20 replies to this topic

[The Good Shepherd]

I am trying to understand the USBCHA rules, so far okay, but I came across this rule:

H. H. Eligibility for Sanction
(1) Trials sanctioned by other national or international organizations, including but not limited to the American Kennel Club, the American Herding Breed Association, and the Australian Shepherd Club of America, are ineligible for sanctioning by the USBCHA.


I can understand the AKC and ASCA since they allow Confirmation but what about AHBA? Why would they be ineligible???


Eventually I hope to run Elsie in a trial, so I want to understand all the regulations

[stockdogranch]

This is a fairly new rule, and it was added because there were some trials that were dual sanctioning AHBA & USBCHA. The problem is that the USBCHA does not specify size of courses or outruns, that sort of thing. Since AHBA does, then the USBCHA trial was really being held (and judged) under AHBA rules. And the problem with that is that the AHBA courses do not test a dog (Level III, for example, which would be the "equivalent" of Open) in the same way that an Open USBCHA course does. The USBCHA Open courses are generally pretty much always considerably more difficult and demanding than your typical AHBA course. Some people were using the dual sanctioned trials as a way to gain Open points towards Finals, when in fact their dogs were not able to gain points at "regular" USBCHA (read big, tough) trials. Those people then gained entry to Finals with dogs that were not necessarily capable of the work at Finals, thus perhaps taking the spot of someone with a dog more "capable" or "worthy" of that spot at Finals,
A

[The Good Shepherd]

okay, let me get this straight, you pay 1 entry, ran 1 course one time and if you passed you got points form USBCHA and got legs from AHBA?

[Sue R]

That would depend on how the trial host had things set up. I have been to arena trials where you did run "a class within a class". In other words, you entered each class (like Open and Nursery, or a lower level class and Nursery) with a fee for each class, but you only ran your dog once.

So, your dog might have won the Nursery class with whatever score he got, and finished third in the Open class with the same score. So, the dog runs whatever the course is just once, paying two fees (one for each class or, in the case you are asking about, one for each class in each sanctioning body), and getting the same numerical score for each class entered - which may or may not translate into the same placing for each class entered (in the case I described because it would depend on the other dogs' scores and which class[es] they were entered in). In the case you are describing, the scores would determine the rank for both classes that are run concurrently, as long as all dogs in the run are entered in both classes.

Unless, of course, they chose to run more than two classes concurrently, which I doubt would be the case.

Confused now?

Anyway, as Anna said, it is a way to gain USBCHA qualifying points while really running an AHBA (or other) class. Doesn't sound kosher to me, and I'm glad they put this rule into effect.

PS - This sort of thing is not done by what I would consider reputable USBCHA handler/hosts but a few hosts that like to straddle the fence and run dogs in multiple venues may sometimes put on something like this. Your one stop shop for titles and points, so to speak.

[The Good Shepherd]

Confused now?

No kidding

[appyridr]

So why are time/points trials in an indoor arena sanctioned?
cheers Lani

[Sue R]

So why are time/points trials in an indoor arena sanctioned?
cheers Lani

I don't know. I certainly don't think much of arena trials being sanctioned for sheep.

For cattle, I am of mixed emotions. The few cattle arena trials I have been to that were sanctioned, were not easy trials - the competition was pretty intense and the obstacles (and how you had to deal with them) were truly a challenge to a handler/dog team (that certainly had to work as a team) and involved a level of finesse in order to get full points on most obstacles. The handlers that won (on points and time) were never the handlers that rushed or "cowboyed" the cattle around - it was the calm, quiet, experienced handler that worked an instinctive, biddable, well-trained dog that won (at least in the Open).

However, I have seen video of some arena trials that are little more, if any, worthy of sanctioning than your typical AHBA or ASCA (or other) arena trial. I think it is a good question for the USBCHA officers to look into but I'm not sure if the problem can be solved without putting a lot of nitpicking rules in place. And that would start sounding too much like AKC...

[Pam Wolf]

I have to ask: Is title seekiing becoming so important to the trials? Holding a class w/in a class? This may save time, but it loosessomething in translation IMO. And Arena trials show some things about a dog when the stock involved is verh heavy like cattle, but don't we need to prreserve the outwork ability of the breed?

The combination on cattle of field work plus arena is IMHO a good test of a dog's ability on cattle.

Why not just give the arena trials a different sanctioning (do I see a title here?) to signify they do not include the field work which is the hallmark of the breed. Not that dogs need not learn to work in small areas, but that is more a matter of proper training whereas large proper outruns, ability to work independently of the handler over long distances is more in the rhealm of breeding. Should we not test the dogs for the best at a task that defines the breed?

[juliepoudrier]

So why are time/points trials in an indoor arena sanctioned?
cheers Lani

I think it's one of those things that just sort of happened. The working border collie world, as we all know, is a pretty independent one, and so no one wants to set a lot of rules. So I think it was expected that such trials would be few and far between and weren't a real cause for concern because people who use the dogs recognize the limited value of arena trials (i.e., no one should have to spell it out). As the sport has grown and changed I think arena trials have increased, which may have been unexpected. But again, no one likely thought that people would be using them to gain undeserved prestige or points or whatever and so little thought was given to them. That may have to change, unfortunately. But in the grand scheme of things--as has been stated here time and again--it's truly unlikely that a dog that gains all its points through arena trials is going to be successful at the big open field trials, including the finals. So the real question becomes why would those who want to host and sanction AHBA trials also want to sanction them with USBCHA? What's in it for them to do so? Besides bragging rights, that is.

J.

[stockdogranch]

So the real question becomes why would those who want to host and sanction AHBA trials also want to sanction them with USBCHA? What's in it for them to do so?

Bragging rights, it is. The host gets to collect a lot of points towards Finals at his/her own venue, stock, etc., then can brag to all his/her ACK/AHBA students that s/he is going to the Finals. No matter that s/he didn't do squat at the Finals...
A

[workindogs]

This was the first year I've taken note of participant(s) at Meeker and Finals who IMO appeared to be using the events to manufacture bragging rights. Finals qualifying at local sanctioned events...the type that we are discussing in this thread. The Meeker/Finals performances were poor, but "good enough" for their needs. There are some people putting a lot of effort into smoke and mirrors to prove their dogs 'can do it all'.

Meeker is an Open trial (as are all sanctioned trials) and anyone can walk to the post. There are pretty loose rules on what can be sanctioned as an Open trial. As with most things....buyer beware.

[Debbie Meier]

That will happen when it's part of the checklist to be considered a good breeder along with hanging a shingle, being listing in the National Standings. Personally I think putting a focus on teaching people how to recognize good work is a better way to go then to have a checklist of things to look for or look out for.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,
Ms. Lani asked, "So why are time/points trials in an indoor arena sanctioned?"

The Houston Fat Stock Show. The Calgary Stampede.

Donald McCaig

[juliepoudrier]

Of course teaching people what to look for presumes that the one doing the teaching has the knowledge, experience, etc., to actually show someone else what to look for. And how is Joe Q. Farmer supposed to know whether Jane Y. down the road knows more about it than John Z. on the other side of the county? Sometimes a checklist is simply a place to start, and of course it's not the be all and end all, but one might think that someone who has placed in, say, the top 17 at the national finals multiple times knows more about it than someone who displays HICs on their wall.... And just because someone uses dogs on the farm certainly doesn't guarantee that they have any idea of what good work is or looks like.

J.

[Debbie Meier]

To much research to determine that a person places that high for that many years, besides, that was not what has been preached as part of the checklist, it has been Open Handler and on the USBCHA point standings list. In itself it is promoting titles instead of the actual work

[juliepoudrier]

Actually Debbie, I don't think anyone has preached that a breeder has to be high on the points standings list. I personally suggest that only as one criterion when looking for a *trainer.* But you gotta start somewhere, and if I were clueless, I'd certainly consider that someone who breeds, trains, and competes to a high level might just know what they're doing. You may disagree, and that's fine, but then again as a breeder yourself, I'd expect you might disagree.

J.

[Eileen Stein]

That will happen when it's part of the checklist to be considered a good breeder along with hanging a shingle, being listing in the National Standings. Personally I think putting a focus on teaching people how to recognize good work is a better way to go then to have a checklist of things to look for or look out for.

To much research to determine that a person places that high for that many years, besides, that was not what has been preached as part of the checklist, it has been Open Handler and on the USBCHA point standings list. In itself it is promoting titles instead of the actual work

Where's the checklist? I'd like to take a look at it.

What I've seen is people doing their best to answer the question, "How can I recognize a good breeder?" I've never heard anyone say, "Oh, if a breeder is an Open handler, then s/he's a good breeder," or any other kind of "checklist" identifier. Given that anyone can walk to the post in Open, that would be a pretty silly one. And the idea that anyone has preached that "hanging a shingle" identifies a good breeder is downright laughable.

I have heard such things as "placing regularly in Open" used as part of a complex of things that tend to indicate that a breeder is able to recognize working ability and motivated to breed for it. Another part of the complex of things I have heard mentioned is that the person is using their dog regularly in the management of a commercial livestock operation. These indicators do, in fact, correlate pretty well with breeders who are knowledgeably breeding for working ability. They don't correlate perfectly, but they are better than "has multiple herding titles" or "lives on a farm." With the passage of time, and an increase in the number of people seeking more ways to market themselves as something they are not, these may become less effective as indicators of quality breeding, but so far they are useful enough.

"Teaching people how to recognize good work" is a lovely, wonderful thing to do. But is it in any way practical or helpful as an answer to the question, "How can I recognize a good breeder?" I don't think so. Among many other limitations, it's pretty hard to do over the Internet.

[Lana]

Actually Debbie, I don't think anyone has preached that a breeder has to be high on the points standings list. I personally suggest that only as one criterion when looking for a *trainer.* But you gotta start somewhere, and if I were clueless, I'd certainly consider that someone who breeds, trains, and competes to a high level might just know what they're doing. You may disagree, and that's fine, but then again as a breeder yourself, I'd expect you might disagree.

J.

Very well said Julie.


"Teaching people to recognize good work"....yes i would like to hear what that would look like?

[Sue R]

I think that for someone who is new and looking for a dog to help out and someone to learn from, it can be very hard to sift the wheat from the chaff. For myself, it was very easy to be impressed, very easy to find someone who *seemed* like a responsible breeder, very easy to find someone who seemed like a very knowledgeable trainer. It was not quite so easy for me to realize that I was wrong.

When you don't really know what "good work" is, it is very easy to be mislead. Look at all the videos that have been posted on YouTube, and read all the comments from people who are totally impressed by what is most often pretty poor work.

Some of us learn in bits and pieces, and the process can take some time and mistakes. It can seem simple to have "a checklist" but it's a lot harder to be discerning in real life. At least for some of us. People who find a good, honest, knowledgeable mentor early on are very, very fortunate.

[MyTDogs]

I think that for someone who is new and looking for a dog to help out and someone to learn from, it can be very hard to sift the wheat from the chaff. For myself, it was very easy to be impressed, very easy to find someone who *seemed* like a responsible breeder, very easy to find someone who seemed like a very knowledgeable trainer. It was not quite so easy for me to realize that I was wrong.

When you don't really know what "good work" is, it is very easy to be mislead. Look at all the videos that have been posted on YouTube, and read all the comments from people who are totally impressed by what is most often pretty poor work.

Some of us learn in bits and pieces, and the process can take some time and mistakes. It can seem simple to have "a checklist" but it's a lot harder to be discerning in real life. At least for some of us. People who find a good, honest, knowledgeable mentor early on are very, very fortunate.

^^^^What she said!!