Pearse

Has anyone used a trailer for longer trips? The ones I"ve seen look like they would work for taking the dog on a day trip to or from the trails but have no place for stowing gear for a longer trip.

My understanding is that slavery had been pretty much abolished in the midwestern states and much of the northeast prior to the civil war (I think it was banned in Rhode Island as far back as 1774). The Missouri compromise of 1820 banned slavery in any new territory acquired after that date (in the west and north of 30 degrees lat). The Missouri Compromise was abrogated by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and that plus thte Dred-Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 were major factors in the Civil War/War of Northern Agression and the formation of the (abolitionist) Republican Party of which Lincoln was the first successful presidential candidate. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states within the Confederacy, since the remainder as the slave states within the union (like Maryland and Delaware) were governed by US law. In those states, slavery was not repealed until ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the end of the war. Pearse

I don't want to be a wet blanket here, but are you sure you aren't setting the dog up to fail here? Many smarter people than me told me when I was training my dog that testing his limits was important for him to progress but that it ought to be done in an envionment where you had an "out" if everything went to hell. You are saying that that the dog has some issues that you have been working on and making progress towards eliminating, working in areas like malls and hotels etc. But, in those areas, you have the option of backing out or repeating something if the circumstances warrant it. In the hospital, you're taking the dog into an area that is not a training environment. The people around you will have not time for a dog that will not do exactly what they think he ought to (ie wait outside the X-Ray suite for 30 mins). In addition, it's a bit of a stressful environment for you. So, is it fair to the dog to ask of him that he perform up the level of a trained service dog when he isn't there yet, and what effect will it have on his progress towards that goal if things turn out badly. I think it's a laudable goal to work towards and because it is, I wouldn't rush it. Best of luck. Pearse

I think what Debbie and GR just said can't be said often enough.. You will learn more at a clinic by quietly sitting and watching a good clinician working other people's dogs than you will working your own dog at the clnic. And, every time you go back, you will learn more bacause you will "get" more of what the clinician is trying to do. So much of dog handling seems to be dependent on timing and position. It's a tough thing to explain. You need to see it. The same is true at trials. You get to see many good handlers run dogs. You just don't get the commentary on what they were trying to do. I had a good impromptu lesson from an experienced handler when first got my dog. She made me put my hands in my pockets and shut my mouth (a threat of duct tape was made) and then dragged me around a pasture to show that you could let the dog be right, and help the dog to be right without talking at it or waving your arms around. It was a good lesson that gets reinforced every time I go to a clinic. Less talking more watching.

Can you find me a friend like that? As for "what it will do" - uhm pretty much anything you need it to. Those 15 fans are designed to run really slowly most of the time so you rarely even hear the thing except when it's booting up. You could run email and websites for most of the population of the Orkneys on it and still not notice much of a hit while editing your dog snaps and checking BCBoards (which, face it is the only real reason any of us have computers at all) Have fun! Pearse (who has more Macs than mutts and more mutts than sense)

Am I the only one who's a little troubled by this? I don't see Destructo as a "troll". He may be confrontational, possibly obnoxious, but the first is not necessarily a bad thing, and the second could well be just to provoke a response, and if not is hardly unique among regular posters. I don't generally approve of posting private correspondence to the web, regardless of the content. An online flame war is one thing. Email is a two person exchange and ought to remain that. I have no problem with requiring everyone to register with their real name, email address, and phone number as long as it's everyone. Besides, now that you (and everyone else now) has his real name, and photograph, academic credentials etc from the link published, it's clear he's not trying to hide his identity, so what's the justification for banning him? Action like this will inhibit anyone with anything thought provoking or controverisal from posting turning this forum into a mutual admiration society preaching to the choir. The only way to sharpen one's arguments supporting ideals one espouses is by constantly having to defend them. Unless the guy descends into ad hominem attacks on individuals, let him rant. And yes his email reply to Eileen was rude but, in my opinion, it was largely hypebole and sarcasm designed to further his argument. In the end, this is a moderated forum, USBCC owned and operated. They pay the bills and set the rules, but if real debate is to take place here, some unpleasantness needs to be tolerated.

"And I think you missed the main point of this mythical list---- We were talking about breeders who were contacted and informed that a dog they bred was in the rescue system-- AND DID NOTHING" I don't think I missed your point. I just disagree with your premise that the breeder has a moral obligation to take back any dog from one of his/her breedings. I maintain that the owner of the dog has the moral obligation. If the breeder agrees to take the dog back then he/she is going beyond what ought to be expected of them because he/she is kind hearted not because he/she is obligated to do so. One may wish to reward breeders who agree to do so but it is, in my opinion, unfair to punish those who cannot or who opt not to. "The mythical list should be for those that completely turn their back on their dog/hanging everything on rescue" Again, the proposed "list" ought to be a list of purchasers of dogs whose dogs ended up in rescue so that ethical breeders know who not to sell dogs to. "most buyers aren't willing to take the time or are just unaware of it." Exactly.

I can cite several breeders I know who will take back their dogs too for all the reasons cited; they know they can find a good home for the dog, they love their dogs (all dogs) and would hate to see one of their dogs end up in poor circumstances, they sympathize with the plight of someone whose life cicumstances have changed and who have no choice but to give up their beloved dog. But the bottom line is if you think you want to take on the responsibility of a dog, a horse or a flock of sheep it is your responsibility to make sure you can properly care for them BEFORE you take them into your home. If your circumstances change, it is YOUR responisbility to find a good home for that dog, not the breeders, not the pound, not the local rescue society. Where those people can assist you, hoorary for them. I'd say more than less of the working breeders I know have taken back dogs that didn't work out. That shows their love for their dogs and their dedication to the breed as a whole. I still maintain, the responsibility for the dog is the owner's. Anyone not willing to accept that, ought not to be out there buying dogs. None of us want to see dogs end up abandoned, euthanized, or in need of rescue but lets put the responsibility where it belongs. There's a lot of hand-wringing in this forum about "bad breeders', puppy mills and the like but those folks would be out of business were there not a steady stream of wide eyed eejits lining up to buy puppies they have no business owning. So, if you really want to do something to put puppy millers out of business, start with the demand side. The supply side will follow. Mr Snappy writes: "Why is it okay to work hard to produce great dogs and then not give a shit what happens to them?" Don't think I ever said it was but a breeder can interview prospective breeders, give them all the correct info, let them know what they are getting into, and still sell to someone irresponsible enough to ignore all that advice. The breeder, if contacted, may offer to take the dog back or rehome it but if the owner decides to take the dog to the pound, to rescue, or to abandon it at the gate to some farm, how is that the breeders fault and why should they have their reputation destroyed for something over which they had no control (which is essentially what "BlessedMom" was proposing to do)? I always thought I was a bleeding heart liberal but the complete lack of acknowledgement of the existence of personal responsibility on the part of the dog owner I'm seeing here makes me reconsider. Corey - what ever you think you're hearing, it ain't from me.

Why are breeders obligated to take dogs back? They're not. Plain and simple. It's nice if they have the space, and the money to accept back a dog they have bred but they're under no obligation to do so and should not be penalized and villified for not doing so. If a breeder offers a "30 day guarantee" or offers to try to rehome a dog that "doesn't work out" then that's great and those breeders ought to be rewarded for doing so. But I can't for the life of me undestand why anyone believes that breeders have an obligation to take a dog back. Were I to adopt a child, and five six years down the road decide , "you know, the little tyke just doesn't fit my lifestyle, isn't cute enough, and is so demanding" should I be able to call up the birth mother and say "hey - bringing the kid back"? The obligation for care, training, rehoming a dog becomes the owner's the minute he/she hands the breeder the cheque. People need to take responsibility for their actions. No breeder forces anyone to buy their dogs. You buy it - you own it. You look after it or find someone who will. Could you get into legal trouble for libelling someone by calling them a "bad breeder" for not doing something they are under no legal or moral obligation to do? I'm thinking yes.

Interesting analysis by statisticians extraordinaire Glen Firchow and Herbert Holmes over at Working Stockdog Forum. Year Day1 Day2 Day3 2005 16 16 13 2004 17 19 9 2003 13 18 10 2002 12 14 14 2001 15 15 15 given that the seeding is random, there is a certain probability that you will get more talented dogs on one or more days by chance. But, unless the weather is extreme on one of the three days, it doesn't seem to make much difference which method you use. You will end up with roughly the same number from each day it would seem. As for the seeding, I think what Bruce was proposing was to seed the days based on points and the running order per day randomly (ie: top points dog runs day one, 2nd highest day 2, third highest day three, fourth highest day 1 .... 148th day 1, 149th day 2, 150th day 3) the idea being that you evenly distribute the best dogs over the three days. Glen also did an analysis of running time in Round 1 of the 2005 finals. It shows that there might be more of an effect from time of day than which day you run on, with early morning or late afternoon running times slightly bettering your chances but I think the sample size is too small to draw any firm conclusions from those numbers.

There's a couple of things about this I don't understand, so perhaps you could enlighten me. 1) How does one pack a class with 11 dogs? I've never been to a trial where a single handler is permitted to run more than three dogs. 2) How does a dog go to the post marked "RT" before its run, and even more so, how does a dog marked RT get to run the course? Not that I want to do either you understand, but there's something about this whole topic I'm clearly not understanding. For example, I can't see too many people running a Novice/ProNovice/Ranch dog in an Open class to pad the class because that dog could only then run in Open. I also can't see too many people throwing a run in Open with a dog that could finish in the points/money because not only would they be throwing away $30 odd of an entry fee, but also a share in any premium, and possibly a hundred bucks or so in gas and expenses getting to an from the trial. That's a possible $200 or more loss so that someone else could pick up an extra point towards qualifying. I don't know that there are too many fellow handlers out there that I love that much. So I figure I must be missing a key piece or two of information if this nefarious practice is rampant out there 'cause otherwise the numbers don't add up. Pearse

Eileen, I didn't say that I had any problem with Sue or anyone else posting items for discussion, nor did I say that I had a problem with novice as opposed to experienced handlers intiating the discussion. being pretty much still a novice handler myself in the grand scheme of things. What bothers me is that often times I see posts here and elsewhere that take questions that ought to be generalized, and present them in a specific situation completely devoid of context. Not just issues of sportsmanship or judging, but issues relating to breeding, training etc. The question quickly becomes personalized where it need not be, and ought not be, particularly since the context and full details are ususally lacking. The proposed discussion then quickly degenerates into a highly charged personalized exchange rather than an enlightening discussion. So it's not the discussion that irritates me (otherwise I would avoid BB's altogether). It's the way in which the discussion was initiated. I'll say again, had Sue (in this instance) posted a question along the lines of; "if a handler is at the pen, and the dog runs the sheep around the pen a half dozen times, not gripping, but not taking any handler's commands, does that constitute 'harassment'?" that would have been fine. As opposed to " The handler did not leave the pen gate and go to the dog as it continued to harass the sheep, but rather kept hollaring ineffectual commands and allowing the dog to continue chasing the sheep around the pen. I realize that the judge should have given the "thank you" to the handler but didn't." which is not a question but an opinion ( a question would have been "should the judge have given the 'thank-you'). Had not other people jumped in to offer their contradictory opinions (that there was no harassment of sheep and the judge was correct), a non-informed reader might take away the message that judges allow harassment of sheep at sheepdog trials. Julie, I didn't make any assumptions about Sue's intentions. In fact, I attemtped to make it clear that I believed she was looking for clarification and an answer to a question, but merely posed the question awkwardly. I also don't think I implied that Sue was attempting to identify the trial, merely that it would not be difficult to do so (and apparently wasn't for several people). If it came across differently, then I apologize to Sue as this was not intended as a slam at her so much as an opinion as to how these types of things might be presented in a less inflammatory manner.

This type of thread really irritates me. Julie, with all due respect, Sue's original post did not so much imply as explicitly state that at a trial she attended; 1) Sheep were being harassed by a dog on the trial field and neither the judge nor the course director did anything about it. It wasn't a question but a statement of fact. Other people who were there (fortunately) then weighed in to point out that there was in fact no harassment of stock, just an inexperienced dog and handler trying to pen, and in fact the judge (as is usually the case) was correct in not DQ'ing the handler. 2) Sue went on to state that "during a second run", which I and everyone else read as "during the trial and on the trial field" a handler struck a dog in an abusive manner and again nothing was done about it. Again, others who were there pointed out that the alleged incident occurred after the trial when some competitors stuck around to train their dogs and that the alleged abuse may have been nothing of the kind. In addition, the incident had already been brought to the attention of people who can best advise the handler in question as to why this was inappropriate behavior. Why does this irritate me? Like it or not, this is a public forum. What is said here is read by many. Therefore, calling the judgement of a trial host, a trial judge, or a fellow hander into question is a serious matter. I'm sure that in five minutes of reading other posts elsewhere on this Board, I could identify the trial, the judge, and the course director, so it's not an entirely moot point. What would have been a better way of handling this? In my opinion, it would have been more advisable, and appropriate for Sue to have contacted some of the more experienced handlers who were at that trial and asked them 1) Did you see so and so's run, especially the pen? If you did would you consider the dog's behavior in that instance "harassment" of the stock. Having been told "no" by two or three people, there would have been no need to call the behavior of the handler, the judge, and the course director into question. 2)Again, asking people who were aware of the CONTEXT in which the handler swatted his dog, would have given a better answer to the question; "was that an acceptable or appropriate physical correction, or was it a display of poor judgement, poor sportsmanship, or abuse?" If it was abuse, then all concerned ought to have reported it. Clearly, one or more people found it inappropriate and actually did something about it. There is no way in which anyone on these boards could have ascertained the truth of the situation unless they had been there and witnessed the event, and the cirumstances surrounding it. Therefore, there is no useful purpose served in bringing it up here in reference to a specific trial on a specific date in a specific part of the country. A discussion in general terms about what constitutes a lack of progress or harassment of stock, or when (if ever) a physical correction is appropriate or excessive is one thing. Posting that "at the trial I went to this past weekend (and which I discussed my intention to attend in several other threads) sheep and dogs were abused and no one did anything" is something else entirely, especially when largely factually incorrect. I don't mean to be too harsh on Sue either. She, most likely, was merely trying to ask the two abstract questions I mentioned, with the very best of intentions. It's just that the way the questions were posed created a problem, one that I have seen repeated time and again here and elsewhere. Pearse

There is a problem (estrogen responsive incontinence) that occurs in spayed bitches due to a lack of control of the urinary sphincter which is somehow estrogen responsive. It often manifests itself in "unguarded" moments as when the dogs are asleep. It would be unusual for this to appear long after the dog is spayed. More commonly it shows up shortly after they are spayed, but it would be worth discussing with your vet. Estrogen pills, or phenylpropanolamine pills can control it. Hope this helps Pearse

Rose Anderson from Michigan has a merle called Chi that she has taken from Novice -> Open in short order and is winning Open trials with. She has a younger merle too that is doing quite well. She won at the Crook & Whistle trial in Jefferson WI, twice at Bill Gary's trial in River Falls WI, was 2nd at Chaffin's SDT in Vesper WI, and was 9th and 10th at the WWSDA Fall trial in Portage WI this year. Not sure which lines Rose's merles come from but they can work. Pearse

"How do you breed for power or balance or courage if you don't test for them in your breeding stock? " This is the point that Eileen made that is largely overlooked. Breeding is one half of the equation. SELECTION is the other half and probably more important. You cannot say; "my dog is a good herding dog because he/she comes from good herding lines." You can only say; "my dog is a good herding dog because he/she can work livestock". And you should only breed your dog if you can honestly say; "my dog is a better herding dog than most." It says little about your dog's herding ability that he/she has ##Wisp as a great great grand sire, if in the three generations in between there has been no selection for working ability and instead for "right" shaped eyes, "right" set ears, "right" proportions, "temperament", or prowess on the agility course. The biggest misperceptions that most conformation people have is that the "breed standards" are somehow empirically determined and that they have any relevance to behavior. They don't. They are determined by fashion. what determines the standard is what wins in the ring which is determined by the preferences and biases of judges. There is zero evidence that working ability is linked to any physical characteristic of the Border Collie. You cannot tell anything about working ability by the shape of the eyes, the ratio of height to body length, the set of the ears, or coloration. If you could, picking a good dog would be easy and some breeder out there would be fabulously rich, having bred every champion herding dog there is. So, if there is no relationship between physical characterstics and herding ability, then it stands to reason that selecting for physical characteristics will do nothing to retain herding ability. Selecting for ability in agility, SAR, or anything other than herding will have a similar effect. Fifteen thousand years of animal husbandry are proof that only by both breeding for specific traits and then selecting the offspring who best display those traits (and "culling" the rest the old way or the spay/neuter way) will you either retain the desired traits in a breed or improve upon them. Pearse

See, who needs frisbees when you can teach your dog to jump for flying sheep! Great shots Denise. Pearse

You are very very kind and I thank you. I had a great deal of help. Apart from Chuck, who taught me as much as he taught the dog, Christie let me steal Riel from her in the first place and has taught me pretty much anything I know about stock. And there have been dozens of others generous with their advice and help, in clinics and under the Handler's Tent. If there's any advice I would pass on to someone who wants to move up to Open it's to go to as many good trials as you can and really watch the really good handlers work really good dogs. That's one of the best peices of advice I've ever received. Riel's out of Amanda Milliken's Mabel by Stormy Winters' Roy so a good Canadian lad. Pearse

Just for the record Penny, I did not train Riel entirely by myself. Chuck O'Reilly started Riel. I sent him to Chuck in mid-October of 2003 when he was 18 months and got him back in early January. He was well started at that point, knew his sides, and inside flanks. Being as we live in MN, we didn't do much between January and late April and entered our first trial (Nursery) in May of 2004. We trialled in ProNovice last summer and Fall and I moved him up to Open in June of 2005 (so a year for us). We ran in four Open trials (Caledonia, Keldron, Heart of the Rose, and Jordan) and scraped together enough points in the last two to qualify (just) for the National Finals. I know many people have done great things training their first dog themselves, but I did not have sheep at the time I got Riel, knew nothing about handling stock, and even less about training a Border Collie. Sending him to an experienced and accomplished handler to give him a good foundation that hopefully I could not ruin was the best move I could have made with him. Pearse

Doesn't sound silly at all. Substitute "manager" for "dog" and "employee" for "stock" and you've got yourself the beginnings of a corporate best seller; "Everything I Need to Know About Running a Fortune 500 Company, I Learned from My Border Collie". Pearse

Yes. I have the left side of that picture cropped centered on the Sphinx- like rock, enlarged to 8 x 10, and printed on watercolor paper, hanging on the wall of my office. The whole color scheme that day (it rained on and off all day) was very pastel and watercolor-like. As for the dog/power issue, there's a quote from Seneca (dead Roman): "He who has great power should use it lightly. " I never saw Berhow's Nick run but I have heard many stories and I have it on good authority that he certainly didn't lack for power but moved sheep with a light touch by never applying an ounce more power or pressure than was required. So, it may not be a case of a "weak" dog moving sheep by being non-threatening. Were that the case, the sheep would go where they pleased and the dog would be reduced to following. It may be more a case of some dogs only showing enough power to move the sheep they are on. I do think confidence is key. A dog that is naturally confident will be able to use all the power it has. A dog that lacks confidence may need time and reassurance to grow into what ever power it has. Those two dogs might look quite different as Nursery dogs and as six year olds. Pearse

Christine There are a few on my site http://www.comebye.net If you go to the gallery and under "Pearse's Photos", they are in the "Highland SDT" photo album. Andrea, You did meet Christie last summer when she came up for the Richmond Hill trial (which I also ran at - total train wreck) but had to head back right after. Christie told me all about it including the well apportioned "courtesy cart" just like at the golf course. Sorry I missed it. I believe some dogs were worked too. I have some recollections of the finals on the front page of the site and also a blog I was posting from the Finals via cell phone under "National Finals" Pearse

Great photos Christine. I was out at Badlands the first year I went to the O'Donnell's trial at Keldron and went totally snap happy. Got up at dawn (something I usually reserve for dog trials) just to get the light after a big storm. Laura, you should have told us it was your anniversary at the Finals. I for one, would have been HAPPY to have them announce it just before your run and brought you a cake and everthing just before your run - not to distract you or make you more nervous understand but because we're all so darned nice. Pearse

Three words; really tough sheep. Plus, young dogs. Check out the first two scores from today's run. Down 60 and 50 points from yesterday. The morning draws have been best out there with the sheep getting steadily tougher until around 5pm or so and then better for the last few runs of the day. Looks like they are starting tough today. Pearse

FIVE Canadians in the finals. - Well I'm a bit of a hobo but 20 years in Vancouver and 7 in Saskatoon makes me more Canadian than anything else. Pearse