86 replies to this topic

[Pam Wolf]

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.

[stockdogranch]

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

[Sue R]

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.

[Debbie Meier]

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.

[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

[tcgifford]

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

[DeltaBluez Tess]

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

[Mark Billadeau]

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).

[toney]

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.

[Shoofly]

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?

[Mark Billadeau]

If Robin is correct, then it's just whether or not the USBCHA should stop sanctioning CDTs (this could easily be decided by trial hosts if they don't apply for sanctioning). The next question is if the ABCA should support the NCA.

[Debbie Meier]

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 trialers are not paying to support the general overhead of both organizations

A base membership fee that covers basic adminstration and one class of livestock and then a extra fee if you want points tracked with the other class.

Example $25 membership that lets you run sheep or cattle which every you declare, then additional $15 if you want to declair both.

[Sue R]

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?

Thanking Herbert for his frank discussion, and feeling that Robin is summing things up fairly in light of it.

[Shoofly]

Mark has an excellent point about ABCA supporting NCA vs the USBCHA cattledog program financially but i think that's a different discussion entirely.

[stockdogranch]

Thanks, Herbert, for stepping in and clarifying some things!!! And thanks, Tim, for jumping in as well.
A

[Pearse]

So is this another case of a vocal minority?

I feel that's sort of what we are trying to figure out at this point. Is this a case of a vocal, and somewhat influential minority, or does this have widespread support among handlers who work cattle because they think they can grow the program better outside of USBCHA?

Pearse

[Mark Billadeau]

If the NCA is expecting (or dependent) upon the ABCA's financial support for a successful Cattledog Finals shouldn't that be part of this discussion?

[Sue R]

Thanks, Herbert, for stepping in and clarifying some things!!! And thanks, Tim, for jumping in as well.
A

I think that having people who are actually involved in this, whether the USBCHA officers and/or the NCA officers, is helpful in providing information rather than leaving the rest of us to speculation.

[Pearse]

If the NCA is expecting (or dependent) upon the ABCA's financial support for a successful Cattledog Finals shouldn't that be part of this discussion?

Perhaps, but at this point the NCA has not approached the ABCA for funding so any such discussion would be premature. If they did, it would be for the 2013 Cattledog Finals, so early days yet and I'm sure that the ABCA Board (and I'm not speaking on their behalf), would want details before considering that request. Given the long association between the ABCA and the USBCHA, one would expect that the USBCHA decision would inform any discussion among ABCA members or the ABCA BOD.

So, it would be speculation at this point as to whether or not the NCA would request that assistance and if so whether the ABCA would consider it.

[Sue R]

Perhaps, but at this point the NCA has not approached the ABCA for funding so any such discussion would be premature. If they did, it would be for the 2013 Cattledog Finals, so early days yet and I'm sure that the ABCA Board (and I'm not speaking on their behalf), would want details before considering that request. Given the long association between the ABCA and the USBCHA, one would expect that the USBCHA decision would inform any discussion among ABCA members or the ABCA BOD.

So, it would be speculation at this point as to whether or not the NCA would request that assistance and if so whether the ABCA would consider it.

What Jeff said about this is, "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."

This implies that they plan to request assistance from ABCA at some point in time. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.