# kelpies doin their thing



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

some practical working dogs, (not mine) but in my area. these cattle were all bought down off the mountains in large areas few hundred acres, the terrain is extremely thick and steep. 

dogs work completely on their own as the terrain/vegetation is unpassable for man.

dogs are bred to dominate stock (brahman cross) without force; *dominance without violence*.

interesting thing, high prey drive dog are culled or given to agility homes.

*purest of lines, they cannot be registered as kelpies because the AKC destroys breeds*



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLP3w99dtcc&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Denise King (May 31, 2009)

Cool video! I had some herding lessons a fw years ago with a guy who bred Kelpies! The are a very different dog and from what I saw, not a pet at all. They live to work. But tough cool dogs!


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Thanx, I agree.


----------



## Jane Jean (Sep 18, 2009)

I was lucky to foster a black Kelpie/GSD x and loved that dog! They aren't bred for looks, but sure are fast, agile, athletic...


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> some practical working dogs, (not mine) but in my area. these cattle were all bought down off the mountains in large areas few hundred acres, the terrain is extremely thick and steep.
> 
> dogs work completely on their own as the terrain/vegetation is unpassable for man.
> 
> ...


Cool video, I'm impressed! Those's dogs sure did earn there keep!


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

This line is being exported all around the world, US, Norway, Finland, France... , herding sheep, cattle, reindeer etc.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

They look like they are doing a nice job...but "dominating" the stock? Really? :-s How does a dog fit into the social hierarchy of a Bos indicus hybrid herd?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

As simple as that question may seem explaining it in a way you would comprehend would not be simple, and I am not being rude or dismissive to you. 

Enjoy the pretty puppies chasing the moo moo's or ask T for a full but long winded explanation.

The predator/prey social relationship is ancient.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I am questioning the term dominance because it's heavily over used and misused in general and I think you misuse it here. Social dominance has to do with the availability of resources with conspecifics (yes, big word, I know). 

What would those Brahma crosses have that the dogs would want or vice versa? A good grazing spot? A seat to ride back to the farm house on the Gator? Herding is a modified predator/prey relationship, not a "social" one because they are not conspecifics. Lions don't socially dominate zebra. Wolves don't socially dominant elk. Hawks don't socially dominant rabbits. I have different herding dogs than kelpies, but neither of my Malinois want to socially dominate sheep or cattle to be head of the flock or the herd. To different degrees, they both have something different in mind...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> or ask T for a full but long winded explanation.



Hahahahah!!! But after a weekend of hanging out in the friggin cold and wind, I'm all out of wind and explanations. But I do understand what you mean though.

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

T, you haven't been pulling yr weight here lately so i'm handing this one over to you, do I look like a guy that would know what a conspecific is. WTF.


----------



## Kellie Wolverton (Jan 16, 2009)

Herding is a modified predator/prey relationship, not a "social" one because they are not conspecifics. Lions don't socially dominate zebra. Wolves don't socially dominant elk. Hawks don't socially dominant rabbits. I have different herding dogs than kelpies, but neither of my Malinois want to socially dominate sheep or cattle to be head of the flock or the herd. To different degrees, they both have something different in mind...[/QUOTE]

With my Kelpie working is very different than my Beauceron. It is hard to describe for me, but I will try. Gracie, the Kelpie, movees the stock with more patience and will give the heifers every chance to cooperate on their own. My Beauceron is more likely to create mo.vement and let the chips fall wwhere they may. I imagine the Mals are close to a Beauceron in herding stlye 

For me, with the Kelpie, the aspects of the hunt kill sequence that you all talk about really doesn"t apply. There is just not the predatory "vibe" when I am working her.Wih the Beauceron, aussie.. ACD, Piicardy that I have worked that predator/prey relationship. Between the dog and stock. is almost palpable. I hope that makes some sense like I said it is hard for me to describe


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

The only thing I wasn't dumb at school at was math. One day while learning geometry I asked my math teacher how big a point was.

After a brief silence I felt the rush of wind as I ducked my head while the blackboard duster just creased my skull and impacted violently on the wall about 10 rows behind my desk.

I learned that day that some things are better left without explanation.


----------



## Kellie Wolverton (Jan 16, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> The only thing I
> 
> I learned that day that some things are better left without explanation.[/QUOTE
> 
> Lol....okay


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

I guess the word dominate is interesting to think on. 
My BC a dog perhaps most similar to kelpies in terms of herding style can defintely dominate or control stock with the force of his personality, his body language and his eye. Sheep recognise something in him that they dont recognise in my kelpie who although working bred is not the best on strong stock. They generally only try challenging him once. One set of particularly aggressive ewes I have recognise him instantly and I have no nonsense from them ever whereas with my kelpie they ignore her, charge her and generally do their own thing.

My kelpie is not bad on most of my sheep but I bring out my BC for the flocks that have the tough ewes in them. He doesnt use physical force although he defintely will if pushed, he has learned to give the aggressive ewes space to decide to move and he stands his ground firmly while they are deciding and I think just the force of his stare and his prescence quickly persuades them and as soon as they move he will follow through and walk in on them. Any breakaways and he is quickly onto them, right behind holding his ground and forcing them to move back to the flock. He has very good force.

It is obviously not social dominance but he is certainly in control of them, so is he dominating them? He can force them to what he wants and they dont want. Part of the prey chain it may be but what farmer really gives a rats about the technicalities and conwhatevers as long the dogs get the work done and control, dominate or whatever those stock.

Nice video by the way.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Kellie, I thought you did a good job explaining, you to Sarah, just sayin I wouldn't.

This thread has given me a new word I can break out in pointless internet arguments, I dont even care what it means.


----------



## Kellie Wolverton (Jan 16, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Kellie, I thought you did a good job explaining, you to Sarah, just sayin I wouldn't.
> 
> This thread has given me a new word I can break out in pointless internet arguments, I dont even care what it means.


you are funny Peter :grin:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

There is very much a hierarchal relationship between the dog and the stock he works. Dogs mentally communicate their power/control/force/ dominance [whatever you want to call it] as well as utilize physical communication of that power. Stock will resort to fight or flight to escape or resist the dog's control. Some dogs may look like they are in prey/chase mode while trying to get control but watch them settle into a different demeanor once the stock has yielded to that control. There are other aspects at play to watch for like the dog trying to group and contain.

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> T, you haven't been pulling yr weight here lately so i'm handing this one over to you, do I look like a guy that would know what a conspecific is. WTF.


 
Hahahahah. What it is is completely irrelevant. You don't take a general term like dominance and limit it to a specific biologica/ecological relationship. Furthermore, if you've ever worked a dog with a flock, you know that the dog is in charge and the ultimate authority--or should be. You can deal in terms of dominant/submissive or fight/flight. Dogs make stock do what they don't want to do. In that sense, they are dominating the stock--at least to me. You do have dogs that submit/flee. I just chaired a trial where very few dogs could walk up and compel the cows to move in a certain direction. Cows weren't going to move off motion alone. It took a communication of power which most didn't have and the cows knew it. Waaaaayyyyy too many dogs being worked on light fright sheep and/or just didn't have it genetically. If you notice in this video a white cow chases two dogs. A third dog does a dead straight walk up and tells cow to turn and move. Interestingly enough the third dog is flanked by the other two so its all three as a unified front. Mostly this is a group of dogs using motion to make motion and it would be interesting to see them at work without the presence and effect of the vehicle. 

T


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I do limit to that because terminology is important, especially with such a hugely misused and misunderstood word. Dominance is simply about resources: food, territory, mating partners, and so on, particularly with conspecifics. Cattle or sheep don't really have a resource that dogs want. Well, except perhaps the meat on their bodies, which would then be going back to prey drive. This is why I believe it to be a poor word choice. 

While they might want to *control* the stock (usually going back to some form of prey drive), I do not believe they want to "dominate" the stock. What would be the point of a dog "dominating" cattle? Do they get the best grazing spot? Or the right to mate with other cows? Of course not. Even if the dog is moving no faster than a walk behind you as you lead the sheep at a nice equitable pace so no one is panicking or splitting into flight, it's a modified predator/prey behavior and not dominance. 

Doesn't have to be with a dog either. For my sheep and goat vet clients, when I walk into a pen at someone's farm, I wouldn't say I'm "dominating" a goat or sheep to move it to a place I can get a halter on it for a physical. Just using a little flight zone pressure, which goes back to predator/prey behavior. Just my observations. Feel free to disagree, just a pet peeve of mine to see that word over used. So back to Pete's original statement, I'd change it to "control without violence." How about that, Pete?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I do limit to that because terminology is important, especially with such a hugely misused and misunderstood word. Dominance is simply about resources: food, territory, mating partners, and so on, particularly with conspecifics. Cattle or sheep don't really have a resource that dogs want. Well, except perhaps the meat on their bodies, which would then be going back to prey drive. This is why I believe it to be a poor word choice.
> 
> While they might want to *control* the stock (usually going back to some form of prey drive), I do not believe they want to "dominate" the stock. What would be the point of a dog "dominating" cattle? Do they get the best grazing spot? Or the right to mate with other cows? Of course not. Even if the dog is moving no faster than a walk behind you as you lead the sheep at a nice equitable pace so no one is panicking or splitting into flight, it's a modified predator/prey behavior and not dominance.
> 
> Doesn't have to be with a dog either. For my sheep and goat vet clients, when I walk into a pen at someone's farm, I wouldn't say I'm "dominating" a goat or sheep to move it to a place I can get a halter on it for a physical. Just using a little flight zone pressure, which goes back to predator/prey behavior. Just my observations. Feel free to disagree, just a pet peeve of mine to see that word over used. So back to Pete's original statement, I'd change it to "control without violence." How about that, Pete?


I think Pete can use whatever term he wants. I don't know how a person or school of thought decides to dictate use of the English language. From the Merrian-Webster online dictionary:

_a_*:* commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others <the _dominant_ culture> _b_*:* very important, powerful, or successful <a _dominant_ theme> <a _dominant_ industry> 
2
*:* overlooking and commanding from a superior position <a _dominant_ hill> 

3
*:* of, relating to, or exerting ecological or genetic dominance 

4
*:* being the one of a pair of bodily structures that is the more effective or predominant in action <_dominant_ eye>

The word isn't overused or misused in this context. The stock control relationship goes beyond prey drive. Fight zone pressure is just as prevalent as flight. One can put it in terms of flight/fight or dominance/submission. Neither is wrong. The livestock isn't always in flee/submission mode. Nor is dominance simply about resources. How about control over one's person or another's? 

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Nope, not now T's here. so can a dog dominate a decoy? Does it mean the dog wants mating rights with them or wants to eat them?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

So when the sable gene is dominant over the black gene what is the social hierarchical structure in the chromosomes???


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So when the sable gene is dominant over the black gene what is the social hierarchical structure in the chromosomes???


 
Hahahahah. Too funny. But now you're getting deep--chromosomal competition and color genetics.


T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I call your chromosomal competition and raise you some cosmic crystal sh!t.

Maren dont you be duckin out now.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

I think the word dominance can be used in many ways correctly. Perhaps people often use it incorrectly in describing aggression in many dogs.

To me control and dominance are hard to distinguish sometimes. When I watch my dog work sheep he is controlling them but he is also exerting a dominance that they recognise even before he starts working them. My tough ewes know him. I dont think it is about why the dog should want to dominate livestock, it is about how us as humans have manipulated them genetically. Their selection is no longer natural but manipulated by us, for the type of livestock that we want them to control and certain personalities are more suited than others.


----------



## Kellie Wolverton (Jan 16, 2009)

Thanks for sharing the video. I love to see the Kelpies working


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

nice work--loved how the cattle moved (mostly--that steer thought he might try it on), esp for brahma crosses, lol. those dogs know their business.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So when the sable gene is dominant over the black gene what is the social hierarchical structure in the chromosomes???


You need to understand that I try to use terminology very carefully, especially with behavior terms as we are describing. Remember, I was trained as a biologist even before being trained as a vet with a good bit of behavior and ethology study in there, so I don't like terms thrown around casually because then it gets confusing and then misinformation spreads. I don't say a dog dominates a decoy for that same reason. As far as dominant and recessive genes, it has nothing to do with competition. The dominant trait appears in the phenotype of the heterozygous individual and the recessive does not. That's all there is to that.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

So is the word dominant being used incorrectly in genetics but correctly in pack structure theory??


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

But where is the term thrown about casually resulting in misinformation and confusion? We aren't discussing Mendelian or population genetics. The word competition is tossed about in genetics all the time in terms of competition for resources especially amongst conspecifics and gene competition. Do we exclude use of it in any other context as well? You want to limit a generic word in the English language to a particular field/context. Essentially dominant means dominant regardless of context. Its mostly descriptive. Whether you personally choose to use the term or not doesn't mean it isn't correctly used here. I can definitely see where protection people are interested in a dog that considers himself dominant. Not for love or money will he want to submit to the control of another. Same thing in livestock management. I still don't understand how someone declares that they want to limit a word to a particular context and admonish others for using it in any other context. No one here is misinformed or confused. Dogs want to control livestock and they want the livestock to submit to that control. Use of the word dominant in terms of control is not incorrect especially if you have observed an experienced dog managing his flock. Too many people the stock--dog relationship is limited to prey expressions and hunt. That's only a small part of it.

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Thats what I meant to say.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

BTW T, I think a lot of words have different meanings depending on context, eg 'work' means something very different in everyday language and scientific language.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> BTW T, I think a lot of words have different meanings depending on context, eg 'work' means something very different in everyday language and scientific language.


Oh I dont know. Having waded through and had to review quite a few scientific papers I think that in many instances the language used just overcomplicates things, and turns something that could be expressed a lot more simply and be enjoyable to read into a total nightmare. I guess scientists like to impress other scientists LOL


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Sara Waters said:


> Oh I dont know. Having waded through and had to review quite a few scientific papers I think that in many instances the language used just overcomplicates things, and turns something that could be expressed a lot more simply and be enjoyable to read into a total nightmare. I guess scientists like to impress other scientists LOL


No, nothing to do with sounding impressive. It's about precision in describing something so someone else can visualize exactly what I mean, not throwing around general terms. If I had a dog that got hit by a car and I was looking at a radiograph and trying to call the university's orthopaedic surgeon to describe what I see, I wouldn't say, "Hey Dr. Ivory Tower, he's got a broken thigh bone." I'd say, "Dr. Tower, it's a comminuted fracture of the proximal diaphysis of the left femur." 

Yes, of course "dominance" means other things in other contexts, whether in genetics or something completely different, like a football game or MMA fight. However, in animal behavior and ethology, dominance means a very particular thing. I am inclined both my training and my nature to define things very precisely. In terms of animal behavior and ethology, I see herding as a typically _highly modified_ form of the predator/prey relationship with nothing to do with social dominance. Why not social dominance? Dogs do not desire any resources that the stock have. That's my opinion based on my observation and experience, and if you disagree with that, that's fine. But that's why I will buy that dogs want to control stock like many other predator species wants to control prey to their advantage, but they don't "dominate" them. Not saying you have to agree with me, but does that make sense?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> No, nothing to do with sounding impressive. It's about precision in describing something so someone else can visualize exactly what I mean, not throwing around general terms. If I had a dog that got hit by a car and I was looking at a radiograph and trying to call the university's orthopaedic surgeon to describe what I see, I wouldn't say, "Hey Dr. Ivory Tower, he's got a broken thigh bone." I'd say, "Dr. Tower, it's a comminuted fracture of the proximal diaphysis of the left femur."
> 
> Yes, of course "dominance" means other things in other contexts, whether in genetics or something completely different, like a football game or MMA fight. However, in animal behavior and ethology, dominance means a very particular thing. I am inclined both my training and my nature to define things very precisely. In terms of animal behavior and ethology, I see herding as a typically _highly modified_ form of the predator/prey relationship with nothing to do with social dominance. Why not social dominance? Dogs do not desire any resources that the stock have. That's my opinion based on my observation and experience, and if you disagree with that, that's fine. But that's why I will buy that dogs want to control stock like many other predator species wants to control prey to their advantage, but they don't "dominate" them. Not saying you have to agree with me, but does that make sense?


As for highly modified in that there is a hierarchal relationship between a dog and the flock he manages for a start. Peter said, "dominance without violence." He didn't use the term "social dominance" which has a certain meaning to you in terms of ethology and animal behavior and always encompasses competition for resources. You can't exempt words from language use just because you and some others use them in another context. And no, it doesn't make sense. Some of us along with most dictionaries see control and dominate as synonomous. What other predator species controls livestock similar to a herding dog? I don't see ethologists limiting the term as always inclusive of or involving competition for resources. The term you just introduced "social dominance" has just as much relevance and usage in human psychology as it does animal ethology. 


T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Yeah I was wondering where and when the word social got added to the word dominance in this thread, social dominance is not a term I have ever used.

M you really are one of those types that just has to win an argument, I think thats cute. 

As I said previously, just enjoy the vid of the bow wows chasing the moo moo's.

As for ethnology whatever, cute.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> No, nothing to do with sounding impressive. It's about precision in describing something so someone else can visualize exactly what I mean, not throwing around general terms. If I had a dog that got hit by a car and I was looking at a radiograph and trying to call the university's orthopaedic surgeon to describe what I see, I wouldn't say, "Hey Dr. Ivory Tower, he's got a broken thigh bone." I'd say, "Dr. Tower, it's a comminuted fracture of the proximal diaphysis of the left femur."
> 
> Yes, of course "dominance" means other things in other contexts, whether in genetics or something completely different, like a football game or MMA fight. However, in animal behavior and ethology, dominance means a very particular thing. I am inclined both my training and my nature to define things very precisely. In terms of animal behavior and ethology, I see herding as a typically _highly modified_ form of the predator/prey relationship with nothing to do with social dominance. Why not social dominance? Dogs do not desire any resources that the stock have. That's my opinion based on my observation and experience, and if you disagree with that, that's fine. But that's why I will buy that dogs want to control stock like many other predator species wants to control prey to their advantage, but they don't "dominate" them. Not saying you have to agree with me, but does that make sense?


Sorry Maren didnt mean to say you in particular. I get what you mean about a specific conversation with another vet. I was alluding to scientific papers wrapped up in big words, jargon of research developed to help say farmers grow better crops. Often it seems like said scientists are just trying to impress each other and get published when the research was funded to be useful by the ordinary farmer. A lot of good research completely misses the mark because of this - poorly explained to the end user. As long as the farmer understands and applies I dont bother about the niceties of debating a word. I use the language that is relevent to them.

As to social dominance, as T and Peter said I dont think this was ever mentioned. In my observations the dog can and will exert plain old dominance over a flock of sheep even before it actually starts working.

I cant think of any farmer who cares less about the ethology and social dominance, prey and hunt sequences. They look for the characteristics they need to effeciently work their stock and if dominate means something to them in this context well that is equally as valid as how an ethologist, behaviourist might use it in my book.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

So what's "plain old dominance?" and why is that different from control? Sorry if I sound nitpicky, but I am a stickler for terms and want to see why people use what they use. ;-)


----------



## Kellie Wolverton (Jan 16, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> For my sheep and goat vet clients, when I walk into a pen at someone's farm, I wouldn't say I'm "dominating" a goat or sheep to move it to a place I can get a halter on it for a physical. Just using a little flight zone pressure, which goes back to predator/prey behavior. Just my observations.


At some point the stock will acquiesce and submit to your control.This happens when you establish dominance, if not, you would have to kill it to be able to handle it 

That is the way I use the term. 

I do understand about being particular about terms...my personal peeve is calling a herd of cattle "cows" when you (generic term) really have no idea what the herd in made up of. But, I recognize that not alll people use the term the way we do here on the ranch, so it is not a big point of contention for me. If it was, reading most herding threads would cause me great stress, and life is too short for that


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I am the same way about terms as you mention: cows versus cattle. I would likewise say cattle unless it really was just cows. I am well aware it may come across as anal, but I like to have people really think about what terms they are using. Otherwise, God forbid, misinformation may end up on the internet somewhere whereby it must be true. ;-)


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> So what's "plain old dominance?" and why is that different from control? Sorry if I sound nitpicky, but I am a stickler for terms and want to see why people use what they use. ;-)


I rang up a breeder looking for a sheepdog. She told me she had one that was from lines that were fairly dominant with livestock. I knew exactly what she meant, it gave me a picture of what the dog has actually become. So if Peter understands when a breeder advertises their dogs as dominant, but non violent on cattle and if that paints the right picture I dont see the problem.

I wonder what a person with a degree in the english language would say. The dictionary certainly does not say that the word should be limited to the scenario that you are proposing.

If plain old dominance is no different to control then why do you worry about which is used? I personally see subtle differences between the two when I think about my dogs and their personalities and their relationship with livestock. The word dominance in relationship to livestock gives me extra information above the word control, it tells me more about the actual personaility of the dog. I cant explain any more than that unless you have seen a number of dogs working a lot of different stock. Things are not always so straightforward in their exact definition.

Honestly I know farmers that are astute businessmen running multi million dollar enterprises and they have never in their life heard of an ethologist, a conspecific or care either. They are to busy coping with droughts and floods and everything else to worry about the fact that you want them to think about the words they are using. If the word dominance gives them a clearer picture when looking for good dogs for their particular livestock then job done.

As to cows and cattle. In dairy country, farmers call their herds cows because they mainly are, they are still cows even when the bulls are in. Dairy country is often referred to locally as cow country and beef country as cattle country.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> If plain old dominance is no different to control then why do you worry about which is used? I personally see subtle differences between the two when I think about my dogs and their personalities and their relationship with livestock. The word dominance in relationship to livestock gives me extra information above the word control, it tells me more about the actual personaility of the dog. I cant explain any more than that unless you have seen a number of dogs working a lot of different stock. Things are not always so straightforward in their exact definition.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Lol words in context; tell a north american how pissed u got at a party and they wonder why u were angry, I would mean it to say how drunk u got.

Walk into a bar and say hi i'm 'randy' (name) means something very different in different parts of the world.


----------

