rac

My experience is that a dog will really run on an outrun when they're confident. Can you continue to take your dog to unfamiliar places until it's not a big deal ? I'm not a big fan of hiding sheep so the outrun is blind for the dog. I think the time would be better spent teaching re-directs which would be more useful in more situations. Blind outruns can have a negative effect on the dog's confidence especially if it doesn't find the sheep. I find escaping sheep to work well for a dog that tends to slow way down as it nears the TOP of the outrun but not the whole thing (keeping in mind that they still need to be deep enough). Ray

Or just send me an email at raynamy (at) 4fast (dot) net. Ray

imo it's best to begin with a whistle that you can reliably get a decent sound out of. You may not be able to effectively use the whistle you think you "ultimately want to use". We're all made differently and there's different styles of whistles to choose from and try. Most of us wind up with a drawer or a cigar box that has all the whistles that we've tried over the years. Some to be tried again, some never again The whistle is a tool, when you learn how to use the tool well the work becomes a little easier. You can also liken the whistle to a musical instrument. How many kids express an interest in playing the guitar. Their well-meaning parents go out and buy a cheap instrument that isn't really playable. The kid's fingers hurt and in a few months he becomes discouraged thinking that he 'can't play the guitar'. Bear in mind that cheap isn't always bad, but you generally get what you pay for. The reason I began making whistles is that all those years ago I couldn't find one that performed well enough for me. I had some that were hard to make a sound with and others that would quit on me if I blew too hard. Faced with choices like that which whistle do you take to the post ? I decided to try to make my own. I experimented with different materials, shapes, blowholes, the whole nine yards. I felt I owed it to my dog/s to come up with a whistle that would help us and not be a hindrance. When I started using it at trials people noticed it and thought it was cool and wanted me to make one for them. Nowadays I also get referrals when trainers are confronted with a 'whistle-impaired' student. Sometimes the student just needs a better whistle.

GG, Probably the best whistle for a complete novice would be either a triangle or one with the nubs or 'wings' on the bottom (like a plastic whistle). The wings and the corners of the triangle are both designed to catch the corners of your mouth to help prevent you from spitting it out while you're using it. Then you can blow the whistle with a more relaxed mouth because you're holding it with your lips and you don't have to clench your teeth to hold the whistle in place.

Liz, I would say the "best sounding" whistle is the one you like the best. It's mostly subjective.

I've recently ordered some buffalo horn from my supplier and the quality of the horn they're getting now is better than I've seen in some time. So I'm going to be making buffalo horn whistles again for anyone that would like one. I've been making whistles for some years and had actually stopped making horn whistles for awhile due to the poor quality of the material that was available. I was the first to make a shepherd's whistle out of Corian, and as far as I know the first to use buffalo horn for a whistle. I'm flexible as far as meeting customers' needs about the shape and size whistle they prefer. Some of the top handlers have been regular customers of mine for years. PM or email me to contact. $40 horn, $30 Corian (includes shipping in US). Thanks. Ray Coapman (raynamy@4fast.net)

I would practice playing familiar songs to get better with pitch and breath control. Play them until others can recognize what tune you're playing. If you can blow softly you can blow harshly but the opposite not always true. Work dog as much as possible with soft whistles, it will learn to listen much better and possibly be a little more responsive. Good luck. Ray

Just to mention my general agreement with Elizabeth and Amy... It's generally not considered good medical practice to use lab tests or modern imaging to go on fishing expeditions. How these tools should be used is to confirm what the diagnostician already suspects based on the careful history and physical exams that were done. In my opinion you've been referred to a very good ortho specialist, you should consider learning what his opinion of your dog's condition is before you have the MRI. If Dr. Richardson wants an MRI then fine, he'll have a good reason for ordering that test, and he'll have something specific that he's looking for. Remember he is a specialist in this field and may have seen other cases like your dog. Your dog may yet need an MRI, but, just as easily, he may not need one at all. Good luck in whatever you decide. Ray

I've taken one of my dogs in the past to Dr. Richardson and I have the utmost respect for him. Years ago my Sally had a lingering little thing going on with one of her hind legs. You could convince yourself it was almost anything if you looked at her long enough. The local vet had no real idea either. I would try to rest this little lameness out of her and it would come back then I'd try to rest her longer and it would come back. This went on for about 4 months. I had to find out what it was, so I asked around my friends and one recommended Dr. Richardson, an ortho specialist (used to be in private practice years ago). It took over 4 hrs to get to the clinic. They do real orthopedic medicine there, you'll see this when you walk in. Dr. Richardson took what I consider to be the most thorough history that I've ever seen or heard from a vet. After this I told him that what I wanted out of this visit was a diagnosis and a plan. He started examining Sally and his first instinct was to see if she'd react to pressure behind her knee. He hit the nail right on the head. He took her for x-rays just to confirm his suspicion. She had what's called a gastrocnemius fabellum fracture. It wasn't full blown yet, none of the fabella were broken/shattered but the gastrocnemius was beginning to tear away from its origin. I had my diagnosis and plan. There was room for hope, but the condition was certainly in both legs even though only one was hurting at the time. The visit cost me $200 including the x-rays. I tried to rest this out of her per the 'plan'. 3 months crate rest then slow reconditioning. It came back the following winter. Surgery would have meant 6 months crate rest to recoop with no guarantee of success. Long story short.... it was the beginning of the end for her trialing career. The good thing was I went forward with eyes wide open. I finally knew what was wrong and could make better decisions for Sally. Dr. Richardson is the real deal, good luck there. Another of my older dogs hurt her back when she was about 8 years old. Peggy went out in the side yard with the other dogs and when she came back a minute later she couldn't walk up the steps of the porch. Local vet gave her steroids and 'rest'. Something was really wrong though. 3-4 weeks later I was beginning to witness the decline of my dog. I took her to a neurosurgeon and he said that she was certainly a surgical candidate, but he wanted to apply some more "tincture of time" just to see if there'd be any improvement. I went home and Peggy's decline continued. Again... long story short.... I found a chiropractor that had experience with dogs and had some good reports about his work. I made an appt and went to his office to see him the next day. She improved at the first visit and he wanted her to start working again after the second visit. She had likely subluxated one of her vertibrae (in her lower thoracic/upper lumbar region). His exam was with his fingers, he doesn't even do x-rays (if he needs a film he sends people to a local radiology practice). The initial regimen was moderate exercise followed by a massage of her lower back. She needed periodic adjustments for the rest of her life. I was able to get her back on the trial field a year or so after her injury and she won some places at trials after that but no more wins. So this was a dog that could've had a back surgery (again with no guarantee for success), and was saved from going through that by chiropractic. She lived to be 15. Both of these doctors did well by me and my dogs. You will meet Dr. Richardson, and if you'd like the name of the chiropractor you can PM me. His practice is actually with humans. He went to Palmer and began working on dogs when he was in school. He's very good. I'm naturally skeptical of chiro because I was trained in the medical model, but no more. When I saw how Peggy was helped I began to have him work on me at our visits after he saw my dog. I know it sounds funny, but it's true. BTW his rates are very reasonable Good luck with your dog, and PM me if you want the name of that chiropractor. Ray

mariosmom, I just have to say one more thing after reading your post again. Please don't ever use food treats again while you're working your dog on livestock. The work itself is the reward. In fact you shouldn't overdo saying things like, 'good boy' too much either for the same reason. Try not to confuse things. I thought Bob's advice was spot-on. Short gathers and close serpentine fetching in that 1/2 acre field are what is going to get your dog keen on balance. And while you're doing this you can firm up the 'stop'. Good luck. Ray

I noticed that Bob said "Once you have the stop on him..". He didn't say 'once you have the down on him'. I have seen people fight battles with dogs about this issue and all but turn the dog off the work completely by insisting the dog lie down. Insisting on a lie-down in the presence of livestock may be asking the dog to assume a position of submission, and the dog may simply be unwilling to do this. You can fight this battle if you want, but if it were me I'd get a good stop and move on. You must be smart enough to choose the battles that are worth fighting, this one, IMO, is not worth fighting. If the dog stops to a command of 'stop' or 'stand' then give it the sheep back once you see its feet are quiet for a second. Let the dog decide which is the best position at the time (it knows better than you). I have trained many dogs this way and ALL my dogs, even the young Nursery dogs, are happy to stop when I ask them, even at trials. Why??? Because I never got into a pi$$ing contest about it with them (they don't associate 'badness' with being asked to stop), and when they give me the 'stand' they get the sheep back right away. We're out there having fun the whole time and not pulling teeth about something that doesn't amount to anything. The words "lie down" left my vocabulary after I trained my first dog. Tell a dog to lie down when it doesn't want to at the pen after it has worked some tough range ewes around a trial course then tell me what happens after that. Re-read Kirsten's reply. Once she finally got the 'down' on her dog she had a hard time getting it back up. Think of all the stuff you could be teaching your dog with the time you spend running through the sheep at your dog, growling with your stick up in the air, insisting it lie down. Aren't you also teaching it to mistrust you a little while you're doing this ? Ray

Eileen writes: "More than double them, if you can pick which slot to run your best dog in. smile.gif" Now your talking, Eileen. Ray

Eileen writes: "I dunno. Maybe the two issues presented in 15A should be considered separately, with regard to whether the HA would want to make them binding on all sanctioned trials. "A handler may not designate which dog is to run first" (or "in which slot") is a lot easier to implement, a lot easier to enforce, and probably less debatable in terms of fairness, than the other aspects of regulating the draw. (This was Ray's point, I think.)" And... "Yes, I think that's basically what is being said. The handler running two dogs already has an advantage over the handler running one dog. By letting the handler running two dogs pick which dog s/he will run in which spot, you are increasing that handler's advantage over the handler with one dog, who has no such option. The initial advantage is unavoidable, but the enhanced advantage conferred by choosing the dog to suit the spot IS avoidable, simply by drawing the dog-and-handler rather than just drawing the handler." Yes, this is the issue for me. It's easy to understand and easy to fix. It's waaay more important IMHO to have the dogs' names on the running order than to pick nits about whether or not 2 or three pools were formed when drawing the names out of the hat. The HA's method of drawing is a good one, but it's deviated from in small ways for every trial I've ever been to. Lots of these reasons have already been brought up... cycling set-out people, last minute entry, you name it, things happen. BUT to purposely leave dogs' names off the Open running order in order to enable handlers to go to their trucks and pick which dog runs when should not be allowed to happen. It's blatantly unfair to the handler with one dog. So if the issues we're discussing were going to be split up for efficiency's sake I would say that in the spirit of fairness that the intent of 15A should be made clear in that dog's names should appear with the handlers' names on the running orders of all sanctioned trials. It's impossible to actually police the draw itself. Even at trials where I know the hosts are extremely well-intentioned you can occasionally see a mistake that has been made. Maybe someone got to run both their dogs before someone else ran their first one. Like I said, these things happen. Leaving the dogs' names off the running order is not a mistake, however, and it's meant to provide some with an advantage over others. I would hope the BOD can see this. Maybe they should read this thread for some background, I think the thread is starting to uncover the real issue now. And I believe most contributors can still see the unfairness being discussed. Ray

Carolyn, The interesting "twist" to the running order has been fixed. I think a little twist was applied to the handler's arm and Dog 1 and Dog 2 now have names. Ray

Eileen, I can see your point, but I still think bringing up the set-out issue was a straw man. We spend our time and energy beating up this straw man only to see another one set up for us to try to take down later. All the while the real issue isn't being discussed. The point isn't to fix all the possible issues or rules that harbor unfairness with this one proposal. This one issue has come to the front, and we can do something about it. It is not difficult to see the unfairness that exists by purposely leaving dogs' names off the running order and handlers with multiple dogs being allowed to choose which dog to run when. Nor is it difficult to remedy the situation... just put the dogs' names on the running order. The problem isn't any larger than that. Making it appear larger, or more difficult to deal with is, IMO, not bringing the discussion along. Most of the participants in this discussion can see the unfairness, some people are reluctant to make a rule to stop the unfair practice, but then some people don't like any rules about anything. It would be nice if we could all get along without rules, but history and experience will tell us that some people will tend to take unfair advantages if there is no governance. So... again I say that dogs' names should be included on running orders. To leave them out and allow people to go to their trucks and choose which dog to run when is unfair to the handlers at that trial with just one dog. Does the HA want this kind of unfairness built into the system ? I would hope not.