2018 May June

Top 15 Finalists in Cattle. Left to right: Jan Wesen and Jewell; William D. Middleton II and Patton; Victoria Hacker and Rosie; Betty Williams and
Jake; Tricia Alexander with Tripp and Rook; Judy Deshazo and Mauzer; Barb Moe and Denim; Linda Barhite and Chip; Marla Gaby and Katie
Mae; Kristin Perron and Nado; Diane Menard and Edge; Kristin Cole-MacMurray and Cannon. Photo: XP Photography
for ducks is 11 and for sheep it is 12. The highest number of points
required for ducks is 19.5 (in 2013) and the average for the period
is 15.6. An accumulation of 15.5 points would have put one in the
top 30 in ducks for seven out of the last ten years. For sheep the
most number of points required for top 30 is 24 (in 2017) and the
average is 17.8. 18 accumulated points would put you in the top
thirty sheep contestants in six out of the past ten years.
I suppose this can become an obsession, but it doesn’t need
to be. There is always some talk of a trailer race. This is often
paired with the observation that there are ranchers and farmers
out there with terrific working dogs who will never go to Finals.
This is usually attributed to the notion that they do not have the
time or the resources to compete in trials and accumulate the points
required to be invited to Finals. Or perhaps trialing their dog in an
arena simply does not interest them. Finals is supposed to showcase
what our Aussies can do when working livestock, but there really
doesn’t seem to be a practical way to include all the dogs that we
might want to see.
Perhaps the current points based system may actually be a
good method for sorting out the best of the dogs that are involved
in the trialing program. And of course there are a few dogs that
only trial occasionally and do not accumulate enough points to
make the top 30. But if they are really great dogs, then they can
probably make enough points, say 16 to 18 in each class of stock,
by competing in 12 trials – that would be two three day weekends
of AM/PM trials. This assumes some extra points earned for High
in Trial. With the new courses counting for 1.5 points, the required
trials might be even fewer. So the gripe that we are leaving dogs
out because of opportunities or resources in not really based on
fact. If someone is at all interested in going to Finals and has the
dog and the handling skills required to do well in Finals, then they
can probably get there.
However, there is another complaint I hear from time to time
and that is that the dogs at Finals are not really very good. That is
usually attributed to the concept that if one goes to enough trials
that eventually enough points will be accumulated to make it into
Finals. There may be some truth in this, but I wonder how many
people actually attend enough trials to fall into that category. If
one’s success rate is only 33 percent, then to reach the threshold,
it would require competing in 48 trials which would require eight
three-day AM/PM trial weekends. And that assumes a cutoff at 16
points. If the cutoff is 20 points, then the number of trials goes up
to ten trial weekends and 60 trials. That is quite an intense schedule
for the dog and the handler and requires significant resources in time
and money that most people cannot afford. So I question whether
the perception that the dogs at Finals are not as good as expected
can be attributed to the quantity vs. quality theory.
So where does this notion that the Finals dogs from the last
few years are not as good as they were in the past come from? And
is it a valid observation? I have only been involved in the ASCA
Stockdog program for 13 years and I have only been participating
in Finals for nine years. So I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the
competitions or the dogs involved in the early days of the ASCA
program. However, since I have become involved, like everyone
else, I have watched some good runs and I have seen some poor
runs. Sometimes the issue in poor runs is the dog, but I have learned
to recognize that more often the problem is the handler. The same
can be said of the good runs. There are some really good handlers
in our program and they usually get results. Of course, the dog is
a crucial component of the team, and some dogs are capable of
getting the job done with very little direction or correction from
the handler. That is always nice to watch and even nicer when you
are the handler in such a run.
AUSSIE TIMES May-June 2018 81