The Sheep-Dog - Judging and Conduct of Trials and the Art of Breaking-in: A Comprehensive and Practical Text-Book Dealing with the System of Judging Sheep-Dog Trials in New Zealand and Type on the Show Bench, and with the General Management and Conduct of Trials

By William Whyte

This book contains a detailed guide to the sheep-dog, being a handbook on the system of judging sheep-dog trails in New Zealand and the art of breaking-in and working sheep-dogs. "The Sheep-Dog" also contains a wealth of useful and practical information relating to the maintenance of collies, making it of considerable utility to modern owners and breeders alike. Contents include: "Definition of Points", "Judging", "Half-points", "Despatch", "Standardisation", "Judging Command", "Good Style", "Defective Style", "The Standard Classes", "The Perfect Run", "The Rough-haired Collie", "The Bearded Collie", "Judge Replying to Competitors", "Adverse Criticism", "Agitators", etc. Many vintage books such as this are becoming increasingly scarce and expensive. We are republishing this volume now in a modern, high-quality edition complete with a specially commissioned new introduction on dog breeding.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Home Farm Books
• Release date: Sep 29, 2017
• ISBN: 9781473343313

Book preview

THE SHEEP-DOG

Judging and Conduct of Trials and the Art of Breaking-in.

DEFINITION OF POINTS.

The system of points in vogue at sheep-dog trials may be defined as the working basis by which a judge is assisted in arriving at his decisions, and as a means of enabling him to indicate to competitors where and in what stage of the trial their dogs have been faulted.

There is no definite weight or measure of a point, such as there is in the case of a bushel of grain or a pint of milk, but it has to be a basis consistently and impartially weighed by a judge, and measured by his common-sense and his practical knowledge of the nature of an error in working when determining where such a penalty in the matter of points should apply. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the run should determine or regulate the points and not the points regulate the run. This is where the novice becomes confused and invariably fails in his task. Again, there are men, who, being over-zealous, allow mere fancy to deceive their sound judgment and lead them into inflicting penalties that are out of proportion to the offence.

There is no definite line of distinction between points; each merges into the other. Still, each point in itself has its minute component parts. Points are more or less a matter of relative values, and are based according to the judge’s conception of the true value of the performance when all the surrounding circumstances are taken into account. Points may be compared to the colours of the rainbow, one blending into the other with no absolute dividing lines.

JUDGING.

It may be said that judges are born and not made. However, a good judge is endowed with the gift of a natural eye for the general outlines of a dog’s work and can form a good mental picture of how each particular turn in a dog’s work should be performed. He will also possess the ability to apply points on a fair and equitable valuation.

I do not say that a judge should never change his opinions, but I maintain that he should mount the judge’s box with well-matured, soundly established views and opinions, and that he should not waver or deviate from them during the course of a particular class of a trial. His mind will be sufficiently occupied with the work before him, and to be changing his opinions then and altering his stride, as it were, would lead to inconsistencies and result in muddling his work.

When the trial is over, and for the rest of the year, he should strive to extend his knowledge and improve his education in judging, for no man is infallible, nor can he claim to know everything. During his leisure he should carefully go over his notes on every dog’s run and note the penalties charged up with a view to improvement, if need be, had he the same trial to judge over again. When a man becomes aware of his mistakes he has made a great step towards progress.

A judge who does not change his opinion cannot correct his mistakes, and it is better to correct a mistake in opinion committed a year or two previously than to perpetuate it. The world never stands still, and to be up-to-date a man must keep pace with the times and jettison out-of-date ideas.

A man may be a genius at working a dog and yet not possess the necessary ability and common-sense to adjudicate at a dog trial. After all, common-sense is a quality not freely bestowed; one may have talent, even genius, but no capacity for dealing with the common-sense affairs of life. Education cannot of itself instil this quality, and such men could never have been schooled into acquiring common-sense, at least not at school. The highly educated are sometimes found to be the least fitted to manage their own affairs. But education is of untold assistance to the man of common-sense.

Above all, a judge must be scrupulously honest; we can have respect for an incompetent judge who has done his best, but not for a dishonest one. While points cannot be said to lie, they are just as reliable and as honest as the man whose judgment they represent. A man who would give a dishonest decision is dishonest enough to deny the fact.

It will be granted that there are occasions when it will be a difficult matter to strike an exact valuation. For example, if two leading dogs are found to clash in points, the different little factors of their runs should be weighed according to their importance, one against the other, and if this proves that one dog has been slightly more precise and pleasing to the eye in his general run of work, you can in all good faith give him the advantage by adding half a point to his score or by deducting half a point from that of his rival. Each may have a weak point of a similar degree of magnitude, but one may have a slight advantage in general excellence. A slight error or weakness in an unimportant turn may be overlooked or counter-balanced by outstanding or superior features in more important turns. A judge must use his own discretion in this matter. It is better to alter the points than give a verdict against your judgment; there is nothing inconsistent or unfair about that. If the above careful test fails to separate them, then give your verdict as a tie, or as a last resource they may be separated on a question of time.

HALF-POINTS.

As an illustration of awarding half-points, we will take the case of a dog that is putting up a good run but has made a certain error in his work. At the time the judge takes off a point for such fault, being conscious of the fact that the dog’s work deserved to be fully penalised. In doing so, he feels that he is acting on the lenient side, but that he would be rather severe were he to take off two points, so he takes a note of the nature of the fault and also keeps it prominently in his mind’s eye. Another dog comes along and puts up a very similar run, and he also makes an error in some part of his trial, a fault that is not of a bad nature, yet sufficient to justify a penalty, so he is docked a point. The judge feels that he has been severe enough in having to do so, and takes a note of this and remembers the circumstances. Now, when the event is finished and the judge finds these two dogs equal in points for a prize, he can honestly separate them either by deducting half a point from the dog whose fault was the more prominent, or by adding half a point to the dog whose error was of a less serious nature. Of course, some men may ridicule a judge for dealing in anything so fine as half-points, but it is their knowledge that is defective and not that of the judge.

There is another class of close running that calls for the expert knowledge of a judge, and in which a points system such as I have known to be in vogue in many clubs is very useful. This is to allow one floating point over and above the maximum as a point for general excellence, to be used only in case of emergency. As an example, we will suppose that two dogs put up a run without committing an error sufficient to carry a penalty, or that they had each committed a slight but definite error of the same magnitude that required a penalty of a point. These two dogs were then a tie as far as points were concerned, but the judge could plainly see that one dog’s general run was better than that of the other. One dog was just shaving through his work without leaving an opening for the judge to penalise him, whereas his rival showed most outstanding features of excellence in his general work. It will be admitted that there is a difference between good and perfect, though not sufficient to carry any sort of distinguishing penalty; but it is a case of where one dog’s good work is slightly better than his rival’s good work; therefore, this extra point for general excellence can justly be used to separate them, while it obviates the necessity of manipulating points. A dog may be just a trifle short or weak in a turn here and there, but when a careful record has been kept it might be found to amount to half a point, or more.

If two dogs come out equal in the long-distance class, through one being a little weak on the hill but strong at the ring, or vice versa, you may give preference to the one that was best out-by, as the ring performance is the less important feature of the class.

A judge must always remember that he is there to judge a dog on the actual performance of the day, though he may hold other opinions as to qualities which suggest to him the best dog apart from that day’s performance.

The most able and consistent judge does not necessarily always allot points in competitions on exactly the same lines as he would if adjudicating the work of a single dog; although working on the same basic principle.

For example, if a judge were invited to a friend’s place for the purpose of judging his dog’s work under trial conditions, and allowed him, say, 57 points out of a possible 60 for his performance, it does not follow that if he were judging him later at an open trial where he completed an identical run, his points would be exactly the same; for now he has to stand his trial in a general competitive test, and the very close running of the other dogs may have forced him a little either up or down in his score.

It sometimes happens that the run of work in a class will favourably play into the hands of the judge by leaving a very apparent and distinct line of division between each dog’s performance, so that his decisions can be followed easily by the less initiated at the trial, and leave no room for doubt as to their correctness.

The most unsatisfactory and brain-racking proposition is to judge those amateur classes where common-place and indifferent work predominates. It is a jumble of fluctuating values; each competitor is eagerly expecting to win; but the nature of the work is much of a muchness and there is little to give the judge a lead. Fortunately the work in most amateur classes is of a creditable order.

In writing up a bad dog’s work, one is confronted by a mass of little and big faults. It may be compared to a tincan which has been badly punctured, presenting a series of big and little leaks. In such cases it is not advisable to laboriously chronicle every fault in detail; the manner of working may be summarily described by the terms very rash, very slack, or very bad, and points awarded accordingly. For instance, as I will point out later, if it is the pulling stage, there are 17 points for pulling and five for command, totalling 22. Now, ask yourself if the dog is worth half; and if you think not, is he worth quarter? If you consider that too severe, then compromise by awarding say, eight points, to be divided between pulling and command as you think fit. The chances are the longer you puzzled and juggled over such a conundrum the more confused would become the judgment.

In regard to special prizes allotted to the dog scoring most points in two or more classes, or in respect to teams prizes, it is a very difficult proposition when dealing with, say, 100 or 150 entries, for a judge to give an absolutely equitable valuation at all times. Many of the competitors may through indifferent work be well down in the ruck in respect of some of their runs, and the judge has no further opportunity with the time at his disposal to consider or balance one against the other, although striving as far as is humanly possible to give every competitor his full measure of justice. Therefore, it is due to competitors to accept his decisions in such circumstances in a sportsmanlike manner.

The most pleasing trials to judge are those where the work is of a high class order; for the mistakes in the leading dogs’ work are not only few, but definite and easily balanced.

It is easy enough to see the very good and the very bad points in a number of dogs’ work, but it is a most difficult task to strike a balance and base a decision on them.

It is comparatively easy to place dogs to one’s own satisfaction, but very difficult to explain to others in an intelligible manner one’s reasons for doing so.

I do not think there is a more difficult judging proposition, or one that calls for more skill, experience and practical knowledge than that of judging sheep-dog trials. Compare it with judging stock at agricultural shows. There the judge has all the exhibits under his eye at once; he can march them round, then stand them side by side for comparison, and carefully and leisurely select those he requires for the prize-list, and then set about comparing and balancing their strong and weak points, and finally place them according to merit. Even then, working under such comparatively favourable conditions, how difficult sometimes it is to give general satisfaction? Different judges, though each be equally experienced, sometimes hold different opinions on certain points; and so it will be to the end of the chapter while we have to rely on man’s judgment for a final decision.

Again, it is totally different to judging a horse race; there the issue is definite, as it is only a question of the first horse past the post.

Now, let us suppose a show judge had to carry out the task of judging sheep under the same arduous conditions as the dog trial judge. The judge would stand in the ring, and each sheep would be brought forward to be judged with no other exhibit in view for comparison, and then marched out of sight so that the judge had no further glimpse of it. The same process would be gone through with 40 or 50 exhibits, and the time taken might, as is the common experience at a dog trial, extend over more than a day. He would then be required to work out his decisions with the aid of his notebook and his memory, just as the dog-trial judge has to do. The difficulty of endeavouring to arrive at a correct decision under such conditions can be imagined.

This raises the point as to how far the memory may be trusted in regard to the various turns of work performed by each dog during the day. Unless naturally gifted with an extraordinary memory, or the memory has been systematically trained, the chances are that the judge will not be able to remember more than a very small percentage of the points that came under his notice, and he will have brought home to him how hazy is his memory of the whole thing. Still, one may be justified in saying that it is not always so much a question of good or bad memory, as that the mind has ignored the impressions which reached it by way of the eye. The point is that one must be able to observe and memorise detail when it is desired to do so; and where necessary, the judge will be aided by his notes. Memory may be said to depend largely on the vividness of the initial impression. For instance, if you were to see a dog rashly rush in and deliberately split one sheep from the rest, that event, being a little out of the ordinary, would be so impressed on your memory that you would retain a very strong image of that particular dog’s behaviour. Then again, if you were to see a dog putting up an exceedingly fast out-run and brilliant head, the chances are that you would remember vividly every little detail of that dog’s work. In each of these cases it would be the associated circumstances that particularly impressed you.

When a judge wishes to discriminate precisely between two dog’s work that in a general sense is of a similar nature, he transfers his mind as rapidly as possible backwards and forwards from one to the other. This performance of rapidly and alternately visualising the two performances shakes out, as it were, the minute points of difference. He thus succeeds in detaching from the various details the finer points he was unable to formulate when viewing the performances as a whole. The degrees of variation displayed by each and the manner of their execution are brought into relief at once, the arbiter thus instinctively collecting and grouping analogous instances, uniting them in a moment, and arriving at a clear and equitable perception of identical points established in different circumstances, and basing his award accordingly.

The question is often asked, is it an assistance to a judge to have a clerk to keep his notes? Well, it might or might not be; a great deal depends upon the clerk, and as the judge is the responsible person, he generally prefers to keep his own tally. A judge can, with a little practice, write quickly when only occasionally looking at his note-book,—giving just a glance to guide him at the beginning of each line. He may also acquire a system of abbreviating words, thereby greatly reducing the amount of writing. I firmly believe that by recording one’s own thoughts in writing, a better impression is left on the mind. One has one’s own way of summing up a dog’s work, which one can generally do with more confidence and more consistency than by trying to dictate it to a clerk in nice and precise language. Then again, how easy it would be for a clerk to throw one out by deleting a word or adding another, or by misconstruing one’s meaning in any way, unless you checked the clerk’s book after every run, which would entail more labour than doing the work one’s self. There is a very old system, that of the judge drawing a map of the dog’s work and at the same time dictating to a clerk the details of the dog’s work. This is not a good practice, for any one could draw a map of a dog’s course, but it requires an experienced man to judge his work. A dog might have a good map to his credit, but he very faulty in the execution of the work when travelling the course represented by the map. How much is there that looks all right on paper, but is not so in practice? It is advisable always to write up each section of the work in paragraph form as each phase is proceeding. However, a great deal depends on the system one becomes accustomed to, and I have known judges to get on quite well with a map, a good memory, and a reliable clerk, especially at show trials, when the work is moving apace.

Judges adopt different methods of taking their notes. The majority use a reporter’s note-book containing one hundred leaves of 8 1/4 in. x 5 1/2 in. dimensions, writing on one side of the page only. Before starting a class, number the pages consecutively according to the number of entries; such numbering stands for the catalogue number of the respective competitors. When a dog’s performance is completed, the leaf on which it is recorded is folded back out of sight, and the following numbered page appears ready for the next competitor. The off-inside cover of the note-book is employed to index the catalogued number of the placed dogs with their total points opposite. This index system facilitates despatch in finding a number in the event of a judge requiring to recompare or balance the marks of any of the leading dogs. By reversing the book the pages may be used for a second class, and if necessary, the book could be employed for 100 entries in each of the two classes. This class of note-book is of a convenient size to carry in a coat pocket for immediate reference should a dissatisfied competitor request an explanation as to why his dog was faulted.

The following example, taken at random, of the notes made on a dog’s performance in Class II., might serve as a useful example to the beginner:—

No. 5.—Cast to left, running free on good cast. Then turned out too wide. Quickly stopped and guided into line. Headed cleanly and stood. 1.18.

Pull.—Lifted slightly harsh, soon steadied and drew on sheep in even progressive style. Near foothill let a little to right, quickly countered, but too close abrupt turn. From here on and through flags every turn in good order.

Drive.—Too eager. Rushed sheep, had to head to steady. Came back too close and slued off a little to right; smart recovery, and thereafter steady.

Hurdles.—Firm and sure first try.

Second drive.—Drove too fast half way; then good steady performance.

Yard.—Firm, kind approach, attentive, well balanced work, penned first try, time 12.30. Command as notes indicate. Points 9, 8 1/2, 3, 4, 3, 10, 6, 10 1/2—54.

Before finally entering up the total points, and while the run is fresh in your mind’s eye, glance over your notes, read between the lines, and review the run collectively in case you might find it necessary from a generally equitable point of view to readjust slightly the figures. For example, a defective turn that appeared slightly over-penalised in one instance may be counterbalanced by a slight weakness that was leniently dealt with in another; or two or three trifling shortcomings when viewed collectively might amount to a half or a full point magnitude.

By adopting a system of abbreviating words you may reduce the amount of writing to less than half. It is seldom necessary to write the words sheep or dog as it can be assumed that is what you are dealing with. The same will apply to line. The sheep are assumed to be on good line, without mention being made of the fact. You can adopt a code of penalty marks to suit your own convenience.

If the circumstances and variations of an exceptional run make the problem of adequately adjusting points perplexing, and you feel a little undecided as to whether you may have been a trifle hard here or a trifle lenient there, overline or underline your figures accordingly, in case of a readjustment in the event of two dogs tieing. In the former instance, overline to indicate considering the necessity of a slight increase in that figure; in the latter underline to signify a decrease if necessary.

In writing a report of the dog’s work for publication or official record, take your notes as a framework or guide, and with the aid of your memory fill in between the lines, if your notes indicate that such is required.

A judge must aim at giving equal value for equal work, and here lies the fundamental principle of judging. A judge must not be guided or swayed by mere whims, fads or fancies, by taking a point here or another somewhere else, because they are points off; but he must know thoroughly what points off mean, otherwise he will be on a par with the ready-reckoner type of judge. He must know merit when he sees it, must know its practical worth and actual value, and also the depreciation for every wrong turn. This knowledge can be gained only by hard grinding in the mill of practical experience, backed by sound common-sense. He must know, by the same practical experience, the true meaning and reason for every turn a dog can make in his work, and be as quick and as proficient as a professional accountant in entering to the