Dual Sanctioning for One Trial (USBCHA and AHBA)

[juliepoudrier]

Liz,

FWIW you can get creative at USBCHA-sanctioned trials as well. I've seen Maltese crosses, trailers instead of pens, odd pens (different shape, no gate, etc.), chutes, situations where the handler has to call which sheep s/he will shed after the pen (sheep marked, handler calls a color at the pen), and more on USBCHA courses. Just because they're not standard doesn't mean they don't exist!

 

J.

[Liz P]

I know there are some, but most trials stick to the same standard course.

[juliepoudrier]

Well the point is that you can get creative when you host your own trial, even if it's USBCHA sanctioned.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Does anyone who was there think it less likely there would have been a tie if all elements were judged ? And would judging have rewarded a different dog ?? And do you cattle people like it as is ?

 

I would venture a guess that there would not have been a tie, but the handlers would have also approached the course differently depending on how the judging was being done. I would rather see it as it was then to have a team score higher that could not get the cattle to move over and through a obstacle or panel.

 

Thinking of one of Wayne & Jake's open runs where the cattle were trying to go around and Jake was able to stop them, walk them along the panel and get them stopped and through retaining all of his points. His penalty for not executing perfectly was additional time, it took longer trying to make the save over the dog that was able to do it correctly but he also earned more points then the dog that couldn't get it done.

 

For the most part at Finals, IMO, the straightest lines from one obstacle to another, keeping the cows calm, rolling along and under control yielded the fastest runs. Time lost at the upper part of the course (fetch and drive panels) was typically due to a dog either not keeping things straight, loosing control or not keeping a good pace, time lost at the bottom (obstacle portion) was due to handler error or lack of control, the cows pretty much eased into the obstacles if given the opportunity, a dog that tended to overflanked also had tough goes.

[Mark Billadeau]

It's a stock trailer that has panels that unfold and winch out from either side to make a nice sized corral on each side of the trailer, with a nice little sorting/loading chute in the middle. We had to bring the cattle into one corral, sort them into the middle chute, and put the sorted ones into an adjacent trailer, then do the same with the remaining head. Real practical work. But how do you judge that?

You assign total points for completing the work.

Points are deducted from this part of the course when the stock leave and need to be brought back to the obstacle (points off per head and amount based upon distance away). Team must complete obstacle before moving on. Time takes care of sorting out how efficient the team was in completing the obstacle. This is no different than when a chute, Maltese cross, or pen is used in a SDT and it must be completed before going on.

 

 

 

Previously I talked about alleys used for judging the lines between obstacles; there is no reason why these judging alleys cannot be adjusted in width for the personality of the stock (wider for loose groups and narrower for tight groups).

 

 

[Mark Billadeau]

Ties occur in SDTs with the fully judged course. I was in ties at my last two trials. Ties for 1st are typically broken by run-offs. Ties for any other placing are typically broken by the scores of sections of the course (i.e. gather, drive, etc); if the tie is perfect on all elements then time is supposed to be used to break the tie.

 

BTW, every SDT is typically dual sanctioned but the two sanctioning bodies have similar rules. For a while the trial in MD was triple sanctioned.

[juliepoudrier]

I would venture a guess that there would not have been a tie, but the handlers would have also approached the course differently depending on how the judging was being done. I would rather see it as it was then to have a team score higher that could not get the cattle to move over and through a obstacle or panel.

 

I'm not sure I understand this statement. Are you saying that you think that a dog who allowed the cattle to miss the obstacles could have scored higher than one who didn't in a judged trial? On a judged course, I think it would be virtually impossible for a team to miss obstacles and score higher than a team that didn't miss obstacles (unless the judge is completely off his/her rocker). Missed obstacles generally cost you more points than being offline between obstacles (unless you are seriously off line all over the place) and missing an obstacle low (thereby shortening the course, which would give you more time for the final elements/obstacles) will cost you more points than missing it high. But either way, missing obstacles costs points.

 

 

it took longer trying to make the save over the dog that was able to do it correctly but he also earned more points then the dog that couldn't get it done.

 

And in a judged trial, he would have lost points for being offline on the way to the panels, but the dog who missed the panels completely would have lost points for being offline *and* for missing the panels (i.e., more points than Jake would have lost), and the dog who kept them mostly online and straight through the panels would have lost the fewest points of all.

 

I am not arguing for judged cattle trials--just pointing out how a judge would have seen the runs you describe and how that could make a difference in the end; that is, it's entirely possible for the dog who took the cattle straight through the obstacle to be moving them more slowly than the dog who was off line but pushed them up the edge of the panel and through, and in such a case, the dog who was moving the cattle more quickly but not keeping them on straight, calm lines could win. And that win wouldn't necessarily be because he was a better worker, but simply because he was a faster worker (and of course that brings up the question of how fast is too fast, because the idea of using a dog is to move livestock efficiently and calmly, and obviously there's a speed above which one is running weight off the stock and causing them undue stress--and this applies to both sheep and cattle trials).

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

I'm saying that the course may be approached differently, we see it at point/time sheep trials vs. judged trials, at the point time trial you make a huge effort to make the save especially when we have the one attempt rule, at the judged trial it is left go believing that a failed save will cost you more then a slight miss.

[juliepoudrier]

And I'm saying that generally it's a mistaken belief. There are plenty of runs in regular judged trials where the handler does everything within his/her power to make the obstacles, no matter what happens in between (e.g., even if the dog brings the sheep practically back to your feet on a crossdrive). The main difference is that a human gets to *judge* what goes on between the obstacles, which can provide a real reflection (through the score) on the work that's happening during that portion of a run. Consider that the open course drive is 30 points. A judge is likely to take 1-2 pts per head for a missed panel--two missed panels = nearly half your drive points gone, plus the points you'll have lost for being off line enough to miss the panels in the first place, in which case the person who's way off line will lose more points than the person who was offline but able to run the sheep up the inside of the panel and get them through--some sort of banana-shaped drive line. That's incentive enough to try to make the panels. A near miss is still going to cost you more than making it through, and a miss low is going to cost you more than a miss high, but a miss is going to COST you, period, and at the end of the day, if there's good competition, those who miss panels aren't going to be the ones taking home the money. I don't get how anyone could think that judging somehow creates less incentive to make the obstacles.

 

IME the course is approached differently at points/time cattle trials in that things like the dog crossing its course aren't an issue--so if you need to head one or more animals, you would send the dog in the most direct line to do so, whereas in a sheep trial, you flank the dog in a way that doesn't have the dog cutting across the line of (forward) movement of the sheep. I've observed (and learned from) some other strategy differences like that, but I think it would be possible to judge a cattle trial and still end up with the best dogs winning the day.

 

Like I said, I'm not pushing for judged cattle trials; I just think the arguments against judging that have been presented thus far are pretty weak.

 

At any rate, there are at least some dogs who manage to do well in both venues (sheep and cattle), so clearly having to run judged courses doesn't put them at a disadvantage when they do so. Just sayin'.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Last night, overnight, the Boards were moved to a new server to try to correct that overlapping posts issue and a loading issue, and apparently the move caused some posts to be lost from this thread, among others. I never saw the missing posts, but I apologize for the loss, as they are gone for good.

 

Since I'm here anyway, I'll say that I think for the USBCHA to sanction trials that are also sanctioned by other organizations (except for the CBCA and our regional and local trial associations) is a serious error of judgment that will likely result in negative consequences for us in the future. As for how the HA would know whether trials are sanctioned by other organizations, that's simple -- have a question to that effect on the trial-sanctioning form.

[juliepoudrier]

Thanks for the explanation Eileen. One whole thread went missing from the general section. I thought maybe some gremlins were having fun while everyone was sleeping....

 

J.

[Amelia]

Ah, there's the rub. There are not all that many people competent enough to judge a cattle trial, and those that are, are running dogs.

 

A'hem...Joann Zoerb, Pete Carmichael, Jo and Leo Woodbury, Laura Hicks, Shannon Fritz, Dennis and Jean Gellings, Ellen Skillings, Lana Rowley, Haley Howard, Red Oliver, Hub Holmes, Gary Westbrook, Milton Scott, Scott Glen, Tony and Norma Stewart, and Roy Tabor are all sheepdog hands who have made, or are making their living in the cattle business. They might take exception to this statement. I team rope, and made my living in the cattle business for years, and I know I do. I agree that it's a pretty weak argument.

 

Cheers all,

[Sue R]

Since I'm here anyway, I'll say that I think for the USBCHA to sanction trials that are also sanctioned by other organizations (except for the CBCA and our regional and local trial associations) is a serious error of judgment that will likely result in negative consequences for us in the future. As for how the HA would know whether trials are sanctioned by other organizations, that's simple -- have a question to that effect on the trial-sanctioning form.

A quick Google search for USBCHA plus AHBA plus sanctioned is a strong indicator that these dual-sanctioned trials appear to be put forth by people who are also active in AKC "herding" and promote AKC "herding" and other "title" venues. So, in that way alone, I would find them suspect. I think Eileen has summed it up well.

[Sue R]

A'hem...Joann Zoerb, Pete Carmichael, Jo and Leo Woodbury, Laura Hicks, Shannon Fritz, Dennis and Jean Gellings, Ellen Skillings, Lana Rowley, Haley Howard, Red Oliver, Hub Holmes, Gary Westbrook, Milton Scott, Scott Glen, Tony and Norma Stewart, and Roy Tabor are all sheepdog hands who have made, or are making their living in the cattle business. They might take exception to this statement. I team rope, and made my living in the cattle business for years, and I know I do. I agree that it's a pretty weak argument.

 

Cheers all,

At least one of these people you mention (and in your previous, lost post) has not run in the Cattledog Finals for some years simply because they included judged elements, by his own admission. Perhaps instead of throwing out names (again, as in your previous post) it would be more meaningful if these handlers would be willing to give their opinions on this topic so we could hear from a range of accomplished cattledog handlers.

 

Apparently the USBCHA feels the current system is working or, in the evolution of the rather young cattledog trial history, is a step in the right direction. If not, I hope they seriously address this issue. The decision needs to be made considering input from farmers and ranchers using the working Border Collie on their livestock operations and trialing, as to what will help produce and preserve the best working dogs for real life use.

 

I'm not quite sure how team roping helps qualify someone for judging cattledog trials or finals. I know you have the experience and knowledge that I will never have, but having read your previous post, I think there is an element of purely personal interest in this discussion.

[Mike Neary]

I rarely comment on matters like this, but this dual sanctioning is very troublesome. It muddies the waters, and I see absolutely no benefit to real working dogs. Personally, I don't see how anyone could actually attend a dual sanctioned event, much less put it on. It's bad enough to have dual registrations.

 

Is there not a HA board member that can move to ban such practices? I'm sure there would be strong support.

 

Mike Neary

[Sue R]

Mike - I think the first and best approach would be for each of us to email or call our District Director and express our opinion about this. Thank you for the comment, I plan on doing just that as a concerned member.

 

PS - Thank you, Mike, I just sent an email to Herbert and my District Directors. I think this would be a very good place for member input to the board.

[Amelia]

I'm not quite sure how team roping qualifies someone for judging cattledog trials or finals.

 

I politely decline the nomination.

 

I wasn't suggesting that I should or would judge a cow dog trial, or the finals, and I think you probably know that.

 

Although... I know how to judge an outrun and lift, possess vision sufficient to see obstacles, can reasonably operate a stopwatch, and know cattle and working Border Collies pretty good, so I'm sure I could figure it out.

 

Try this; The belief that we don't know cattle, because we run sheepdogs and/or don't enter cow dog trials, is naive at best, and condescending at worst. I take exception to that, and that. is. all.

 

I've never hidden my agenda against USBCHA sanctioned cow dog trials. I think it's a bad idea on many levels, and I think we need a unique and separate association. Cross-pollination of AHBA and USBCHA is simply the latest incarnation of trouble brought on by the cow dog program, as far as I'm concerned. However, I don't agree that dual-sanctioning is bad because the trial is judged. I believe that it's bad because the level of work, proficiency, expectation will become even further dumbed down, which is never a good thing for working Border Collies.

 

But it would be interesting to see an Aussie at the cow dog finals...

 

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention Peter Gonnett.

 

Cheers all

[stockdogranch]

Cross-pollination of AHBA and USBCHA is simply the latest incarnation of trouble brought on by the cow dog program,

I'm not sure how you can "blame" the cowdog program for AHBA/USBCHA dual sanctioned trials, when this particular trial that Patrick mentions is the first I am aware of that is dual sanctioned and is strictly cattle; in fact, there is someone in the next state over who has had at least three AHBA/USBCHA trials this past year, and this person is, GASP, a SHEEP trial person,

A

[Sue R]

I politely decline the nomination.

 

I wasn't suggesting that I should or would judge a cow dog trial, or the finals, and I think you probably know that.

 

Although... I know how to judge an outrun and lift, possess vision sufficient to see obstacles, can reasonably operate a stopwatch, and know cattle and working Border Collies pretty good, so I'm sure I could figure it out.

 

Try this; The belief that we don't know cattle, because we run sheepdogs and/or don't enter cow dog trials, is naive at best, and condescending at worst. I take exception to that, and that. is. all.

I have never said that you or others don't know and understand cattle just because you run sheepdogs and/or don't enter cattledog trials. I know a number of competent, successful sheepdog handlers who freely admit they know nothing about cattle - in fact, the majority of people I know with working Border Collies do nothing with cattle, and would be the first to admit that they are not qualified to judge a cattledog trial (and many would say they are not qualified to judge a sheepdog trial, in spite of experience in trialing).

 

One does not have to run in trials to have experience working with a particular type of stock, but running in that type of trial does give someone experience that is helpful in judging that sort of trial, I would think.

 

Since many people who run successfully in Open would easily say that they are not capable or ready to judge, it would stand to reason that people who don't run on a particular stock (or train or work on that kind of stock) would be less than qualified to judge on that kind of stock.

 

I've never hidden my agenda against USBCHA sanctioned cow dog trials. I think it's a bad idea on many levels, and I think we need a unique and separate association.

I am sure there are people who agree, those who disagree, and those who don't find it an issue of interest or concern. I think the last two groups are in the majority, though.

 

Cross-pollination of AHBA and USBCHA is simply the latest incarnation of trouble brought on by the cow dog program, as far as I'm concerned.

Why do you say it is trouble "brought on by the cow dog program"? My Google search revealed a fairly few dual-sanctioned events, cattle and sheep/goats, primarily sheep/goats. Of course, there may be many more than revealed in a Google search, and your experiences out West may be very different from mine in the East. What I did see was the common thread among the dual-sanctioned events that I found was that they were being hosted and/or judged by AKC supporters and proponents. It sounds to me like they were simply events meant to supply bragging rights to someone.

 

However, I don't agree that dual-sanctioning is bad because the trial is judged. I believe that it's bad because the level of work, proficiency, expectation will become even further dumbed down, which is never a good thing for working Border Collies.

I am totally in agreement with you on this.

 

But it would be interesting to see an Aussie at the cow dog finals...

I'm not sure why but I can say that I have seen a very few, very nice Aussies in action in clinics and at trials - but none that could do what a Border Collie can do beyond the arena and/or novice levels.

 

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention Peter Gonnett.

 

Cheers all

I have only periforally been involved with a few trials but it sometimes amazes me how difficult it can be for a trial to get a capable judge. Judges have farms and ranches, families and jobs, and their own dogs to run.

 

And, for what it's worth, I lean strongly towards at least some part (the gather) of any and all field trials to be judged at the minimum; am not in favor of strictly points/time trials; and don't feel most arena trials should be sanctioned (certainly not on sheep) because they are not a reflection of qualification for National Finals. I do believe that *how* something is accomplished is important along with *if* something is accomplished, and that is why I lean towards judging.

 

But in my (again, admittedly limited) experience, good work wins trials (along with an element of luck that can work for a team or against a team) and sloppy work doesn't, judged or not judged. And that goes both for cattledog trials and sheepdog trials. But, your mileage apparently varies.

[Amelia]

USBCHA & AHBA SANCTIONED COW DOG TRIAL

SUNDAY, JUNE 19 2011

ACTION K9 SPORTS

15671 OLD MILKY WY, ESCONDIDO, CA 92027

JUDGE TERRY FOLSOM

LEVELS 1, II, III OFFERED. $65 PER ENTRY

6:30 A.M. HANDLERS MEETING

NO HORSES ALLOWED. ALL COURSES ON FOOT.

 

 

http://www.actionk9sports.com/premiums/HRD_COW_DOG_TRIAL_ENTRY.doc

 

I just spoke to the man who won this judged trial today. He is a lifelong cattleman, an uncommonly good cowboy, a 40+ year friend of mine and a first-time-ever dog trialer. He told me that he won because he was the only person there who could read cattle. I told him that he was now qualified for next year's cow dog finals.

 

So much for the way we do things "out West"

 

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention Dale Montgomery

[Eileen Stein]

USBCHA & AHBA SANCTIONED COW DOG TRIAL

SUNDAY, JUNE 19 2011

ACTION K9 SPORTS

15671 OLD MILKY WY, ESCONDIDO, CA 92027

JUDGE TERRY FOLSOM

LEVELS 1, II, III OFFERED. $65 PER ENTRY

6:30 A.M. HANDLER’S MEETING

NO HORSES ALLOWED. ALL COURSES ON FOOT.

 

 

http://www.actionk9sports.com/premiums/HRD_COW_DOG_TRIAL_ENTRY.doc

 

I just spoke to the man who won this judged trial today. He is a lifelong cattleman, an uncommonly good cowboy, a 40+ year friend of mine and a first-time-ever dog trialer. He told me that he won because he was the only person there who could read cattle. I told him that he was now qualified for next year's cow dog finals.

 

So much for the way we do things "out West"[

 

I'm trying to figure out your point, Amelia. Are you saying this trial is, or is not, typical of the way you do things out West? Are you saying it's a good trial because it was judged and a good guy won, or a bad trial because it's "cross-pollination of AHBA and USBCHA" and a part of the USBCHA cow dog program? Or is your point something entirely different? And why do you say the winner is "now qualified for next year's cow dog finals"?

[Sue R]

What Eileen said.

 

Well, plus this is a good example that a person must understand stock to do well (consistently, at least, even though it was his first go round); you can have bad and good venues for a trial (as I said, winning some trials provides no indication whatsoever that a team is *qualified* for anything); and it looks to me like USBCHA sanctioning was just tacked onto what is essentially an AHBA event, and that's pretty pathetic, and a good examply why dual-sanctioning of any event should not be allowed. This is a case of "consider the source". And this sort of thing is not limited to cattledog people and events, as pointed out by others.

 

The cattledog program is not the enemy - people who misuse the system are. JMO.

[Amelia]

Out here (western US), we do NOT judge cattle trials

 

Meanwhile, the "real" cowdog folks from the west coast (who have more money to trial than I do) will be at a trial up in Reno this weekend.

 

I was responding to these comments made earlier in the thread. Cow dog trials "Out West" are no better than out East, or out in the middle somewhere, and my "real" cowdog folk friend wasn't in Reno. These type statements are made in a vacume, and are not good for trialing.

 

I'm saying it's a bad trial because of dual sanctioning, and because cowdog trials in general are a bad idea, in my opinion. Fred said he won because he was the only one who didn't have one big, long wreck.

 

Like everyone keeps saying in this thread; Cattle work differently, and asking a dog to manuever 3 or 4hd through some obstacles is just begging for injury, especially when you have a hand who knows less about cattle than I know about brain surgery. I saw a vid on FB, I believe, of a guy carrying his injured dog off the field at the finals this year. I had a very nice dog given to me that had it's hip dislocated in a train wreck with a steer while being handled by one of the esteemed cow dog handlers. He was a tremendous dog with power to burn, fearless and athletic. It was tragic to see what had been done to him as a result of misusing his skills. A cowdog convert to sheep told me he did so, because all too often trials offered a set of cattle and circumstances guaranteed to get his dog hurt. He had made his career in the cattle business and knew what he was talking about.

 

A contest between cattle and a dog is a poor way to treat cattle and dogs, imo. I feel the same way about team penning. If I ran through cattle like team penners do, or allowed cattle to be harassed by a dog like time and points does, or let a good dog get hurt for bragging rights, I would have heard about it.

 

Regarding qualifying; there were 138 cowdogs with points towards the finals last year, only 50 open entries. This trial had 11 entries, my friend will garner .8 for the win and should be qualified for next year if they have the same limited number of entries. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find an article XVI on the cowdog side.

Cheers all

[Eileen Stein]

Out here (western US), we do NOT judge cattle trials

Meanwhile, the "real" cowdog folks from the west coast (who have more money to trial than I do) will be at a trial up in Reno this weekend.

 

I was responding to these comments made earlier in the thread. Cow dog trials "Out West" are no better than out East, or out in the middle somewhere, and my "real" cowdog folk friend wasn't in Reno. These type statements are made in a vacume, and are not good for trialing.

 

Oh, okay. I had understood Anna to be contrasting this trial to the prevailing custom "out West" when she said, "Notice that this [trial] is judged. Out here (western US), we do NOT judge cattle trials." IOW, saying that this dual-sanctioned trial was an exception to the normal practice in cattledog trials in the West, in that it was judged rather than p/t. Also, I took her to be talking about cattledog trialers when she said the "real" cowdog folks would be at a trial up in Reno. Since your friend had never trialed before entering this dual-sanctioned trial, I don't take her comment as inaccurate, since I never interpreted her to mean that everyone in the cattle business would be up in Reno.

 

I can see where you and I must have interpreted her comments differently, but I don't really see how her statements "are not good for trialing."

 

As for your position that there shouldn't be cattledog trials at all, I'll leave that topic for someone who knows more about cattledog trials than I do. But the fact that everybody at this trial except for your friend had one big long wreck may say more about this particular trial than about cattledog trials in general. Maybe things were different up in Reno.

[stockdogranch]

Thanks, Eileen, for clarifying what I was saying. You are correct in your interpretation.

 

Amelia, your friend sounds like a deserving fellow, and congratulations to him for his win. As for him being the only one there who could read cattle, that is not at all surprising, since it seemed pretty clear to me that it was an AHBA trial first, with the USBCHA sanctioning tacked on for whatever reason. So, yes, I would think that most of the folks competing there did in fact know less about cattle than either of us know about brain surgery.

 

I'm not sure about his .8 points, however. You say there were 11 entries and he won the class. If there had been 11 entries in the Open class (or whatever they called the equivalent), then he should have gotten 2.2 points, no? So if he won 1st place, and only got .8, then there must have only been 4 entries in the Open level class, which is not enough to qualify. The minimum for an Open class is 5 dogs (which would be 1 point). Or am I misunderstanding something here? Either way, .8 may or may not be enough to put him in the top 50 dogs for next year.

 

As for your opinion that there should not be cattle trials at all, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I have not really seen all of these "dangerous" obstacles that you mention; the obstacles that are used in cattle trials are always made of cattle panels--panels that allow room for the dog to scoot underneath and out, if necessary. The smart dogs learn early on how to do that, same as they learn to not get kicked. Usually, dogs get hurt when the dog is out of control--running first to hit the nose, then immediately back to the heel, and so on. I agree--that is a recipe for disaster for both the dog and the cattle. That is not the kind of work I condone, nor is it the kind of work that wins or places well at trials. Calm, quiet work wins the day.

 

This statement:

allowed cattle to be harassed by a dog like time and points does,

is utterly ridiculous and absolute nonsense. When was the last time you saw a real cattle trial (not some ACK or AHBA thing)? If you would allow yourself to really watch with an open mind, you might be quite surprised.

 

I get it that you have some sort of personal grudge against the cattle program (and always have), although I cannot figure out why it matters so much to you. However, when you insist on making such inaccurate and nonsensical statements, you only make it evident that you are not informed on the matter at all.

 

As for your underlying belief that these dogs should only work sheep, as that is their "heritage" from across the pond (at least, I think I remember you making a statement along those lines some time back--forgive me if this is not accurate), that may not necessarily be the case. I lease calves from an old Scotsman who is now in his 80s, and he often talks about growing up in Scotland with his dad using the dogs on both sheep and cattle for the "cooperative" as he calls it (in his wonderful accent). So, it seems that there is some history of using the dogs on cattle "over there" as well.

 

A