Anti merle prejudice

[Mark Billadeau]

1. The USBCHA does not sanction nov-nov or pro-nov classes; these would be classes sanctioned by your local club.

 

2. IMO there is no need to move up until you are proficient in your current learning class; it's better for the sheep and the dog.

 

3. Splitting Open into two classes (pro and non-pro) will offer more handlers a chance to get a ribbon but in doing so will lower the performance bar for the new ribbons. It won't offer the opportunity for more handlers to compete in a trial. Is lowering the performance bar really the best thing for selecting dogs for breeding? Wouldn't it be best for the breed if we all improved becoming competitive with those better than us (getting more out of our dogs and expecting more from our dogs)?

 

4. We've all read looooooong posts about how you are qualified to offer a new method in trial format (regardless of your trial experience only being in the learning classes), how it does not take proficiency in Open to know where it is deficient in selecting the right dogs for breeding, how someone who has never bred working dogs can offer a better method for selecting dogs for breeding, etc.

 

5. Get on with it and post your ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

I think this is a key difference between you and I:

 

 

I have always liked vigorous debate of informed people. Among members who exercise moderation, debate sharpens understanding of the issues, and is fun.

 

I don't find debating a fun sport; it is simply a tool (like a computer) when discussing/processing data. You seem to just enjoy the act of debating where I am interested in the product of the discussion. Until you offer up ideas there is no point in discussing further.

[Pam Wolf]

I think some of the reasons for farmers/ranchers not entering sheep trials is lack of their understanding/knowledge that the trials even exist or how to properly train a dog.

 

Ex: (OK it was cattle) I helped a friend Sat hunt a few calves/cows hiding in the brush. Yes, we used dogs, but most were young dogs not well trained but capable of handling stock. These are some of the few farmers I know around the area who use dogs without working the dog on a rope. See, the typical way of working a dog around here is keeping a dog on a rope and running behind the cows-not efficient. However when approached to ask if they ever considered working a dog off line the typical response is "I don't have time to train a dog" add to this they don't usually buy well bred dogs and won't spend more than about $100.00 for a dog well that is also why they don't work dogs off the ropes.

 

The realm of trialing in the US is not the same as in GB nor the same outside trialing circles. Few farmers (in my area at least) are even aware of trials neither sheep nor cattle. They are often put off by the numerous commands frequently given to dogs on a relative flat open course. The typical response is something like "Well that's nice but can these dogs bring my stock home from the back 40". This is what I think TEC may be getting at. There was/is room in the rules for courses to be more difficult, but when they are often handlers complain. Would more difficult courses make it easier for farmers-NO! Would it improve the caliber of trialing-yes. There has become such an insistence on the 'line' that the quality of work-the HOW the dog does the work is more often than not forgotten. I think the trials could be toughened-rougher terrain would be nice when possible, but more important the judges need more education IMHO

 

Not sure the system is flawed but the implementation of the system could use some tweaking.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Tom wrote: "I rather liked your student's idea for pro and amateur classes."

 

Sorry, I don't. Sheepdog trials are great fun and a very difficult three species competition. We admire and reward (mostly with status) those humans who are best at it.

 

But the best at it aren't the best without the best dogs. The days when a brilliant handler could win a National with less than a brilliant dog are past. That's why the top handlers are always on the lookout for dogs. Sometimes a less brilliant handler will win important trials merely because of his/her dog. We've all see that happen. We've all seen that dog/bitch become an important breeder in no small part because the team did so well with an (often admitedly) less good handler.

 

We've all also seen dogs whose handlers never really gave them a chance to shine, who were so inept even a very good dog couldn't overcome the handler's deficiencies.

 

But we SAW those dogs. We ran against them and defeated them or did not. They weren't in a subcategory of not-quite-ready-for-prime-time-sheepdogs.

 

I am sure less experienced and/or less talented handlers could get more ribbons were there an amateur class. They can also do so by running in unpopular trials or remaining in the junior classes as long as permitted.

 

And yes, more than once after I ran particularly badly I thought, "It would have been cheaper to just mail my check directly to Alastair or Tommy or Beverly or . . ."

 

But in fact, my dog and I were honored to compete against them. My dogs and I have run against the very best sheepdog handlers in the world and, from time to time when the wind is coming from just the right direction and the dice come up right, we've done well.

 

I know no other sport that gives we amateurs that privilege.

 

Donald McCaig

[juliepoudrier]

I just don't see how one could easily separate pro vs. non-pro. There's likely a great grey middle. Is someone who has ever taken money for anything related to stockdogs a pro? If so, that would leave a very small non-pro field I'd guess. And frankly, if I were a non-pro, I would want to compete against the pros because doing so would require me to bring my best and do my best, and that's not a bad thing. What bothers me about such an idea is that it really seems geared toward enabling people to win something when they otherwise might not. I'm not sure how that would improve anything related to stockdogs and stockwork. I'd love to hear the arguments for why anyone thinks it would work. And yes, I'm an open handler and I have taken money for training dogs or giving lessons (not within the past couple of years), but I am certainly no big hat. Where would I fall?

 

I have no issues with "fresh eyes" looking at something and offering suggestions for improvement, but I do think that the people making such suggestions need to be able to logically argue how the offered suggestions will actually improve the dogs and their work over time. Winning a ribbon is meaningless to me, and honestly I can't help thinking that there are already venues that cater to the folks for whom ribbons, certificates, etc., are the most important goal in trialing.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

Pam,

The USBCHA (and my local club) does not dictate the size, shape, terrain, etc of trial courses; that is left to those willing to host trials. If we want more difficult trials (field and/or livestock) we need to get more trial hosts. When the livestock and terrain are easier; closer adherence to the lines is how a judge can differentiate between the best and the better teams.

 

What does a trial host do for the learning classes if they have tougher livestock or difficult terrain? If either are too difficult the host could choose to not offer these classes or the host must have another group of livestock more appropriate for the learning classes.

Mark

 

FWIW our trial field is defiantly not flat and our courses use this terrain to challenge the teams. It helps we live in a hilly part of the country.

[Sue R]

May I say, "Amen!", to posts #126-130?

 

My experience both with regards to trials and dogs is limited and we all know that, but even I can see that these few posts have a tremendous amount of knowledge and information within them.

 

Thanks!

[Maxi]

IMHO If the primary aim is to improve the genetics of the working stock dog then I think the concept of pro and non-pro classes is completely daft.

 

This is because I presume that anyone entering the non- pro class would not be able to compete with the 'big guns' . Therefore the non pro class would relate to the ability of the handler and not necessarily the dog.

 

However, because the 'non-pro', handled dog could gain ribbons and accolades by winning this lesser class, some people may consider that these may give unwarranted merit to the dog's ability and may encourage others to breed from them

 

Obviously, I am a non trialler and do not live in the USA. So that means that readers should either ignore my comments or else consider them as an impartial and unbiased view.(in fact I probably should learn from Eileen and not comment on policy that relates to something outside my own country)

[juliepoudrier]

Sort of related to this topic is the silent gather, which seems to have fallen by the wayside. It used to be one way of breaking ties in open. I was recently told that one well-known handler had written an essay on why a silent gather wasn't a good test (maybe for a tie breaker? I don't remember). It seems to me that a silent gather might be one place where the dog who does practical farm work might excel. I wish we saw it at trials more often. Granted, the lines may not be perfect, but one would certainly be able to judge which dogs can bring the stock straight to the handlers feet! And it certainly would add an element of difficulty to the trial since the handler wouldn't be able to rely on telling the dog what to do during that phase of the work.

 

In contrast, this weekend the trial I worked (and ran in) had a dog-leg fetch (the fetch panels were offset to the handler's left, so the dog had to bring the sheep straight down the field to the left, and then turn the sheep toward the handler once through the fetch gates). That's where one can test a dog's obedience to commands on the fetch because the fetch was NOT the direct line to the handler.

 

Big fields, rough fields, etc., would all be great (though rough is relative and if it's dangerously so, I don't know how many people would want to risk their dogs). As would trials where everyone gets a fresh set of sheep. And new trials are always welcome, but one thing we run into here in the east at least is finding sufficient numbers of sheep to lease to take to new venues (farms willing to host, but who don't have their own flock). And leasing of course raises expenses for hosting the trial, which ultimately raises the cost for the handlers too. Honestly, of all things related to trialing, I think the availability of suitably sized flocks of sheep will always be the greatest limiting factor.

 

J.

[Sue R]

Just because you don't live in the US and don't trial doesn't mean you *can't* have valid views and good ideas. You seem to have both here, at least as far as I can see.

 

I don't see any point in "dumbing down" but I do see the point in keeping the bar high - that is what results in improvement rather than contentment with less.

 

IMHO If the primary aim is to improve the genetics of the working stock dog then I think the concept of pro and non-pro classes is completely daft.

This is because I presume that anyone entering the non- pro class would not be able to compete with the 'big guns' . Therefore the non pro class would relate to the ability of the handler and not necessarily the dog.

However, because the 'non-pro', handled dog could gain ribbons and accolades by winning this lesser class, some people may consider that these may give unwarranted merit to the dog's ability and may encourage others to breed from them

Obviously, I am a non trialler and do not live in the USA. So that means that readers should either ignore my comments or else consider them as an impartial and unbiased view.(in fact I probably should learn from Eileen and not comment on policy that relates to something outside my own country)

[Sue R]

As someone who is somewhat involved with the Bluegrass, a very large trial that involves two fields, two two-day Open classes, one Double-lift International Shed Final class, four Nursery classes, two Ranch classes, two Pro-Novice classes, and two Novice classes, I can say that the availability of a sufficient number of suitable sheep at a reasonable price and with affordable trucking, *is* the make-or-break aspect of at least this one trial. And, to whatever extent (small farm trial to large National-level trial), the sheep factor is going to be the ultimate decision-maker. At least in my limited experience.

 

Big fields, rough fields, etc., would all be great (though rough is relative and if it's dangerously so, I don't know how many people would want to risk their dogs). As would trials where everyone gets a fresh set of sheep. And new trials are always welcome, but one thing we run into here in the east at least is finding sufficient numbers of sheep to lease to take to new venues (farms willing to host, but who don't have their own flock). And leasing of course raises expenses for hosting the trial, which ultimately raises the cost for the handlers too. Honestly, of all things related to trialing, I think the availability of suitably sized flocks of sheep will always be the greatest limiting factor.

 

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Aspiring Sheepdoggers,

 

I've hosted trials with my own sheep and others' sheep. I had a commercial flock before I bought my first Border Collie. I like and admire sheep.

 

One disadvantage of the predominance of "sport" handlers in the sport is their inability to think like the man whose sheep you're hoping to use in a trial. For we handlers, it's a two day competition to prove the best handler/dog team. That isn't how most sheepmen see it. They think we want to use their livelihood as dog toys.

 

If I were providing my flock for use at a trial I would want to know:

 

How are they to be transported? Are the stock trailers footrot free?

 

How will they be cared for on the site? Will they have adequate graze/hay water and shade? How will they be protected from local dogs and or coyotes? How will they be contained?

 

Who is the shepherd and what experience has he/she? Who will be working the pens and spotting? Experience?

 

How many times, per day will each sheep be run? My limit would be three times for a one day trial, no more than twice daily for a two or three day trial.

 

Will the judge DQ the gripping/harassing dog quickly? Is there provision for marking unsound sheep and treating minor wounds?

 

I do understand that these requirements are hard for many trials to meet. Virginia has more sheep than any other state east of the Mississippi and I've gone to sheep farms, to men I knew personally, seeking sheep for the National Finals. Some of them simply laughed at me.

 

Donald McCaig

[Debbie Meier]

In the other sport venues that I have competed in it was more of a Open and a Non-Pro or Amateur. The top non-pros/Amateurs also entered up in the Open class which was open to anyone. A novice class would be called "limited-non pro", typically based on earnings or "maiden" once you win your out of the class.

 

Non-Pro/Amateur designation was limited to those that didn't receive money for judging, training or lessons. Breeding and selling offspring that you raised didn't effect your non-pro/amat. status.

 

 

Both the Open and the Non-Pro/Amt was expected to execute the identical work, often times a top non-pro/amt was competitive in the Open actually raising the bar for what would now be pro-novice.

[Debbie Meier]

The upside to a non-pro/amt division, those that wanted to maintain that standing would avoid giving lessons and offering training so as to not jeopardize their standing, way fewer people hanging out a shingle, so to speak. If you were going to, you best be able to run with the big dogs.

[Tommy Coyote]

Here is what a Basque sheep herder told me. The Basques run huge flocks out in Montana and Wyoming and probably Utah. The one I was talking to ran about 3,000 head.

 

He said they put out a whole lot of sheep and there is a shute that goes into a big pen. The competition is to see what shepherd and their dog can put all those sheep thru the shute and into the pen.

 

Makes sense because I think that is mainly what they use the dogs for.

 

He also told me how they take care of their dogs and I wouldn't sell one to one of those guys for anything. They are just another piece farm machinery. He said they just leave them in the back of the truck until they are needed. They get very little care.

[Maxi]

In the other sport venues that I have competed in it was more of a Open and a Non-Pro or Amateur. The top non-pros/Amateurs also entered up in the Open class which was open to anyone. A novice class would be called "limited-non pro", typically based on earnings or "maiden" once you win your out of the class.Non-Pro/Amateur designation was limited to those that didn't receive money for judging, training or lessons. Breeding and selling offspring that you raised didn't effect your non-pro/amat. status.Both the Open and the Non-Pro/Amt was expected to execute the identical work, often times a top non-pro/amt was competitive in the Open actually raising the bar for what would now be pro-novice.

There are sometimes 'novice' classes in some open trials run in the UK. But my understanding is that over here this term usually refers to the inexperienced dog (past nursery trial age but not been yet placed in an open) rather than to an inexperienced handler.

 

Although there are several trials most weekends in the UK, the old hands often tell me that it is much harder to find farms to host them for exactly the reasons Mr. McCaig so eloquently discusses.. Many also lament how many trials now have 'bad sheep' because the stock are no longer routinely managed with a good dog.

 

It always reminds me of the old saying "there is no good flock without a good shepherd, and no good shepherd without a good dog."

[toney]

I think we already have the equivalent of a " non- pro" class. We call it Ranch or Open Ranch. This entails a full open course without the shed. When a dog is mature enough to handle a course and a shed they should move to open.

 

Those who have no desire to excel or challenge themselves or their dogs in open ( open usually runs first and that helps break the sheep for the lower classes to come) remain as permanent fixtures in the novice classes.

[CMP]

Donald, you could be my father talking. For him, letting sheep be used so people could have a competition (which he happened to believe was not a fully valid competition), was not quite laughable - and he did do it twice that I know of - but it was certainly not a small matter at all.

 

One time a weekend warrior found out where the sheep were coming from and called up my father and asked, quite politely, whether he could come by with his dog and do ... practising, I suppose. Not entirely sure of the details.

 

I can still remember him bellowing into the phone, "We do not PRACTICE here, we WORK here!" My goodness he was angry and offended. Not sure what happened but the last time, that I know of, that he let sheep be used, he came home with a very angry face, a very straight back and never had another good thing to say about sheepdog trials.

 

I recount the story, which is not my own personal opinion, as a way of validating the far flung correctness of Mr. McCaig's musings.

[TEC]

Well, I am getting in the car with my dog to go practice for a SDT on Saturday. Tidy-up the pen, do an outrun, couple drives to panels. It is raining. Would not miss it for anything.

 

IME your father's reaction, CMP,while stronger than some, is pretty typical to moving sheep for anything not related to a real working purpose. SDT'ing and prep for them are not understood. I believe minds would be eased, if farmers had a day or two to observe good SDTs. The short demos I did this summer, on request, for maintenance workers and ladies in golf carts going to the next tee, had them all smiles. A few retired farmers were in the mix.

 

Excellent discussion above. Billadeau, I do not understand why you joined, not liking debate. It is a sifting and testing process that gives an indication of the strength of final product. I have done science, and enjoyed a number of undergrad scientific courses, even a major. The ones that had lifelong value for me were the liberal arts: philosophy, theology, literature, writing, etc. The scientific method is important to society, but like everything has limits.

 

I want to write a short introduction to the prepared outline I mentioned. I will get that done and have something posted this evening. -- Thanks, TEC

[Sue R]

That was myself and my first dog, Celt. When I realized that *we* weren't going to move up after two years in Novice, and I wasn't going to be able to get a dog that I could move up with, I stopped trialing. Since then, I've just been a volunteer. Maybe one day I will be able to get a retired dog that can teach me, and we together will be able to give Pro-Nov a try and, hopefully, work our way on up.

 

I had no aspirations of being an Open handler, but didn't want to be a Novice year after year, either. Besides, being a volunteer is, for me, all the fun and almost none of the worries!

 

Those who have no desire to excel or challenge themselves or their dogs in open ( open usually runs first and that helps break the sheep for the lower classes to come) remain as permanent fixtures in the novice classes.

[Sue R]

Am I the only person who finds it rude when people are referred to by their last name (for instance, "Smith") rather than their posted first name or "Mr Smith"? For some reason, it seems rather belittling to me but maybe I'm funny that way.

[CMP]

I suspect many farmers have the same problem as I sometimes do on this board. (No, they don't talk too much and annoy people, the *other* problem).

 

The disparaging attitude many trial folks seems to have for working dogs. Farm dogs, I believe they are referred to, and not usually in a positive way. In this very thread I have seen suggestions that the *real* test for a BC is a trial.

 

I believe the real test for a BC is work. A trial can prove the test, a trial can cull out the best working dogs, a trial can show off a handler's skills, but that dog - if he cannot work on a farm - is a useless (in context) dog, no matter how lovely and stylish his outrun. Full stop.

 

I do believe trials, in conjunction with real work, are an excellent way to establish good breeding lines. But if farm dogs are considered "less than" because it's just about "getting the job done" then .. meh ... I don't understand. It *IS* about getting the job done.

 

Isn't it?

[Laurae]

Unless "the job" is pretty simple and easily mastered due to constant repetition with the same stock, fields, and situations day after day, week after week, year after year. I am not suggesting your father's dogs work solely under those circumstances, but many, many "farm dogs" do. And to believe that is the most valid test of a border collie is doing the breed a gigantic disservice.

[Mark Billadeau]

The problem with simply "getting the job done" is the "job" on one farm could be completed by a dog with little to no talent that would fail to even move (or find) the stock on another farm. This will vary greatly depending upon the sheep, the management system use on the farm, and the size and terrain of the farm. For example, if the job is to gather the sheep and move them into a barn stall, the talent needed in a dog will vary greatly if one farm consists of flat 1 acre fields used for rotational grazing vs a farm that open grazes sheep on rolling 150 acres with limited human contact.

[TEC]

Sue, you should not have stopped trialling for the reason given. Everybody has their own life and considerations, but that is sad. I think competitors unintentionally give signals that impact on beginners, who are already in vulnerable places. Perhaps it was completely your own decision, others urging you to stay. Over the years, that is not what I have seen in this craft.

 

I say get back to it at whatever level you feel comfortable, with whatever dog is able, within the driving distances and time you have available. If you never get that dog you mentioned, or sufficient time to practice and travel, it doesn't matter. If you like competition and preparation, stick with it.

 

As for last names, that individual (post #143) in private initiated a good deal of disrespect toward me and my lifestyle as it relates to border collies, trial prep, and competition. Having taken enough, I responded in kind. My feelings toward him will not change. -- TEC

[GentleLake]

Am I the only person who finds it rude when people are referred to by their last name (for instance, "Smith") rather than their posted first name or "Mr Smith"?

 

No.