to wear or not to wear, that's the question...

[Debbie Meier]

Where and when? I'd be interested in going to watch.

This is copied from the e-mail I was sent via the AHBA Yahoo page. Like I mentioned, no one has to follow his ideas, but it is a different approach and helps the people that don't have the livestock background understand what is possible. He also trains horses, alot of what he uses on dogs comes from his horse training program.

 

The beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina welcomes ...

MARC CHRISTOPHER

For an all breed herding clinic

 

Space available for all levels!

Seminar (limited)$200 for both days - August 30 & 31, 2008

Auditors welcome $40 per day

Private Lessons available September 1 & 2, 2008 - $50 per 30 minute session

 

Some features of Marc Christopher's unique program include:

1) Introduction to sheep with a method that induces a calm environment

which in turn allows the handler and dog to be able to absorb what is happening & keeps the sheep relaxed.

2) Helping the handler to understand the frame of mind the dog needs to be in for learning.

3) Helps the handler to understand the physical relationship of dog to sheep and to handler

.

 

Event to be held at:

11 Bay Horse Trail, Candler, NC 28715

Please Contact

Jane Johnson 828-712-3618

Or Kerry Freeland 828-667-8126

or e-mail alpinestables@earthlink.net

Make checks payable to Alpine Stables

Refunds will not be given unless space is filled.

More information at www.christophertraining.com

[juliepoudrier]

Robin,

I think it was posted on Herders-L and I'll try to find the info for you.

 

Debbie,

The biggest problem I have with all your explanations is your implication that somehow those of us who don't follow your methods are somehow clueless about training working dogs--allowing our dogs to develop bad habits or turn into total jerks around stock. Most of us follow a "make the right easy and wrong difficult" training philosophy. We follow training methods that have served well the shepherds and handlers who developed the breed and still work it at the highest levels of competition. We don't use all sorts of tools/crutches to the point where our dogs can't work without them. We don't let our sheep get run, or torn up, or let our dogs repeatedly do some of the crazy things you describe. It's not as if we're preaching some sort of heresy or that we're all horribly misguided, while you apparently are one of the few who's seen the light, as you seem to suggest. Maybe your different viewpoint comes as a result of having started out with a different breed of dog, I don't know, but I'll be honest and say that I find your attitude a bit offputting to say the least. Consider at least that some of the folks posting here have been quite successful at training dogs and may just know something about it....

 

J.

[NCStarkey]

Hello again everyone,

 

In a previous post, '"kelpiedog" wrote. "What I was getting at, was, for trial purposes, since there IS tension involved, should I just a/d, instead of fight or shut down during the wear."

 

I'm sorry that I didn't respond to this before now (other than asking what "a/d" was), but I guess that it would depend on the rules for the trail course you are running. Here, in the Novice/Novice class, the sanctioning club specifies if you must perform a wear, a drive, or can do an "a/d". If the rules for your trials allow the a/d in the class you have entered, and you and your dog are more comfortable doing that, than do so.

 

One thing to keep in mind when trialing with young (or green) dogs is that we are laying the foundation for the future (gad, there's that "foundation" thing again). We should do all that we can to make the experience a positive one for the dog. Many new handlers are simply focused on getting a good score, when they should be focused on helping the young dog learn that they can succeed at a trial (the dog's definition of success has nothing to do with winning a ribbon). So, it's commendable that "kelpiegirl" (sorry, I wish that I knew your name, but you don't sign your posts) is concerned about reducing the stress level in her dog when she trials. This will help greatly as she progresses to the higher levels of trialing.

 

Regards,

nancy

 

PS: I love your "Never wrestle with pigs...." quote. It's comparable to the "Never argue with a fool......" advice

[juliepoudrier]

^^Amen, sister, to your entire post.

 

J.

P.S. FYI, Nancy, KG's name is also Julie.

[NCStarkey]

Hello again everyone,

 

Thanks again to Deb for her lengthy description of her trainer's methods and philosophy, and if she is pleased with this trainer and how her dogs are progressing, that's great. But, I imagine that her goals with her dogs aren't quite the same as the more experienced stockdog people posting on this thread.

 

My goal with my dogs is to become proficient competing in the Open class at USBCHA trials and to hopefully qualify my dogs for the USBCHA National Finals. Therefore, I seek instruction from trainers and clinicians who are successful at that level. While I'm sure that there are probably things that I could learn from clinicians involved in other venues, I truly doubt that I would benefit by switching to their methods. Like Julie P, I prefer to utilize the training methods and philosophies that have been proven to produce successful dog / handler teams capable of performing at the highest level of competition.

 

So, it all depends on what a person's goals are and what they hope to achieve with their dogs. If someone is content to compete in the entry level classes or in non-USBCHA trials, that's fine. They can still enjoy working with their dog, and they can still derive satisfaction at that level of competition. But, it is often quite difficult for someone at that level to grasp the "big picture" of progressing to the upper levels of trialing. So, to those of you new to stockdog training, please keep an open mind about other training methods and philosophies.

 

Regards to all,

nancy

[kelpiegirl]

Hi Nancy

I prefer to keep my identity secret, lest someone look me up and kill me for something I have written One time I got very upset with my dog- she was causing a wreck- it caused me to be "ugly", and it was a very wide awakening experience. I know now that people may look askance at me for not coming down hard on my dog (as they might), but it simply isn't worth it. If she is not doing anything hugely wrong- we will work through it. Simple as that. I don't have that calm under pressure stance/performance that most other handlers have- it is something I wish I did have... This is a long time journey, and who knows where it will lead to....

 

 

 

Hello again everyone,

 

In a previous post, '"kelpiedog" wrote. "What I was getting at, was, for trial purposes, since there IS tension involved, should I just a/d, instead of fight or shut down during the wear."

 

I'm sorry that I didn't respond to this before now (other than asking what "a/d" was), but I guess that it would depend on the rules for the trail course you are running. Here, in the Novice/Novice class, the sanctioning club specifies if you must perform a wear, a drive, or can do an "a/d". If the rules for your trials allow the a/d in the class you have entered, and you and your dog are more comfortable doing that, than do so.

 

One thing to keep in mind when trialing with young (or green) dogs is that we are laying the foundation for the future (gad, there's that "foundation" thing again). We should do all that we can to make the experience a positive one for the dog. Many new handlers are simply focused on getting a good score, when they should be focused on helping the young dog learn that they can succeed at a trial (the dog's definition of success has nothing to do with winning a ribbon). So, it's commendable that "kelpiegirl" (sorry, I wish that I knew your name, but you don't sign your posts) is concerned about reducing the stress level in her dog when she trials. This will help greatly as she progresses to the higher levels of trialing.

 

Regards,

nancy

 

PS: I love your "Never wrestle with pigs...." quote. It's comparable to the "Never argue with a fool......" advice

[NCStarkey]

Hi Julie,

 

^^Amen, sister, to your entire post.

 

J.

P.S. FYI, Nancy, KG's name is also Julie.

 

Thanks !!!!

 

nancy

[NCStarkey]

Hi again,

 

You wrote, "I know now that people may look askance at me for not coming down hard on my dog (as they might), but it simply isn't worth it. If she is not doing anything hugely wrong- we will work through it."

 

I agree that working through problems with our dogs is often the best way to solve them. It is possible to come down too hard on our dogs and destroy their trust, faith, and confidence in us in the process. There is nothing that is worth ruining our relationship with our dogs.

 

You wrote. " I don't have that calm under pressure stance/performance that most other handlers have- it is something I wish I did have."

 

Well, you can sure work on it!

 

Regards,

nancy

[Little Bo Boop]

While I'm not as put off by Debs posts as Julie P it does come across as if you have found the magic bullet and the rest of us are out there flailing around mauling and abusing our sheep . although I am admitidly still a novice, I see several holes or flaws in your method (as evidenced, I believe, by some of the issues you say you are having with your dog) One of the biggest being this

 

I guess when I look at wearing, walk abouts, balance to the handler excersise, etc. I look as tools to help show the dog what I want, they are not the foundation to the training, they are tools to help set the foundation. If I stay on them too long the tool no longer functions as a tool but a crutch, you can't get anything done without relying on them,

 

I don't see how you can think that balance and balance work are 'just tools' ? IMHO Balance is your foundation, your default. I think you are making a big mistake in diminshing this aspect of your training. I also think that as you continue on training dogs, you will eventually come to that realization yourself...or not...

 

 

Betty

[kelpiegirl]

Aaahh, yep, that is what I am doing

 

Hi again,

 

You wrote, "I know now that people may look askance at me for not coming down hard on my dog (as they might), but it simply isn't worth it. If she is not doing anything hugely wrong- we will work through it."

 

I agree that working through problems with our dogs is often the best way to solve them. It is possible to come down too hard on our dogs and destroy their trust, faith, and confidence in us in the process. There is nothing that is worth ruining our relationship with our dogs.

 

You wrote. " I don't have that calm under pressure stance/performance that most other handlers have- it is something I wish I did have."

 

Well, you can sure work on it!

 

Regards,

nancy

[Pearse]

While I'm not as put off by Debs posts as Julie P it does come across as if you have found the magic bullet and the rest of us are out there flailing around mauling and abusing our sheep . although I am admitidly still a novice, I see several holes or flaws in your method (as evidenced, I believe, by some of the issues you say you are having with your dog) One of the biggest being this

I don't see how you can think that balance and balance work are 'just tools' ? IMHO Balance is your foundation, your default. I think you are making a big mistake in diminshing this aspect of your training. I also think that as you continue on training dogs, you will eventually come to that realization yourself...or not...

Betty

 

 

In Deb's defense, I don't think that's what she's trying to say at all. I think part of what is coming across is a beginner handler's attempt to explain a specific style of training without actually writing a book. Some things get lost in translation.

 

I think I understand what she's trying to say about the wearing/walkabouts. I've seen a good few beginners spend a lot of time ambling around pastures with sheep and the dog, working on "natural balance" when they're doing no such thing. The dog is flopping around behind the sheep, and the handler is adjusting to a pushy dog rather than the dog adjusting to the pace of the sheep/handler. I think Deb is talking about not relying exclusively on this method but taking a more deliberate methodical approach.

 

I've never been to a Marc Christopher clinic and have no first-hand experience of his methods. I have seen, and spoken to, some of his students, and from second-hand observation I have my reservations about the philosophy but I don't think it discounts natural ability or balance work.

 

Pearse

[kelpiegirl]

Pearse

DING DING DING!!!!! I think that's us!!! Well, maybe it isn't THAT bad now, but is there ANY way to expedite getting the dog to adjust to my pace faster? I am making good headway on my dog, but I think I did the wrong stuff for a long time, and for my next dog, I certainly don't want to have a repeat- GOD FORBID.

 

I think I understand what she's trying to say about the wearing/walkabouts. I've seen a good few beginners spend a lot of time ambling around pastures with sheep and the dog, working on "natural balance" when they're doing no such thing. The dog is flopping around behind the sheep, and the handler is adjusting to a pushy dog rather than the dog adjusting to the pace of the sheep/handler. I think Deb is talking about not relying exclusively on this method but taking a more deliberate methodical approach.

 

 

Pearse

[Shoofly]

The beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina welcomes ...

MARC CHRISTOPHER

For an all breed herding clinic

 

Rats, too far from me to go audit for the day. I've been curious about Marc's methods for awhile, having seen some dogs running that were trained using it.

[Debbie Meier]

Ok, so I have a question for you guys to mull over, if my aspirations are the same as yours, qualifying for Nationals, getting my dog trained to the best level I can, and the person I train with approaches it differently to a common end, do you expect me to not offer ideas and perspective based on my expirences and discoveries? I could understand a person thinking that the person offering perspective here should be limited to those that have established themselves in Open, and if that is case so be it, but then how many other people on this forum should not be offering advise and suggestions also? It's amazing that a person coming from a different direction is automatically judged as training for a "Different Venue", it's nuts, isn't it all based on working stock correctly regardless of the venue?

 

It's not fair to promote ideas from those you agree with and then bash someone into submission you don't, when the common goals are the same, training and developing a border collie for stock work, but I guess that is human nature. Lifes not fair, my skin is thick and I've learn a ton from everyone here and other places, way more then imaginable. Putting myself out there, just like anyone else opens my ideas, beliefs and feelings to the public, yeah they will be criticized, but if I learn something new it's worth it. I think what I take away more then anything else is an understanding as to how firm people are in their beliefs and ideas, and how that anything other then what they understand is a threat.

 

It's interesting to read open handlers comment about the novices not getting further in their training or beyond novice level, not having control over their dog, not treating the sheep correctly, training dogs too mechanically vs. developing more balance and feel and then turn around and question the motives of a novice that agrees with all those issues are problems and is trying to work in a manner that does not promote such issues but allows a person to achieve a level work that does lessens those problems. Why is that? It's perplexing, but interesting.

 

Gotta run,

 

Deb

[Shoofly]

Actually, i think this thread is sort of interesting. I was having a short email conversation with someone yesterday where we were pondering about mechanical/obedience training vs natural training, and different traits in different dogs and what sort of training suits what dog, and how breeding comes into play.

 

I've trained dogs both ways and also in combinations of both ways and it really comes down to what suits the dog i think. Not all dogs are going to hang in there for a more mechanical kind of training. Other dogs, if you use only natural, task-based training, you may never be able to get the dog to do less natural things like drive, or if you do, it bothers the dog more. And honestly, some trainers just can't do one or the other, for whatever reason (some don't even realize there *is* more than one way).

[Pearse]

Ok, so I have a question for you guys to mull over, if my aspirations are the same as yours, qualifying for Nationals, getting my dog trained to the best level I can, and the person I train with approaches it differently to a common end, do you expect me to not offer ideas and perspective based on my expirences and discoveries? I could understand a person thinking that the person offering perspective here should be limited to those that have established themselves in Open, and if that is case so be it, but then how many other people on this forum should not be offering advise and suggestions also? It's amazing that a person coming from a different direction is automatically judged as training for a "Different Venue", it's nuts, isn't it all based on working stock correctly regardless of the venue?

 

 

I think you are being too defensive. One of the things about posting your ideas in a public forum filled with total strangers is that some people will disagree with you or, quite frankly, sometimes people will just tell you that you are full of crap (whether you are or aren't is irrelevant). Sometimes, if you are lucky (like now), people will engage in civil discussion and challenge your ideas which may or may not cause you to reevaluate what you think you know and what you are doing. Sometimes, you learn something from the exhcange. Either way, the second you decide to post an opinion online, you'd better grow a thick skin because someone is bound to disagree with you. Don't take it personally.

 

I tend to like it. I also like sheepdog trialling, mountain climbing, and running. I am a masochist.

 

Cheers,

 

Pearse

[juliepoudrier]

Okay, since I've already stuck my foot in it, I'm going to keep going....

 

Ok, so I have a question for you guys to mull over, if my aspirations are the same as yours, qualifying for Nationals, getting my dog trained to the best level I can, and the person I train with approaches it differently to a common end, do you expect me to not offer ideas and perspective based on my expirences and discoveries? I could understand a person thinking that the person offering perspective here should be limited to those that have established themselves in Open, and if that is case so be it, but then how many other people on this forum should not be offering advise and suggestions also? It's amazing that a person coming from a different direction is automatically judged as training for a "Different Venue", it's nuts, isn't it all based on working stock correctly regardless of the venue?

 

Debbie,

I think really the problem isn't anyone offering suggestions or even having a different viewpoint--it's coming along and saying things like

 

my sheep don't get run, heck they hardly work, they calmly get taken from place to place. If someone comes to work a dog, I'll get this, 'when will your sheep stop running" deal, I can't help but answer, when your dog stops chasing them.

 

as if that's what everyone else's (i.e., the other folks on this forum) training methods allow. And I think that's where the "different viewpoints" thing comes in. You're assuming an awful lot about other handlers and training methods without really knowing--I don't think--what other handlers do. I believe your background is in another breed and maybe your observations stem from your experiences with those other breeds and the people who come out to your place and train them. The preceding statement isn't meant to be a slam; it's just that having participated for a number of years on an e-mail list where the majority of the folks have breeds other than border collies and trial largely in AKC and AHBA I see a lot of the same misunderstandings about certain training methods and so it makes me wonder if your past experience isn't coloring some of your comments here. So what bothers me isn't that you have a particular approach and want share it, but rather that you make a number of pronouncements that seem somewhat disparaging of the "different" (which probably isn't so different) approaches others of us take.

 

I went to Marc Christopher's web page and saw several quotes "make the right easy and the wrong difficult." The exact same thing trainers like Jack Knox say. I honestly think that Marc's method might not be as revolutionary or as different as you believe, but having not seen him in action I can't say for sure. I guess I'd have to ask what other clinicians/trainers have you trained with that have led you to believe that Marc's way is so different from those of other established trainers?

 

I also think you should consider that many of us do understand the following, and that may be why I at least (since I won't speak for everyone else) have bristled a bit at your posts, because it feels like being lectured to about something I already know:

you can not let the dog continue down the wrong path, what is missed in the books is attitude and the relationship between the handler and dog, the dog needs to be impressed, if you can't be a factor to the dog, your going to fail in getting them to change their path.

 

what good is it dumping it out in a pen to see what it does just to learn bad habits. Treat it as if it is the most talented dog in the world that does not understand commands, let it have the right things and discourage the bad. Offer it the chance to flank correctly if it fails show it the way, offer the chance to drive correctly, if it fails show it the way. Have a plan in mind when you go out to train your dog rather then sitting in the passanger seat and waiting for the dog to offer behaviors

 

The longer you wait the harder it's going to be to get that dog to change his thinking. It comes back to the people that want to go watch there dog have fun herding sheep, most are just watching their dogs chase sheep at the expense of the sheep. That's not training and is of little use to anyone.

 

It's not that any of the above statements are wrong; they're not. And I guess that's partly why I'm having a difficult time with your idea of a "different perspective." This is not revolutionary information that only you are privy to.

 

It's not fair to promote ideas from those you agree with and then bash someone into submission you don't, when the common goals are the same, training and developing a border collie for stock work, but I guess that is human nature.

 

I don't see anyone here trying to bash you into submission. I think most people are just a bit taken aback by the assumptions you seem to be making about the rest of us, as evidenced by some of the comments I quoted above. Starting with balance work and wearing has worked brilliantly for many of us. Imagine how you'd react if something you knew to work well for you was abruptly dismissed by someone else as simply a crutch that will only hurt you later.

 

I think what I take away more then anything else is an understanding as to how firm people are in their beliefs and ideas, and how that anything other then what they understand is a threat.

 

What you're interpreting as people feeling threatened is, IMO, people really being confused because we don't see how the ideas you've presented are all that different from our own. The only really different thing you've said is that you don't really consider wearing and balance work a true foundation. Everything else is pretty much in line with what I would reckon pretty much everyone here believes.

 

It's interesting to read open handlers comment about the novices not getting further in their training or beyond novice level, not having control over their dog, not treating the sheep correctly, training dogs too mechanically vs. developing more balance and feel and then turn around and question the motives of a novice that agrees with all those issues are problems and is trying to work in a manner that does not promote such issues but allows a person to achieve a level work that does lessens those problems. Why is that? It's perplexing, but interesting.

 

Maybe because it's human nature not to enjoy seemingly being lectured by someone who thinks they've found the answer and comes along and tells the rest of us how we're doing a disservice to both our dogs and sheep? I dunno.

 

J.

[Shoofly]

Julie, i think you've hit the nail on the head. I knew there was something i wasn't liking about the posting. Deb, she's right, you are kind of preachy in your posts. I actually do think Marc's way of training is quite different from the norm, if what i've heard in the past and understand is true. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just very different and i know it suits some folks very well. But it's good to keep an open mind (all of us) and remember that a lot of dogs get trained a lot of different ways. That's why i'd like to go audit one of Marc's clinics. I've seen the results and i'm curious to go watch and add new tools to my training toolbox. It may or may not be something i want to adopt but it's always good to have more tools.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I think one can learn something from almost any trainer. I remember the weekend I learned that lesson, when I was helping out at a clinic mostly for Aussie people, to which they had invited their top *snerk* [edit: the snerk was in my head at the time, not later or now] Aussie trainer. I ate some crow that weekend and I admitted it freely TO the Aussie guy. The way he worked with the issues that Aussies commonly present, has helped me since with Border Collies, and probably years of watching Border Collie trainers wouldn't have shown it to me as clearly because most of them (the dogs AND handlers) can identify and overcome those issues in a split second of training interaction. [another edit: this happened because the same thing came up over and over, not because either Aussies or this guy was inferior or slower than other trainers]

 

With that said, there's a lot to be said for going with a trainer and sticking with their approach. I like trainers who really let the dog shape the approach. As Robin pointed out:

 

I've trained dogs both ways and also in combinations of both ways and it really comes down to what suits the dog i think. Not all dogs are going to hang in there for a more mechanical kind of training. Other dogs, if you use only natural, task-based training, you may never be able to get the dog to do less natural things like drive, or if you do, it bothers the dog more.

 

And, even more than that, I'd say that you can find that an individual dog needs something one day, and something totally different the next day. Training changes dogs and dogs should likewise (I believe) change your training.

 

But, I learned the hard way also, that it's best to take the most from a trainer whose goals match your own. After a couple of disasters with a novice trainer, and a trainer who'd never actually trained his own dogs to Open (and whose dogs were consistent in only one thing, how badly they ran), I learned to look for both success in competing, AND success in training (including students who were doing well).

 

I'll admit to being a Jack Knox groupie and I totally understand the urge to "tell the good news" about a method (and I've made myself quite tiresome in the past in this respect, I'm sure). But one thing he's started to say more and more lately that I'm trying to take to heart - it's not about a method, or a person, or a style of handling - it's about the dogs and listening to what they need.

[Denise Wall]

But one thing he's [Jack Knox] started to say more and more lately that I'm trying to take to heart - it's not about a method, or a person, or a style of handling - it's about the dogs and listening to what they need.

 

I think this is the best thing I've read in this entire thread. A preplanned method with a rigid structure where you take any dog out with certain assumptions is not what Jack is talking about.

 

Ok, so I have a question for you guys to mull over, if my aspirations are the same as yours, qualifying for Nationals, getting my dog trained to the best level I can, and the person I train with approaches it differently to a common end,

 

I, personally, question whether your (and this person's) approach leads to the same "common end" as mine.

[NCStarkey]

Hello everyone,

 

I imagine since I have been replying to Deb's posts, I should respond to her latest one, as well.

 

Deb wrote, "It's not fair to promote ideas from those you agree with and then bash someone into submission you don't,...."

 

Like Pearse, I think that you are being too defensive, and, I can't see how any of the comments in this thread could have been construed as "bashing you into submission". I have enjoyed reading your comments about your "experiences and discoveries", but I think it has been your "delivery" that many of us have found distasteful. This forum welcomes input from everyone, but by posting, we do leave ourselves open to criticism. If you have been insulted by anything that I wrote, then I apologize.

 

In an earlier post in this thread, you wrote, "Hmm, I guess I don't see that what I am doing is not putting a good foundation on the dog."

 

I think that this comment clearly states what most of the responders are trying to convey to you, that it is very difficult for those new to working stockdogs to realize how complex the training really is. I do not intend this as an insult, as we all have "been there". I am simply stating that those new to working stockdogs simply do not yet have the knowledge to realize how much they do not know.

 

You wrote, "I think what I take away more then anything else is an understanding as to how firm people are in their beliefs and ideas, and how that anything other then what they understand is a threat."

 

Wow! I don't perceive anything or anybody on this forum as a "threat"! The ideas of others posted here certainly will not negatively impact me or my dogs, they are simply the ideas of others. As to "how firm people are in their beliefs and ideas", well, you are right about that. But, please understand that the experienced people posting on this thread have good reasons for being committed to our beliefs and ideas, because these methods have been proven over time to produce outstanding dogs for farm work and/or trialing.

 

You wrote, "Ok, so I have a question for you guys to mull over, if my aspirations are the same as yours, qualifying for Nationals, getting my dog trained to the best level I can, and the person I train with approaches it differently to a common end, do you expect me to not offer ideas and perspective based on my experiences and discoveries? I could understand a person thinking that the person offering perspective here should be limited to those that have established themselves in Open, and if that is case so be it, but then how many other people on this forum should not be offering advise and suggestions also? It's amazing that a person coming from a different direction is automatically judged as training for a "Different Venue", it's nuts, isn't it all based on working stock correctly regardless of the venue?"

 

I certainly welcome fresh and innovative ideas regarding stockdogs, but I also put them into perspective based on the source. For me, a suggestion from someone who consistently places at the National Finals would have more merit than one from someone who has never run in an Open trial. But, that doesn't mean that I would dismiss it completely.

 

I mentioned "different venues" in my posts because it is rather obvious that the trials that are being referred to are not USBCHA open trials. I recently spent the weekend at a trial in VA where most of the novice handlers also compete in AKC and AHBA trials, and listening to some of their comments was very "enlightening". For many, their goals and aspirations are clearly not to get to the top levels of trialing or even to train and work their dogs correctly. I am sorry to have painted you with the same brush, but that was the impression I got from reading some of your posts. However, I do agree with you that working stock correctly regardless of the venue is the basis for training.

 

Well, that is enough for now. I should probably go work my dogs!

 

Regards,

nancy

[Little Bo Boop]

Actually, i think this thread is sort of interesting. I was having a short email conversation with someone yesterday where we were pondering about mechanical/obedience training vs natural training, and different traits in different dogs and what sort of training suits what dog, and how breeding comes into play.

 

I've trained dogs both ways and also in combinations of both ways and it really comes down to what suits the dog i think. Not all dogs are going to hang in there for a more mechanical kind of training. Other dogs, if you use only natural, task-based training, you may never be able to get the dog to do less natural things like drive, or if you do, it bothers the dog more. And honestly, some trainers just can't do one or the other, for whatever reason (some don't even realize there *is* more than one way).

 

 

I've been doing a lot of thinking about that very same thing as well lately. And here is the conclusion I've come to (oh and yes, just want to be clear that I do think every dog is diff. in regards to what method works) Having a mechanical dog requires you to be a better handler than if you have a more natural dog. Does that make sense to anybody but me ; -) I have a very nice trial dog, but she is VERY mechanical (and sticky) oh, and she came to me that way, I didn't train her. Although I love trialing her, and she is a fun dog, being that mechanical, you end up having to manage a good part of your run it seems, so your handling skills better be up to it, mine isn't always ;-( My young dog that I'm training right now, is way more natural (and I'm encouraging the heck out of it) and while she doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the other dog (yet) I still find it easier to work her.(and fingers crossed, easier to trial) She seems to always be in the right place, she's very loose and free moving, I'm not directing her so much...I'm letting her do the work, and I only step in with a little help now and again on things like pace etc...I'm sure there are handlers out there that that just wouldn't suit their style at all, a lot of folks seem to have to have more control, and thats fine. But for me, I think thats the kind of dog I'll be looking at in future dogs.

 

Betty

[PSmitty]

I am way too inexperienced to contribute anything to this thread, but wanted to say thanks to everyone! Very interesting stuff.

[Debbie Meier]

Julie, i think you've hit the nail on the head. I knew there was something i wasn't liking about the posting. Deb, she's right, you are kind of preachy in your posts.

 

 

Sorry, me bad, don't know how to change that other then to stop writing what I think and the way I think it.

 

Deb

[Laurae]

Deb, I don't think you need to stop writing what you think, but you might take some care to show a bit more respect for the fact that many of the people reading your posts have been very successful for a long time at this. If you want people to respect your knowledge, make sure you are willing to respect theirs (particularly considering that you are a novice handler and many here are open handlers). I don't mean that in a nasty way--I'm a novice, too. But as a novice, it is inevitable that I will interpret some things incorrectly along the way because I simply do not have the experience to understand all of the ramifications of my ideas yet. With my circle of friends at home, I am sometimes reminded of this when I say something in an authoritative tone, only to have my comment met not with the resounding agreement I expected, but with an uncomfortable silence, broken when someone gently explains something I had not taken into account.