lying down at the top

[Valhalla]

GR, How long have you been training/trialing stock dogs? Have you ever competed in Open? If not, what is the highest level you have trained/trialed a dog?

 

BTW, posting Denise's PRIVATE message to you on this public forum would only make YOU look bad. The word "private" is operative, don't you think?

[Howdyjabo]

I'll hang in here GR-- but its time to let by bygones be bygones(right or wrong) .

I don't keep going with circling cat fights.But I'd like to keep posting to your ideas.

 

As far as when to trial-- when the outrun, lift and fetch are SOLID.

 

As far as" make them not cut in"

Its a mental mindset that I think is alot more productive especially to "greenies".

 

Quit thinking about how to MAKE a dog do something specific-- And think about ways to make a dog quit doing something specific .

 

In this case----- if the dog cut in

(and I am still a little leary of "greenies making that detrmination-but you are right if this is their only resource......)

Instead of thinking I need to push it out-- think I need to make it regret coming in too soon.

 

A well timed stop and flank (leaning in is NOT acceptable-let alone stepping in).

A well timed piece of hose landing around their front shoulder when they flatten out.

A well timed Ahhh you - and staying on it till they quit coming in

 

Maybe the same types of things--as pushing a dog out. But dealing with it with a more productive and safe mindset. Basically telling them where not to be----- and leave finding where to be up to their instincts

[juliepoudrier]

GR,

I have no problem with an individual defending his/her viewpoint, but when that defense results in the individual completely dominating the discussion to the point that others no longer bother to reply, then it is no longer a discussion, is it? And frankly, I don't see where such a vigorous defense was needed here. It should be possible to acknowledge that different folks have had different experiences and that different approaches may work. You complain about what you perceive to be "yes, but" responses from others, and yet you are guilty of that same tactic (for example, telling Renee that she was probably at the wrong spot or wrong angle when she used her dog as an example in this discussion--instead of letting her experience stand for itself, you felt compelled to tell her what she was likely doing wrong, which is indeed an example of the "yes, but" of which you accuse everyone else, and even worse, it puts you in the position of making assumptions about someone of whom you know nothing, and all for the sake of trying to advance your own point of view). It seems to me that if someone posts asking for opinions, that person might like to obtain as many opinions as possible and decide for herself what might work. I could post saying that she should shoot paintballs at the dog and then keep posting defending that opinion when others disagree, to the point where everyone else gives up, but that doesn't mean that my opinion was the right one, the best one, or anything else.

 

And no one is asking you to knuckle under (I really didn't realize this was some sort of contest that required a loser--that is, that someone has to knuckle under). IMO it's only possible to have a respectful discussion if all parties are willing to show respect, and as I stated in my previous post, at least some folks, me included, don't see your responses as being respectful of other people or their points of view. Continuing to debate a private message in a public forum isn't exactly respectful either.

 

J.

[Denise Wall]

As to the specific problem the OP has, here is something I have written here before but applies. I like it because it does not require perfect timing from those who do not have it and can be done with everything calm. It was originally suggested to me by a big hat, has worked well for me on several dogs, some of them pretty hard ones:

 

Down the dog as it starts looking the least bit tight. Stay completely neutral in your emotions toward the dog. Walk out there to it, keeping it down in that same spot. When you get to the dog, call it and take it over to where it should be for the outrun to be right at that point. Down the dog there and make it stay as you walk back to your original position. Send the dog from there. If it goes right, let it continue as though nothing happened. If it goes tight again, repeat the above. Stay perfectly calm.

The reason I like this way is many dogs just get too tense and lose or don't find the feel for where they should be in relation to the sheep to keep control on the outrun. Once you've put the dog out there at the correct distance and things are calm enough for the dog to think, it may feel that distance and the correct effect it has on the sheep.

 

This way, you can help break a cycle the dog has gotten itself into of having a bad effect on the sheep on the outrun and feeling tense over losing control of them, making it run tight the next time for fear they will get away. Also, sometimes widening a tight outrun on a hard dog turns into the dog fighting you for the sheep and ends up being about you and the dog and not the dog feeling the sheep better on the outrun. This is also a nice way for a novice to widen an outrun without having to worry about timing and harshness of corrections.

 

The sheep need to stay there though while you're doing this or the dog will get tense thinking you're making them let the sheep get away and then this technique won't work. Put some food out for the sheep, have someone hold them or something if they won't stay.

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Valhalla:

GR, How long have you been training/trialing stock dogs? Have you ever competed in Open? If not, what is the highest level you have trained/trialed a dog?

 

I knew it would come to this, but you were the first to have the timerity to bring it up. If it matters, over ten years, and Open Ranch. How about you?

 

Originally posted by Valhalla:

BTW, posting Denise's PRIVATE message to you on this public forum would only make YOU look bad. The word "private" is operative, don't you think?

 

Thank you for the lesson in decorum. Why do you think I asked for her permission?

 

Regards

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by juliepoudrier:

GR,

I have no problem with an individual defending his/her viewpoint, but when that defense results in the individual completely dominating the discussion to the point that others no longer bother to reply, then it is no longer a discussion, is it? And frankly, I don't see where such a vigorous defense was needed here. It should be possible to acknowledge that different folks have had different experiences and that different approaches may work. You complain about what you perceive to be "yes, but" responses from others, and yet you are guilty of that same tactic (for example, telling Renee that she was probably at the wrong spot or wrong angle when she used her dog as an example in this discussion--instead of letting her experience stand for itself, you felt compelled to tell her what she was likely doing wrong, which is indeed an example of the "yes, but" of which you accuse everyone else, and even worse, it puts you in the position of making assumptions about someone of whom you know nothing, and all for the sake of trying to advance your own point of view). It seems to me that if someone posts asking for opinions, that person might like to obtain as many opinions as possible and decide for herself what might work. I could post saying that she should shoot paintballs at the dog and then keep posting defending that opinion when others disagree, to the point where everyone else gives up, but that doesn't mean that my opinion was the right one, the best one, or anything else.

 

And no one is asking you to knuckle under (I really didn't realize this was some sort of contest that required a loser--that is, that someone has to knuckle under). IMO it's only possible to have a respectful discussion if all parties are willing to show respect, and as I stated in my previous post, at least some folks, me included, don't see your responses as being respectful of other people or their points of view. Continuing to debate a private message in a public forum isn't exactly respectful either.

 

J.

My only incredulous response is: Please re-read my posts. By the way, I NEVER told anyone he/she was wrong. I am guilty of presenting another method. I had no idea I have such a dominating presence. Is it the length of the responses that makes them seem so dominating to you?

 

Regards

[concrete]

I've seen a lot of training advice on the internet from people who speak with a lot of authority giving the impression of great knowledge of dogs when in fact they know little and understand less. I can not say this applies to you "GR" as I have no idea who you are.But the fact that you choose to not sign your name causes me to suspect what you say. That is why I for one question your advice. I also question what you say because I believe it si incorrect but that's not the real point of my post. The point is sign your name.

 

Kevin Brannon

[Howdyjabo]

I have no problem with people not signing their name on the internet--- Its a household rule here that you don't.

Eventually those that need to be weeded out for misrepresenting themselves will eventually "out" themselves all on their own.

 

Killer H--- no name(most of the time-have to admit there have been circumstances when I have broken my rule )

 

Denise-- I like the thought of what you suggested. I'm gonna try it to see what happens.

Does it work in a small area(ie short outrun) or just a large area(long outrun)???

In my mind I wonder if on a short outrun if the dog could comprehend the slight difference of just moving them a foot.

[Howdyjabo]

"I knew it would come to this, but you were the first to have the timerity to bring it up. If it matters, over ten years, and Open Ranch. How about you? "

 

I hope you didn't think for one minute that it shouldn't have been raised. I assumed that I missed your resume on some other posts in the past.Its a given that you give ANY advice on training stock work--- that you will be asked to back it up-- and rightly so.

 

I'd like to stay in this conversation- I'm finding the "training" topic interesting-- but I'm out if the cat fight keeps going-- GR be the bigger man(?) and lay out responding and defending on the rest. Bygones.......

You can redeam yourself over time with thoughtful posts much better anyhow.

If it makes you feel better-- I got jumped hard when I first came here-- and haven't been immune to an occasional jump since. Bygones.......

[kimkathan]

I can easily state that I have at least enough knowledge of dogs and being able to see what should be done but quite often see the current problem and maybe not the underlying one(My other dog was trialed at N/N and just about to be moved up to P/N when she was diagnosed with a type of cancer that affected her inner ear, and she's no longer able to trial. This dog is/was quieter, not as gung ho, not as pushy and has a natural feel for the stock. A dream for a beginner)As it was first started, and was stated that my dog was probably too tight/not deep enough on the top, I could say "yeah, I guess so" so from there, I just didn't know what to do differently.

 

Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over and over, expecting different results. That's something that I don't want to do (I've seen enough people doing it to know) What I think is nice about this forum, is that you can get different insight and ideas from different past experiences. I can take these ideas, and try them, if it is REAL apparent that it's not going to work, I don't have to continue with it, but there is something else that someone may have recommended that I can try next.

 

Like I've said before, my problem, is that I haven't trained enough dogs to have encountered this before, and just don't know where to start next to widen out, stop and not totally screw up this dog anymore than I already have.

 

As far as trialing...I'm the kind of person who does see Novice trials as a "training experience" for the dog, however, I'm not the kind of person who will take a green dog out and just let it run a muck. I want my dogs to be able to run a clean course in situations where it's familiar. If it can't do that, then I've got work to do. The downing at the top was the only real problem that I thought I had. Now it's somewhat apparent to me that I have to deepen my outrun, and the lift may fall into place. (I have called the guy I work with some, and have changed my work schedule to be able to go down tomorrow afternoon to see what he thinks. I'll keep everyone posted as to his thoughts)

[Denise Wall]

"I have no problem with people not signing their name on the internet--- Its a household rule here that you don't...

 

Killer H--- no name"

 

Well hell no I wouldn't expect you to have a problem with a sign in name like Killer H

 

 

"Denise-- I like the thought of what you suggested. I'm gonna try it to see what happens.

Does it work in a small area(ie short outrun) or just a large area(long outrun)???

In my mind I wonder if on a short outrun if the dog could comprehend the slight difference of just moving them a foot."

 

I thought about that too. I don't know about the really short outruns. Actually, if they're that short, proper flank work should improve them.

 

GR if you're so shocked that we think you're a little overbearing maybe some of you Texicans need to come up to the Southeast and let us gentle Southern ladies teach you how to say things nicely

[Howdyjabo]

Southeast and let us gentle Southern ladies teach you how to say things nicely [big Grin] [big Grin]"

 

 

Hee Hee-- that resmbles me ...... If you believe that I got some swamp land to sell ya.

 

Next time Becca comes over I'm gonna make her show me how to change my ID. It seems that my old nickname just hits people wrong.

 

Guess ya gotta know me to get it

I'm really just like a snarky dog-- no killer instincts to back it up:)

[Sue R]

But, Karen, how will we know it's really you if you change your name?

 

Go to "My Profile" and then "Edit Profile" and then just change your user name. Your login name will never change but the displayed user name can be easily changed.

 

OR You can keep KillerH as your user name but just put a more "realistic" name as your signature, like Christine does. That way, we'll still know it's you!

 

By the way, the instructive parts of this thread have been fascinating for a novice (and proud of it) like me. Minus the arguments, this has been a great thread.

[Howdyjabo]

I guess I could use "snarky"

 

I don't think it would take long for people to ID me no matter what i use.

My horrible spelling and "hard core" attitude--- would "out" me pretty quick.

[Pipedream Farm]

You know Denise, I had forgotten until you mentioned it, but I had done something similar to what you're describing with Starr as well. One day, after trying all sorts of stuff like that, the lightbulb just went on for her. Hopefully Kim will have the same experience.

Renee

[Debbie Crowder-BaaramuLuke]

Only thing here I want to correct, and I'll let y'all get back to your discussion...

 

I have been to at least two Jack Knox clinics per year for the last 12 years (and you'd think I'd be getting it by now.) I find him akin to watching Tom Dorrance work with people and horses, and like Tom, what he does is easy for him and he puts it the best way he can so we'll get it. Enough said, I think I know what I'd do about Kim's original problem, and I don't have the kahunas to post it here because I doubt I can articulate myself out of the discussion that may follow.

NOW! The reason for my reply: GR: I have NEVER heard Jack suggest that Kathy learned everything (or anything, for that matter) she knows from him--quite the contrary. He goes well out of his way to tell us how she made herself and her dogs as good as they are on her own. He admires her tremendously. They are similar, but different. I have heard she is a fantastic communicator at clinics, and I hope to get to one one day.

Anyone who was at the last clinic in Leesburg will remember him, once again, telling us how they live as two handlers, working stuff out.

 

And I heard one silly girl came on Saturday, thinking it was a Kathy clinic. Boy was she surprised!

 

Just wanted to make that correction, and leave y'all the freedom behind it to think it out.

[Sue R]

I have to agree with you Debbie but didn't have the moxie to say something along that line myself. I've only been to two of his clinics and both times (particularly this last one) he made it very clear that Kathy's success is due to Kathy, not Jack. His pride in her accomplishments is obvious. I've not heard him brag on himself but he sure makes his admiration of her plain to see.

 

Again, I appreciate the advice given on this thread. It's been most instructive and given me lots to think about (and apply, when the time is right).

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Debbie Crowder-BaaramuLuke:

NOW! The reason for my reply: GR: I have NEVER heard Jack suggest that Kathy learned everything (or anything, for that matter) she knows from him--quite the contrary. He goes well out of his way to tell us how she made herself and her dogs as good as they are on her own. He admires her tremendously. They are similar, but different. I have heard she is a fantastic communicator at clinics, and I hope to get to one one day.

Anyone who was at the last clinic in Leesburg will remember him, once again, telling us how they live as two handlers, working stuff out.

 

And I heard one silly girl came on Saturday, thinking it was a Kathy clinic. Boy was she surprised!

 

Just wanted to make that correction, and leave y'all the freedom behind it to think it out.

 

 

Debbie, if I may be so bold as to use your first name, I don't really think your correction was necessary, but maybe I can offer this in response.

 

I had no intention of posting again on this board, but I cannot let this slide. I consider Jack Knox a good friend of mine, as I am sure many of you do, and I know Kathy, and have been fortunate enough to have been to their home. While humor, among other things, is sometimes hard to convey in writing on these boards, as some of the comments in this discussion have shown, I took the extra step of posting the "smiley face", to wit , beside the comment to which you refer to assure everyone who read it that it was in jest, just as many of Jack's comments at his clinics are in jest. If that escaped you, then I am fairly confident it also escaped others.

 

So rest assured, I am well aware that Kathy and Jack, while very similar in their approaches to training, do have differences, and Kathy has made her own way to the top level in this sport. I hope that clears up any confusion you may have. This is a prime example of why I do not intend to participate here any more.

 

Regards

[Sue R]

Sorry, GR, but I missed the smiley and apologize for that. I have often neglected to use my brain prior to my keyboard.

 

I really wish you wouldn't quit participating. I think we need all the contributors we can get to make discussions like this one, dynamic and educational tools for us all.

 

As a novice, I do appreciate training discussions that offer diverse opinions (not arguments, but...). Different dogs and handlers can sometimes benefit from differing approaches to a problem, and there isn't always just one way to deal with an issue.

 

Sorry to all of you if I added to the contention instead of contributing to the discussion.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Just wanted to make that correction, and leave y'all the freedom behind it to think it out. [Wink]

LOL. Quote the contrary to his claiming "Kathy learned it all from him" - he even admits he learns things from Kathy - just as good handlers learn constantly from watching other good handlers work through problems. I'd love to go to a clinic with Kathy someday.

 

I discovered at the last clinic that Jack's approach doesn't mesh well with the way I naturally approach problem solving. You have to watch what the dog is doing, the affect that has on the sheep, then react with a correction if it's wrong. Then, asuming the dog "takes" the correction (you see some give), you back off and give the dog another chance, and watch for some evidence that the dog is giving you something - not necessarily the whole enchilada, but something.

 

It's all very visual, and I don't think that way at all. I think verbally, which makes me a pretty good writer but a really lousy dog trainer. I'm too busy analyzing and philosophizing to get in the corrections and subsequent releasing of pressure fast enough. I'm living in my head when I should be living in the dog's head and watching the sheep.

 

She'll flank out nicely, but when she gets to the top, and the sheep start to move rapidly down the field, she dosen't want to lie down right away (usually 1/2 dozen extra steps or so, but she'll lie down)

I'm sure I have put my foot in my mouth publically enough to make it no big deal to have foot for lunch again. If it were me, fresh from the JK clinic where I had to work on pretty much the same thing with my young dog, I'd work on the six steps in before the stop and not worry too much about longer outruns and pace and whatnot. The "whole picture" would come slower and you might miss your first trial date, but pushiness on the down, as you know, will haunt your relationship with this dog forever, both on and off the trial field.

 

I'm starting pretty close with Ann, then asking for a down when it's easy (at balance, with me backing off the pressure). If she blows me off (continues to move forward) I'm supposed to come right in with a quick correction (she responds to verbal corrections), which if she gives will be followed by another "ask" while giving her some more room. If she gave to me on the correction I'll take pretty much anything she gives on the next "ask" - a stand, a sit, or a full down.

 

The more we work on this the more relaxed she'll get about giving me more than a stand - she REALLY likes to work on her feet. She's also not running scared, waiting for the "battle over downs", and reading the sheep better and coming up with her own answers on pace, flanking clean, and even getting the confidence to go further for her sheep.

 

This quick song and dance is where I often - okay, usually - get caught daydreaming. I realize it's just practice that will help me get comfortable transitioning from my natural problem solving method, which frustrates dogs (and my trainers) immensely - to this way which is somewhat alien but not impossibly so, now that I think I've translated it to something I can understand.

[Carson Crazies]

As a very green handler, I really appreciate the time everyone has taken to explain things here. Thank you. Just by reading this thread I have gotten some insight about some things that have been going on with me and my dog. While I don't feel really qualified to post at this point, you can believe that I am lurking and paying close attention to everyone's suggestions and takes on these things. I appreciate all of your experiences.

 

Matter of fact, I wish y'all would do more of it.

[blackacre]

Originally posted by GR:

This is a prime example of why I do not intend to participate here any more.

No need to be a baby about it Gary.

I for one don't really mind your, shall we say, 'assertive' attitude, but if you've got one, you'd better be prepared to get as good as you can give.

Anyway, I do enjoy a good training discussion, so why don't you tell as what some of your training issues are and see if we can be helpful. Surely you have some?

A

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by blackacre:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GR:

This is a prime example of why I do not intend to participate here any more.

No need to be a baby about it Gary.

I for one don't really mind your, shall we say, 'assertive' attitude, but if you've got one, you'd better be prepared to get as good as you can give.

Anyway, I do enjoy a good training discussion, so why don't you tell as what some of your training issues are and see if we can be helpful. Surely you have some?

A

It's not a matter of "being a baby" about it. As you probably noticed, and I suspected, it wasn't just one who missed the "humor", there was another. And if the tongue-in-cheek, with the insurance policy of the "smiley", were missed by two, there are surely more. That makes the probability that anyone truly reads anything I post somewhat low, so why bother. I should have been working my dog rather than defending, giving, getting, whatnot. I can give and get with the best of them, but when private messages, and this sort of thing, get to the point where they have, it is a waste of my time and everyone else's here. I have other amusements.

 

Regards

[blackacre]

So what?

A couple of fellow Jack Knox devotees got in a tizzy and missed the humour in your post. Big whoop.

Anyway, that's my last call, sulk if you must.

A

[juliepoudrier]

GR,

I have to agree with Andrea. You say you are a proponent of discussion--well that certainly means you gotta take the good with the bad.

 

J.