Jump to content
BC Boards

National Cattledog Association


twinpines

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Warning!!!! The following post is completely speculation and conjecture.

 

That said, I'm getting the feeling that one of the reasons is because the NCA want funds from the ABCA and is unlikely to get them if the USBCHA is still sanctioning trials and holding the Cowdog Finals. Again... I have nothing to base that on. Just one of the few things that holds any logic for me. As with most things... when one gets lost, follow the money.

 

dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't trial on cattle, yet, but I can understand why cattle dog people would want their own organization. However, I don't see how the NCA can ask the USBCHA to stop sanctioning cattle trials just because that is what they desire. That would be like asking the AKC, AHBA or ASCA to stop hosting herding trials so that the USBCHA could get more entries, money, etc or claim their already existing titles for their own (National Cattle Dog Champ in this case). It's a free market, so to speak. If the NCA offers a superior program, the USBCHA cattle program will die off on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Liz, and with the folks who have posted elsewhere about the fact that the USBCHA represents STOCKDOG handlers, not handlers of dogs who work just one kind of stock.

 

I am also in the camp of those who believe that one of the most important things that defines a border collie is the (generally) natural gathering instinct. A trial program that ignores that (by, for example, not judging that phase of the work) is selling the dogs short. It will also influence what is being bred, and if those traits that define the border collie aren't judged to be important in a different venue, then the dogs *will* change, and IMO not for the better. I've been to cattle trials where the only concession to a proper outrun was to knock a few points off the dog whose outrun carried it inside a set of arbitrarily placed cones or posts. I suppose that's better than nothing, but I don't understand the resistance to judging the outrun and lift. Shouldn't the cattle dog who does a proper outrun and can lift the cattle without resorting to teeth lose fewer points than the dog who runs practically straight up the field or buzzes the cattle--or worse--to get them moving? (Yes, I've seen this, and other things that I found disappointing.)

 

The question about drives (or lack thereof) at a cattle finals also concerns me. It seems to me that if a drive can't be included because the cattle might escape to the set out, then the set up of the trial field needs to be re-examined, rather than just elimating the drive. Aren't cattle *drives* a long-standing tradition in the real world of cattle ranching? Wouldn't driving something that should be tested at a finals, if not at all the trials leading up to a finals?

 

As to Mark's point about sheepdog people "meddling," I think there's some truth in that as well. Except that there are plenty of us who raise sheep and mainly trial on sheep who also use or dogs on cattle as needed. My dogs have had to work sheep, cattle, goats, and poultry in the course of working around the farm (or helping neighbors manage their own livestock, which is where most of my dogs' cattle experience comes from), so I think the split between sheepdog people and cattledog people is an artificial one in the real world, if not in the trialing world. I've made this same argument on an e-mail list I won't name here, but where people like to argue, for example, that border collies are good for working only in large areas. My comments always end up being something like "I don't go get a different dog once I've gathered the sheep out of the pasture if the next step is pushing them into a pen or chutes." Good working border collies ought to be able to handle a variety of stock and breeds within the various types of stock. Not all will excel with all types of stock, but deliberately creating a split can't be in the best interests of the breed as a whole.

 

I'm sure that if the new group boycotts USBCHA sanctioned trials they could effectively end the USBCHA cattle program, but I think they should ask themselves what happens if the new association fails? Then what?

 

I guess that puts me in the camp of disagreeing with USBCHA giving up sanctioning of cattle dog trials.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

 

First of all, I appreciate you stepping in and answering my questions. I asked pointed questions as I don't beat around the bush and people were saying this and that and I wanted to know the truth.

 

There are a couple of areas that concern me.

 

No judging in the trials, going to a time and point trial.

 

Good, clean work is one of the goals that I set for myself. I have seen on a time/point trials where the cattle are pushed, bite excessively, scattered, chased about only to have someone who raced the cattle around without concern for good, controlled work win while someone who did excellent work lost out on the time. I have seen good, controlled work win in the time/points arena too.

 

How do you separate the two? Do I want a dog that will race the cattle about or do I want a dog that controls the cattle.

 

On the matter of the drive. I believe there were dogs that did the drive at the finals. What separated them from the ones that could not?

 

Field work. I believe there should be field work. If a dog can't get cattle out of the field, then does a rancher want that dog or it's pups? With an arena, you do have the advantage of a fence and you/horse in the work.

 

Let's say it does go to time/points...and there is field work. I assume the handlers stays at the post. How do you separate the quality work from a dog that races the cattle down the field.

 

I really enjoy cattledog trials. I have done field and arena work. I sold my top cattledogs to Ron, who ran them at the Finals. Both were sheepdogs prior and ran in many sheepdog finals. On the cattle, they handle them with ease.

 

If the time/points is the standard, how do you separate the best....the fastest one may not be the best dog.

 

What if the USBCHA decides to keep the cattledog program?

 

I have seen other cattledog organization come and go? How will you prevent this program from this...

 

Thanks,

Diane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Diane, of all the trials I have attended there was only one cowdog trial that was judged. It's not that I chose not to attend judged trials, it's just that was the only one that I have ever seen offered. It was a class that was added one year to the tulsa fair trial line up which is a trial that pays out good money and has a lot of attendees every year. The rest of the classes remained time and points. They added it because the sheepdog people in the club who puts it on said they'd run in a cattle trial if it was judged. Not a single sheepdog person entered and the class only had a few entrants so they decided never to offer it again.

 

Yep, double posting this here and on the facebook thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They added it because the sheepdog people in the club who puts it on said they'd run in a cattle trial if it was judged. Not a single sheepdog person entered and the class only had a few entrants so they decided never to offer it again.

 

Nicole, this suggests to me that cowdog people don't want to try to run under a judging system. Why is that?

 

As a sheepdog person I have no desire to enter cowdog trials:

we don't keep cows

I have no desire to keep cows

I have no reason to learn how to work cows

 

As a Border Collie handler I am concerned that due to the influences of how cowdog trials are run (and how many cowdog people want trials run) the stock sense and gathering instinct will not be selected for in cowdog breeding because this has little value to placement in cowdog trials (non judged).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Well stated Mark. The reason for being against judging that I have heard most often is because not having judging eliminates any bias in placements. The implication being, of course, that the judging at sheepdog trials is biased.

 

Nicole points out something important: The cowdog people don't want judging. That's why she doesn't find judged trials. They would include it only for sheepdog people who expect it, but apparently the fact that none of the sheepdog people they added it for actually entered just serves to reinforce their argument against judging. No one wants it.

 

That said, cattle are different, and I think judging would have to be different. In general you're not going to get the precise lines that you get with a type of animal that flocks, and that's why I can understand the parts after the outwork not being judged.

 

But as someone pointed out in one of these discussions (it's being discussed in various forums), using time to break ties can lead to competitors racing through the course (you see this on sheep sometimes too), and I think we would agree that running stock is not in the best interests of the stock. If we are trying to showcase these dogs as a means for farmers and ranchers to manage stock in a low-stress and efficient manner, then adding time to the mix (other than a "no progress" time limit) could encourage the kind of stock handling that's not good for the stock. And the end result is rewarding the dog that pushes the stock hard instead of the dog that takes a more thoughtful approach. <--This doesn't mean the dog takes forever to get the job done, but just that it walks or slowly trots the stock through the course, and in so doing takes longer than the dog that pushes the stock harder, maybe moving them at a fast trot or faster. On a trial course that lasts just a few minutes, this probably isn't having a great effect on the stock, but any farmer or rancher who moved stock at speed would likely find the resulting weight loss unacceptable.

 

The standard argument against the above is that rough work won't win (same as with sheep). I don't know that this is always proven out.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like people don't their runs penalized for not being able to keep cows together and moving in the desired direction because the animals won't/don't cooperate.

 

What would happen to our breed if sheepdoggers had this attitude based upon the type of sheep being run (range ewes vs commercial farm flock vs heavily dog broke sheep)?

 

Wouldn't making the test harder initially yield lower scores but ultimately lead to selecting the better dogs and eventially a better breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a good reason that rushing or shoving or racing (or whatever you want to call it) the stock through the course just doesn't get it done; here's why: on a typical course, you have an outrun, fetch across the fetch line (rather than a post, as cattle won't usually come that close to the person), then a drive through panels (a regular drive), then a crossdrive (regular crossdrive) through panels. Then, usually the handler can leave the post to assist through several obstacles. These obstacles are usually some sort of a chute, maybe a maltese cross kind of thing, something of that sort. What they really are is the same situation as penning--getting your stock to feed into some little opening out in the middle of nowhere. Now, with animals that do not flock, and are as likely to split in as many directions as you have animals, and have no desire to go into that opening, just how successful do you think you will be if you are trying to shove them in? The closest thing I can liken it to is trying to pen range ewes who have never been in a pen at every obstacle you come to. And there are generally several of those obstacles, before you get to a regular pen (perhaps without gate). (Then sometimes, you have to have the dog hold them in the gateless pen while you walk around to the front of the pen to the "man gate" and open it to let them out. This often results in the handler kind of tip toeing around, avoiding eye contact with the stock to get that gate open without pushing the stock over your dog.) Shoving the stock around the course just doesn't work. Occasionally, if you have a dog that is enough of a pain to the stock (first hitting heels, then coming around to the head, and so on), one or two of your head *might* run through an obstacle on their way to just get the heck away from the dog, but that is actually pretty rare.

 

So, same as with sheep trials, it is calm, careful movement of the stock that gets around the course in the best time. If you bring them too hard and fast on the fetch, when you go to finesse your obstacles, your dog won't have a good enough handle on them to get it done efficiently. Gee--same as with a sheep trial. So while, yes, the stock move and behave very differently, the principles of calm, quiet movement of the stock is still what wins the day.

 

The only exception to this is if you don't know how to design a course, and all the obstacles are along your fenceline (like ASCA); then you could probably race them around the course. But that's not how we do things,

A

ETA: Mark, if your stock don't stay together (as is fairly often the case), you are losing time every time you have to go get that one animal and bring it back to the group. The time sorts all that stuff out. I know that it's so different form moving sheep around a course that it's hard to conceptualize, but points/time does not mean "easy" or "dumbed down" or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, same as with sheep trials, it is calm, careful movement of the stock that gets around the course in the best time. If you bring them too hard and fast on the fetch, when you go to finesse your obstacles, your dog won't have a good enough handle on them to get it done efficiently. Gee--same as with a sheep trial. So while, yes, the stock move and behave very differently, the principles of calm, quiet movement of the stock is still what wins the day.

If this is really the case why the resistance to judged trials? Is it simply because "that's not the way it's been done"?

 

ETA: The attitude is still "the dog that can do the job the fastest is the dog that deserves to win (and be bred). Is the attitude for dealing with cows on the farm/ranch "do the task as fast as possible"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ACA wants to split off from the USBCHA, then they will do it. Sometimes a split is necessary for growth, and this can be a tough call. Something to consider is the possibility that both groups could gain the most from staying together while acknowledging differences. The thing that binds us together, the work, will only still be there if people who are experts in stock growing prove there is a reason for the work by providing it. The more people under the working stockdog's tent the better. In the face of changes due to development of land and population growth, let's not get bogged down by nuance within our thing while the larger world pushes change of a different sort. Both sides should look carefully and see if there are more benefits overall to staying together than splitting apart.

 

I am a relative newcomer to stock owning, and dog trialing. Maybe I'm naive or overly romantic about this thing, but I would be disappointed in a dog of mine who would not try and help me with whatever kind of stock we might encounter (even if I have to call him off for safety reasons, like with my horse), and who could not demonstrate to some degree all the working characteristics of a reasonably well bred border collie when asked. I'm for making as many opportunities for these characteristics to be demonstrated as possible. Also, balance and inclusion can help give all of our subgroups strength in the face of a larger society where the people who grow the food are getting to be a smaller percentage of the population over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like people don't their runs penalized for not being able to keep cows together and moving in the desired direction because the animals won't/don't cooperate.

 

What would happen to our breed if sheepdoggers had this attitude based upon the type of sheep being run (range ewes vs commercial farm flock vs heavily dog broke sheep)?

 

 

 

Mark,

 

I'd be careful of generalizations. It's clear to me from the comments I've received after polling District 5 members that many cattle dog handlers are just fine with a judged outrun, lift and fetch. Some are in favor of fully judged trials just as in sheep.

 

Most of those support continuation and further development of the USBCHA cattle dog program.

 

Not all of those who support development of a separate organization to run the cattle dog program support purely non-judged trials either. Some think that it would just make the cattle dog people work harder to build the program.

 

At his point I don't agree. I think the pool of stock dog trailers is too small as it is. The pool of working stockdog trailers is smaller still (and by that I mean people who use dogs to do real work on real farms on a daily basis). My feeling is that dividing a small group into two smaller groups will reduce the influence of both groups in the grand scheme of things.

 

In addition, having hand numerous email exchanges with members of the new group, and reading as many forum postings as I can manage, I still don't know what the problem is that this new group is trying to solve. Their membership fees will be the same; sanctioning fees likely similar, rules "pretty much like USBCHA", structure of the Finals "not yet determined but pretty much like the USBCHA. So, from what I've seen so far, everything under NCA is going to be "pretty much the way it is now under USBCHA" - so why split?

 

The biggest argument in favor of a split seems to be that there are some USBCHA BOD decisions regarding the National Cattle Dog Finals, and a few other issues, that the NCA organizers disagree with. That's true on the sheepdog side too though. There are decisions that I'm not always thrilled about. I don't feel the need to quit and form a new sheepdog umbrella group.

 

The biggest issue is that within the HA, cattle dog trailers are a minority, and a shrinking one, and some feel they aren't adequately represented. That may be true, but as I went down the list of current USBCHA BOD members, I counted I believe 9 who trial or work cattle, or have done so recently, so I'm not sure that holds either.

 

I haven't been convinced yet that this is a good idea, but I'm still listening and learning.

 

Pearse`

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

I'd be careful of generalizations. It's clear to me from the comments I've received after polling District 5 members that many cattle dog handlers are just fine with a judged outrun, lift and fetch. Some are in favor of fully judged trials just as in sheep.

So is this another case of a vocal minority?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person who goes back to a time when many of the sheepdog trials in our area were time/point this is the same argument that was held then. I still adhere to the idea of judging good work. There are definite differences between working cattle and sheep and the judging need not be the same-making allowances for stock requires knowledge of various types of cattle, just as it is assumed the judge has knowledge of sheep behaviour. Since the decrease in time/point trials on sheep there was a rapid increase in the quality of work at trials, hence I think the same would happen in the cattle dog world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record: I'd run my dogs in any system--P/T, judged, or any combination of those. But, at this point in time, I can see the merits for P/T (with or without judged outrun),

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest argument in favor of a split seems to be that there are some USBCHA BOD decisions regarding the National Cattle Dog Finals, and a few other issues, that the NCA organizers disagree with. That's true on the sheepdog side too though. There are decisions that I'm not always thrilled about. I don't feel the need to quit and form a new sheepdog umbrella group.

I think, and it's only my impression, from what I have read and from correspondence I have had with a very few individuals, that while there seems to be no real unity among those who trial on cattle, there is a desire among a number of those (who are very involved in the cattledog program) to have a level of autonomy which they don't feel is theirs under the USBCHA.

 

In addition, I think there are some USBCHA members who feel that cattledog trials have no place in USBCHA, and there is sometimes overt animosity there. So there are cattledog handlers who do feel that there are numbers in USBCHA (some more outspoken than others) who look for every opportunity to criticise and decry the cattledog program as detrimental to the future of the working Border Collie and a drain on the USBCHA (even if and when facts do not bear these ideas out).

 

I don't like the idea of a separate organization - I would prefer to see a viable, self-supporting, respected cattledog program in the USBCHA - that can test and promote the working-bred Border Collie as a stockdog, not just a sheepdog or a cattledog. I don't trial but I do have an interest in the future of these dogs, the future of USBCHA, and the future of trialing (sheepdog and cattledog) as an advocate of the working-bred Border Collie as a stockdog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judged outrun, lift and fetch, point/time the rest of the course but also be certain that the obstacle portion of course is set up to demand precision. I consulted with a judge yesterday specifically to discuss this subject, he predominently runs on sheep but has judged cattledog trials and has handled cattle, this was his suggestion and I have to say that I agree with him after spending time discussing it.

 

Also we believe that the type of cattle used (not over broke or intentinally put on the fight for the purpose of breaking them) was key to the obstacle portion of the course to work right. I would prefer cows that have not been intentionally offended and have discovered that they can fight, that way if during the trial my dog does not offend the cows all is well, but if someone else's is a bully, takes a cheap shot or is pestering the cows he will have to deal with the consequence. The cows should know what a dog is and be willing to move off pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest herbertholmes

One thing that no one mentions on any of the forums:

 

The USBCHA cattle dog program, in my opinion is a failure.

 

In the first 4 years, it took about $40,000 from the income that the sheepdog trials had/were producing, helping push the USBCHA to the brink of insolvency.

 

From that point on, no more money produced by the SDT side was put into the cattle program.

 

The cattle finals/program the began to slide down in revenue generation.

 

Different things have been tried, sanctioning fees doubled, less dogs in to the finals to make cattle less expensive.

 

The way the course is set up and run , as well as some rules have been tweek'd on a yearly basis.

 

None of these things have created new growth.

 

The USBCHA members that have been carrying the program are the same members that formed the NCA.

 

Different reason's for that, main one, in my opinion, being the "Golden Rule". The one with the gold makes the rules.

 

They want their on director's ect. It is much easier to set up a new organization than it would be to restructure the USBCHA.

 

Some might not like what the rules of the NCA are, some might not like what the rules of the USBCHA are. Those arguement's are the reason the USBCHA program is a failure. No one can agree about enough things to present a strong program. Too many split factions.

 

In my opinion, the Cattle trials as a whole, whatever organization oversees it, is doomed for failure in relation to one cohesive national group. We simply cannot get everyone on one page with straight cattledoggers. Throw the sheep people in there and and it gets a lot worse.

 

My opinion based on working with the cattledog program the past eight years.

The USBCHA cattle program would not survive the next two years if the NCA was never created. Not enough revenue to support it.

 

The NCA has been formed. I applaud the creator's efforts and hope it works for them.

That being said, The USBCHA cattle program will not survive without somebody from the cattle trialing community stepping up as a group (6 minimum) of leaders with at least of $20,000 in new sponsorship money, a venue to host the cattle finals for at least one year, but better if it were two. The cattle numbers and infrastructure and labor to host a national finals.

 

I do not think we have the people with the time and skills to devote from their personal lives to get all of the above done. Moreover when a lot of people,myself included, feel we are kicking a dead horse here.

 

This post is very pessimistic, I know, and not a good thing for one that you all have trusted to work for you in the USBCHA. However, I think I have to tell what I see and feel, and I have no good feeling about the USBCHA cattle program getting better no matter what happens.

 

So maybe, just maybe, these people with the NCA can do it in a way that makes it grow. Since the USBCHA has not been able to do that, why not let them have a try at it? Herbert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel it is a bit dangerous to engage in these discussions as things can be misunderstood or taken out of context. I think we, the NCA, are being made to look like the bad guy in a bar fight. I also think that it is way past time for us to try to explain to you, our friends, why we have taken the actions that we have.

I sit on the USBCHA Board of Directors as a very lonely voice for the cattledog program. I have asked many of the questions that you are asking now. Why can we not have elected representation on a cattledog board? To have this would take a change in the bylaws which I was told is nearly impossible (please read the bylaws). It was, and is, my worry that when this was suggested by current USBCHA BOD members that this could fragment further, an already, fragmented industry. It has been my goal to find a way to create unity within the cattledog community nation-wide. If we are indeed a National Organization then shouldn’t we represent all of the cattledog handlers across the nation?

The cattle program and the sheep program are actually two different associations trying to operate under one umbrella with one set of rules. It is very difficult to write rules for one that doesn’t stifle the other. Let me give you an example of this – recently the Brazilian Border Collie Association asked us to host them in a world trial, as part of our National Finals. Very doable in my opinion. They see us as the leading edge of the cattledog industry in the world. We should feel very proud of this. The issue with the BOD was if we opened this door for the cattledogs then we would have to do the same for the UK Handlers in the sheep program. This has systematically died in the USBCHA BOD due to lack of interest. This is only one example. Nevertheless, I ask you is this the sign of a healthy program???

My point is that the NCA is being formed with the encouragement of the leadership of the USBCHA, with the intention of being a friendly spin-off organization - not to debate rules or courses - but to put the future of the cattledog program in the hands of those that have a passion for it – our friends the cattledog handlers.

 

 

Resectfully,

Tim Gifford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim

 

I would support the NCA for the Finals, if they had judged outwork in a field as part of the program and no special sorter, meaning the sort must use the dog and there was field work which had a drive. The drive doesn't have to be judged but in my heart, I believe the outwork should be, as that is the core to the Border Collie. The remaining work would be fine as time and points.

 

 

Would the NCA consider that? It seems like this is one of the main sticking points the handler have

 

Diane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that point on, no more money produced by the SDT side was put into the cattle program.

Were membership dues in the USBCHA counted as part of the "money produced by the SDT side"? Are membership dues used to support the SDT program?

 

If so, perhaps there should be two memberships USBCHA-Sheep and USBCHA-Cattle; this is effectively what the NCA will accomplish (a separate cattle revenue stream).

 

The USBCHA could have two membership dues sheep & cattle; a portion of each would go to support general USBCHA operations (not associated with a specific trial program) while the remaining would go to support the specific trial program of that membership. This way dual trialers are not paying to support the general overhead of two trial organizations (USBCHA & NCA).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I am getting very confused over this issue. I was under the impression that the cattledog finals was not a drain at all on the USBCHA coffers in the last few years. I read somewhere that the location and cattle were donated and the RFD-TV special was aired due to the Under the Hat group sponsorships. I think Mark might have the right idea- dues for sheepdoggers, dues for cattledoggers (or dues for those who participate in both arenas.) Separate the sanctioning fees for each (if not already done so) for operating expenses, which is really only the Finals. I just hate the idea that the first televised cattledog finals will go under the USBCHA banner and then everything change.

 

If the cattledog side of the USBCHA does eventually go under, then so be it- let it die a natural death, but it seems unwise to just give it away... if the NCA shows that it will be able to pull the cattle people together into a cohesive group in a year or so, it will florish and the USBCHA will have less sanctioned trials as time goes on and eventually become defunct. However, there may be a few people waiting in the sidelines who will step up and help those overworked individuals who have been donating time for the cattledog side of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wonder, especially after reading HH's post, if all the discussion and hand wringing really is an exercise in futility. If NCA is going forward (they are) and USBCHA cattle program is going to die on its own (if HH is correct and no one steps up to fix it before 2013 finals), why do we need to do anything at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...