[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 33765 wrote:

I always find more training opportunities while working than during training exercises.

I agree. The other really nice thing about these training opportunities is that they are naturally spaced further apart in time. I think this is an important thing for this team. One is so quick on the uptake and gets bored and resistant with doing the same thing 50 times. The other ox needs that repetition to learn, though. I have made a compromise by teaching a lesson, waiting a few minutes (or working on something else), then repeating the lesson. That way, the smart one doesnt get bored and resistant and the less quick (not dumb!) one gets the repetition he needs. It is sometimes hard for me to wait between the lessons in pure training exercises. Real work provides you with something to do between the lessons, and represents the natural rhythms of work in ways a training session never could. I was happy they were able to do as much work as they did. I would have thought (based on the weight of the sled and the predicted draft of the springtooth) that pulling two sections would have been somewhat harder than it was. When I think about it more, I realize that my circular sled track is flat on two sides, downhill on one side and uphill on the other side. The section I am working with the springtooth is nearly flat. I am pretty sure the relative flatness of the section is why they were doing better than I would have thought. I am still very glad we did all that conditioning work to get started, or they wouldn’t have been willing or able to do much, but I think thier performance yesterday tels me they are really to move on to more varied jobs.

[Andy Carson]

I agree, Tim. This is a very different sort of interaction. I haven’t done much on Facebook in a while, but one of the things that is kinda fun about it is that you can post what you are doing and people say things like “Wow!” or “Great!” or give you a “thumbs up.” Not intellectually stimulating or informative and it doesn’t make you are better teamster, but it can be nice and it is definately encouraging to get instant almost completely positive feedback. I wonder if in a culture/environment where constructive criticism is allowed, asked for, and often needed, some might be hesitant to post. Certainly posting is easiler in a culture/environment where a “post” of “thumbs up” is considered the norm and there is no expectation that posts say anything thought provoking. If I really think about it, I have noticed less posts in the vein of “Hey, look at this” or “Look what I did”… Is this what attracts people to use facebook? I think the member diary section (Every now and again post a page of your day..date, time, weather,successes and failures.. no answers expected… no debates.. Just a gradual build up of a diary of members daily lives) is kinda like facebook in theory, but I think our culture of substantive thoughts and constructive criticism pervades this area too. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I think it is very helpful, but I could see someone who just wanted to tell a story without debate being turned off… On one hand, there are so many places where someone can get a “thumbs up,” and what makes this place so special is you can get intelligent thoughts from knowledgable people. On the other hand, most people are less interested in knowledge without some sort of story attached to it and the story line itself is valuable in putting knowledge into context. Plus, I am sure many people do want to be the subject of a story that demonstrates concepts, especially when it demonstrates failures. I think that if we are losing people to Facebook (which I am not sure of) it might be due to either 1) more photos or 2) the “thumbs up” effect. Other than that I am out of theories for why someone would want to be on facebook. 🙂

[Andy Carson]

I suppose one of the attractive things about Facebook is that you are not limited in how many photos you can post. I know I just had to clean up (downsize/delete) some old photos to be able to post a few new ones on this site. I know I can put a link to the photos in another website where there is no size limitation, but it is sure nice if they are right there in the post so you can see them right away as you are reading. Perhaps facebook is attracting people who want to see and post lots of photos (as Kevin points out)? Again, I haven’t noticed this pattern…

[Andy Carson]

I never post on the FB page either. I never really got into FB much anyway… I agree it is hard to have a detailed discussion there and harder to search. Has the activity here really reduced? I guess I hadn’t noticed.

[Andy Carson]

@grey 33550 wrote:

My smarter horses sometimes rebel when they feel insulted by what they perceive to be pointless repetition or excessive nit-picking. Of course, once I ask them to do something it would be undermining my authority to allow them to decline to obey. The obvious work-around there is to be careful what I ask for. If I ask for something repetitive in the line of work, I don’t seem to get the flak that I do if I demand a similar amount of tedium in a training situation. They feel the difference in the intent with which I approach the task and there must be an element of aimlessness to the training repetitive motions versus the ones necessary to complete a job.

Good point, I think this was a big part of his rebelling. I also really appreciate Mitch’s point about a “bad” session being an opportunity to learn. I think for me this is a transformative way of thinking about training difficulties. Thanks all for the thoughts and support.

[Andy Carson]

You are right, Tim, that I am feeling a little defensive. My heart does not like being heavy handed, but my brain tells me that sometimes I have to be… I don’t want to get all “mushy,” but I suppose this is the “diary” section… I also feel a little defensive because I feel proud of what we have accomplished in the last few weeks. Over a dozen good sessions and one bad one. Actually, only the end of yesterdays session was bad, but it was very bad. It would be dishonest to mention all the good times and not talk about the challenges.

Looking back over the posts, I suppose I was arguing with things that weren’t exactly said. Perhaps they were between the lines, perhaps they weren’t even meant. Sometimes things get misunderstood. I was arguing with what I understood to be the statement that if I or my team gets frustrated (irreguardless of fault), I should put them out in the field. I was also arguing with the idea that if they refuse to “stand-over,” I should ask them to “come” and when they do then put them out in the field. I was arguing with the concept that if there is a fight (irreguardless of who starts it) than I should put them out in the field. In truth, looking over the comments, I am not sure if these were actually the suggestions, but they were what I read. All these ideas did run through my mind at the time. They all seemed damn attractive, and a heck of a lot easier than sticking to my guns and making them follow the rules.

I think that in a very general sense, the advice is to ask for simple and easy tasks so as to build a trusting foundation for future success. Best to sometimes push them to the limit of what they can do, but not beyond. Make sure they understand the task at hand before you ratchet up pressure. Try to be as light as possible. I agree with all this.

[Andy Carson]

@Tim Harrigan 33542 wrote:

I am trying not be be insulted by your defensive comment that it is unwise to be arguing with more experienced trainers.

Please understand I mean this with the upmost respect, I meant you are probably right. I am certain there are better trainers than I and I am pretty sure you are one of them. Your work and videos was a big part of what inspired this switch on my part. I am sorry if this statement was offensive, it was truly meant to be complimentary.

[Andy Carson]

@Carl Russell 33529 wrote:

I would also suggest that you not immediately assume that the were defying you as much as indicating to you that they were confused about just what you wanted.

I think this is key to how to react to this situation. Did he not understand or was he being defiant? Hard to know without being there and without knowing this particular ox. He’s a very very smart ox and only needs taught something once when it is something he wants to do, or something in his advantage. Even though I know he can learn something in one lesson I still give him several to make sure it’s in his head well. He had just finished “standing over” at least a dozen times with no problems, which is a very strong indication that he knew what it meant. Also, I think a confused ox might swing to the left or right or might stand still. He response, after he decided to quit, was anything but random. He figured out that if I ask him to stand over, he can swing his ass towards me and threaten to kick and “Wow, no pokey stick”. Indeed, there was no pokey stick because I was getting out of his way to avoid a gigantic bruise or worse. It only took one lesson, by the way, for him to “learn” this type of “stand-over” and he would try it every time. I still feel I had to nip this in the bud. Not hard with a longer stick. It took 10 times as many “lessons” to reteach him how to stand over correctly again after one learned bad behavior. I think the best solution to these situations is to not get in them in the first place, and to spot before frustration sets in on either side. I know it is unwise to be arguing with more experiences trainers and handlers who probably know better, but I still think that if I just put them back after being “bad,” it is a step backwards. Is the suggestion that I should have put my “naughty” ox back in the field? Perhaps I am misunderstanding and the suggestion is that I simply should just not get frustrated? That I definately agree with. 🙂 I also agree with not putting him out after a fight, I left him tied short for an hour before I put him out. Hopefully, the fight was out of his head before we was turned out. I want to make fighting as unpleasant and rewardless as possible, both in the short term and the long term.

[Andy Carson]

Thanks for the encouragement Andrew, I hope next time is a good one too. My money is on a good session. This isn’t the first time my nigh ox got stubborn about something. Funny thing about him is that he’s the only one that really challenges me, but he’s the less dominant between the team. I would have guessed the more dominant ox would be more challenging.

[Andy Carson]

Touche’, Tim. Of course it’s not their fault, it is ridiculous to blame an animal. I pushed them too far, yes, but i need to push them some so it’s an honest mistake. I don’t like to spend alot of time assessing blame, just learn and move on. Regardless of the blame, if one of my team picks a fight with me i have to make sure I win it. There really isn’t any other alternative when it gets to that point. If i just put him back in the field after he kicks at me, i’ve taught him to kick. And yes, frustration was building far before that point. When they started to get frustated, I started looking for a few stand-overs in a row so i could put them back in the field. I refuse to put them back until they perform the task I originally ask because if I don’t enforce this rule, I am teaching them that commands are optional and if they refuse to follow them, they get to go back in the field. Not a good lesson either. I feel like this was in some ways a test of wills between my nigh ox and me. He’s very smart, and is a hard worker, but can get tricky and willful with new commands and seems to know how to push people buttons. Sometimes he kinda reminds me of myself when i was a teenager. 🙂

[Andy Carson]

I hear you, George, but the world is a stranger and more wonderful that I would have ever guessed. Horizontal gene transfer is a real, though rare, natural phenomenon. One of my favorite is the description of horizontal gene transfer from fungi to pea aphids. Made a Science paper in 2010 (Vol 338, No 5978, pages 624-627). If an aphid and a fungus can “get it on” the tomato and spider have a chance… The aphid and fungus are probably just the tip of the iceberg with respect to odd unlikely horizontal gene transfer. It was an easy gene to track because it produces an easy to see color. I guess love finds a way 😉

[Andy Carson]

@sickle hocks 33503 wrote:

That’s the problem with screwing around with the basic building blocks of life..once the genie’s out of that bottle you can’t stuff it back in.

I think this is an important point that we have discussed some before. I tend to believe that this is really no different than selective breeding. I certainly do see and understand how someone would think that genetic engineering is fundamentally different. Truly, I do. The thing is, Monsanto seems to want to have it both ways. If you believe this is a radical departure from how organisms were created/modified in the past, than it really ought to be studied ad nausium (and have really good reasons for it to be used at all) before “let loose.” On the other hand, if you believe that this is just fancy selective breeding, than you might be particularly distubed by it, but it certainly wouldn’t think it was patentable. Monsanto wants it “strange” enough to be patentable, but not “strange” enough to be scary. We can all thank the 1980 Supreme Court case “Diamond v. Chakrabarty” for this. My understanding of this discision is that the organism (in this case a microbe that was supposed to eat oil) was patentable because it was not “naturally occuring.” Dumb idea, if you ask me… I Can’t remember the last time I was hiking, rounded the bin, and saw a wild dairy cow. So, I suppose, we patent everything. I just hope I get the patent on myself. Better hurry up and file… 🙂

[Andy Carson]

@jac 33487 wrote:

I have dabated with Simon over whether the shafts should be able to move up and down freely but as im a beginer at logging on a big scale Im not sure..was just looking at it from an engineering point of view an thought it would give another bit of articulation and act like an automatic brake when the horse sits back in the breeching ??

From where I’m sitting, I think your are both right. Verticle articulation would not only act as an automatic brake when the horse sits into the breeching, but would also maximally load the wheels when it pulls and take most of the load off the skids. A good thing in my mind. If you had unlimited articulation, however, you would just pull the wheels out from beneath the thing and it would flip backwards. You could have the best of both worlds if you found a way to limit the articulation such that the skids could be lifted up off the ground, but the wheels couldn’t be pulled out from underneath. Lots of ways to do this on paper, and I think you know what I mean. That one of the things I really like about the red design in the photo. It looks to have limited articulation from those chains, although I can’t exactly figure out how that central connector works… Perhaps this is a tilt limiter or sorts?

[Andy Carson]

I agree that out of phase walking should produce the smoothest pull. There are probably advantages to walking in phase, though, such as in overcoming inertia to start a heavy load. I wonder if the animals can feel these efforts and adjust on thier own to walk in phase or out of phase at different times. They wouldn’t have to reason this out, it might just be a feelign of “or this is easier now” and a rough memory or the times with walking in or out of phase is easier. I notice many of the same muscle you mention, Kevin, except the deltoids. I suppose the application in cattle might be different, but I would imagine that these move the front legs foreward for the next stride. Important, yes, but not what I would consider a high strength movement. I am finding it much more tricky to see the muscle movements and articulations in cattle than in horses. It might be the flatness of many important muscle groups, but I also think that the complexity of the shoulder joint makes these observations hard. There are so many muscle groups there and some of the deeper ones are hidden by the surface groups or are underneath the leg. One thing that really helps me notice fatigue is if a muscle starts to quiver. I don’t like to push them this far, but when I do, it’s always the triceps on my guys.

[Andy Carson]

@gwpoky 33479 wrote:

The example I stated on a Facebook discussion I have been involved with was this: If I have a dog that runs loose and ends up breeding my neighbors dog(s), my neighbors are going to be upset and demand that I either kennel my dog or destroy it. In my opinion Monsanto ect. needs to Kennel there dog. Any thoughts?

I am not sure what the laws on this area, but I suspect that laws would be against dogs roaming (whether they breed or not). I do see your point, but dogs are easy to fence in and pollen and bees are not. I think a more more similar example dealing with plants would be this: Say I plant a field of pumpkins wanting to save seed. My next door neighbor decides to plant some zucchini (my pumpkins are of a type that hybridizes with his zucchini). So, my pumpkin seeds are going to be (or at least might be) a partial mix of straight pumpkin and pumpkin/zucchini hybrids. Not what I want… Do I have the right to tell him not to grow zucchini? I think not. Do I have the right to sue him if I have some hybrids? Again, this is silly. Now, does he have the right to sue me if I have some hybrids? This also seems silly, but it is essentially what monsanto is doing. I thisnk this is a strange situation, but can kinda understand the logic behind it IF we (as a county/world) agree that patenting living, replicating things is legitimate. How else can someone protect a patent on a replicating thing? Wouldn’t everyone that wants a RR crop simply say that thier RR seeds that they borrowed from thier neighbor or grew themselves was an “accident”? I think this is when the fight ought to be fought. I do think there is some moral high ground on this topic and some documentable “sillyness” on the issue of patenting replicating organisms. Plus, I think the general public would find this idea very distastful. I think agri-buisness very cleverly changed the subject here with round-up ready crops. Now everyone wants to talk about if they this particular gene is “good” or “bad” and scientific studies can be done on the environmental impact on both sides. Either way, monsanto wins. If we (as a nation/world) decides that this particular gene/seed is “bad” they are on to a new gene/seed without missing much of a step. It we (as a nation/world) decide that the gene/seed is “ok” than they have thier patent and they will only have more in the future. Heck, even if the whole world decides that geneticly engineered crops are “bad”, they can still go back to patenting regular seed and find some way to track interbreeding. I have no doubts these tests for cross pollinations could be easily implemented. I believe that if you want to kill this concept and pattern on a meaningful scale, I think the best way is to cut off the ability to patent replicating organisms in the first place. Why is there no national dialog on this??? Breathtaking… I think what we have here is a company not only controlling the seed supply but also CONTROLLING THE DIALOG.

[Author]

Posts