specific example that people will get. Eileen is saying that a generic example: Dog A won the finals but Handler C thinks he's a POS would have the same impact in a discussion. I disagreed. I understand the position some folks have taken that repeating the comment is in poor taste, but ultimately I don't think doing so will harm Patrick or Riggs, because I have the Pollyanna-ish belief that most people will recognize it for what it is--a vivid example--and not actually believe that the opinion of the anonymous Big Hat somehow carries more weight than the dog's trial record.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

I don't know, Eileen. To me, the comment was a very clear way of pointing out that even when a dog wins the most important trial in this country and rightfully recieves much acclaim for doing so and also clearly has lots of admirers, there will *still* be someone highly regarded (hence the name "Big Hat") who finds the dog objectionable. I thought it was a prime example of how one dog isn't going to please everybody (that is, that even the big hats will disagree over what constitutes a great dog), which is relevant to the context of this discussion.

 

Well, it seems to me that the very fact that so many people, including you, interpret the comment as ugliness/nastiness born of jealousy undercuts its value as an example of the point it was supposedly meant to illustrate.

 

I guess I disagree that the point could have been made as well without naming names. If, for example, I had tried to make the same point using one of my own dogs as an example, probably many of the folks reading wouldn't know my dog and so wouldn't have any real context in which to place the example.

 

How about, "I recall one Sheepdog Finals where a Big Hat said to me, speaking of the dog who had just been declared by three knowledgeable, distinguished judges to be the National Sheepdog Champion, 'It's too bad he won. He's not good enough.'"

 

If it's not about Riggs, as Donald assures us it's not, why make it about Riggs?

 

It's unfortunate that readers of this thread took it as a personal affront when I'd be willing to bet that most of us know someone whose dog has been the recipient of such nastiness, or have been recipients ourselves.

 

Why does the fact that many dogs have been the recipients of such nastiness make it less objectionable to repeat the nastiness?

[Laurae]

Julie, I realize people often talk smack about other people's dogs, and I've both heard my share of that and have been the recipient. It was the repeating of such a disparaging remark on a public forum that surprised and disappointed me. And I know Patrick is a big boy, but he still doesn't deserve to have his National Champion dog publicly trashed.

[juliepoudrier]

Eileen,

I understand your points and rather than continue to argue it, I'm stopping here. It's clear that my minority opinion isn't going anywhere. I guess I just think that maybe if some of this stuff actually got discussed publicly then maybe folks would see themselves, realize how offensive they are, and stop. But as that has nothing to do with what constitutes a red circle dogs, it's probably completely irrelevant to this whole thread and I should have kept my mouth shut (figuratively).

 

Why not just delete Donald's post and all the posts that follow? If there's a strong belief that such a statement should not have been repeated on a public forum, and that's what the majority thinks, then deleting would solve the issue.

 

J.

[Smokjbc]

I thought the point (which I won't repeat) was well-made by Mr. McCaig and I didn't see a problem with it either. I trial (admittedly occasionally these days) in the west, think the world of the person and dog in question and thought the point was illustrated in such a way that didn't disparage anyone. As was pointed out, the dog's trial record alone should stand above any offhand Big Hat remark.

 

This dog, due to the first webcast of the finals, may officially be the most well-known Border Collie to non-working or non-trialing, at least, culture. For the first time, it won't just be the Open handlers who attend the big trials getting to see these dogs work at their best. I thought that made him a good example.

[Eileen Stein]

Why not just delete Donald's post and all the posts that follow? If there's a strong belief that such a statement should not have been repeated on a public forum, and that's what the majority thinks, then deleting would solve the issue.

 

It's not at all clear to me that a majority does share my view, although in any case that's not the standard I'd use in deciding whether to delete a post/thread. Believe me, for every post I delete there are many, many others I wince at, disagree strongly with and would love to delete, but this is a discussion board for people to express differing viewpoints and I try to moderate with a lighter hand than that. Not to mention that by this point the damage has been done.

[nancyp]

To me this has gone WAY off topic anyway....

[PennyT]

I missed the last three pages of this thread initially. I stopped reading it because I thought the OP misunderstood the original essay on the subject which, I think but cannot be sure, in concept was intended to refer to populations, not individual dogs. My take on Denise's first piece was of a generalized view of border collies as bred for stock work. The OP's question was irrelevant: if you know the answer, why ask the question; if you don't know the answer, don't ask the question, others will make the judgement for you. Besides, it is not a question you need to think about. History will answer it for you. To be on the safe side, do not breed and advertise or history will make a damn fool of you. I was a bit surprised that Denise had not clarified.

 

Yesterday I happened to take a look at where the thread went and am aghast. I meant to take the high road and stand above. I can't. One of our failings as a community is not taking a stand over gossip and backbiting and reports of same left unrefuted. Go watch the marvelous DVD. You will see where the points came off: workmanlike both out-bye and in-bye versus pretty but particularized phases of work.

 

Also like other western trialers I am shocked. Hello. Ever been to Heppner?

 

Penny

[Maja]

Penny,

For the ignorant me: "out-bye and in-bye" - what is it?

Maja

[Denise Wall]

Maya,

 

Out bye = work far from the handler (top of the outrun, lift, top of the fetch, etc.). In-bye close to the handler (pen, shed, etc.)

 

Penny,

 

I've checked in on this thread now and again and I don't really know what to say about the strange direction it's gone except you're right, the analogy was meant as a theoretical population. The actual gene pool of the population. The part that seems skipped over in this discussion is my disclaimer before I define the circles, "Please remember all of these categories in this hypothetical situation represent the genetic potential of these dogs. In other words, this is what's in the gene pool. I'm not talking about what people think the dogs are or don't know whether they are or not due to not having tested them."

 

Because this is an analogy representing the genetic potential, that is, what will be passed on regardless of the environment or trainer or number of trial wins, no one truly knows what this genetic potential is for each dog in the grand scheme of things.

 

I spend a lot of time pondering and trying to wrap my mind around the big picture for the breed. I'm not saying I'm even close, but in this oversimplification, I found a more concrete way to imagine the big picture on how working breeds are lost. The thing is, one hears the same things said over and over even when history plainly shouts these things must be false. An example is, "As long as there are working breeders breeding good working dogs, good working dogs will always be available for those who need them." What follows, said or not, is, "So go ahead and breed border collies however you want without worry, because you're not hurting the breed." That sounds logical but history has shown us time and time again that it doesn't, in reality, work that way. Breed after breed after breed has turned into yet another pet or show breed whose true working ability is diluted, sometimes to nothing. This is what the analogy was meant to address. How all these seemingly logical (to some) arguments don't hold water. It's an attempt to simplify and explain why this type of thinking has led to dilution of working traits in the overall gene pool in so many once useful breeds. Border collies are still needed for their original purpose of working livestock. In order to keep the breed from falling apart, all the checks and balances of selection for a good mix of the many traits needed to be good livestock working dogs need to continue with the goal of improving the working ability in each and every breeding.

[Pippin's person]

In order to keep the breed from falling apart, all the checks and balances of selection for a good mix of the many traits needed to be good livestock working dogs need to continue with the goal of improving the working ability in each and every breeding.

 

This seems pretty fundamental and one thing I'd like to know is what it is about Riggs that led the B.H. to make the alleged comment.

 

If the comment was just talking smack, that's one thing. If it was about strengths and weaknesses of a particular dog, that's another. Many folks seem to be assuming it's the former, but I've heard lots of conversations among handlers about the strengths and weaknesses of specific dogs that began similarly to what Donald McCaig put between his quotation marks that really were about the latter. I've heard virtually that same comment on more than one occasion from judges I was scribing for about dogs they themselves placed highly.

 

I assume that no one is claiming that Riggs is perfect, so part of thinking this particular issue through (breeding to maintain a genetic pool in the red circle) is figuring out what the flaws and strengths are (both generally and specifically in the case of a particular dog/particular pairing of dogs). A public discussion board is perhaps not the place to do it, though.

 

Still, presumably in breeding Riggs, Patrick Shannahan tries to ensure mating to a bitch who doesn't share the same things that Patrick sees as flaws in Riggs and similarly someone seeking to mate their bitch to Riggs would probably want to do the same. At least that would seem to be essential to breeding programs seeking to maintain a genetic pool in the red circle.

[Smalahundur]

Hi Denise;

I understand you are the one who came up with the dart board analogy.

There has been a thing I have wondered about, the dogs in the orange /yellow zones that aren´t used for stockwork, am I right in assuming that they should never be bred (and therefor are the equivalent of "culls" ).

And what about the non bullseye dogs that are being trained for stockwork, can they be breedworthy under certain circumstances ?

[Denise Wall]

Hi Denise;

I understand you are the one who came up with the dart board analogy.

There has been a thing I have wondered about, the dogs in the orange /yellow zones that aren´t used for stockwork, am I right in assuming that they should never be bred (and therefor are the equivalent of "culls" ).

And what about the non bullseye dogs that are being trained for stockwork, can they be breedworthy under certain circumstances ?

 

Before I answer I must emphasize this analogy is not meant as a "how to" or a standard to judge a specific dog. It doesn't address all the subjective gray areas. A main point is the working breed cannot be maintained if only red circle dogs are bred. I don't know why this is true but it must be true because of the way things have gone in other working breeds that are lost. The gene pool needs a healthy population of the orange circle dogs and even a few yellow circle dogs to keep healthy numbers of red circle dogs. Likewise, a working breed cannot be maintained unless its breeders are mostly knowledgeable and mostly breeding toward the defining goal.

 

Think of the gene pool as a whole, constantly in flux with each breeding, and imagine it as a flow either toward concentrating working genes by aiming for the red circle with most breedings or diluting the working genes by changing the momentum of the breeding selection (or non selection) toward the white circle.

 

Here's a real life type of example. I've had border collies all my life. Many years ago, you could breed a border collie that had never been worked on stock and you still had a pretty good chance of getting a good combination of working genes. Because that was all they were bred for back then and the working genes were still highly concentrated in the breed. (Not saying you should do this without proving the dog, just what the odds were.) Most breedings were aiming for the red circle. Now, if you breed any random border collie that has never been worked, chances are you won't get a good combination of working genes because of all the other reasons border collies are being bred these days. The working gene pool is being diluted with the momentum going toward the white circle and those white circle dogs are being bred, changing the momentum even more.

 

When you look at a random border collie, you can't know if its genetic potential is in the red, orange, yellow, or white circle, so training the dog out to the limits of its potential will help define whether breeding that dog should be helping the momentum go toward red circle, or backwards.

 

Of course there are things that stack the deck. The informed breeder is not usually looking at a random border collie. They usually at least know the pedigree, which helps but certainly does not replace actually knowing the weaknesses and strengths in a dog that has been trained out.

 

I have to stop now because I'm starting to get too specific and I want to avoid that. But the answer to your question re the analogy is not should they be bred but are they being bred, and what effect is that having on the gene pool?

[Debbie Meier]

I assume that no one is claiming that Riggs is perfect, so part of thinking this particular issue through (breeding to maintain a genetic pool in the red circle) is figuring out what the flaws and strengths are (both generally and specifically in the case of a particular dog/particular pairing of dogs). A public discussion board is perhaps not the place to do it, though.

 

I added the bold..

 

Yes, and no, probably no as it pertains to the specific dog, but yes from the standpoint of educating those that want to learn on the public discussion board. It seems that the individual strengths and weaknesses are not talked about enough from a breeding standpoint, nor how much training or lack of training can effect success with a dog that has weaknesses.

 

Problem is, how do you discuss strengths and weaknesses that many can't see nor understand how those strength or weakness effect the big picture?

 

As an example, how many think of a flank as simple left or right and then around, not much thought is put into what else the dog should or could be doing that would make the flank more effective. A talented dog can make that flank into a piece of art, where as untalented dog just executes a flank.