Denise Wall

Chaosstockdogs, I'm glad you are able to come here and state your point of view. But the things you say are the same things we've all heard and discussed many, many, many times over the years. We just don't agree. It does not agree with the philosophy of this board. I think you would find many of the points you try to make refuted even within this thread if you read it. But best of all, to understand the philosophy of this board, whether or not you wish to agree with it: Read This Sticky

Liz, all I can say is I have a lot of pedigree information on it and it's always appeared to be recessive, possibly with one or more modifiers. If there's at least one modifier gene, it may be influencing the affected rate, or at least the age of onset, and we won't know the true incidence of the main gene until we have a gene test. I would not hazard a guess as to the actual carrier rate of the main gene in the border collie population as a whole. We do not have the sophisticated long term information on affected rates that we did with CEA. I think this time would be better spent supporting the research (which is clearly indicated and promising) than panicking about the possible incidence.

My pedigree research on this over the years has always strongly supported a recessive inheritance pattern.

I love the working border collie. Working sheep alongside these dogs, seeing what they can do, being a small part of that three way relationship, connects me with life and helps life make sense to me in a way nothing else ever has. I love the working border collie. That is my only agenda. If you don't love the working border collie for what it is, please don't ruin this breed for those of us who need and love these dogs for what they are meant to be. Please support the working border collie.

Let me make this as simple as I can: Then help those beautiful working dogs keep happening by supporting the breeding of the real border collie. You don't need to have stock or know anything about stock to support the breed for the beauty of what it's supposed to be - a brilliant worker.

What are we doing wrong when even long time members don't "get it"

I wish you would consider non AKC registered working border collie puppies instead.

Regarding training stock/sheep work, IMO: It is not possible to train a dog to work sheep in a proper relationship with the sheep and the trainer without using what are technically aversives, however mild. The very essence of what a good working border collie is bred to naturally do is the gather, where the dog goes out and around sheep, in a way that doesn't disturb them until it is behind them and in a position to bring them in a fairly straight line back to the trainer. The first thing most trainers do is try to get the dog to go away from them and around to the opposite side of the sheep. This means the dog will need to react to the presence or pressure of the trainer to be cued to move away from him/her in order to go around to the proper position to balance or hold the sheep to the trainer. Depending on the dog and trainer, this aversive stimulus could be as mild as a strong presence of the trainer or as strong as the trainer needing to put pressure on the dog by moving toward it, or using any number of devices from training sticks to rakes or what have you. Once the dog is behind the sheep, and starting to balance or hold the sheep to the trainer, it should start to click into its genetics that it is in the proper position with regard to the trainer and sheep. Then it begins a three way relationship that makes sense to it because of its very specific breeding to understand this relationship. Once this genetic potential starts to be unlocked, and if the dog has the talent, much or even most of what follows depends on the attitude the dog develops. There is very little that actually needs to be trained if the dog is talented and has proper respect for the sheep and trainer. Developed, yes, but trained, no. The development of this respectful attitude will by its very nature require the application of pressure (which is considered aversive) and the release of pressure by both the trainer and the sheep. The dog is getting information it needs and this information is not only, yes, that's right, but, no, that's not right, that's close, etc. The reason the dog is happy to get all kinds of information is because this information helps it get to this proper relationship between the sheep and the handler, which is genetically at the dog's core. It is seeking this relationship. So many people say the sheep are the reward - you give the sheep and take the sheep away like a treat depending on the behavior of the dog. I'm not going to say it's more complex than that because that statement even undermines what is really happening. The intrinsic reward is not just the sheep. The intrinsic reward is the proper relationship that the dog understands in its genes. The dog doesn't need to learn specific behaviors. The talented dog is learning a proper attitude and once it has that, its actions are correct, or it will seek correct behaviors on its own or with reminders from the sheep or trainer. You just can't break that down into specific behaviors.

I'm just trying to clarify what this discussion is about. If you'll give me you can't train border collies on stock with PP then I'll give you that you can use PP to train dogs to sit and do tricks. End of my problem with this thread.

I was simply asking you the question before I wrote anything else. So you are not trying to say that?

Rootbeer, Are you saying that it should be possible to train border collies on stock using PP methods?

I think this is key. I've read this thread, or most of it, and tried to figure out a name for the method of how I train dogs. I prefer to think of what I do training (which is actually only developing) dogs on stock as communication/relationship based training, not correction based. It's not just positive and negative I convey, it's whatever emotion I'm feeling about what is going on - happy, frustrated upset, amused, inspired... Any number of emotions may be conveyed in the use of a dog's name even. I know the dog and the dog knows me and we have a relationship. It's complicated and can't be broken down into little biddy pieces. Because the dog knows me, and usually knows or can figure out what I want (if *I* know what I want), however I convey it, whatever happens on the surface may not be nearly as important in getting the result as the relationship and unspoken understanding we have on the whole. I think it's a little hard for people who don't train dogs to work stock to imagine that this training is something that makes sense to the dog so you're just tapping into something already there, however you manage to find the key to unlock it. But I also believe that as pack based animals, pet dogs should be able to understand how to behave, how they fit into the structure of your life, simply by tapping into pack structure understanding already in them. This is something that makes sense to them. Again, a relationship/communication based training. I don't get how positive only training accomplishes this in a natural, or even effective way. You're not making use of all the emotions available to build the relationship. A relationship based on the expression of only one emotion by one of the parties is not a natural way to have a relationship.

It doesn't bother me. You obviously have endless confidence that your way is best. Knock yourself out. It bothered me that you said others here did not have the ability to see the "big picture" regarding treat based training. That's a pretty big assumption considering the expertise of many of the people replying on these threads. It pissed me off. What can I say?

Okay, Sorry. I see the nature of the activity (stockwork) as taking the relationship/partnership to a level I had never imagined. As has been said, you don't know what you don't know. I certainly didn't click and treat my horses but I was also not training them to do things they would have for the most part done on their own unless I asked/made them. I did jumping, dressage, and three day eventing. Although some had more aptitude and talent for these activities than others, these activities were not born into them like working stock is to talented working bred border collies. I think the horses on occasion felt joy and exhilaration in the jumping and the satisfaction of doing something beautiful in dressage. We had a relationship and there was satisfaction on both parts. But it was an entirely different ball game training dogs bred to work stock to work stock. There was just more in them from the beginning to work with. No motivation involved. A dignity of purpose the dog understood in its genes. It's all been said and better than I'm saying it so I'll just stop here.

Let's take me out of it. Why are you assuming you know more about reinforcement based training that anyone who disagrees with you? In every, or nearly every conversation I've ever been involved in about clickers the clicker training, advocates imply that if you don't support it, it's because you don't understand it, or the learning psychology involved. As if to understand it is to naturally agree with it.

Which one is your farm dog? Thank you for your response.

Very impressive. But I'm asking once again, what makes you so sure that we're the ones who can't see the "big picture" not you? (Please answer in simple terms.)

I don't think border collies can be trained on stock correctly with a click/treat method. I believe talented working-bred border collies are not hard to train on stock because for the most part you're only shaping and developing something already in them. It already makes sense to them on an innate level. You do not need treats, and treat based training actually inhibits the three way communication and relationship you're trying to establish between three separate species. I also believe training them to behave appropriately within the structure of your home/farm situation is not very hard because it also makes sense to them due to the natural pack structure from which dogs evolved.

Okay. I take exception to this. There are plenty of people, including people who've participated in this thread and others like it, who've trained the way you do it *and* trained their dogs to a high level on stock. (For this post I mean food/treat based vs traditional correction based stockdog training.) When people who have the experience of both have replied and voiced an opinion different from yours, what I've gotten from your general response is you think they obviously don't have the same kind of relationship/partnership that you have with your dog. Perhaps it's you who doesn't see the "big picture." I mean, people who've done both would have a better chance of understanding the "big picture" than someone who only has the experience you have, right? How can you see the "big picture" when you actually haven't experienced the "big picture" of training both ways? FWIW, I've had border collies all my life. Back in the day, I used to show in obedience some and although I didn't use clickers, I certainly used food treats as rewards. I was also a horse trainer of many, many years. At that time, I thought quite well of my training abilities and ability to connect with my dog. I thought there could be no better relationship/partnership than what I had. When I got into working dogs on stock I found out how wrong I was. You may assume my level of expertise is not approaching yours with regard to treat training. And that *my* experience with *my* specific dog(s) cannot be compared to yours. Maybe you're right. But what if you're not? Maybe you should consider that it's *you* who doesn't see the big picture, not us.

There's an good book called Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn: http://www.amazon.com/Punished-Rewards-Tro...1830&sr=1-1 Check it out. Interesting read.

I'd be curious to know if your opinion on this changes when you are no longer a "novice herder."

Thanks Julie and Sue. I don't know if it's the year coming to an end or what but I've been especially tearful over losing my old dogs lately. Why are their lives so short? Sue, do you have a picture of Bute to post here? I would like to see him again.

A sad year for me. I miss them so much. But both led full, rich lives and then simply reached the end of their natural life spans. Stilhope Molly 1992-2009 (shown here working at age 12): Stilhope Todd 1994-2009 (shown at age 10):

Just because some governments have gone way overboard in their reaction to PDE does not negate that the facts presented in the documentary are worthy for the public to know. Government over-reaction is not the fault of the documentary, it's the fault of the governments involved.

Thanks, Mark. I'm sure he's interested.