Eileen Stein

Mum, I definitely agree with Donald that your trainer IS one of the best, but you should realise that many of us over here have met him, talked dogs with him, attended clinics with him, etc. as well as having read his book and watched his videos. His training methods, while in some ways innovative, are very, very similar to those of most other top sheepdog trainers. And in most respects they look quite different from what I've seen of +R sports and pet training (see, for example, his method of training the pup to keep behind him early on in the video "The Shepherd's Pup, Part 1," which looks totally right to me but which I bet would cause 99% of +R trainers to say was harsh and was causing his dog to shut down).

Do you think there's any possibility that you have not yet progressed far enough in sheepdog training to recognise the differences Kristi has experienced first hand in her years of sheepdog and agility training?

I know what Ms. McConnell is talking about.

 

In the pet training world - and to an extent in the dog sport world - many people use, "he's supposed to know it" as an excuse to punish the dog (sometimes quite harshly) . . .

 

I'd love to see people honestly acknowledge that the dog brings much more to the table than we often give them credit for. But as long as there are those in pet and sport training who use that as an excuse to punish, I'll stick with the party line.

[Emphasis added.]

This is an odd locution. Do you really think there are "many" people whose goal is to punish their dog, and are just looking for an excuse to do it?

Thanks for posting this, Alfreda. It's to her credit that McConnell understood just what Patrick was conveying. It was also amusing to read the responding comments of some people who were trying so hard to put another interpretation on what was happening, one that would make it consistent with "the rules."

Great post, geonni.

Does sound weird, but hard to judge if we don't know what exactly it was recommended for...

 

I think submerging the dog's head in the hole with water in it (supposedly to teach it not to dig) originated from Koehler's methods.

Submerging the dog's head in the hole with water in it is advocated by Vicki Hearne in Adam's Task: Calling Animals by Name (pp. 67-68). Too long to quote in full, but it does indeed qualify as weird training advice, IMO, especially as laid out there.

It could have originated with Koehler, though, because Vicki was a Koehler devotee.

So sorry to hear this, Donald. I was really looking forward to the next Highland Occasional -- your trials have always been exceptional, and they will be very much missed. Take care.

 

Having been, and still being, the owner/handler of dogs with temperament challenges, I have learned that I can't turn my emotions off and there is no use in trying.

Okay, but with reflection and self-examination one might re-evaluate ( a ) one's reaction of fear or anxiety and/or ( b ) one's conviction that one must demonstrate to one's dog that one will protect it, in situations where neither is justified (other dog runs up to one's dog and sniffs its butt, one's dog is unconcerned). We expect changes in attitude/behavior like that from our dogs, why not from ourselves? I think my dogs just assume that I will protect them and have their back when necessary, because of the nature of our relationship. I don't think I need to look for opportunities to convince them of that. I am just questioning whether the usual line of responses to "Rude Dog Encounter!" threads might tend to reinforce norms of behavior (in us!) that may be counterproductive.

If I had a dog who was so sensitive that my response to something was going to affect his or her response to a given life situation, I'd be working on building resilience in the dog. It can definitely be done.

It's definitely possible to build resilience in a dog -- no argument there. But my response to things affects my dogs' response to given life situations every single day. They're border collies.

In reading posts on the Boards, I notice a huge correlation between owners who are preoccupied with defining and denouncing rudeness in other dogs and dog owners, and owners who have dogs that are afraid or uneasy about interactions with other dogs. It's not surprising that there should be such a correlation, since the dogs' fear or uneasiness about other dogs could easily cause owners to become super alert to any possible danger presented by the approach of another dog. I just can't help wondering if there could be some degree of cause-and-effect running in the other direction as well -- if the owners' concern to show that they are their dogs' protector could be transmitting an unintended message to their dogs. Just something to think about. Regardless of how matter-of-fact we may think we are being, dogs exceed humans in the subtlety of the cues they can pick up. And I think even *I* could pick up the negative vibes some of you are experiencing when another dog approaches in a way that you consider "rude."

I agree that a dog with a rock-solid temperament would almost certainly not be affected by this, but there are plenty of dogs with "underlying temperament issues" which none of us would want to aggravate.

Eileen, not only is it possible to do this, it is highly desirable for a fearful/reactive dog. It builds trust that you will handle any situation, which means they don't need to use aggression to defend themselves. My own dog now sits quietly while I deal with unwanted advances. This is in contrast to years ago when he would bark, lunge, scream, blow his anal glands, urinate on himself and go into a blind panic when he saw a dog that was still hundreds of yards away. [Emphasis added]

Liz, I don't really understand your post. We seem to be talking about two very different things. I was responding to simba's post about a dog who shows no concern that another dog has advanced to the point of having its "head under my dog's arse." The question is whether "protecting" one's dog from that, simply because the other dog and its owner is "being rude," and not because one's dog seems to mind the other dog's behavior, might not have the effect of creating anxiety or stress about interaction with other dogs in the dog being "protected." Do you disagree that it could have such an effect?

It didn't sound like a pit bull thing? I mean, mostly I've had big mixed-breed dogs doing that to my dogs, and it irritates me no end when the owners don't bother to keep some kind of control or stop their dogs walking with their heads under my dog's arse. Even if the dog doesn't mind, or doesn't appear to mind, the other dog is still being rude. Unless my dog is ecstatic to see that dog and wants to hang out with them, I feel it's my job to protect my dogs from rude dogs. They shouldn't HAVE to show obvious signs of getting annoyed.

Do you have any concern that by intervening to "protect" your dog from behavior that you consider rude but that your dog doesn't appear to mind, you are conveying to your dog that it SHOULD mind, and perhaps increasing your dog's stress levels over encounters with other dogs?

Yeah, people do sit in empty chairs, but I think that's rude, TBH. You never know who might have problems with standing and need their chair and just because they got up to use the porta-john or get some lunch it shouldn't make their chair fair game for someone who didn't bother to bring his or her own.

 

JMO, of course . . .

Well, but what happens in that case is that when the person returns s/he says "I need my chair back" (unless the interloper says "Is this your chair?" first). Sometimes that produces an amusing domino effect . . .

But it IS the norm to sit in empty chairs, and I think that's one of the friendly aspects of sheepdog trials rather than being rude.

I don't consider this a cultural thing. I consider it a safety thing. . . .

 

This is a safety issue.

Some gun owners believe gun ownership is a safety issue, and are motivated to own guns by safety concerns. Some people who don't own a gun believe gun ownership is a safety issue, and are motivated not to own guns by safety concerns. Some people in both camps are unmotivated by safety concerns.

That doesn't mean that individual actions and beliefs about gun ownership are not influenced by their respective cultures.

I'm not at all sure that "clear" feeling of superiority is one sided.

Of course it's not. Nearly always, people who encounter a culture difference think their own is superior.

Nor is the need for politeness and respect of other people.

Right you are!

Also, looking back, I'm pretty sure not one person in this entire thread has been outright rude to anyone who wants to meet their dogs or have their dogs meet. There have been far more reports here (in this thread) of 'rude' or overly emotional reactions to being told no or prevented from doing so than people being upset about the contact/attempt at contact in the first place.

Mmm, why do you think that is? Is it because people in the no-greeting culture are invariably polite, while people in the greeting culture are much more rude and over-emotional? Or might it be a result of who is writing the posts?

Even the OP is a dog in another dog's personal space, the handler saying 'Hey, more space' and then getting screamed at.

I note that the OP, who experienced the interaction first-hand, entitled her thread "I guess I was rude, but I don't care. " To me, the subtext of that is "because she deserved it."

From reading these very interesting posts it's apparent that those in the "don't let your dog go up to another dog (at least without asking first)" culture feel that it's a manifestly superior culture, and that everybody should conform to it or be educated to conform to it. I get that.

For two years I lived in an African country where, if two strangers met walking along the road, it would be unthinkably rude for them not to greet one another and ask where the other came from and where they were going. Parents would be judged remiss if they didn't teach their children to observe this courtesy. It was the natural and expected order of things. This seemed to be true in the other African countries I visited -- not in the cities, of course, but in the country. Here in the US, it's quite the opposite in general -- you're taught growing up not to speak to strangers, and the assumption is that you are not interested in them and they should not be interested in you. And if they ARE interested in you, that would make you uncomfortable and you might well see it as "a safety issue."

So the prevailing norms are different in the two countries. You might have an opinion about which is "better," but if you were in village Africa you would probably (I like to think) adopt the greeting presumption, whereas if you were new to the US it wouldn't be long before you adopted the no-greeting presumption.

The difference with the issue in this thread is that both cultures exist in the same country. One group of dog owners (perhaps the majority, judging from some posts) inherently see dogs as social creatures who enjoy meeting other dogs, who see that as a potential happy experience for both dogs, who see it as the goal of a dog park or of bringing their dog to a place where this can happen. Yes, there may be "Dogs Must Be Leashed" signs, but everybody knows that's just the bureaucracy covering its ass, and what harm does it do to at least give the dogs a chance to meet and see if they want to play? The other group of dog owners has no interest in meeting other dogs, wants to be left alone to pursue their own interests, and believes (some with reason) that another dog coming up to them is likely to lead to trouble. The first group considers the second group uptight and rude; the second group considers the first group ignorant, inconsiderate and rude.

I just think it would be better, when warding off what you don't want, to do it in a friendly way rather than a way that lets your assumptions about the other person/culture show through.

You're right -- there would be no clash at all if the norms of your culture were the universal standard, instead of some people holding those pesky expectations of the other culture. And vice versa.

I am still bothered that the parent allowed that child to walk around the event site with the dog free-roaming at the end of a 6' long lead. Yes, leashed, but not under control.

What do you mean by "not under control"? A 6' lead is not a very long lead, and a 12 -14 year old girl is old enough to walk a dog. Was she trying to keep the dog from sniffing Kiefer and unable to control him, or was she just okay with him sniffing Kiefer?

I do understand that it can be hard to be tactful in a split-second situation.

Well, but in the case posed here, it was what to say at the outset that was in question. To a happy young adolescent girl at a dog-friendly event who was walking her dog on a leash. No imminent danger. No threatening behavior by her dog, no freaking out by the dog her dog approached. Many if not most dogs, unless trained otherwise, like to greet dogs they meet, and that greeting involves sniffing (cultural differences!). The girl has probably observed this. If you don't want your dog greeted or sniffed, wouldn't it be nicer (better manners, better etiquette, whatever) to tell the kid so initially in a friendly way rather than a snippy way? In the situation as described, my guess would be that the odds of the girl ignoring you or defying you would be fairly low, much lower than the odds that she will be hurt and not understand why.

All I see in these posts is cultural differences. Some people like to see their dogs interacting with other dogs, some people don't. Those who are not of your persuasion are not necessarily idiots or meanies, and it's the assumption that they are that causes friction, IMO. The same impulse that causes Person A to try to protect his dog from unwanted attention from strange dogs is going to cause Person B to try to defend his kid from unwanted confrontation from strange adults.

If Kiefer didn't mind being sniffed and if both dogs were on leashes, I would have reacted in a more friendly way toward the girl, because why not? I would have said something like, "My dog gets nervous when another dog comes up behind him -- would you mind keeping your dog from doing that?" Everybody's different in their likes and dislikes and manners and cultural assumptions. I just don't see why that has to lead to so much hostility on either side.

I just located a cheek swab sample I took from my dog (producer of EOD) before she died. If the ABCA health and genetics committee would like it, they can have it. Her son who went deaf had serial BAER tests from 6 weeks (normal) to 4 yrs (starting to go deaf) to 6 yrs (deaf).

That's a real find, Liz -- a very informative sample. I'll send you a PM.

At the ABCA annual membership meeting last week, formation of the ABCA Health & Education Foundation was announced. This is the culmination of an effort that has been several years in the making. Here is the informational handout that was distributed at the meeting; it explains the foundation's purpose and status. I hope it will be of interest to all of you.

Introducing the

ABCA HEALTH & EDUCATION FOUNDATION, INC.

On June 15, 2015 the American Border Collie Association's Board of Directors voted to set up a non-profit, tax-exempt foundation to enhance its services to Border Collies, their owners, and the Border Collie breed.

The Purpose

The foundation is intended to be the focal point for

· Border Collie Genetic Research

In the past, ABCA has provided financial and other types of support to research projects aimed at genetic diseases affecting the Border Collie. In the future, the foundation will be evaluating and awarding such grants. It will be better equipped to do so because as a §501( c )(3) charity, it can receive donations that will be tax-deductible to the donors, so it can draw on not only the amounts ABCA is able to contribute, but also on memorial gifts, bequests, corporate donations, proceeds from benefit trials, contributions from those particularly committed to a specific health issue, and the like. We hope it will attract advisers and volunteers from those with particular interest and expertise in health issues, and we also hope it will give us more clout to direct research toward issues that are a high priority for our breed (e.g., Early Onset Deafness).

· Evaluation and Dissemination of Health and Genetic Information
It's important that the soundest and most up-to-date information about health issues and treatment options be made easily available to Border Collie owners and breeders. This will be one of the educational functions of the foundation.

· Provision of Other More General Information about Border Collies
One of the services most frequently requested by ABCA members is help for livestock producers in learning how to obtain, train, and utilize working dogs. This would be one example of the type of general education the foundation could provide, by enlisting those who are interested in and able to furnish this valuable assistance. Basic education about the nature and needs of the breed would also benefit all border collie owners and the general public.

What We've Done So Far

The foundation was incorporated as of July 28, 2015, and was recently granted §501( c )(3) tax-exempt status by the IRS, retroactive to the date of incorporation. ByLaws have been adopted. We've obtained a website domain -- bordercolliefoundation.org -- which can be accessed now, but which we hope to develop into real usefulness as soon as possible. The ABCA Board appointed five initial directors (Eileen Stein, Mark Billadeau, Warren Mick, Mike Neary and Denise Wall) to serve until a larger and more geographically diverse Board can be chosen. The ABCA Board also committed to contribute $25,000 per year for the next four years to help get the foundation on a firm footing.

What We Plan to Do

One of the foundation's first priorities will be to try to reactivate the search for an Early Onset Deafness (EOD) genetic test. That test appeared to be almost in our grasp five years ago, but EOD research has been stalled since then. We hope to get the research going again by providing the money and DNA samples that are needed to take the final steps.

On a more fundamental level, the foundation is researching the best method for setting up a Border Collie DNA bank. From the point of view of researchers, a comprehensive DNA bank would provide the raw material needed to investigate pretty much any genetic diseases. From the point of view of Border Collie owners who would be contributing DNA to the bank, it would mean that you could provide DNA once for a dog, and it would be retained by the foundation for use in future worthwhile research projects; you wouldn't need to provide DNA from that dog again every time a new project comes along.

How You Can Help

Back in 2011, when the ABCA surveyed the membership for their views about setting up a health and education foundation, more than three times as many of the responding members favored the proposal as opposed it. And in a 2010 survey, members rated "health/genetic research" as the area it was most important for the ABCA to support, even above support for the sheepdog finals, with "promotion/education for farmers/ranchers" rated third. But soon we will find out how much interest and support there truly is for health and education.

We are not asking for your monetary support now, although there will come a time when we will (not so much for large donations, but for small ones that will show widespread support). We're asking if you'd like to be involved with the foundation. Do you have a particular interest in Border Collie health and education matters in general, or in a particular issue? Do you have expertise in genetics, veterinary medicine, science in general? How about website design and maintenance, fundraising, organizing and setting up systems, accounting/bookkeeping, researching, writing or editing articles? If you're willing to be called on for help in any of these areas, or if you have any ideas you'd like to see considered, please email one of the following, telling a little about your background and interests:

Eileen Stein

Mark Billadeau

Warren Mick

Even if you just want to express general encouragement, or ask a question, please send your email address to Eileen, so we can keep you informed as we go along. We hope that with your support the foundation will enable us to take a big step forward on behalf of our dogs.

He said: Don’t make the command the correction.

 

He recommended using all commands in a consistent, neutral, or even upbeat way. If a correction is necessary, use another word as the correction, -as opposed to yelling “Lie Down!” or using a gruffer voice for example. In an ideal world, he said, there would be a different correction word for every different transgression.

 

This surprised me since, tone of voice is often used to convey information in all kinds of dog training, and it seemed to fly in the face of what some other handlers do. Some (perhaps Donald is one) seem to have only one correction word (ACK). Others do add corrective information (tone) into the command itself. I believe Julie Hill has a progression of “correction” that goes: ask, tell, insist. I believe this information is also carried in her whistles? Certainly it’s in her body language. (Herding experts please correct or enlighten me J).

Some sheepdog trainers agree with Patrick, but certainly there are others who believe in using the command as a correction, and even some who use the command as praise/reward. Derek Scrimgeour, if I'm not mistaken, is one who uses it for all three: Say "lie down" in a neutral tone, if the dog doesn't respond say it in a harsher voice, if the dog does respond say it in a softer approving voice as he is lying there. Within the generally accepted ways of training a sheepdog, there are individual differences and preferences like this. But I think tone of voice in general is huge in sheepdog training, and it is definitely conveyed in whistles.

Very interesting discussion -- thank you, everybody. My thanks especially to Maya for the hot-and-cold children's game analogy and to Alfreda for the marble sculptor and stonemason analogy.

That makes sense. Although sheepdog training itself contributes to building muscle and stamina, I can see where you'd rather go into it feeling confident that he is physically able to handle it.

If your dog is not symptomatic, why would you have to postpone his training? Even if he is symptomatic, regular B₁₂ injections should take care of it.

Bruce lives in Sidney, Ohio -- the far western part of the state, very close to the Indiana line. Last I heard, Judith lives in Florida, and I think Stuart Ballantyne may live there too.

You might try contacting Bruce Fogt . He might know of Dell descendants that are around now.

Got some real nice dogs on the top half of that pedigree . . .

Is there any possibility you could borrow a friend's dog for a few days? That would give you more information on which to base a decision. You'd find out whether he'd stay in the yard if you had a second dog, or if he'd take off anyway. He could get over his discomfort with the household activity level in time, I think, but I agree that his leaving the premises is a deal breaker.