with my "training stick" I do make it "come alive" I move the piece of rubber as if it "was alive" which i think makes it a little better than just something standing there like a ball not moving really.
The issue I have with this is that the training stick/piece of rubber, etc. does NOT have its own agenda the way livestock do. The livestock and the dog are constantly reading each others' energy; that's how the dog knows how big the "bubble" is, and that's how the stock know how much "presence" the dog has. They are each giving off "pressure," if you will, to each other. The dog's pressure on the stock should meet and be just slightly more than that of the stock--that's how this whole thing works--and the dog gets the stock to move in the desired direction.
Now, certainly, you can train a dog the proper "moves"--I can train a dog so that I can place it where *I* think it needs to be in relation to the stock, i.e., which flank to take, and how wide or close *I* think it should be, etc. And I read stock pretty well, but it seems to me that the dog has a better shot at reading the stock "properly," since, 1) the dog is generally much closer to the stock than I am, and 2) reading other animals' energy is the way the dog communicates; it is not the primary mode of communication with humans. There are many of us who
much prefer a dog who can think on its own, read the stock, and adjust its distance to the stock (and thus the pressure it puts on the stock) accordingly.
If/when you are dry training a dog to work stock, you are completely eliminating the most fundamental aspect of dog/stock work (that which the whole enterprise is built upon)--the relationship between the dog and the stock. So, once the dog learns the "moves," then it has to try to apply that to dealing with the stock and their energy. But by then you already have what many of us wold call a "mechanical dog." Why not just let the dog learn both together, hence Denise's "direct path"?
A