Jump to content


Photo

National Cattledog Association


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_herbertholmes_*

Guest_herbertholmes_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:20 PM

The memberships from both sides are not accounted seperatly.

All the other income is accounted seperatly.

The cost of day to day operations of the USBCHA take about all of the membership money. In my own simple logic, if the memberships were not close to balancing with the day to day expenses, then we should figure out something to break them up. But, I do not think anyone is getting less or more for their money.

Memberships are hard to do anything with, requiring a by law change.

I do support the NCA. I gave up a long time ago on any ideas I might have had for what is the best way to run a cowdog. In my position, if you get caught up in what you and all think is best for the judging(or not) you lose track of the business side of this.

The USBCHA management lost it's thought's for anything but the financial side of this program in 2004. That was not a choice it was a fact forced upon us by our having no money. We had to save the USBCHA as a whole putting the cowdog thing on a tight budget with no room for error. It is still that way. The sheepdog side has flourished, the cowdog side has not.

That blame has to be placed on the leadership of the USBCHA, me more than anyone.

I do not believe anyone that does not have a passion for something can make a go of it.

Not very many people in the USBCHA have the passion for cattle trialing it takes to make the thing work.
In all the talk on different forums the past few days I have not heard one person say:
"Count me in. I will devote 300 hours, with no pay,(with one week of that at one time) a year to running the national finals. I don't care what type of format you choose to run under, and I don't care if I have a dog in the running. I will be there."

We need one person like that to start with, then another two or three have to be very close to that in time donated. That is what makes the sheepdog program viable. We have a ton of members that volunteer in some form, and we have those few that step up and take on the leadership roles in the local committees. There are not enough cowdog people in the USBCHA to give us the pool for that. The NCA believe's it can bring more people into the program to create a larger group of people to generate the passion needed.

The ABCA funding of the NCA is not a part of any discussion of the USBCHA. It is none of the USBCHA's business.

#62 Sue R

Sue R

    Bark less, wag more

  • Registered Users
  • 11,547 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bruceton Mills WV
  • Interests:Stockdogs, horses, chocolate

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:28 PM

All good information, and good facts are what people need to make an informed decision. Thanks again, Herbert!

One question is that if the USBCHA relies on memberships for the day-to-day running of the organization, will a split (NCA taking on the cattledog program in its entirety) mean that USBCHA might lose enough members (if there are, indeed, those who will no longer be members of USBCHA but will join NCA as they are only interested in cattledog issues and trialing) to cause a financial issue for USBCHA. Or, will no longer having the cattledog program mean that the USBCHA will readily remain solvent?
Sue Rayburn - Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult, but not the brightest firefly in the jar.

Celt, Megan, and Dan

"When the chips are down, watch where you step."

"The happiest people don't necessarily have the best of everything. They just make the best of everything." - author unknown

#63 Dwight Parker

Dwight Parker

    Member

  • Registered Users
  • 83 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2012 - 07:50 PM

I stand with Robin on this issue. If the USBCHA Cattle Dog Program is going to implode because of the new NCA then why are some of our leaders so anxious to give it away so quickly. I say, keep the USBCHA Cattle program active and if there is a lack of participation then it will take care if itís self. For the past several years the Cattle program has functioned completely on itís on funding.
The BOD has another voice for the Cattle Dog Program to keep Tim company. I support the USBCHA retaining the Sanctioning of trials for 2013. Letís give our members a choice.
Thank you
Dwight Parker

#64 Debbie Meier

Debbie Meier

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,513 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Alden, Iowa
  • Interests:Pretty much all stockdogs...for now

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:33 PM

Herbert, thank you for the time that you have given the subject, thoughts and all the time that you have dedicated to the USBCHA over the years. As someone that was involved in the finals last year that did not personally run a dog (you probably remember me, I was the one running around all 4 days looking nuts in my shorts that you shared your kettle corn with) I believe that we both should have a little faith. Let this group move on and do their own thing and give those that remain a chance to continue on. For many, what has been presented by NCA is new news, yes there has been talk over the last 4-5 years of the cattledog progam going it's own way but nothing developed.

I recall being in a phone discussion with Tim Gifford a couple of years ago, I shared with him my thoughts about why the cattledog finals was not well attended and my feeling was that the finals was not an accuate representation of the trials that were being offered around the nation, actually being a tougher requirement then many felt that they could achieve. This was before I realized that there was more to the cattledog program then the sport of cattledog trialing. My opinion was that if a person or group wanted a large finals that they would have to offer multiple formats giving each contestent a chance to showcase their best work and the working style of their dog. With that said, that type of organization is not the same nor would it have the same function as a organization with a vision of preserving a specific breed and/or working style.

When applying the vision that I had the contestent base would far exceed the base that the USBCHA currently has and in all reality may only share a few contestents with the USBCHA. So in my mind I really don't see where two different national organization could not survive, though it may be tough at first. One specializing and most concerned with the border collie making certain that the test for the dog remains the highest in the nation and the other concerned with the sport of cattledog trialling. It was interesting the other evening when I was phoned by a director of NCA and was deemed small minded for that view, when imo it is their view that is small minded only seeing the current group of handlers that currently have points on the USBCHA point standings as their primary membership rooster or rather the pie that Jeff refers to. I hope they will expand their view and open it to more cattledog owners, and in all reality I beleive it is what is needed to truely grow a large cattledog based organization.

When we were at the cattledog trials this past weekend the majority in attendance were unaware of the formation of NCA and the propasal they have presented to the USBCHA. At this time the best thing for all parties, IMO is to give things a little time and have faith that there are still members that have strong feelings in regard to testing and proving borders collies on cattle and will stand up and take the reins now that the path is clear. It's not going to hurt anything to give the members of USBCHA that value the cattledog program some time before declaring the program dead.

I remember last year at the National Finals comments about how great the event was, the best since Klamath Falls is what one handler told me. It was our first, Wayne had never ran a dog at a USBCHA National Finals, in fact he was running his first border collie, this year will be my turn, we both hope that it will not be our last USBCHA National Cattledog Finals. Yes, there was some contraversy surrounding the finals, but if we all look close at what all occured I think we can see that those issues are resolving themselves with the formation of the NCA.

We support the efforts of the NCA to go off in their own direction, it will be easier not having to concern themselves with hosting a finals that also tests and preserves the traditional working style of the border collie. This in turn, will allow members of USBCHA to focus on producing a USBCHA National Cattledog Finals with the primary purpose of testing and preserving the working style of the dogs that we ourselves have grown to appreciate.

I have faith that someone will come forward, I have met with some passionate breeders and owners over the last couple of years that use their dogs on cattle, maybe this will be the beginning of a whole new program and direction, maybe it will last for many many years, maybe only a couple. But, let's give the members a chance.

Besides, if we let go know we will find ourselves in this same place in about 5 years, but instead we will be talking about forming a new cattledog border collie handlers association with the sole purpose of raising the bar and showcasing the abilities for border collies.

Deb Meier and Wayne Bamber
Alden, IA
Posted Image


http://leaningtreebcs.blogspot.com/

"Every poor one you continue to work with equates to a good one that you never get the opportunity to own"- M. Christopher

#65 stockdogranch

stockdogranch

    Cowgirl in the sand

  • Registered Users
  • 2,085 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Training stockdogs (duh), particularly for everyday, practical work. I trial my dogs on cattle when time and money permit. I also teach academic writing at one of the Cal State University campuses, so in recent years I have been merging writing with stockdogs. I published Working With a Stockdog in 2009 (Outrun Press), and am working on ideas for a second book...

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:31 PM

My opinion was that if a person or group wanted a large finals that they would have to offer multiple formats giving each contestent a chance to showcase their best work and the working style of their dog. With that said, that type of organization is not the same nor would it have the same function as a organization with a vision of preserving a specific breed and/or working style.


This is a bit unclear to me; however, as I read it, it seems that you are saying that the HA (or somebody???) should have a Finals that has a lot of different style of courses and tasks so that a lot of different types of dogs (different breeds, I assume) can be "successful." I think that's what ASCA and the ACK do now, no? If that's the case, then yes:

I hope they will expand their view and open it to more cattledog owners, and in all reality I beleive it is what is needed to truely grow a large cattledog based organization.


You would get a "large cattledog based organization," but if I am reading this correctly, these would not be dogs I would be interested in competing against. I don't want to compete against a bunch of ACDs or whatever; I want to compete against the best dogs working cattle in the nation. Those dogs, who happen to be working bred border collies, and their handlers, will be part of the NCA, as we can already see by the board of directors.

I think you're confusing a "large finals" with a QUALITY finals. The level of dogs and handlers is what makes a quality finals.
A
"Life's too short to work bad dogs."
www.stockdogranch.com

#66 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 15,411 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 11 January 2012 - 11:01 PM

I understood Debbie to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong Debbie) that as she's gained experience with USBCHA cattle dog trialing she's reforned her opinions and thinks that the type of trials embodied by USBCHA is the best showcase/test for the working bred border collie. I understood her to mean that the new association would be more likely to be more inclusive to other breeds and to other forms of test/trials than what is currently offered under the auspices of the USBCHA. But I could have misunderstood.

J.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh



mydogs_small2.jpg

Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat, Twist, Lark, Phoebe, Pipit, and Birdie!
Willow's Rest, Tunis and mule sheep



Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)


#67 bcollie

bcollie

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 367 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tulelake, CA

Posted 11 January 2012 - 11:52 PM

Although not part of the USBCHA discussion on cattledog sanctioning, I agree with Mark that the ABCA issue should also be discussed as the NCA states that they hope to get ABCA money. I do not think that an organization that does not use the word Border Collie anywhere in their bylaws or on their web page should be singled out by the ABCA with major contributions, especially to the tune of how the ABCA has been supporting the cattledog program within the USBCHA. If down the road, this organization flourishes, is promoting the Border Collie (not the generic term cattledog) adds Border Collie to their bylaws, then that is a different issue. There are quite a few cattledog organizations across the country who do not receive this benefit and as a lifetime member of the ABCA, I would ask that my directors think long and hard before committing finances to a new organization which may or may not be successful and may or may not promote and foster in North America the breeding, training and distribution of reliable working Border ColliesCollie as in their mission statement.
Geri Byrne
Tulelake, CA
www.bcollies.com

#68 tcgifford

tcgifford

    Member

  • Registered Users
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:12 AM

Diane,
I believe Jeff already adddressed this as the NCA has not talked about rules or a finals format. I would encourage you to get a video from Jeff as I would suspect this will be the quality of work that in my opinion will be expected. Again I must say that what we need in the cattle program is unity. Our problem in a nutshell is numbers I believe that they are out there we just need to find a way to bring them together. The attitude "let's do nothing and see if it dies " is not an option for me. I intend to do whatever I can to help the cattledog program succeed.

Tim

#69 Dwight Parker

Dwight Parker

    Member

  • Registered Users
  • 83 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:16 AM

Geri, I just received an application to join the NCA. Here is what they said about the ABCA. This is verbatim on their information sheet about the NCA and their goals on receiving ABCA money.

ďWhat about the ABCA support of the National Cattledog Finals?
The ABCA has been a very strong supporter of the National Cattledog Finals and the NCA sincerely hopes and expects to continue to receive their support for upcoming National Cattledog Finals. One of the key reasons for having a friendly separation from the USBCHA and for avoiding any competition with the USBCHA is to ensure continuation of this funding.Ē

#70 Guest_herbertholmes_*

Guest_herbertholmes_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:44 AM

"""One question is that if the USBCHA relies on memberships for the day-to-day running of the organization, will a split (NCA taking on the cattledog program in its entirety) mean that USBCHA might lose enough members (if there are, indeed, those who will no longer be members of USBCHA but will join NCA as they are only interested in cattledog issues and trialing) to cause a financial issue for USBCHA. Or, will no longer having the cattledog program mean that the USBCHA will readily remain solvent? """


I believe the NCA leaving and USBCHA NOT sanctioning and hosting a finals will cost the USBCHA $1250 from its bottom line. I figure from looking at the membership list 50 people that are cattle dog trialers only, so that is where I get that figure. If I am off by %100 then it is up to $2500. While that is a goodly sum of money in our world, it can be overcome. So finances are not a huge issue, one way or another.


To Debbie Meier

""That blame has to be placed on the leadership of the USBCHA, me more than anyone.""
This statement by me is a window into the loss of faith I have in the cattledog program surviving in any form. In 2004 I had vision for the cattle finals future, today I have none. As opposed to the sheep final, where it appears there are unlimited possibilities, brought on by the members of the USBCHA spirit of volunteerism and cooperation.

I have sat here and reread what I just wrote several times.
There is a spirit and passion that surrounds the national finals sheep dog trial. When you pull into that thing,, it is overwhelming. It is a fact that people in the sheepdog world have their likes and dislikes for each other, and each other's friends. But those difference's are put aside when it comes to making the finals happen. The national finals (sheep) is the largest dogtrial in the world, arguably, based on prize money, and one of the largest based on number of dogs run. This is done by volunteer efforts of our membership, one dollar raised, one little job done, a small group of people giving up their personal time each year to make this happen.
It is not me, I just coordinate those efforts a bit. Those people's passion for this permeates the air at the sheepdog finals.

That passion does not exist in the cattledog finals. The first one I attended, the first year I was president, was 05 maybe??? The handlers meeting lasted for over an hour. Handlers argueing with the judge about what they were supposed to do and how he was going to call things. Although the meetings have been curtailed a bit, that sense of discord still permeates the cattledog finals. 30 or so people running dogs and they do not trust each other. That discord permeates the whole event/ program.

Usually, by this time of the year,I have an idea who is working on the following years cattlefinals. The past couple of years that has not happened. We are well into the current year before we know where the finals are to be held. That is poor business. If we were just starting, it would be different, but we are 10 years into this thing and we are backing up.

We, the USBCHA have no idea where the finals will be held in 2013. I believe that if you want the USBCHA to continue to sanction cattle dog trial,those that believe we can make a go of it, no matter what, then you as individuals, no matter how insignificant you think your contribution will be, have to step up RIGHT NOW.
From that group has to come a core group that are going to spend the effort and labor to plan a national finals,NOW. If you can present that in some fashion you will energize people to continue. I guess this is a challenge. It is time to put up or shut up, so to speak.

#71 blackacre

blackacre

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:55 AM

In all the talk on different forums the past few days I have not heard one person say:
"Count me in. I will devote 300 hours, with no pay,(with one week of that at one time) a year to running the national finals. I don't care what type of format you choose to run under, and I don't care if I have a dog in the running. I will be there."



I noticed this too, both here and on other forums (fora?) where this is being discussed. In fact, a goodly number of individuals who are in favour of keeping the program in the USBCHA seem to be sheepdog people who have never, or rarely, run in a cattle trial.
I commend Herbert for coming forward and describing the situation honestly. The HA cattledog program has been a losing or break even proposition for years and has never achieved its desired goal of bringing the cattle dog people at large into the tent. Let the individuals who are central to the program as it is have a go at making it successfully on their own, with the blessing of the USBCHA.


A

#72 Lana

Lana

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 568 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oregon
  • Interests:stockdogs, sheep

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:10 PM

Having participated in 5 sheep finals and 7 cattle finals, and also having been involved in for many years on the trial and HA committee's for both programs, i agree whole heartily with Hebert's very eloquent description of the differences in the vibe of the two finals.

The time for speeches and chest pounding is over. People who want the HA cattle finals to continue need to mobilize and get it in gear now.

I think the passions run deep on this issue, and i have faith that a core group of dedicated people will make this a reality.

Lana Mockler Rowley
 


#73 workindogs

workindogs

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,000 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Oregon

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:59 PM

If a group doesn't step forward to put on a National Cattledog Finals, then maybe there shouldn't be a 2013 National Cattledog Finals. Or maybe the Cattledog membership might consider a plan for a bigger better Finals but in alternate years. Or maybe the Cattledog program is due to wind down and go dormant for awhile until an energized new group emerges to take the reins....or doesn't. These are different propositions than terminating the USBCHA Cattledog program.....or even agreeing to cease and desist sanctioning Cattledog trials. If the USBCHA enters into such an agreement with the NCA the membership is guaranteed that a Cattledog program will never again exist in the USBCHA regardless of renewed USBCHA cattledog membership interest, regardless of the emergence of an energized new cattledog handlers group, regardless of the potential of the NCA to fail, regardless of the potential of the NCA to shift to non border collie Finals, arena Finals, etc, regardless of the potential for the NCA remain a regional club (and hypothetical risks). Furthermore, it sounds like the NCA's business plan is highly dependent on convincing the ABCA to fund them....and the ABCA hasn't even been asked yet, much less committed to do so.

Elizabeth
with Ross, Soot, Craig and Hattie
Steadfast Stockdogs
Oregon, USA


#74 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 15,411 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:04 PM

But isn't the lack of volunteers an issue for the folks who trial on cattle? In other words, are people suggesting that the entire membership step up and volunteer to help host cattle trials and a cattle finals? Or is the problem that there are few strictly cattle trialing members and that most of those few don't volunteer? Or is the NCA thinking that by separating from the USBCHA they will attract more members interested in cattle and cattle trials and therefore by extension more committed volunteers to put on those trials?

ISTM that within the USBCHA sheep program there are lots of folks who trial and a core group (no idea how big) who put forth the volunteer effort to host finals. So what is the difference between the two? Sheer numbers? Politics? Something else?

I guess what I'm asking is that if *within* the USBCHA there isn't a critical mass of folks interested in volunteering their time and effort to make the cattle program a success, then what evidence is there that the critical mass exists outside the USBCHA and can be tapped into by some organization other than the USBCHA?

I won't get into the politics of volunteering, but one thing I think is important is the numbers. Hub and two or three others can't shoulder the work of the cattle progam themselves. So how does the USBCHA (or any other group) gain more volunteers who are interested in supporting the cattle program?

ETA: In response to Andrea's comments, I think the strictly sheepdog folks who wish to keep the cattledog program within the USBCHA are doing so from the POV of supporting the border collie as an all-around stockdog. They may not trial on cattle, but they recognize the importance promoting dogs who can work a variety of stock. Some of these people may well be willing to volunteer time and effort--it may be that no one has inspired them (or asked them) to act. In that regard, perhaps this is something (the larger picture) that the membership needs to consider. What does USBCHA support? And if it supports activities that we do not participate in, is it still incumbent on us, as a community, to provide our individual support in order to help meet the overarching goal of the larger organization, even if there isn't something in it specifically for each of us individually? And if strictly sheep people wish to support the cattle program though volunteerism, is the cattle program willing to accept that help? Is that what they'd even want? Just throwing some thoughts out here....

J.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh



mydogs_small2.jpg

Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat, Twist, Lark, Phoebe, Pipit, and Birdie!
Willow's Rest, Tunis and mule sheep



Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)


#75 Pearse

Pearse

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:10 PM

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?


I think it is premature to assume that either is the case. There's no certainty that a majority of cattle dog handlers have any interest in joining the NCA. As such, there's no indication that the USBCHA cattle dog program will die on its own. I think Herbert has expressed his personal opinion here. At this point, there's no indication that this represents a majority of Board members.

Herbert states on the one hand that, in his opinion, the cattle dog program is a failure and in the next sentence goes on to say that the cattle program is paying its own way. I understand his frustration in what he sees as a lack of cooperation WITHIN the cattle dog community to pull together and make the program work, but based on what I've heard over the past few days, I'm not sure the NCA is going to fare any better at all. The cattle program may not have seen the growth anticipated in 2004, and a lot of that may be the result of two distinct schools of thought on the purpose of cattle dog trials and how they ought to be structured (the big sticking point appears to be whether or not trials need judged outwork), but there was a lot longer period where sheep dog trialling in the country was a very small affair indeed. Success on the Sheepdog Finals side didn't happen overnight, and it is still a crapshoot every year to see if the Sheepdog Finals can be self-sustaining. The reason it usually works, is greater numbers and a very very small number of handlers who are prepared to give up a year or two of their lives every year to make it work.

Herbert wants a bid for the 2013 Cattledog Finals with a $20,000 guarantee of sponsorship. Has there been a bid for the Sheepdog Finals in the past five years that came with a guarantee of $20,000 of sponsorship money (not counting ABCA and USBCHA money) prior to the bid being accepted?


I think it is too early to assume that no one is going to step forward with a viable bid for the 2013 USBCHA Cattledog Finals that would satisfy Herbert's criteria. There is at least one group, partially in response to this situation, who are working now to put together a bid.

Pearse










#76 NRhodes

NRhodes

    No Subtlety

  • Registered Users
  • 267 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:hard telling
  • Interests:cows, dogs

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:13 PM

As I hinted at in a post in the other thread there are a large number of people who trial on cattle and who host cattle trials who are not USBCHA members and do not go to the cattle finals. I think it's possible that a new organization could get these people's participation. Or more likely than these people joining USBCHA.
----Nicole Rhodes----
765-580-1683 nicole@rhodescowdogs.com
Rhodes' Cowdogs | The Cowdog Forum

#77 juliepoudrier

juliepoudrier

    Poseur extraordinaire and Borg Queen!

  • Registered Users
  • 15,411 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:18 PM

Nicole,
Why is that? Care to speculate (or share direct knowledge)? What would the NCA offer those people that USBCHA doesn't? I'm not trying to start a fight here; I'm just seriously wondering, given that Jeff has claimed that the NCA wouldn't substantially change the way things are done now, why folks would be attracted to the NCA but not the USBCHA. If we knew what it was about USBCHA that repelled them, then USBCHA would have a start on remedying that and perhaps improving participation in the cattle program.

J.

I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.

~Vincent van Gogh



mydogs_small2.jpg

Julie Poudrier
New Kent, VA
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free, my heart), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh (12/1998-7/2014, RIP), Kat, Twist, Lark, Phoebe, Pipit, and Birdie!
Willow's Rest, Tunis and mule sheep



Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)


#78 blackacre

blackacre

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:21 PM

Julie et. al.,

Nobody is saying this, but it seems pretty clear that the core group that is leaving is probably intending to attract those cattle dog people that can't or won't participate in a sheepdog-style judged Finals, that is the great mass of cattle people who trial P/T arena and probably found the HA event too elitist and sheep-y. Reading between the lines, the breaking point seems to have been the last Finals and the disputes that arose there. Maybe their intention is to gradually up the ante, so to speak, once they have the participants. Will it work? Who knows? Not our problem. We tried to breathe life into the program under the HA tent and it didn't work, for all the reasons Hub describes. Not just lack of volunteers, but internal conflicts, issues with amending the HA by-laws, cost of putting on the event and moving it around the country, etc. I tend to agree with Elizabeth, though, that there's no need to give up our right to sanction cattle trials and cattledog finals in perpetuity. Let's put it on hold after the next Finals to which we've committed(2012), give this other group a shot at it, and wait and see.

A

ETA and in reply to your ETA Julie, don't you find it telling that almost no folks that trial primarily on cattle are begging to keep the program? Certainly not a critical mass sufficient to support and run a program that really does showcase the border collie's abilities, and is not just another P/T arena trial on dog-broke cattle? So that's the dilemma. A quality judged trial will not attract enough participants, no matter how many sheep people pitch in--and for how long will they be willing to do that? A P/T arena trial, while it might attract more participants, is not worth the effort put into it. Why should we bang our heads against the wall to support something that you could find in AHBA or ASCA? Historically, things may change, but that's where we are at the moment.

#79 Pam Wolf

Pam Wolf

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,453 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:45 PM

Well said Pearse
I'd rather be a shepherd than a sheepdogger

#80 NRhodes

NRhodes

    No Subtlety

  • Registered Users
  • 267 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:hard telling
  • Interests:cows, dogs

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:08 PM

Nicole,
Why is that? Care to speculate (or share direct knowledge)? What would the NCA offer those people that USBCHA doesn't? I'm not trying to start a fight here; I'm just seriously wondering, given that Jeff has claimed that the NCA wouldn't substantially change the way things are done now, why folks would be attracted to the NCA but not the USBCHA. If we knew what it was about USBCHA that repelled them, then USBCHA would have a start on remedying that and perhaps improving participation in the cattle program.

J.


Meh, lot of politics. Notice that the majority of the people posting here and Sheepdog-L and other places who want to keep the cattle program are not even people who trial on cattle or even want to. If you wanted I suppose I could poll a lot of the people I know who trial in open cattle trials and ask them why they don't join USBCHA, otherwise I'm mainly just speculating on what I've heard in various conversations over the years. I have always supported the USBCHA cattle program but I disagree with a judged finals. There are too many differences in the way a dog works cattle compared to sheep inherent in the stock itself and an individual dog's strength and presence/working style.
----Nicole Rhodes----
765-580-1683 nicole@rhodescowdogs.com
Rhodes' Cowdogs | The Cowdog Forum


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright: All posts and images on this site are protected by copyright, and may not be reproduced or distributed in any way without permission. Banner photo courtesy of Denise Wall, ©2009 CDWall. For further information, contact info@bordercollie.org.