Anyone read Working Sheepdogs by Tully Williams? If he's right, it's not the AKC that will ruin the Border Collie.

[SoHo]

It was an impressive read. The full name is Working Sheepdogs, a practical guide to breeding, training, and handling

 

It this book he goes over all the things to look for in a new pup, what qualities you want, what to avoid, and they affect the dog's working style. It's really in depth.

 

Then he shows how you can test for natural talent in a pup at 8 weeks (or something like that).

 

The main thesis of the book is that quality of the current working stock dog is absolute junk and he blames stock dog trials as the main culprit and the breeders who cater to them. He goes over why trials don't test the qualities of a good stock dog and explains which types of dogs typically win.

 

He also has a chapter on genetics and thoughts on how breeders can improve the breed.

 

Then it's a whole section on training where he gives you a command system that helps you communicate with your dog better and then a step by step guide how to train your dog. To become a open trial competitor, he estimates it should take about 4 months. All you do in those trials are command your dog like a robot around a course.

 

In the end, he critiques the trials rules and scoring system, then offers suggestions how they could be improved which would help improve the working breed. It would be nice to hear some thought from trialists about this book.

 

So far it's the best book about BC training I've ever read. Highly recommend it.

[Mark Billadeau]

So is his critique of working Border Collies and the current stock dog trialing system specific to Australia or world wide?

[Smalahundur]

Sounds like an interesting read. I have been thinking about these things, and agree that breeding for trial winning dogs might not be the same thing as breeding good stock dogs.

I have noticed that on these boards just daring to raise that question is, as we say in the Netherlands, like "swearing in the church"....

[Pippin's person]

At a trial this week-end there was a run-off for first place--a near silent gather over a terraced field where the sheep were held at a distance of about 500 yards--dogs could not see the sheep at multiple points on the outrun. Neither person issued a command to the dog other than the initial flank. Nothing robotic there. I'm skeptical about a blanket statement about 4 mos leading to an open trial dog--there's so much variation in what counts as training; who's doing the training, the age of the dog, the quality of the dog, etc. that making a statement like that sounds like creating a straw man for an argument. Does he make that as a blanket claim?

 

If I'm not mistaken, most of the Australian trials (at least in the east) are more like arena trials in N. America than the big field trials, so the comparison to continental style field trials is a little harder to make.

 

And, of course, this is one of the big current debates with lots of people who haven't ever successfully competed in open field trials (by which I mean placing in the big, competitive trials) opining about how awful trialing and trial dogs are. Not claiming that Tully Williams is such a person as I don't know him--however, I see plenty such opining in the wild west of the internet. In my opinion, until you have the experience to actually make that comparison, you tread in arrogant waters to have a strong opinion about the inferiority of trial dogs.

 

ETA: I do believe that breeding for trialling rather than working can be deeply problematic. I do not believe that trialling is the motivation for all that many breedings and do believe that most high level trial folks legitimately seek to improve the working abilities of the breed.

[Debbie Meier]

He is directing it toward Australian 3 sheep trials as I recall, but also mentioned that the UK are better but still not ideal if I recall correctly because it is judging the sheep and not the dog.. There is also a major trait that he feels is not being tested for in either venue. Would have to thumb through it again to refresh my memory.

The companion dvd that he offers is also worth the look too.

[Tea]

I have read Tully's book and seen his dvd and emailed him a couple of times with questions. I think before commenting you should read his book.

 

He is not down on UK dogs

 

He is saying that the three sheep trials in AUS should be modified.

 

But his book is about breeding working stockdogs and what he found to work for him.

 

His definitions are very good. Definitions of the traits needed.

 

All of us bring something to the table.

 

And both ranching and trialing help us figure all this out.

 

We Need To Help Each Other.

 

 

 

Today I sent a two year old up a mountainside to fetch down well grown yrling flighty calves and my ram flock running with them. I sent him up about 800 yds maybe more. I could not see him after 100 yds as the side of this mountain is so steep. So I could not give him any commands. He had to use his head and the instincts in his blood.

 

He had never been in this pasture. It is fenced with netting which is unforgiving of mistakes.

 

He had one gate to go through. a right turn then up higher.

 

I went to do other chores figuring in my head how long it would take him. If he was late, I'd ride up and check.

 

He brought them all down.

 

I did not train this

 

He was bred with this, I only allowed him a place to express it at the right time. And I trust him because what he has shown me.

 

 

He has a relative in Tully's book

 

Paddy's Shadow

 

 

He was bred by a rancher, who has never trialed.

[Mark Billadeau]

I know this has been stated before but it is appropriate for here. Not all trials have the same level of difficulty for the dogs just as not all ranch/farm work has the same level of difficulty. To lump a small farm trial run on training sheep in the same group as a 500+ yard outrun hill trial run on fresh commercial sheep is no better than saying the work on an 8 acre hobby farm is the same as the work running 1000 head on range land. To say breeding for trialling or for ranch work is better for the breed has little meaning without knowing the level of work required by the dog to be successful at either.

 

It's the same old problem, when someone says ranch work (or trial) they have one mental picture of the tasks while everyone else has their own mental picture (each is based upon their own personal experiences). They are likely to be different especially amongst a global internet community.

[Tea]

Right on, Mark

[Sue R]

Right on, Mark

Yes!

[Sue R]

Back to the original post, I think what will ruin the working stock dog (of any breed) is lousy breeding - whether it's show breeding, pet breeding, sport breeding, or anything but intelligent breeding for the traits that make the breed useful for its purpose. Each other form of breeding is breeding away from those unique characteristics and reduces the potential gene pool as possible candidates are removed and/or unproven for possible breeding.

 

Poor breeding or breeding for other goals, whether it's within ACK or ABCA, will erode the unique qualities of the breed population overall.

[Tea]

Right on Sue!

[Debbie Meier]

Has anyone seen the recent Q & A video that was posted by MacRae's mythbusting trial and chore? The question that came to mind for me after listening to it, are enough of those high level competitors that do expect that high level of work and ability actually breeding enough.

[Smalahundur]

I think it is quite telling that there are people who feel the need to ask such a question.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I haven't read Mr. Tully's book. I have seen the traditional Australian 3 sheep trial and their yard trial. I've seen working Kelpies here and in Australia and for hours of inbye work in summer heat I'd take a good Kelpie over a good Border Collie. That said: I've never trained one and in US trials the best Kelpies aren't as good as pretty good Collies.

 

Assuming Mr/Ms Soho has cited Mr. Tully correctly, he says: " . . . he shows how you can test for natural talent in a pup at 8 weeks (or something like that)."

 

Perhaps you can with Kelpies With Border Collies that'd be a waste of time.

 

Cited Mr Tully: "To become a open trial competitor, he estimates it should take about 4 months. All you do in those trials are command your dog like a robot around a course. "

 

Phooey. Many experienced US open handlers would have difficulties with the 3 sheep trial whose obstacles are more difficult than the ISDS trial and the handler is disqualified for giving help. Yes, the handler is near the dog but must be expressionless as Bluegrass musicians. In the 1980's, two US handlers John Bauserman and Lewis Pulfer flew to Australia to compete in their "World" trial. After two months working with Australian dogs they did creditably in yard trials held at night in a lighted stadium when the temp dipped under 100. Creditably. Both were top handlers with years of experience. 4 months to be an open handler? Scots say 10 years.

 

Donald McCaig

[KnottyClarence]

Can a trial be too hard? Can a trial be too easy? Should we grade them?

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

In practice, no, no and why? For a couple years, no sheepdog finished the championship course at the Sturgis Finals. The winner was the dog that did the best work. I've run at timed fair trials with fifty yard outruns. The dog doing the best work wins.

 

Donald McCaig

[Debbie Meier]

May want to have a peak at Mr. Williams' dogs on his sire page, Kelpies? Really? hmmm

http://www.campaspeworkingdogs.com/Sires.html

[Gloria Atwater]

May want to have a peak at Mr. Williams' dogs on his sire page, Kelpies? Really? hmmm

 

http://www.campaspeworkingdogs.com/Sires.html

 

 

He says he doesn't believe in dog breeds, basically. He summarizes on his "about" page with this:

 

"So I far prefer to consider ‘strains’ of dogs, or bloodlines. This is what the original “Border” collie was – just one particular strain of collie which become popular.

The Kelpie also was one particular strain of collie.

(“Collie”was a generic term used for working dogs, which means ‘black').

So I don’t consider my dogs to be “Border collies”, although that is the description most people would probably apply, and they are registered as such. Rather I consider them to be one particular strain or bloodline of collies, which might be described as “Yulong Russ blood collies”, or “Campaspe collies” or “Campaspe Working Dogs”. There is some “Kelpie” in them (just another strain of collie) if you look far enough back, as there is in most Australian collies (and collie in most kelpies), and I won’t hesitate to outcross to one particular strain of “Kelpie” in the future if the need arises. "

 

As for the man himself, I confess that I was turned off by the sheer level of vitriol I saw in some quotes from him a while back. (I think extracts from his book.) I'm sure he breeds good dogs that do what he needs and wants them to do, and doubtless other stockmen love them. But his choice of words showed such utter contempt for nearly all every other dog breeder or handler, and he seemed to feel that he was the only man south of the Equator breeding worthwhile working dogs.

 

That may not be a fair representation of Mr Williams, but I reckoned if someone in the US set themselves up like that, they'd be pretty lonely pretty darned quick ...

 

~ Gloria

[Eileen Stein]

Can a trial be too hard? Can a trial be too easy? Should we grade them?

 

 

Dear Doggers,

 

In practice, no, no and why? For a couple years, no sheepdog finished the championship course at the Sturgis Finals. The winner was the dog that did the best work. I've run at timed fair trials with fifty yard outruns. The dog doing the best work wins.

 

Donald McCaig

 

I disagree with my learned friend Donald. He is right that a trial will not be too hard for the best dog to win, and a trial will not be too easy for the best dog to win, but the point of a trial isn't just for somebody to win. If trials are going to be used as a way of testing quality, they must not be too hard or too easy. You would not gain much information by giving an advanced math test to second graders, or by giving a second-grade-level math test to college students. If all of the dogs score very high (or if all you need do is "command your dog like a robot"), the trial (test) is too easy, and if all of the dogs score very low (or if artificial elements are added for difficulty that depart from what's useful for practical livestock work), the trial is too hard. Much better that the trial be too hard than too easy, but ideally it should be set at a level that effectively distinguishes the wheat from the chaff. That's why it takes a person with a certain degree of knowledge about dogs, sheep and how the former can and should manage the latter to set a good trial course. The Sturgis Finals to which Donald refers had sheep that were so large and aggressive and unused to being worked that the international shed simply could not be accomplished the first year or two, and therefore no one completed the course on the final day. Over the course of those years the best dogs and handlers figured out how to do it, which was a fantastic experience and illustration of what dogs are capable of. And in the meantime the gather and drive provided a good fair test of the dogs' abilities, so I would not say that the trial was too hard. That's why bordering on too hard is better than too easy -- there are challenges that a dog and handler can meet that at one time might have seemed impossible, but too easy is just pointless.

 

As for grading, I don't know if you meant to grade the trial or grade the dogs. The dog's score is its grade, I suppose, but I think the trials are grade-able too, and they ARE graded if only in people's minds. Most people have a mental ranking of existing trials from the most challenging and fairest (in the sense of calling for and rewarding the best work) down to the least challenging/fair. Every now and then people call for the USBCHA to rank them more formally, and limit sanctioning and/or number of points awarded to trials of a certain level of difficulty, but that's unlikely ever to happen, because sheepdog trial hosting -- like sheepdog trialing -- is made up of independent cusses who don't like to be told what to do.

[Mike Neary]

The biggest problem with the international shed at the first two Sturgis finals was the placement of the shedding ring. It was too far into the corner of the field and too close to the exhaust. The third year it was placed further up into the field giving more room for the shed sheep to move off. All three years fine wool sheep were used.