Cattledog trial judging guidelines - a start

[amc]

Kathy Rose, principal organizer of the Box R Oregon State Cow Dog Championships (which will be held 9/10-12/04) has announced that the Open trial this year will be fully judged. Last year the trial was partially judged. Kathy and I, with input from other respected cow dog trialers, put together a set of judging guidelines for the Box R trial.

 

We wanted to retain the obstacle-driven character which is common in Western cow dog trials while adding the element of knowledgeable assessment by a judge. We devised a scheme based on running 3 head of cattle per run which has 60 points on course possible for completion of the obstacles and 60 points possible based on the dog's ability to control the cattle.

 

If anyone would like to see the guidelines, please email me at acoapman@karuk.us and I'll send you a copy. I think they're a bit lengthy to post here.

 

We would appreciate your comments and input. We see this as a work-in-progress and a step forward but we are always open to new ideas.

[Cholla1]

One comment:

 

I have heard people here say that they quit sheepdog trials and went mostly to cow trials because of the biased judging and that some with good runs were never doing any good under certain people and against certain others, when judged, due to that.

Todays system made the playing field even.

 

There are not that many trials here, distances in the hundreds of miles from one to the other, so that all feel that they have a chance was an important consideration.

 

Where will they go if the same situation developes now in cow trials by introducing there the same level of judging as in sheep dogs?

 

Why not leave well alone, or at least have both types of trials at the same time, if possible, at least until it is shown that it is a different world and the judging can be true to the intent of showcasing the best, even in a small group like here and see where the true interest of the participants is?

 

To have judged cow trials, if not many attend, turns people away, would be counter productive.

 

It is all a show, anyway, not real work and you can make any rules you think may showcase "the real cow dog", if you can agree on that, as long as they are the same for all.

 

People will eventually adapt to anything and train for that, as they do for what the judges like too see today.

[Post and Rail]

Originally posted by Cholla1:

It is all a show, anyway, not real work and you can make any rules you think may showcase "the real cow dog".........

It is not a show - Hopefully, people make breeding and purchasing decisions based on what should be as reasonable an approximation of real work as can be achieved in a repeatable format.

 

It sounds to me as though - from your perspective - this is merely sport. It is not merely a sport and sound breeding decisions based on performance is what made the BC a great dog.

 

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your comments, but I think you're off-base.

 

PR

[toney]

I'd like you to pull actual quotes from those people who have said they have gone to cowdog trials because of biased judging in sheepdog trials to clarify your statement. I haven't noticed much of that at all and I've been reading this forum since the beginning. Not to mention that I haven't noticed that many cattle dog people on these boards- they tend to hang out elsewhere. Additionally, I think the reason so much thought and preparation has gone into making judging "guidelines" (not rules) is the simple reason that most people DON'T want trials (cow dog or sheep dog) to become a sport like agility and obedience and flyball, but to continue to be a reasonable approximation of real work and a showcase of necessary skills.

[Cholla1]

Opinions were sought by the original poster and that is what I gave.

One more opinion. You are giving yours.

 

Since you admit that there are not many cow trialers here, why prepare rules and ask for advice/comments where the audience is not cow trial participants?

 

If someone has a different opinion that what sheep trialers think cow trials should be run like, why is it deemed objectionable?

 

Why change rules that have been working fine as they are, showing what cow dogs can do, just to fit some sheep trialers ideas of what that should be?

But then, if it has to happen, maybe in hindsight it will seem to have been a good idea, or not.

 

You are right, it is a "trial", not a "show".

That both are "showcasing" their dogs and that their performance will determine their future breeding, that people go to it in their spare time, some making trialing and clinics about trialing their only job, that some trialing dogs never see real work, etc. present both with many similarities but you can call them "different".

 

One thing trials are not is real work, only approximate conditions, by definition by trialers themselves.

 

Thre is a parallel with horses:

There are jumpers, the kind of horses that get the job of getting around a course in the shortest time, no matter how and leave the jumps up, the jumps being extremely big and hard to get to in a manner so as to leave them standing.

Then, there are hunters.

Hunters are judged on how they perform thru the whole course, how quiet and correct the approach is to every jump and how gracefully they jump it.

For that, the jumps have to be smaller and less demanding and time is not a real factor.

Some hunter classes even demand that the people wear certain "traditional" clothes and the horses be prepared as it was a real hunt.

 

My point is that in anything we do, there are those that want to get the job done and those that want to get it done a certain very specific way and that someone will decide when it is so: Judged.

 

Maybe we should consider that there is room for all and none is wrong in itself, since both present how the same job can be done and is done in real life?

[Post and Rail]

Originally posted by Cholla1:

Opinions were sought by the original poster and that is what I gave.

One more opinion. You are giving yours.

Just out of curiosity....... Amy offered to send the guidelines to anyone who asked...... I asked, received them, and sent my comments and wonder if you have read them?

 

This is not the only forum in which comments were requested.

 

Your comment "that in anything we do, there are those that want to get the job done and those that want to get it done a certain very specific way and that someone will decide when it is so: Judged" is well stated and duly noted, but I shudder at the thought that we're being compared to the H&J world as it is today.

 

Let me offer you an example. I was recently watching a big cattle trial and guess who made (in my opinion) the best showing? A dog who had never been on cattle - EVER! - but the handler and dog knew stock and handled them correctly, quietly, and efficiently. Did they win, NO, but I'll bet my best dog that most of the ranchers in the crowd would choose that dog and handler over the lip-tearing dog that won even though he was 15 seconds slower.

 

PR

[Cholla1]

Let me offer you an example:

I saw an open win, on fresh out of the truck cattle that many didn't even finish a run on, by a dog that he and the cattle barely got out of a walk.

He had them marching thru the course like soldiers in step.

Good smooth work can get the job done and I would say winning more consistently, especially in timed events, where any little mistake will cost you your run in lost time.

 

You can find any run anywhere to make any point if you go to enough trials.

 

I will still say that both ways have merit.

[Eileen Stein]

Cholla, you wrote:

 

>

 

I think Toney's reply, which you took issue with, was based on interpreting "here" to mean on these Boards, when I think you actually used "here" to mean where you live. So the two of you may be misunderstanding one another.

 

I'd say this was a reasonable place for Amy to put up her post, given the lively and lengthy discussion of judging cattledog trials that occurred here last year when judging was dropped from the 2003 USBCHA cattledog finals. A number of those people are still reading here, apparently, since they post from time to time, though they may be all argued out on this particular subject.

 

Also, Amy wrote about one particular trial which was going to an all-judged format. She didn't suggest that all cattledog trials had to be conducted that way.

 

>

 

I don't think there are many livestock producers who don't care how the job is done as long as it gets done. Do you, really?

[Post and Rail]

Originally posted by Cholla1:

I will still say that both ways have merit.

I won't - but I'm not going to get in a circular argument because you and I can both spin this to meet our needs.

 

All I ask is that if you have truly constructive criticism - specific to the guidelines generously presented - please review the document and pass it along.

 

PR

[Cholla1]

---"All I ask is that if you have truly constructive criticism "---

 

I thought I was doing so already, best I know how.

 

Maybe most here already have their mind made up that any trials should be judged, so why ask for input, what is the point on saying anything?

You run the show, do as you wish up front.

No hand wringing about it necessary.

 

On getting the job done, I let an experienced dog judge how best to handle stock and guide a young one if it seems to need it by watching how the stock is starting to respond.

That it be to a certain standard, as if a judge was there, is not a concern right then, time after time, all day long.

We are working, not training for trials.

To train you have to work for the dog and that would not always be the best for the stock.

That is what I mean about "getting the work done".

 

Eileen is right. Our respective frames of reference are too different on my part for constructive discourse.

I should stay out of it and let those trialing now handle it as they see best.

[Bill Fosher]

Sloppy work can win a points and time trial if all the obstacles are hit and the dog is fast enough. Sloppy work can only win a judged trial if the rest of the dogs and handlers are sloppier.

 

That's the fundamental difference, and why I dislike points and time trial as anything other than a fun diversion.

[Cholla1]

Define sloppy work.

[Eileen Stein]

I should stay out of it and let those trialing now handle it as they see best. >>

 

Yikes! Did I say that?

 

I'm interested in this subject, and interested in what you have to say about it.

 

That it be to a certain standard, as if a judge was there, is not a concern right then, time after time, all day long. >>

 

At home, you are the judge. I would be surprised if you didn't make judgments about how the stock should be handled. You probably want them not to be unduly stressed or to put stress on your fences and gates, not to receive unnecessary tears and punctures, to be moved efficiently to where they need to go without a lot of side excursions, and to weigh roughly the same at the end of the operation as at the start. You judge whether the dog is doing it well or badly, and if he's doing it badly you correct him or even take some time to train him to do better.

 

At a trial the judge is the judge. It wouldn't be fair for you to be the judge--the other handlers would complain. But that should be the only difference, it seems to me. You should want the judge to evaluate the dog the same way you evaluate the dog.

 

I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if there's more of a consensus among sheep people about what constitutes good handling of stock than there is among cattle people, and if that's why cattle people tend to think the judge must be biased, whereas sheep people think his judgement is worth having and can usually see why he scored the way he did. Just wondering -- do you think that could be it?

[Post and Rail]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

.....I wonder if there's more of a consensus among sheep people about what constitutes good handling of stock than there is among cattle people......

Honestly, from what I see at many trials, it more about who's got the "bad-assed" fearless dog who'll get kicked and keep going. I honestly doubt that the ranchers I see trialing treat their cattle at home the way they treat cattle at a trial (note - I do not mean "all" cattle trialers)

 

It sort of reminds me of the tricked-out 4x4s we see cruising the roads. They're not terribly practical but they look neat and turn heads.

 

PR

[Cholla1]

---"I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if there's more of a consensus among sheep people about what constitutes good handling of stock than there is among cattle people, and if that's why cattle people tend to think the judge must be biased, whereas sheep people think his judgement is worth having and can usually see why he scored the way he did. Just wondering -- do you think that could be it?"---

 

You may be right. I think that there have been sheepdog competitions for several hundred years but cattle only the last few, so we most probably are in a learning curve on to how to conduct them.

 

Once we are talking about the better and more trained dogs that do a fair job of getting the cattle where they are supposed to be, how they go about it is seen differently by several people you may ask, so to have time determining who won seems a good idea right now.

 

Example: I don't like the emphasis on bite so many very good cattle trialers consider absolutely necessary.

 

I think that such loses you time, if nothing else.

Not that bite should be penalized when necessary but it seldom is necessary, even in range or pen conditions and then it is obviously so to all, like when a dog is about to get run over by one offended creature that doesn't want to herd with the others.

 

In general, if a dog is not strong enough with it's presence alone, backing it off the cattle, moving a little each way, taking the pressure off, rather than getting in there to bite seems to calm them and so give them time to think and in the end gain time.

Get the dog in there biting and you may lose them all for a little, thus losing time.

 

I think that if you back the dog yourself on cattle when it first starts to work the ranker ones that will test it, not the dog broke ones, you will give the dog the confidence to stand up to them and so the cheap shot bites I keep seeing would not be established as a means of gaining control, a control that in my opinion is a false sense of control because in some situations that biting only escalates the situation by getting the cattle on the fight, rather than calmly dominating and guiding them.

 

I don't "put a bite" on my dogs (even if the trainer insist I will some day need it, on command of course and he has much more experience than I do) but my dogs seem to have known when to bite, the few times they have needed to, mostly on a mean and frustrated cow that then, knowing that it was an exception, would not be chased if it complied, gave up quickly.

 

I hear sheep people say that a dog is doing the best job when the sheep go quietly where they are supposed to go. The same with cattle.

 

So in theory, if the stock move "right" thru a course for several dogs that do it differently, what would determine who is the winner if time is not also important?

Then is when the judges nitpick at how that dog was working, maybe forgetting that if the sheep were doing well, any way of working should be fine.

 

Another point that I have not seen addressed but may have been a year ago when you say this was discussed is that some times it get's a little wild at cattle trials and that is wrong toward the cattle and the image that may present to anyone with any sense about the question of animal abuse.

That could be corrected by stricter rules against such. I don't think that trying to make time is the cause of that, as some say, but bad training and handling or/and a frustrated dog in over it's head.

 

Working cattle with dogs is definitely not like working sheep, for what I can tell.

 

To what extent those differences, as far as trialing, should determine how the trials should be run is for the ones trialing now to decide, so disregard my humble opinions that seem to be in the minority anyway.

[Cholla1]

---"Honestly, from what I see at many trials, it more about who's got the "bad-assed" fearless dog who'll get kicked and keep going"---

 

Post and Rail's comment doesn't seem to have any solutions, only a biased opinion that she carries over to what she sees, assuming the motivation of some trialers to be so, well, disgusting, for lack of a better word.

 

I have not seen that here, but maybe it is where she watches?

 

Here I will say that the handling is steadily improving, as more and more people are gaining experience in training and handling dogs and cattle in the specific situation of trialing.

 

You can also see some bad riding and horse handling at the smaller horse shows, where more novices participate.

 

I still don't think that timed trials are resulting in bad handling.

Bad handlers are the cause.

[lisa cosgrove]

i digress, but i just wanted to mention a comment i read from a rancher who was being interviewed about how effective his dogs are as compared to human personnel. "among other things, they don't go out partying and they show up to work on time--every day."

[Cholla1]

---"a comment i read from a rancher who was being interviewed about how effective his dogs are as compared to human personnel. "among other things, they don't go out partying and they show up to work on time--every day." "---

 

You forgot to mention if he was a cattle or sheep rancher.

 

I have heard it here too, by anyone selling a sheep/cow dog.

Must be a common expression.

[J. Williams]

Just a note to clarify, last year the Box R offered both types of trials - Open Field trials that were partially judged, as well as point trials that included Open, Nursery and Novice Handler classes. Last I heard, the same would be true this year, although there was no mention of changing the judging format, so perhaps other things have been, or will be, changed as well.

 

"...Why not leave well alone, or at least have both types of trials at the same time..."

[Cholla1]

Well, any feedback on what seemed to work better and why, what do the competitors and the management of the trials think compared with previous timed trials?

 

Once there is data to back any way to handle cow trials over how it is done today, I imagine that any change that seems necessary, not arbitrary, will be accepted by most.

 

I am starting to wonder if there may be some dogs/handlers that work better with time and others judged and that may be part of the controversy, reinforcing each ones positions in their minds.

[J. Williams]

I don't think agreement is possible or necessary. Trialers dictate the available formats and so long as there is support for, and particpation in, any given format, it will continue to be available.

 

Ample interest in variety, fueled by an underlying conviction that no one format can capture all the skills a truly gifted cattledog is capable of, has produced many differing formats.

 

Bottom line? Some entries get tossed, some entries get mailed - let freedom ring.

 

As far as working better with time vs. judged, if by "time" you mean point trials (points determine winners, time just breaks point ties when necessary), there is a respectable number of handlers who consistently earn top placings in both and there are those who do well only in one or the other.

 

Certainly a couple of positives that have come from past discussions on the points vs. judged topic are the increasing difficulty of point trials and the concentrated effort to eliminate the "time" factor altogether by seeking alternative ways to break ties.