Why?

[Lenajo]

If you read carefully, I in fact stated that you can't have a good working dog without biddability. As to the temperament issue, I beg to differ. I know of a top working dog, who is just incredible on the trial field, but should you reach for their leash, they will rip your hand open. I know of another dog who cannot handle men, period, anywhere NEAR them- will crouch, growl, and otherwise behave unacceptably. Both these dogs have won open trials several times over- you want to explain to me how this is what one would call "good temperament"?

 

As I said, there can be different definations of good temperament. If you define "good working dog" as the ability to win an Open trial I would not agree. I think that is only part of a dogs working skills. We said "good working dog", which for me means the dog works Open at high standard, works my farm at a high standard. If the dog can't be around the men in life - the set out crew, the vet, the shearer, the visitors at the highland games the people buying sheep....then he is not a good worker to me. He has to be watched to be sure he doesn't cause injury and lawsuits, and I don't have time for that, and I won't tolerate it. He would be without his balls at best here.

 

The second paragraph was

 

Stuff like you stated above is the advertising ploy of the breeders of lesser quality working dogs. They seek to play to those that have believed such quotes before. They typically want to give an explanation for why their dogs have not won at quality events - i.e. you had to have one of those "working" types to do so. Hmmmmm....

 

I was referring to the many websites, and the common advertising slogan of versatility and mill kennls that their Border Collies (or aussies, or kelpie, etc) are better than the "trial" lines becaue they have better temperment. "Dogs you can live with " etc. These statements are typically used to cover the fact that their dogs are not good workers, and it is a last ditch effort to find some higher ground that they can promote their dogs over the working lines.

[Lenajo]

That's an excellent example of an appropriate match.

 

How? Most of us have dogs were were given to us...far more than were bred specially for us. When you are "dog people" for as long as some of us have been, you find you are the dumping ground for many a stray. I've also brought home a mountain of foundlings. And adopted a few rescues

 

Yet, we don't have any difference in how well the dogs do in regards to livability. Our old Buddy, found at 6ish weeks on the airfield, was just as good a dog as Nell who was born into our hands. Coco the poodle came here a nightmare rescue at 10 months, and is now one of the nicest young dogs. Rose was born wanted, and has never known different. Glen was 8 years when I met him, and RUDE had his picture by him in the dictionary. He was the sweetest dog after he learned the rules. The breeder picker Lena for me, and Joey was just the one left for us out of a backyard litter.

 

Everybody keeps talking about the great dogs we trainers "pick" and "select" Yet we don't pick half of them. Life picks for us - we just train them to be what we want.

[kelpiegirl]

What I was trying to illustrate, was that some dogs who are really nice working dogs on the trial field are utterly lacking in temperament- it happens, and NO, I don't think that they are dogs I would breed my dog to, ain't worth it. Given that I have to live with the dog 24/, I prefer a temperamentally stable dog. That all said, by and large the majority of working BC's that I have met are not only nice working dogs, but nice dogs in general.

 

I do understand what you mean but I also beg to differ. To me, I will take a lot of things into consideration when dealing with an exceptional animal, but to me those examples are dogs I would never breed to. No matter how many trials they have won.

They are not good temperaments. And although I know that there is no one perfect dog out there, those are huge no no's to me. Breeding that kind of dog, even to a highpowered bitch does not guarantee working pups. So the ones that are not great workers may have the chance of getting questionable temperament and will end up in "normal" homes. Unless we are willing to cull any pup that won't work.

Here is my point of view.

Only the best dogs should be bred. The standard has to be twice as high as for a straight working dog. Just because they work does not qualify them. There is so much more to it.

The ones that fall short in perfect temperament, good working structure, intelligence, you name it....should be the working dogs, pet dogs, sport dogs but not the breeding stock!

I would prefer to breed to a good working dog, with good temperament, good structure over a great working dog with only marginal to questionable temperament etc....not sure that makes any sense.

Just my opinion however.

[kelpiegirl]

Yes, at best he would be there in neutered form- he probably wouldn't be there- temperament does matter, truly. Thanks for that part about the second paragraph- I thought that's what you were eluding to. I think that working dogs can have bad temperaments, just like non-working dogs, and for my money- I want a dog who can work and live with me, without qualifiers. I do goose control- I CANNOT have a schizo dog with me- no matter how great they are at the work. I need a dog, who should a person approach unexpectedly, will not be prone to biting first and asking questions later. I need a dog who when I send them into the freakin' cold water, they will GO, because I asked them to. I need a stable, good working dog. As to sheep work- I simply want a dog who will listen to me when I ask for a down, and grow some pace- is that TOO much to ask????!!!!! (this was for the ears of my dog).

 

 

As I said, there can be different definations of good temperament. If you define "good working dog" as the ability to win an Open trial I would not agree. I think that is only part of a dogs working skills. We said "good working dog", which for me means the dog works Open at high standard, works my farm at a high standard. If the dog can't be around the men in life - the set out crew, the vet, the shearer, the visitors at the highland games the people buying sheep....then he is not a good worker to me. He has to be watched to be sure he doesn't cause injury and lawsuits, and I don't have time for that, and I won't tolerate it. He would be without his balls at best here.

 

The second paragraph was

I was referring to the many websites, and the common advertising slogan of versatility and mill kennls that their Border Collies (or aussies, or kelpie, etc) are better than the "trial" lines becaue they have better temperment. "Dogs you can live with " etc. These statements are typically used to cover the fact that their dogs are not good workers, and it is a last ditch effort to find some higher ground that they can promote their dogs over the working lines.

[G. Festerling]

Kelpiegirl, Got ya'. Sorry if I misunderstood!

[Sue R]

FWIW, I saw Lenajo's comments being more directed at our culture of permissiveness, which seems to be creating plenty of issues in human and dog alike

 

I think this is a large part of the problem. Dogs are being raised like spoiled children, without limits and boundaries and with inconsistent handling on the part of the owners (whether they realize what they are doing or, more often, not). I think inconsistency is a large part of the picture - if the dog does not know and understand the reaction to its action, it will give that bad behavior a try again because it worked before. Maybe it's playing the odds that it's worth potential inappropriate punishment some times if it gets the desired result other times.

 

I often use the word "fair" - by it, I don't mean that I have to share with the dog or whatever we mean when we tell our children they must be fair. I mean that the reward/release and punishment/pressure, etc., should suit the behavior in being reasonable, appropriate, properly timed, and understandable to the dog.

 

I have seen Julie with her pack of dogs in a farm/town/motel environment (on or off-lead), doing very nicely, thank you ma'am - and see someone in a family dog obedience class with one little four-month old pup (or adolescent dog, or adult dog) that they can't/won't control but who can sure push their buttoms and get its own way through sheer perserverence and obnoxious behavior. It's like they are afraid to be the leader and so the dog takes the job for itself.

 

In our training classes, I see people with some common sense who make mistakes in training but who learn quickly what works and what doesn't, will listen to instructors and sort out what's worthwhile and what isn't, and who have generally very nicely behaved dogs. In the same class, I see people who are totally clueless, think their dogs are furry children (and I'd hate to see how their kids are/were raised), exhibit no leadership whatsoever, and blame the dog for everything that the handler does wrong.

 

I do also see dogs who I am quite sure are the result of lousy breeding, with temperments that are dicey and (for want of a better way of putting it) nothing behind the eyes - most often the breeds that are very popular (think "from champ bloodlines" Labs and Goldens, Pits in the urban culture). Also, the sudden popularity of dogs that are not really well-suited to most households (giant or extremely-bred breeds like Mastiffs, Bernese, Greater Swiss, huge GSDs and Dobes, bulldogs, the list goes on) or teeny-tiny ill-bred, unhealthy, pop-culture tote dogs - combined with clueless owners - what a recipe for disaster or, at best, a dog that is the hopefully benevolent dictator of an entire household.

 

Sorry, I needed to vent - we started another series of classes the other night and, while many owners and dogs are a real joy to work with, there are always those that are nothing but frustrating.

 

I think a lot of what we see in Border Collies is just representative of what we see in the world of dogs and humans generally, complicated by the mannerisms that are particular to the Border Collie as a breed. When people don't breed for "the whole package", they get just a part of it without the natural checks that keep everything in balance and working well.

[Root Beer]

I see, I wasn't completely clear about what I mean by appropriate match.

 

By that I do not mean that the dog has been specially chosen or selected by an individual.

 

Nor do I mean that the dog is a problem-free dog throughout it's life with that particular person and that everything is easy.

 

I mean that the owner and dog are a compatible "fit" for one another. This isn't really easy to define, but I'll give a rather simple example that I hope will be clear.

 

My oldest dog Sammie's former owners turned him in to the SPCA because he peed in the house. He was a year old and there was, to my knowledge, no underlying medical reason for this. For whatever reason - I do not know what it is - housetraining him was not something that they were either willing or able to do. That's not a judgment. They had a problem - dog urinating in the house - and there are existing solutions to the problem that they did not use.

 

A dog that urinates in the house of someone who cannot or will not housetrain is not an appropriate match.

 

We had no trouble teaching him to urinate in the backyard pretty quickly even though we were complete novice dog owners at the time. To this day he understands the concept of "going" outside. We were an appropriate match for this dog.

 

Had it turned out that there was a medical reason, we would have had him treated by a vet. Had it turned out to be a long term problem, we would have found a way to make it work.

 

How? Most of us have dogs were were given to us...far more than were bred specially for us. When you are "dog people" for as long as some of us have been, you find you are the dumping ground for many a stray. I've also brought home a mountain of foundlings. And adopted a few rescues

 

Yet, we don't have any difference in how well the dogs do in regards to livability. Our old Buddy, found at 6ish weeks on the airfield, was just as good a dog as Nell who was born into our hands. Coco the poodle came here a nightmare rescue at 10 months, and is now one of the nicest young dogs. Rose was born wanted, and has never known different. Glen was 8 years when I met him, and RUDE had his picture by him in the dictionary. He was the sweetest dog after he learned the rules. The breeder picker Lena for me, and Joey was just the one left for us out of a backyard litter.

 

Everybody keeps talking about the great dogs we trainers "pick" and "select" Yet we don't pick half of them. Life picks for us - we just train them to be what we want.

 

Again, what you describe actually supports this point. Whether or not a dog/owner match is appropriate is not about how the dog was chosen - it is more about whether the owner is willing to do what it takes to meet the dog's needs.

 

Some dogs do have different needs. The appropriate owner for those dogs are equipped and willing to meet them - even if that means a great deal of effort on the part of the owner.

[Lenajo]

I would have thought it pretty simple to say "if the owner won't do it, it won't work"

 

Where is that head banging emoticon?

[MaggieDog]

I'll agree wholeheartedly with the idea of permissiveness causing a lot of the issues we see, not just in BCs, but in all dogs.

 

I teach basic training classes and the vast majority of my students love their dogs, but the idea of actually making them work for things is completely foreign. It is kind of neat as a trainer to see a student pick up on that idea and run with it and see their dog follow suit, turning into a much more pleasant companion. It doesn't take much, but it is close to miraculous in some students' minds. Amazing what rules do to improve the dog-human bond.

 

I also think lack of commitment and an increase in the "fix it now" mindset is also to blame. I remember people at one of the training conferences I went to mentioning that they were shortening their classes because people just weren't willing to give up 8 straight weeks to training, they wanted it in 6 or 4 weeks instead. Doesn't it take something like 13 weeks to create a habit?! Not to mention all the dogs relinquished for easy to fix behavior issues like housetraining and jumping on people.

[Lenajo]

I read somewhere that it takes 5 repetitions for a BC to understand a command. No idea where I read that, but ime it's true.

 

I would also say ime that 13 would have you well on your way to habit.

 

It takes less than 5 if the timing is right and the reward is great enough. "Walk in" on the sheep usually understanding on about 1 rep. Lie Down on the sheep is not so simple.

[MaggieDog]

Oh the 13 I was referring to was for the human. My idea was that 4 or 6 weeks really isn't enough time to develop the human's inclination to train their dog for life and unless you develop that, the dog's going to revert to prior behavior if he's not getting reinforced for the new behavior.

 

Of course my classes are 7 weeks because that's what the market will support around here, but we also have a number of students go into the next level of classes for a total of 12 or 14 weeks depending on which classes they take.

[Lenajo]

If I had "perfect" options with classes I'd like to see them once a week for about 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks for 6 months.

[SoloRiver]

I think there is a difference between training issues and a behavioral issues, and that the reasons for an increase in either would be different.

 

Training issues are things like "I'm sick of throwing the ball for him all the time" or (most of the time) "he can't/won't settle" or "he won't come when called." An increase in these could be due to a "culture of permissiveness" or the increasing popularity of the breed and concomitant increase in novice dog owners owning Border Collies.

 

Behavioral issues are things like "he is afraid of everything and growls at people" or "he is terrified of thunder and will bolt into traffic when he hears it." To me these are distinct because there is very good evidence that such issues are analogous if not homologous to human psychiatric disorders (thus the project that I work on) and are therefore genetic/biological in nature and call for medical as well as simple training remedies. If problems like these are increasing, it could be due to things like indiscriminate breeding practices and/or breeding for things other than work, thereby dismantling the behavior/temperament package that is required of a good working dog and leaving the resulting animals vulnerable to "holes" in their temperament.

 

I think that the numbers of "help me!" posts tend to be cyclical (sometimes there are a lot, sometimes there aren't many) but at any rate I'm glad that there are resources like this board to help owners out whether they are having problems due to training deficits or biological deficits in their dogs or both. If owners get help that means less dogs end up homeless. I know the topics can get tedious, but I also know that when I first got Solo and was at my wit's end, this board was a very important resource for me and that I will never forget what you guys did for us.

[Journey]

A dog that urinates in the house of someone who cannot or will not housetrain is not an appropriate match.

 

A dog in this situation is "not" why I asked the questions I did. The above is simple - they should not own a dog. NO dog would be an "appropriate" match for someone not even willing to house train a dog.

 

Please, let's cut some of the legs off this wandering post - I don't want to rehash the PP vs other training methods again. Just because one was mentioned doesn't mean the other "has to have equal representation". In fact, I think some of this mind set is parallel to some of the issues I questioned initially.

 

Many, many great thoughts and theories have been tossed out. I agree with a large portion, mainly the "permissive" culture, the "me" generation believing they are "owed" something, the "cataclysmic divide" in the breed, the general opinion JQ Public gets from JQ Trainer.

 

However, why on earth don't people use common sense??? Yeah, I know, can't punish the child, will hurt the "self esteem" therefore it follows can't punish the dogs......

 

Structure, Balance, Fairness, Training - teaching what you want and teaching what you "don't" want - yep, a negative ie a correction is imo what many of the mentally out of control/weird/neurotic etc... are missing and common sense.

 

back to work.....

 

Karen

[PSmitty]

<snip>

However, why on earth don't people use common sense???

 

If you ever figure that one out, you'll be a genius. Spend any length of time out in the world, and it's obvious many, many people are lacking common sense. And not just in regards to dogs.

[Pippin's person]

I think a lot of what we see in Border Collies is just representative of what we see in the world of dogs and humans generally, complicated by the mannerisms that are particular to the Border Collie as a breed. When people don't breed for "the whole package", they get just a part of it without the natural checks that keep everything in balance and working well.

 

For me, this seems like a most reasonable explanation. I suspect if someone looked at breed specific boards for other breeds, roughly the same set of questions would come up coupled with some of the things that are breed "specific." (e.g. "how do I stop my lab from eating everything in sight") And, like here, the same issues would recur as new dog owners looked for resources.

 

I also think a lot of issues arise because people simply don't realize how much time dog training to a high level of competence can take--regardless of the particular method. For instance, I hear people complain that their dog doesn't yet know its inside flanks and yet they only bring it to sheep once a month; people complain that their dog pulls them when walking on leash but aren't willing or able to follow through with actually training them not to; people complain that their dog misses its agility contacts but don't want to do the tedious work of training it to hit them. Like many things, many people don't have or can't take or aren't interested in putting in the time but nonetheless want the results.

 

Couple that with misperceptions ("Border collies need three hours of ball play or they will go insane and drive you insane") and indiscriminate breeding and you could almost predict the outcome that we in fact see.

 

On the positive side, though, many people who look for resources also learn to use them (maybe particularly slowly--as in my case )

[Root Beer]

A dog in this situation is "not" why I asked the questions I did. The above is simple - they should not own a dog. NO dog would be an "appropriate" match for someone not even willing to house train a dog.

 

Please, let's cut some of the legs off this wandering post - I don't want to rehash the PP vs other training methods again. Just because one was mentioned doesn't mean the other "has to have equal representation". In fact, I think some of this mind set is parallel to some of the issues I questioned initially.

 

The point was not the specific situation. It was brought to my attention that it was necessary that I clarify a term that I had used in context. By "appropriate match", I was not making any implication that the dog had been "carefully selected".

 

It's an important distinction.

 

I do not hold that any particular training method is the primary cause of these types of behaviors in many Border Collies, and dogs of other breeds, but it is definitely worth a mention.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that permissiveness is definitely a problem among dog owners and parents who are raising children. For clarity, - positive training methods and "permissiveness" are not interchangeable terms. I don't say that to start a debate, but so those who read what I wrote know exactly what I am referring to.

 

The fact of the matter is that of the Border Collies that I observed among the people that I know who would be considered "pet people", it evident that employment of corrective training methods and dominance theory are producing - not curtailing - behaviors such as those that you brought up in the original question. It doesn't happen universally, but it does happen.

 

While permissiveness is an important consideration, I wouldn't attribute all of the problem behaviors that so many owners are experiencing from their Border Collies to permissiveness. Attempts to suppress undesireable behavior instead of addressing it a it's root cause (ex. chemical imbalance, past history, mental problem, true phobia) is as much of a problem as raising a dog without any rule structure.

 

In a lot of ways this topic really brings up the whole "nature" vs. "nurture" question.

[Kyrasmom]

At the risk of making a sweeping generalization, many of the problems have little to do with the dogs but with the people. We talk about BC's with an off switch, but some people actually think there is one. Dogs, much less BC's, aren't really allowed to be dogs anymore, they're expected to meet the expectations of owners who barely know what they want, definitely don't know how to get what they want, but are quick to point out that the dog has a problem and isn't what they want. Hence the numbers in rescue.

 

There are some behaviorally challenged dogs, and often that stems from genetics, and there are some hyper dogs who are poorly bred, but the multitude of "wacked out BC's and/or other breed are simply, IMO, the result of people not really wanting a dog but wanting a cute little fluffy (or smooth) robot.

 

Maria

[Journey]

For clarity, - positive training methods and "permissiveness" are not interchangeable terms. I don't say that to start a debate, but so those who read what I wrote know exactly what I am referring to.

 

Well, on this I disagree. Shaping behaviors by allowing the dog to "figure it out" when I can show them and help them right away is much quicker, gets the same point across and does not allow the dog an "option".

 

The fact of the matter is that of the Border Collies that I observed among the people that I know who would be considered "pet people", it evident that employment of corrective training methods and dominance theory are producing - not curtailing - behaviors such as those that you brought up in the original question. It doesn't happen universally, but it does happen..

 

And hence my original question - pet people that haven't a clue? How could they employ proper methods to begin with? Bad trainers, permissive trainers, trainers to hard... = unbalanced upbringing. Or bad breeding, permissive upbringing, no structure = clueless dog with no mental control. But, not all dogs end up this way. Hardwired properly even in a deplorable situation a dog can behave, not bite, not chase, not be dog aggressive

 

 

In a lot of ways this topic really brings up the whole "nature" vs. "nurture" question...

 

Huh? Never mind.....

[Lenajo]

The point was not the specific situation. It was brought to my attention that it was necessary that I clarify a term that I had used in context. By "appropriate match", I was not making any implication that the dog had been "carefully selected".

 

It's an important distinction.

 

Hmmm, is that not the same thing? Or are we just on the same sentence? You carefully select your appropriate match of dog. Yes, that's it. Same sentence. You don't even have to turn the page.

 

I do not hold that any particular training method is the primary cause of these types of behaviors in many Border Collies, and dogs of other breeds, but it is definitely worth a mention.

 

You may not hold it whatsover, but permissive owner behavior is pretty prominent in pet dog ranks. All you have to do is watch a few PetSmart customers.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that permissiveness is definitely a problem among dog owners and parents who are raising children. For clarity, - positive training methods and "permissiveness" are not interchangeable terms.

 

They may not have the same Websters defination, but the use is ending up with the same results. Positive ihas become an excuse for many pet owners to be permissive. Thanks to the instructions of PP trainers that corrections are all abusive..that only one form of operant conditioning is humane.... you now don't have to excuse your badly behaved dog on your training methods, lack of discipline, or inconsistancy....you can blame the breeder or the breed! After all, you could give him a firm correction and end the behavior but that would be mean. And who wants to be mean?

 

I don't say that to start a debate, but so those who read what I wrote know exactly what I am referring to.

 

I read just fine. That's hardly the same as failing to agree with you. Which is what I'm doing.

 

The fact of the matter is that of the Border Collies that I observed among the people that I know who would be considered "pet people", it evident that employment of corrective training methods and dominance theory are producing - not curtailing - behaviors such as those that you brought up in the original question.

 

Yes, bad training - ill timed and incorrect for the dog and situation doesn't work. I think we've covered that now.

 

It doesn't happen universally, but it does happen.

 

oh. my. dog I would never have thought of that!

 

While permissiveness is an important consideration, I wouldn't attribute all of the problem behaviors that so many owners are experiencing from their Border Collies to permissiveness.

 

Nope, it can't be that.....because you said...

 

Attempts to suppress undesireable behavior instead of addressing it a it's root cause (ex. chemical imbalance, past history, mental problem, true phobia) is as much of a problem as raising a dog without any rule structure.

 

The implication being that most dogs who are ill behaved, aggressive, out of control, and ending up in rescue is because they have problems that can't be helped (history or genetics) without medication and vet behaviorist....as opposed to simple needs for rules and structure in their lives.

 

Don't buy it. Some dogs do (as you pointed out there are exceptions to all rules) but most just need somebody to step up and take charge.

 

In a lot of ways this topic really brings up the whole "nature" vs. "nurture" question.

 

Of course it does. You can have the most lovely genetics in the world and if you don't make use of them they are worthless.

 

Back to the topic. Why is there an increase in the out of control BCs seen? I think because most of them aren't being given the rules and structure they need. There are more genetically flawed BCs now than their ever were, but most genetic flaws of temperament, baring complete sociopaths and mentally damaged dogs, can be improved to pet status with proper training. However unfortunatley those same dogs will be 10 times worse with permissive positive oriented homes.

 

As I've pointed out - we live it, so do a lot of other dog trainers and long term dog owners (who are trainers by default) The same cross section of the shelter is in our home and amazingly when offered reasonable training and structure they are perfectly normal pets. The same with the rescues that comes though.

 

As Lewis Pence once said to a wailing owner, in regards to her lunging and snarling dog....

 

just tell him to "stop that"

 

The owner was completely baffled, and the dog continued. She said the dog hated men, and she was so sorry <wailing> that she brought him

 

So Lewis took the lead and gave it a quick pop, and said "stop that"

 

And the dog did. And Lewis praised him kindly.

 

Sometimes it's that simple.

[Journey]

There are some behaviorally challenged dogs, and often that stems from genetics, and there are some hyper dogs who are poorly bred, but the multitude of "wacked out BC's and/or other breed are simply, IMO, the result of people not really wanting a dog but wanting a cute little fluffy (or smooth) robot.

 

Maria

 

Melanie, Maria, Lenajo and Sue R - thanks!

 

Instant gratification comes to mind Lack of knowledge and not willing to "learn" and not willing to teach may be a good portion of the issues I was asking about; bad breeders and people not wanting to put in the time leaves a dog with a swiss cheese foundation for life.

[jdarling]

Well, on this I disagree. Shaping behaviors by allowing the dog to "figure it out" when I can show them and help them right away is much quicker, gets the same point across and does not allow the dog an "option".

 

Yeah, it's getting way off topic from the original post, and I wasn't going to add to it ... but what the heck?

 

When I am working my dogs (and this is on stock, off stock, whatever ...), I leave their options open to them, and am a big believer in making right easy ... and wrong hard. But it's all their choice ... rather than showing them, and having them learn by repitition (makes me think "mechanical") ... I admire the BC's ability to reason, and I think they learn faster when they make their own choices. But that's me.

[MaryP]

Well, I currently have one of those weird, neuotic, mentally-challenged (I won't say out of control) dogs as a foster and I think that he is both a product of poor breeding and an owner who didn't ever set any boundaries for him. I don't think you can blame it on just one thing or the other all the time.

[HighDesertSpice]

Edit: Deleted my "this is crazy" vent. If you're interested, feel free to send a PM.

[Lenajo]

I think you mixed up your topics....or maybe the wrong board?