mjk05

That might be the situation in BB's case- but she's saying that she doesn't think anyone should work or trial a desexed dog at all, not just in her situation where there are so few good quality bitches... And I wonder if there might be more good quality bitches if people were encouraged to participate with desexed dogs, so even people who don't intend to breed can get involved, the market for pups increases, and those people might change their minds later and keep their next dog entire. Keeping a working test/sport exclusive to breeders doesn't help to improve the working population of a breed. The other problem with her argument is that she seems to think the best way to breed good trialling dogs is from good trialling dogs, which it isn't. It's from producers of good dogs. So yes, you need to work your dogs to know about their working traits first, but then you need to assess not just their ability, but that of as many of their relatives as possible, and how those dogs reproduce and with which other lines do they best reproduce, before you decide to breed. Example: I have a bitch pup who is an awesome worker- but her siblings, half-siblings and all their offspring are pretty mediocre, no matter who they're mated to. I have another bitch pup who is also great, but in addition, her siblings (desexed and entire) are all consistently good working dogs, and those of her siblings that have bred have produced outstanding pups. Which one's the better bet for breeding? Example two: I have decided to breed my great working bitch- should I use the top winning trial dog at the moment, even though he's never produced any good dogs with bitches from my lines, or should I use the dog who isn't a trial winner, but who has sired some brilliant (desexed) dogs when mated to bitches from my lines? Desexed or not, those pups are providing important information for breeders, as long as they are worked.

Don't they have desexed classes in ANKC conformation showing? I think there are 2 main differences between the ANKC showing situation and that of working breeders: 1) It seems that ANKC show breeders can get some idea which pups will be "show quality" when they are small puppies, so can make some decisions then. It's impossible for a working breeder to know which pups will have the best combination of working traits at 7 weeks. 2) The central motivation for the activity is different: you show conformation dogs as a tool for breeding, and you breed working dogs as a means to provide dogs for work. If you have a sheep farm and need a working dog, you aren't going to take that dog out to work to assess its breeding potential, you're taking it out to move your sheep. The only reason you would breed it would be when you need a new dog- and then you have the choice of going back to the top quality breeder you got you first dog from. For many people, it's not worth the hassle of entire dogs (especially bitches) and then time out for seasons or pups, when they just want a working dog. So they sterilise. I'm not going to discourage that. Sheepdog trials are actually about more than just assessing breeding animals- they're a social event that people enjoy, they are a means of encouraging high levels of training and control and teaching people how to handle a dog well, they encourage the use of sheepdogs by demonstrating the talents of well-bred dogs to the general community, and of course they allow breeders to see what various lines and individual dogs are producing.

A dog of that quality would only go to someone who would not desex. How do you know when they are baby puppies? Or do all the working sheepdog people in your neck of the woods run on all pups and then sell the whole litter started? Some of them are, though, aren't they? In a litter of 8, does every one have to be kept entire for ever? It's crucial that as many as possible are tested, but kept entire? Bred from? Not essential in most circumstances. You can repeat matings, reproduce similar matings with the same lines... The most important thing is that they're tested by being worked, not just in a trial environment but in real working conditions, even if they're owned by people who don't want to breed. I think you're right, BB is coming from a totally different culture of working dogs to the one I'm used to. It sounds like she's talking about work/sport as a means to test for breeding, which is the main activity. In working sheepdogs (at least where I am), it's the work that's the reason for the dogs. People don't farm as a means to test their potential breeding dogs- they farm for a livelihood and the dogs are a tool to help them do that. Every person who needs a working sheepdog isn't going to want to breed, and honestly a lot of them shouldn't. I understand that if someone buys a baby puppy from a well-bred litter and then sterilises it, it might turn out to be brilliant- and then that's a bit of a pity that it won't be bred from. But the fact that it's brilliant tells us a lot of useful information about it's breeding that will help to produce more brilliant dogs. And it would be much more of a pity if they'd kept it entire because they were told they should, and then it got mated by the shearer's dog and produced a very mediocre litter, and died of eclampsia shortly afterwards. And it would also be a big pity if it never even worked or bred, since it was knocked on the head as a pup because there weren't enough homes for sheepdog pups (the market being saturated with random pups bred by people without much of a clue) and the breeder didn't want to keep the whole litter themselves.

I'm not a horse person, but I'm wondering what the difference is between dogs and horses in this regard... It seems as though quite a lot of serious performance competitors (racing included) are happy and perhaps even prefer to compete with geldings- but horse breeders manage to continue producing high quality animals, despite a significant proportion of the foals they produce being sterilised... I realise that a stallion is a much bigger management issue than a dog, but don't the same breeding principles apply to some extent?

Doesn't always (or even often) work that way, unfortunately. There are very few top trial dogs whose parents were both top trial dogs, and so on. And there are so many other considerations apart from trial results. If we're looking at a very good dog on the trial ground, we aren't necessarily saying, "Ooh, he's good, we'll use him!", we might be thinking, "his sire's line has produced some very good dogs from that line of bitches", or "that litter by that bitch were all much better than his previous litter from a different sort of bitch", and perhaps making breeding decisions accordingly. So rather than just putting top dog to top bitch, we'd try to make decisions that would have the best chance of producing the sort of dogs we want. You can't keep going back to the parents, but you can try to emulate or even exceed the breeding of great dogs using similar lines. I dont really understand this. I thought your trialling dogs would be your best dogs. No, I trial the dogs that I enjoy trialling and that are trained for trials. One of my trial dogs has an entire full brother who is a better dog and has produced well, and is free from the genetic disease that my dog carries. My dog isn't a world-beater, but he makes a few finals and gets the odd place. Another is a rescue that I enjoy working at home and he enjoys occasional trials- he has mild HD too. So should I keep them entire or should I just stop trialling them? I go to trials because I enjoy it. It also helps me with training my current group of young dogs, who are so far entire. Eventually some of them will probably be sterilised- we have 4 from one litter, and the plan is just to choose the best of them to breed on (not necessarily the best at trialling, but the best in terms of the traits we want to produce). Maybe we'll sell some of the others as trained dogs, maybe we'll keep them for farmwork, maybe I'll continue to trial them. Depends on how many trial dogs I have then. Of course, I'm not a competitive trialler, I do it because I enjoy it and I'm not going to pass on a dog that is useful at home because it isn't winning trials. My partner trials all entire dogs, but he has the same attitude- some of his better trial dogs won't be bred from. But it's much more useful to their breeders being able to see them work than if we'd just pet homed or disposed of anything we didn't want to breed from. Each dog working represents not just the genetic potential it could produce itself, but an indication of the genetic potential of its parents, siblings and lines in general.

Well, I'm talking about working sheepdogs, and we desex anything we aren't going to breed from. 4 of my current 5 trialling dogs are desexed, and the other one is probably going to be soon. We've also sold a number of pups to working homes where they will be desexed, because their owners want dogs to work, not to breed from, and would rather buy a pup when they need a new dog (from parents proven to produce good workers) than have to deal with entire animals themselves. This applies mostly to people buying bitch pups, but my brother-in-law does a lot of contract stockwork for other people, and he keeps only desexed males. Never has any problems if he's working somewhere with entire bitches on the property. My experience is that many people think desexing will make dogs fat and lazy- which isn't true unless they are overfed. My desexed dogs all need less food, I think that's actually a bonus, they're a cheaper workforce! No change in the way they work. Sure, if we're selling pups to people who want to trial or otherwise will be testing their dogs to a high standard and may want to breed, then absolutely they should keep them entire. But if someone wants to desex their working dog or even trial with a desexed dog, I'd say go for it. On the odd occasion that we've sold pups to pet homes or non-working (eg agility) homes, we usually ask them to bring the dog down to do some basic training so we can see what it's like and get a better idea of what we're producing. It's not only to see if the trialling dogs themselves are worth breeding from, but to show which dogs are producing the best working animals. Yeah, it would be a shame for us if we sold a pup that was desexed and then went on to be brilliant, but on the other hand, we then know that her parents are producing fabulous dogs. And even in trialling circles here, the accepted wisdom is that the best way to get a pup like that fabulous dog is to go back to the parents. As Greytmate says, you're most likely to get a great dog from parents who produce lots of great dogs, not from breeding that great dog itself. The main reason people breed working sheepdogs should be to supply dogs to farms and stockmen/women, not to trial. So the vast majority of pups will go to non-trialling homes. If those homes want to breed and have the capability to do it well, then they should. But if they don't want to, should we tell them, as BB did, that it just isn't worth working or trialling a desexed dog?!

Sure, that's an argument for training/working all entire bitches (and dogs), I think anyone involved in breeding dogs for work would agree with that- but how does that explain your belief that it's not worth working desexed animals??? Wouldn't you get a much better idea of the bitch lines if all her desexed relatives were trained and worked, as well as the entire ones?

They're a nightmare to get off dogs' muzzles and legs, too.

Personally I'd rather breed from a "proven" dog whose siblings and offspring, desexed as well as entire, are all demonstrating good working ability than one who might be a flash in the pan, or who only has one or two working relatives . Realistically, if you're breeding a dog for working ability, you have to expect the people buying the pups to want dogs to perform a job- but lots of people who want/need working dogs don't actually want to breed, or don't want the hassle of a bitch in season. What are the alternatives? Encourage every puppy buyer to keep their animals entire and think about breeding? Sell the majority of your performance-bred litter to pet homes? The only reasonable one I think would be to run the whole litter on yourself and then choose the best to keep entire yourself- but not particularly feasible for most breeders. Generally I think it's a waste of a working-bred dog for it not to be worked, whether it's desexed or not. Isn't the work the whole reason for the breeding?

But a working dog breeder still gets useful information from the performance of desexed animals, about their "work/sport capabilities" and the sort of offspring their parents are producing. If someone wants one of our dogs just as a working or trialling animal, and isn't keen and informed on breeding, we'll always suggest desexing, especially for females- usually at 6-9 months. They still get a dog to do the work they need, the management is much easier, and we still find out what sort of dogs we're producing from their feedback. The few occasions that we have a puppy go to a non-working home (pet or agility), we usually ask the owners if they'd at least start them in stockwork so we can get at least some idea how the whole litter have turned out. Personally, I desex non-breeding dogs at 6-9 months in females because I don't think the growth/development problem is as much an issue in bitches, and because there is the significant benefit of avoiding mammary cancer if you desex before the first season. A friend of mine is a vet and high level agility competitor, and that's what she suggests. With dogs I leave them entire until they give me a reason to de-nut.

6 weekly for hydatids. The main downside to feeding roo is that it makes the most disgusting farts ever (from people and dogs).

Hi Rugerfly- just posted in the border collie thread but thought I'd put it here too: yep, my first kelpie suffered a carpal hyperextension injury when she was 3, at an agility trial (dangerous course design ). She limped for a few minutes after the actual injury, but then seemed fine and it wasn't until days later that I realised that it was serious. Long story short- after much investigation and research, I decided against surgery, because she was a young active dog and arthrodesis would basically make her unable to run normally again. We talked to a specialist who wanted to try a program of progressive splinting that has been used in the US, but that fell through (he basically didn't have the facilities to make the casts). In the end, I rested her for ages then started a gentle exercise rehab program, and the breakthrough for us came when I found neoprene support wraps made for dogs with this sort of injury. Wearing her wrap seemed to support her wrist well, and we used it whenever she was running. Eventually we restarted agility again, and the progressive agility community and sensible judges in most places didn't have a problem with her wearing the wrap on her weak wrist to compete- she won OJ at the Melbourne Nationals wearing her wrap. Unfortunately when we went to Canberra the next year it suddenly became an issue for some people . And she died just a few days after that trial, so I don't know how things would have turned out. My feeling was (supported by vet advice) that arthrodesis would significantly reduce her activity at a young age, irreversibly, and I didn't feel she'd be happy with that. Continuing to run on her wrist, even with the wrap, would mean that she would be likely to develop arthritis and possibly deformity in the joint at a fairly early age, but when that happened we could go ahead with arthodesis. The wraps did seem to really help support her wrist, she almost never limped and repeated clinical and radiographic examinations showed no significant progression or degeneration- I think she would probably have continued happily with agility for at least another couple of years (she died when she was 5, two years after the injury). Hope that helps, feel free to PM me for any more info.

We need to buy various worming/flea stuff in bulk- Endoguard/Drontal, puppy wormer, Revolution etc. Just wondering if anyone has any recommendations for online stores...

You'd hope not, anyway. To be honest, I'm a little ambivalent about the idea of offering a dog as a prize. It will probably get lots of entries, and is great advertising for the breeder. And hopefully the dog will go to a good home where it will be appreciated and looked after. But I don't think we'd let any of our pups be sold that way (as a prize)- there are lots of people (farmers and others) we wouldn't sell dogs to, because they don't train them or treat them well. I'd hate to think what we'd do if it turned out the competition winner was someone we wouldn't sell to normally. Its the same reason we probably wouldn't ever sell a dog through the Casterton auction, although I think there you have the option of withdrawing from sale at the last minute. Nice pup, anyway. And I agree about the suburban home- some active city homes are excellent placements for working-bred dogs. Wagsalot, you can see the video of the pup working by clicking on the advertisement to the right of the page (or sign up as a member to read the full details). You can win by sending in a coupon from one of a group of rural magazines.

Interesting competition, with a short video clip: Win a Kelpie

Running contacts for the Aframe are achievable (IMHO, anyway) for more dogs than just small or slow dogs, much more so than the walk. The most important factors are the dog's personality/focus, their structure, and the number of reps you can achieve. I teach it with a toy at the bottom of the Aframe, about a stride out, and if possible, combine it with a jump bar at the top to encourage them to leap the apex. You can't really do it with a slow and cautious dog, because you need a dog that will drive over again and again for pretty minimal reinforcement, and will charge down the contact. But you do need a dog that's either more focussed on the chance of a toy than the rest of the course, or a bit thick, and its not great for dogs that are very long-strided or bouncy. I'm starting all my dogs this way on the Aframe, and the ones that start bringing their heads up and taking off early, regardless of their toy-target I'm moving over to a 2o2o. If nothing else, it reinforces the Aframe as an obstacle to be charged over- nothing worse than a creeping contact. I'm still mystified by how people teach a really reliable running dogwalk- I'll be very interested to see what Silvia T shows us when she comes over. ETA: Helen: I haven't run a lot of either, but my impression is that most people either early release (before the dog comes to a complete stop) or they train for this, and teach the dog to drive out of a stop on a contact even when handled at a distance. That's what we've done at the clubs I train at, anyway. But to be honest, the trials I've been at recently haven't had a lot of distance handling challenges involving contacts- they tend to allow the handler to run parallel to the contact.

In general, I'll train a stop of some sort on a contact for all dogs on the dogwalk, but the Aframe and seesaw will vary depending on the dog. I did try a running contact for one of my dogs on the walk, taught with a tugtoy and heaps of reps, and while it was really fast, it wasn't reliable for us unless I was right up near the contact. I guess he was 9 or so when we trained it, but I can't see how to get a reasonably long strided dog to consistently do a real running contact. The only dog I know that does one is accidental. The other issue is that dogs that truly run a contact are harder to guide as they come off the walk (moreso for the walk than shorter obstacles like the Aframe/seesaw). For many courses its not an issue, but in Masters classes having a dog that blasts down a walk without even an ear-check to their handler can be a liability, and I'm not sure its worth the small time advantage over an early released fast 2o2o. So all my new dogs are learning either a stop on the contact (4 on), or 2o2o, and my old dog now alternates a sit and a running contact, to keep his speed up. I tried 4-on-the-floor for one dog, but am changing it, its too confusing for us. For the Aframe, my oldest dog has a true running contact, and I'd prefer all my dogs to have the same. Its fast and less stressful on their front end. He was trained with a toy or food thrown at the bottom, and its reliable enough that I don't think he's ever missed a contact. He can save at least a second over dogs that have a cautious 2o2o. I've used this technique for one other dog, and it seems to work OK, although he doesn't have enough reps to be totally consistent. But it does depend on the dog- one of my young collies is determined to leap off the Aframe from halfway up regardless of the positioning of the reward, he's just a bouncy dog, so we've gone over to 2o2o, and he's driving hard into position. I don't think its done any harm teaching him to run it first- I do the same thing with the walk, to teach them to be confident and associate speed with the contacts before we do positions. For a less confident/keen dog, I'll do more running before we go back to positions, for a more drivey dog I'll teach the stop early. Same for the seesaw- I prefer a 4-on stop, but tend to vary that depending on the dog. Most of mine seem to be OK with riding down in a drop, and then coming off when its hit the ground, but the really bouncy ones I'll tend to hold them on sometimes. Re dog making a mistake- totally depends on the context. If I messed up and pulled them off a jump or something, I'll probably still reward them for effort (not blown contacts etc though), but if its something I'm sure they know, I'll let them know its not right (in a happy way), and we'll redo it. If its a young or less driven dog, I'll be more upbeat, if its an older or full-on dog, I might tease them about it. Generally everything other than contacts and weaves is my crappy handling though, so they'd usually get rewarded for their part. That's in training- except for a few dogs and circumstances (missed contacts for some dogs), in a trial I'll keep going and just enjoy the rest of the run.

The running order varies with each trial and class. The trial organisers generally try to arrange things so people won't have clashes with runs in multiple rings. So usually some rings will start with bigs dogs, some with small, and some with the in-between heights. Sandra, the best thing to do is to turn up early to your first trial if you can- get a good convenient parking/sitting spot, and go and collect numbers and find out running order as soon as you can. I used to take a highlighter with me to mark my dogs' places in the running order, and I'd also identify the dogs running 3 or so ahead of me, so I could recognise when my run would be coming up, and get my dog warmed up and ready.

Have you tried hand-feeding her? If she refuses, skip a meal. She won't starve to death. Keep her meals aside and use them during the day for training- she has to come towards you to get each piece of food. Don't try to grab her or lean out to catch her, just wait until she's hungry, you have her food, and she comes close- praise, reward with a bit of food, and walk away. If she follows you, again praise and feed. Make all the good stuff in her life (food, toys, etc) conditional on contact with you.

I don't think you can tell anything at all at this age, or by this method. Some pups will show good instinctive ability at an early age (7-16 weeks) when first shown sheep, but others won't really switch on until much older. Most of our dogs we'd expect to be starting by 6 months, but overseas many people don't even show their dogs sheep until they are 12 months or thereabouts, and one of the Scottish dogs we have didn't really start to show serious work until about 12 months. As far as the method goes, nope, I don't think there's any relationship between interest in a rag or tugger and working ability. After all, there's a lot more to working ability than interest in moving objects, and I don't think you can properly assess this in any other context (similarly, a dog's "herding" of ankles, kids, cats, bicycles etc doesn't mean anything with regard to their ability as a sheepdog). The best indication of the pup's future potential at this age is if they've been bred for this purpose from parents who are well-bred working dogs. (ETA- I guess there is some basis for looking at a pup's temperament in terms of "softness" by how they react to challenges at this age- but its not 100%. Especially with sheepdogs- some of the softest, quietest, even spooky shy pups we've had have become really strong pushy dogs on sheep, and vice versa. I think a confident go-ey pup is a good choice in general, but it doesn't guarantee them being a strong dog on stock.)

I'd be interested, but I also thought WA law prevented all-breed recreational lurecoursing.

Yep, he looked so confident, too, Sandra! Not even a hint of cautiousness. It won't be long before he's belting over it even faster. Well done on your persistence! (you should have heard the complements you guys were getting afterwards- you and Spencer have quite the fan club )

For me, it depends on the activity and the dog. Obedience- I enjoy training for it, for trialling really stresses me out, so I've only ever trained and trialled looking specifically for a pass, or at least an indication of what I need to work on to get that pass next time. Agility- I used to train (and train and train) to get the best out of my dog/me- basically to give us the best chance of winning, I guess. In trials, I'd at least expect to do something really well, and success was defined mostly (to be honest) by going clear and at least placing. Now my attitude has sort of done a complete about-face. I only trial in agility because the dogs and I enjoy it, and I don't really care whether we go clear, and definitely not win/place. I don't even mind if my dog/myself are grossly underprepared for the course. That sounds bad, but I don't get to train much, and as long as the dogs don't get demotivated or stop enjoying themselves, I don't mind if we mess something up (or everything up). That goes mostly for my current dogs, who are either old/semi-retired, or not really agility material- and only get entered very very rarely. I have a couple of young dogs coming up to training that I think might be competitive, and I'll probably take a more serious approach to training them, and try to make sure they are well-prepared before going in the ring. Sheepdog stuff- I get super super nervous again, but that's partly because my dogs are pretty underprepared. I enter them because I enjoy working them, and its an interesting chance to see what we need to work on, but I hate putting them in situations where we can't cope. So I guess I'd be better off spending any extra training time on this sport. Interesting topic.

If you approached some of the people at clubs that have equipment (like Perth), I'm pretty sure they would be open to letting you use the gear at class times (if you're members, of course). Eg Perth have competition standard jumps, although their boxes are flat faced (old style)- still OK to use, I guess, especially if you start training without the ball, using the box as a turning board. If you're interested, I have an fairly up to date competition style box (2 hole, curved front) I bought brand new a few years back when we had an active flyball club. Its going to waste in my backyard now, since my flyball dog died, but I'd be happy to bring it down to Perth training occasionally if you wanted to use it, Sandra.

Good for you, Vickie Sounds like you all had a great time. I know my dogs and I really developed a different appreciation of each other when we started doing farm work. I get to see a whole different side to them when we're working rams, or lambs, or sick sheep, its work we have to get done, and I'm busy doing other things and can't be telling them what to do. It really makes me appreciate their instinctive abilities, and common sense. Its amazing to see them learn their jobs in different situations- whether its filling pens or races independently, and learning when to stop and wait and when to push, or just the pups learning to move a thousand sheep across the farm, as opposed to a handful around a small paddock. One of my favourite experiences was my young collie moving a mob of preg tox ewes across the farm- he knew those sheep had to be moved slowly, and just figured out how to keep them at a slow grazing walk all on his own. I don't know if we'll ever succeed in trials, but he's just a brilliant farm dog. And there's nothing like 7 or 8 hours of mustering and working in yards to settle a young dog down and get them thinking It sounds like you'll be invited back, anyway- so hopefully lots more opportunity for "real work"!