86 replies to this topic

[Mark Billadeau]

From an outsider's point of view it seems like those who compete in cattle trials do not like the meddling of those who only compete at sheepdog trials.

Is this really a good reason to abandon the USBCHA and all of the learned experience it already has in developing a sheepdog trial program?

Instead of abandoning the USBCHA why not appeal to the USBCHA members directly to modify the bylaws to better accommodate the development of a cattledog program that really tests the utility and ability of Border Collies for working cattle; one that showcases to ranchers how these dogs could be of benefit for their operations. Shouldn't the US Border Collie HA be a one-stop-shop for showcasing the livestock working abilities of Border Collies regardless of the species of livestock?

In addition, wouldn't it be great to give a special award to the dog/handler team that places the highest (in the final rounds) at both the sheepdog and cattledog finals each year?

[juliepoudrier]

great to give a special award to the dog/handler team that places the highest (in the final rounds) at both the sheepdog and cattledog finals each year?

Mark,
There is (or was?) already such an award. I just can't think of what it's called at the moment.

ETA: It's the All-Around Stockdog Award.

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

That shows you how much I'm paying attention.

[juliepoudrier]

No reason for you to know if you don't trial on cattle. It took some looking around to find the name, so it's not well advertized.

J.

[grenzehund]

In the past few years the All-Around Stockdog (and handler) has a write-up and photo in "Working Border Collie" magazine (the sponsor of the award I think). Recent winning handlers' names that I can think of offhand are Wendy Schmaltz, Ian Zoerb, Lana Rowley and Laura Hicks.

[workindogs]

I believe the All Around Stockdog Award is awarded by The Working Border Collie Magazine.

[red russel]

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

[Liz P]

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.

[juliepoudrier]

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.

[Sue R]

A lot of good points, Julie.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

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

[NRhodes]

@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.

[Mark Billadeau]

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).

[juliepoudrier]

^^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.

[Mark Billadeau]

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.

[stockdogranch]

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.

[Mark Billadeau]

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"?

[KnottyClarence]

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.

[Pearse]

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`

[Mark Billadeau]

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?