# If a Dog lines a blind, how many times has it been handled?



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

I had been taught by my grizzled old mentors that the initial send on a blind retrieve is the first handle of that task. The exact line achieved by here and heel, getting the dogs back bone in perfect line to the destination is the perfect example of a "Literal Cast". In reading all of RTF this past few days I am wondering if I am correct. In your opinion, if a dog lines a blind retrieve how many times has it been handled? The answer to this may possibly be the answer to a couple of other threads wouldn't it?

it has not been handled

it has been handled one time

Ken Bora


----------



## 4 Labs (Apr 17, 2005)

I say once but, I'm not a pro


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

If the dog lines the blind, it has not been handled, it has been cast.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Not sure it makes any difference. Lining the blind is a perfect job if it is a straight line. Theroretically your initial send is your first cast . Cast refusals and slipped whistles are serious to moderate faults. A no go at the line is usually considered a serious fault.


----------



## BAWANA (Nov 1, 2003)

I would think the dog is being handled from the holding blind to the line.
on the line the dog is being handled with ques here heal dead whatever.
IF you do things right you are a good handler, if you do things poor you are a poor handler. so when the dog is under judgment you are the handler and you are handling the dog. jmho


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

How many times has a dog been handled on marks if it has been lined and released 3 times?


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

In my worthless opinion, a dog is cast from the line and then it is handled, if need, by various other casts.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> If the dog lines the blind, it has not been handled, it has been cast.


I agree!


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> If the dog lines the blind, it has not been handled, it has been cast.


Oh, crap! Now you'll arouse UB's ire! :lol: 

Okay; a handle is a cast. No, a cast is a handle. No, wait........a send is a command, which is a .....I'm gettin' dizzy!

Evan


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

> The exact line achieved by here and heel, getting the dogs back bone in perfect line to the destination is the perfect example of a "Literal Cast".


If I use three heres and two heels have I now handled/cast the dog 5 times? Are 4 of them potentially ast refusals?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I'm sticking with 

handle is equal to a cast but a cast is not equal to a handle.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

A good example of how semantics gets us overthinking it.

Doesn't matter what you call it, if a dog kicks off the line the FIRSTtime it is told, and proceeds on the exact line until it reaches the bird, THAT dog has shown a remarkable amount of control and biddibility, perseverence over obstacles, and deserves solid applause from the gallery.

When the squirrels in a judge's head make him/her think "I can't tell if the dog shows control because the handler never had to blow the whistle" or "The dog has to cross the line to the blind at least once." then it is time to call the exterminator!

What is pleasing to the eye must needs be a good job. Further analysis not needed!

Lisa


----------



## choclabs (Sep 7, 2005)

Cast once - Handled once

Has anyone been dropped from a competition for their dog stepping on the blind with no whistles (one set of tweet tweet tweet to pick up the bird and return) ? 

I ran a water blind in a Q down the side of a dam on that was on the right hand side of the line. A strong left hand wind directly perpendicular to the line from the left pushing the dog into the dam. She lines up, is sent, launches herself down the bank into the pond and trips head first in the 3 ft deep silt accumulated near the entry bank. Then after doing a complete forward flip she straightens herself out and takes the initial line that she was cast on. Half way to the far bank she decides to dodge the 12 inch verticle drain pipe that previous dogs nearly got their head sucked down into. Her line now is a bannana into the strong wind and not at all very pronounced. She lands 110 yards away on top of the bird at the far end of the pond, and after 3 sharp tweets pick up the bird and returns in a very direct line without the bannana.

We were dropped for me not blowing a whistle and giving a back cast that would have her driven her close to the drain pipe and "proven" that she could handle the shore line suction. I was told that I did not challenge the blind. Go figure


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> A good example of how semantics gets us overthinking it.
> 
> Doesn't matter what you call it, ...
> 
> ...


I wish that were true, Lisa. In my example, and in UB's, further analysis is needed. Indeed we must not passively accept poor judging or unfair training if we are to be the advocates for our dogs that we profess ourselves to be.

I agree with your assessments, but a great deal hangs on the determinations of our event judges as they bear upon the breeds. I know we've all watched the same questionable judgments over the years, but we can't surrender to them or they'll only become worse for the lack of oversight.

Evan


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Evan;

That was my point.

Lisa


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

choclabs said:


> Cast once - Handled once
> 
> Has anyone been dropped from a competition for their dog stepping on the blind with no whistles (one set of tweet tweet tweet to pick up the bird and return) ? I was told that I did not challenge the blind. Go figure


Yep. A lesson I've not forgotten, and one with which I had to agree. It wasn't easy to accept, but Northrup Larson (the judge) was correct. 

When a judge designs a route, especially for a blind, it contains certain logistical elements as they are available to test control and trainability. When we don't challenge those factors we circumvent the very aspects of that test that do the testing. I understand your rationale, but I hope you can at least see the judge's point.

Evan


----------



## Ozpa (Jan 31, 2003)

Evan said:


> When a judge designs a route, especially for a blind, it contains certain logistical elements as they are available to test control and trainability. When we don't challenge those factors we circumvent the very aspects of that test that do the testing. I understand your rationale, but I hope you can at least see the judge's point.
> 
> Evan


I've never liked this approach...the fact that a dog that took a straight enough, and long enough, line to wind a blind was dropped suggests to me that the parameters of the test were too tight to be reasonable. A dog that "challenged" the test might be scored higher...but a dog that stays on a line that takes it close enough to easily wind a blind should be carried, IMO. 

To be clear: I'm not arguing about scoring...I'm arguing about being dropped.


----------



## captdan (Jan 25, 2004)

IMNSHO, a dog run on any blind has been handled once. It is not marking, it is being handled by the handler. Any direction given by the handler including the original send is a cast.

Dan Rice


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Todd;

I have to disagree.

On a windy day, a dog can land 20 yards downwind and still come up with the blind. That's not challenging the blind. The line to the blind is from the line to the bird; a direct path. Any deviaton off that path is off line, and how badly "off line" this is considered is directly proportaional to the game you are playing and the stake you are running. It is not about just picking up the chickens; you must demonstrate control. The judges set the blind the way they set it, so that a team that challenges the blind will have to demonstrate control and perseverence over obstacles in their way. If you go around the obstacles, you get the bird, but demonstrate nothing as far as control, willingness to please (takes a good initial line even when the dog doesn't like the picture presented) and perseverence.

I once ran a WDQ event where the line to the blind was straight down a point, then across the channel. If one challenged the true line to the blind, one had many handles, because this particular pair of stooges said "The dogs must stay wet." Impossible to do, unless one kept the dogs' two left feet ion the water, and 2 right feet on land. THAT was the line. THAT was what I tried to do, but after ten whistles and we were STILL on the point, I picked up.

Several dogs passed. Their owners sent them on a line 90 degrees perpendicular to the true line to the blind, allowed the dogs to get out to sea, then gave a big right "OVER". One whistle, you did a great job, you got a ribbon.

Poor judging at its worst.

And yes, one of the stooges STILL gets asked to judge. 

Lisa


----------



## Ozpa (Jan 31, 2003)

Lisa,

Note I said "easily" wind.

I agree that it's not challenging the blind.

But, if a blind can be "lined" without challenging the test, then it is a BAD test.

If a dog runs a true, long, line that puts it in a position to easily find the bird, it has done a good job, which should carry it on. When a dog takes this good a line, you have demonstated control...certainly sufficiently to at least have the judges take a look in the next Blind series.

Maybe this is really the point: 

If your dog is fortunate enough to line a blind...even with a _slight_ "banana"...then hasn't your dog earned the right to run the next blind?

Todd
---who still thinks this is a scoring issue and not a drop/carry issue


----------



## rick irick (Feb 24, 2004)

*kennnnnn*

10:30 am the third day of duck season i expect you limited by 9.
oh yes the dog was handled once. i must go dance with ducks now.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Lining a blind is going straight from the point of origin to the bird. A straight line. A line. Anything deviating from that is scored appropriately, see my post above.

A banana is not a straight line. A dog that does not challenge the line to the blind (i.e., takes the straight path from point of origin to the bird) cannot truly be said to have lined that blind, regardless of how straight the dog ran in one direction. I can send my dog 20 degrees downwind (false lining) and let her wind it when she gets to the right spot, beak over and scoop the bird. Regardless of the fact I never touched my whistle, this is not "lining" the blind, because I did not challenge the line to the blind.

Hope this clarifies.

Lisa


----------



## Ozpa (Jan 31, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Lining a blind is going straight from the point of origin to the bird. A straight line. A line. Anything deviating from that is scored appropriately, see my post above.
> 
> Lisa


By your definition, NO DOG has ever "lined a blind". To me, a "lined blind" is when a dog is sent in a direction, follows that direction closely, and finds...or stumbles upon...the bird that it was sent after without having to be handled. 

Sure, 20 degrees off doesn't count...but what is that....my math says about 70 yards off line on a 200 yard blind...

300 yard blind. Dog ends up 10 yards downwind of the bird, after running a perfectly straight line, until he winds it,. then runs over and picks it up....Dropped or not? ***please note that 5 degrees would be about 26 yds.


200 yard blind. Dog runs 5 yards downwind of line at 50 yards (nearly 6 degrees!), recovers towards the line, overcorrects, then ends up 10 yards upwind at 100 yards, recovers, and ends up on bird....no handles...Dropped or not? (lets pretend that the handler is a little slow on the whistle here...new to the game perhaps)


We aren't talking "False lining" here, either... false lining is an intentional act by the handler. I'm talking about a dog being honestly sent, and drifting off of the line...yet having the presence of mind or luck to get back on that line and continue to a point where it finds the bird.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ozpa said:


> 300 yard blind. Dog ends up 10 yards downwind of the bird, after running a perfectly straight line, until he winds it,. then runs over and picks it up....Dropped or not? ***please note that 5 degrees would be about 26 yds.
> 
> 
> 200 yard blind. Dog runs 5 yards downwind of line at 50 yards (nearly 6 degrees!), recovers towards the line, overcorrects, then ends up 10 yards upwind at 100 yards, recovers, and ends up on bird....no handles...Dropped or not? (lets pretend that the handler is a little slow on the whistle here...new to the game perhaps)


Not enough information given to answer. It depends on a lot of things. What hazzards did the dog miss? How did the other dogs do? Was it hunting all the way there? 

Remember blinds are tests of control. Is the dog showing controll by avoiding all the hazards? Not IMHO. 



Ozpa said:


> I'm talking about a dog being honestly sent, and *drifting off of the line*...yet having the presence of mind or *luck to get back on that line* and continue to a point where it finds the bird.


Its starting to sound like stumbling on the bird to me.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Imho there is vast difference between lining a blind and having "no whistles".
Every blind I've designed in training or a Ft has boundaries. A blind, unlike marks, is a control test. If the handler has allowed the dog outside the boundaries to follow natural factors, luck, wind, or whatever they have not "challenged the blind". This equals a poor blind! A dog could banana a blind, no whistles and be be dropped. Why? The dog/handler exhibited poor control.
When I judge blinds I admitt I place a great deal of importance on the initial line. For example,I don't like to see 2-4 whistles just to get the dog in the water correctly.

Tim


----------



## Ozpa (Jan 31, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Remember blinds are tests of control. Is the dog showing controll by avoiding all the hazards? Not IMHO.


It could be, yes (although not in a well set up blind). I'm not talking about good tests here...we're talking about a blind where the dog can have a _slight_ banana and still nail the bird without a handle.

Supplement to the Standard Procedure:

*Despite such natural distractions, it should be possible, at least in theory, for a dog to "find" a well-planned blind-retrieve on the initial line from his handler; that he will do so is highly improbable because of those natural hazards, so he must be handled to the "blind." Nevertheless, the test should be so planned that the dog should be "in-sight" continuously. A blind retrieve is a test of control, and a dog which is out of sight for a considerable period cannot be said to be under control. Utilizing natural hazards should obviate the need for Judges issuing special instructions about the manner of completing a blind retrieve, other than to "get the meat" by the shortest, fastest, or most direct route.*


----------



## Ozpa (Jan 31, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> If the handler has allowed the dog outside the boundaries to follow natural factors, luck, wind, or whatever they have not "challenged the blind". This equals a poor blind! A dog could banana a blind, no whistles and be be dropped. Why? The dog/handler exhibited poor control.
> 
> Tim


My point is, according to the Supplement, that a dog SHOULDN'T be able to do that in a well set up blind.

So, if a dog did, it was either the Judges fault, or a good job by the dog.

So, rather than a poor job by the dog, it is as likely that the Judge, or FT committe showed poor selection of grounds or the blind itself.


----------



## Ozpa (Jan 31, 2003)

Or the dog did a poor job on a poorly set up blind.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Sometimes it doesn't matter what you set up. I was judging a master a few years back. The land blind was run from the top of a berm with an angle down and of the berm to the pin. We had one handler allow his dog to follow the yellow brick road on top of the berm and give the dog one 'Hollywood" over of about 25 yds. Said handler could not understand what was wrong with how his dog performed when he was dropped. 

In my book, lining a blind means staying within the 'fairway' for the length of the blind. The AKC H/T rules anticipate this and say that a dog should have a chance, however remote of finding the blind on the initial cast from the handler.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

stunned by how even the vote is 8) I am, closer than a Florida Election :shock: how can we be so divided on this?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't know, Ken. The dog didn't send himself. He was sent by a handler, and was therefore handled, wasn't he?

Evan


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Evan said:


> I don't know, Ken. The dog didn't send himself. He was sent by a handler, and was therefore handled, wasn't he?
> 
> Evan


Evan 

If this was the criteria, every dog would be HANDLED on every mark because the dog did not send itself on the retrieve

Ted


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Evan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know, Ken. The dog didn't send himself. He was sent by a handler, and was therefore handled, wasn't he?
> ...


In fact, he is, unless he broke. A dog directed in any manner by a handler has been handled. That doesn't mean he was assisted out of some degree of failure, however. Somtimes a dog does well more in spite of the handler than because of one.

Of course I understand the infernece of the term "being handled on a mark" to mean the dog was assited to it by way of handling in the better known sense; stop to the whistle & cast. Semantics are a part of this discussion, but I'm attempting be clear with them, not distortionist. 

When we step to the line with our dogs to work them, we direct them, operate them, etc, so we're appropriately known as 'handlers'. We aren't called operators or directors. We handle them as surely as the handler of a sheep dog or a dog in the obedience ring, or even a show ring. Those dogs are handled, and so are ours. That general context isn't the subject of this discussion, however.

Evan


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Just to help drive us further down the slippery road of semantics, when I give the command, "back" on a blind retrieve, I am handling the dog because I am directing the dog to take a cast in a particular direction.
When I RELEASE my dog by saying her name on a mark, I am not casting the dog unless I "no" her off one bird and direct her to another.
We cast a dog on blinds and release a dog on marks. Otherwise, why would we use "back" for one and "name" for the other?
So, a dog that lines a blind has been "handled" once. Of course this whole conversation shows a definite hole in our terminology. As handlers, we are handling the dog from the moment we take it off the truck. In a different context, we are handling when we stop a dog and give it a directional cast. Same word, different meaning. Just like "casting" from the line or giving a "cast". That's what started this whole conversation.
If we "cast" from the line, a no-go must be a "cast refusal" a la HRC. Of course many of us see a big difference between the two.
I think the bigger issue is who cares? If an HRC judge allows a no-go by calling it a cast refusal, it really isn't going to make much difference. I suspect that a dog that consistently no-gos probably has more holes in his training that will prevent him from being very successful. And if your dog doesn't have a problem with no-gos, what does it matter? It's a moot point for you. One man's opinion.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It may have been said already, if so, I apologize. But, I think two points are significant concerning failure to leave the line on a blind ("sent", "cast", or "handled" - I don't care.)

First, blinds assess trained abilities and the handler's ability to control the dog. Failure to go when commanded demonstrates lack of control.

Second, as opposed to "cast refusals" (however you wish to define them) in the field, failure to go when commanded, demonstrates failure at point blank range, when the handler's control is at a maximum. Consequently, it is more than just a "cast refusal" - assuming you consider the send a cast.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Good point, John. :shock: (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

Evan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

To all who have given so much thought to this.
Can you give _us_ an example of where, in the big picture, it would really matter one iota ? :roll: 
john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ozpa said:


> If your dog is fortunate enough to line a blind...even with a _slight_ "banana"...then hasn't your dog earned the right to run the next blind?
> 
> Todd
> ---who still thinks this is a scoring issue and not a drop/carry issue


Depends? In a HT perhaps. In a FT, if at least 4 other dogs did a better job, then your dog hasn't earned anything.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

First ? cast or handler = terminology minutia. Don?t get mired down.




Ted Shih said:


> If this was the criteria, every dog would be HANDLED on every mark because the dog did not send itself on the retrieve
> 
> Ted


Yes. Every dog brought to the line is being handled. More so in FT?s. I don?t understand how a handler can come to the line, sit the dog, point out every white gun in the field, queue the dog with ?mark, mark? and after the birds go down use his legs/body to push pull the dogs head on every mark retrieved, and then say the dog was not handled. That just doesn?t make sense to me. Of course the dog was handled, not in the field, but he was handled. That?s why in the HT rules, it specifically states 



> Chapter 4 Section 6. In marking situations, a handler may give the dog a line in the direction of the fall, provided that such lining is accomplished briskly and precisely. Conspicuously intensive lining suggests a weak marking ability and the dog must be graded low in Marking.


The only real scenario I can think of where a dog would not be handled in a marking scenario, is a remote send. Put the dog out on a mat, without showing him anything and walk away from him. Let the birds go down and send him from the remote position. No help on the second or third bird. 

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Paul

It seems that you did not read this statement by Evan.



Evan said:


> Of course I understand the infernece of the term "being handled on a mark" to mean the dog was assited to it by way of handling in the better known sense; stop to the whistle & cast. Semantics are a part of this discussion, but I'm attempting be clear with them, not distortionist.


If your dog heels to the line with you, it is being "handled" However, this thread is about something different.

Ted


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

You are correct. This thread is about something different. In fact it has been about at least 3 different subjects that I would consider main topics.

1.	Number of handles/casts on a blind
2.	What constitutes lining a blind
3.	Handling/casting with regards to marking

There may be more that I missed being a long thread, one being the terminology aspect of handling being the same as casting. That I consider mere terminology.

The original question was regarding a blind. A dog that is sent from the handler?s side and with no further assistance of any kind from the handler has in my opinion been handled or cast once. Call it handling or call it casting is mere terminology subject to opinion. Obviously each dog in both a marking and a blind series must be handled/cast in some fashion. Otherwise we would all sit in the truck and just ask the dog how it went when he gets back from running the series. :lol: The argument could be made that since a dog must be brought to the line and released on a given command per the rules, then that portion should not be counted as handling/casting. That is an argument I could agree with, provided that the dog made the decision which line to take or which direction to proceed. But that is not the case most of the time. Certainly on a blind we spend time lining the dog up, getting him to look out in the right direction, showing him what we want. Most of the time that happens on a marking series as well. Thus in my opinion that constitutes handling/casting and technically every blind or mark has 1 handle in it. Since every dog that competes has that 1 handle automatically built into it, then why count it at all. They cancel themselves out and thus from a judging perspective there is not reason to count them. But that doesn?t change the fact that is happens.

/Paul


----------



## mstreetman (Apr 24, 2003)

i consider the send separate from handling. if the dog executes the task it requires no handling to my mind, it has seen the line, fought the factors, and executed. to me, no going on a mark is a no go and the resend is a cast. at that point the dog has handled on the mark.


----------



## Mitch Patterson (Feb 20, 2003)

Once


----------



## Brevard Arndt (Jul 2, 2003)

I haven't read all the posts, so this may be redundent. I have always been told, by trainers much more astute than I, that when I utter, "Back!", I have made my initial cast to the blind. I have, over the years, had judges remark that my dog did not take a good initial cast, but that I had recovered, and showed that we could work as a team. 

Therefore, it is my conclusion that however you want to define it, when you send your dog on a blind, it is the *first* cast.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

If you have followed the "rationals" for counting the initial cast as handling. Must we now count a second or third sit whistle command to have the dog sit at the line as a whistle refusal? If the dog is re-heeled before being sent is this refusal since the dog did not sit properly the first time?
Somewhere a little common sense needs to enter into judging :roll: 

Tim


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*How Many "Handles"?*

There is a difference in terminology here!!!

To most field trial folks--cast or handle means blowing a whistle and changing the dog's direction--not the "initial send".

Yes, every dog is brought to line by a handler. But...when scoring a dog on a blind, the judges begin when the dog is sent. They do not, in my experience, indicate a "handle" or "cast" at the initial send. They charge a dog with a cast when the handler blows a whistle after the initial send.

Some handlers bring dogs to line with sit whistles being utilized. I, as a judge, don't appreciate this. The dog should come to line without all that commotion--it's like the handler started the blind from the holding blind. I don't like the whistles being blown "at" me from behind or beside me. I like the whistles to begin when the handler actually intends to send for the blind. Just my personal peeve, I'm sure, although I've had co-judges who wanted to score a handle or two because of it being so annoying. Of course (and before anyone brings me up short on this, I also don't like wild dogs--and I surely have one in Genie--coming out of the holding blind).

As far as "lining" the blind goes....A dog that takes the line given initially by the handler and carries that line should be rewarded. Rewarded if he holds the line to the blind--not the big banana. Avoiding the obstacles is not a good blind. Folks should remember that when their dog moves off line, they SHOULD blow a whistle and put him back on. As a judge, I don't reward dogs who found the bird but were never on line except when they sat on the mat and when they actually picked up the bird--they SHOULD have blown whistles and handled.

On the other hand, a dog that takes and continues on the line given without ducking the obstacles or cover or water is quite impressive.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> If you have followed the "rationals" for counting the initial cast as handling. Must we now count a second or third sit whistle command to have the dog sit at the line as a whistle refusal? If the dog is re-heeled before being sent is this refusal since the dog did not sit properly the first time?
> 
> Somewhere a little common sense needs to enter into judging :roll:
> 
> Tim


Yes, it does! This thread is sort of wandering away from it over semantics. Remember how this began?


Uncle Bill said:


> Just once can we have an honest view why you may believe a NO Go is no different than any other cast refusal?


We've done that, but then came a flood of rhetoric over what constituted a cast that seems to have over ridden what constitutes a NO GO. 

UB asked a legitimate question about a comparison between the two as grounds for elimination. Yes, John, it matters far beyond one iota to a competitor when they've been eliminated for what they see as semantics, rather than a performance failure. That's what the discussion was intended to cover.

Are they equal fouls under judgment? If that is to be determined then both must be defined within the context as asked.

With regard to the poll question, I strongly assert that a dog sent on a blind by its handler has been handled. Turn him away from the actual blind and point him toward the truck and send him. Let me know when that formula ends up in a lined blind!  Better yet, don't send him and see how that blind is scored. Without a handler the blind will remain un-retrieved, won't it? Or will this launch us back to semantical ping-pong?

Evan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Evan said:


> UB asked a legitimate question about a comparison between the two as grounds for elimination. Yes, John, it matters far beyond one iota to a competitor when they've been eliminated for what they see as semantics, rather than a performance failure. That's what the discussion was intended to cover.
> 
> Are they equal fouls under judgment? If that is to be determined then both must be defined within the context as asked.
> 
> ...


Even, 
You have, inadvertently I presume, commingled two dissimilar threads one started by UB and this one started by another about _how many handles if a dog lines the blind_ and not even posted on by UB.
On this matter I stand by my position that it makes no difference at all, not one iota, if *all *dogs are either charged with a handle or *all* are not,for the initial send on a blind.

I don't run HRC and have no frame of reference about UB's question on the other matter on the other thread. 
After stating my opinion about a sidelight of that thread, regarding the mandatory elimination in the AKC AA for no-goes on blinds, I said so. 
john


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Sorry, John

The two threads have been comingled on several levels, and reasonably so. But, correctly, one does not follow the same path as the other in their intent.

Handling, casting, sending, responding or failure to respond appear to have a good deal to do with both threads.

I posted a response on the wrong one...at least part of it!

Evan


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

I would think that a dog that "lines" a blind was handled to prefection (not to be confused with "winding" or "tracking" a blind) If I read the "intent" of the rule book properly, lining the blind is supposed to be possable, but not probable, so that the dog that truly lines it exibited outstanding trainability and persaverence in its challanging of factors.

tom


----------



## Paul Stuart (Aug 3, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> If the dog lines the blind, it has not been handled, it has been cast.


I agree with Bob.


----------



## Paul Stuart (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: kennnnnn*



rick irick said:


> 10:30 am the third day of duck season i expect you limited by 9.
> oh yes the dog was handled once. i must go dance with ducks now.


Funny I was thinking the same thing myself Rick!


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Paul Stuart said:


> Bob Gutermuth said:
> 
> 
> > If the dog lines the blind, it has not been handled, it has been cast.
> ...


Who cast him, the marshall? If it was the handler that directed the dog, it was handled...once!

Evan


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Evan said:


> Paul Stuart said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Gutermuth said:
> ...


Genius Evan....I am still stunned that after 4 pages and 1700 views the vote is still so close. I thought this would be a very lopsided poll.
Ken Bora


----------



## thelabguy (Jul 20, 2004)

Evan said:


> [ Without a handler the blind will remain un-retrieved, won't it?
> 
> Evan


I know of two dogs (my Splash, Bobby William's dear departed Hacksaw) who prefer to get the bird without a handler! ;-) Both are/were known for "breaking" on blinds (yes, it's theoretically impossible).

MO:

- the dog is handled once when sent on a blind.
- the dog is handled when released on a mark.
- these handles are expected and need not be recorded unless something extremely unusual or ugly happens.
- handling on a mark (including the release) does not of it's own accord require failure.
- a no-go is a cast refusal, the severity of which depends on many things. Some barely rate taking note; others merit being dropped.
- on a blind retrieve, a dog that goes in the direction the handler sends him, and continues in that direction to the bird has done a good job.

Kevin


----------



## Paul Stuart (Aug 3, 2003)

Evan said:


> Paul Stuart said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Gutermuth said:
> ...


No need to be a smart-aleck here Evan. Ken only asked a question for everyone`s opinion. That`s all. 
I believe that Bob and I are trying to say that when you ship the dog off from the line, in my mind it is a cast and not a handle. Hamdling happens after the dog has been cast and needs to have it`s line corrected. The question was "How many times has the dog been handled". In my view, nonce.
Look at it this way, every dog knows what a cast is if they retrieve no matter what level they are at, be it Junior, Started or any stake because they left the line to get something. I call this a cast. 
When dog move up to the upper level in testing, they must know how to "handle". Something the Junior-Started dogs don`t need to know how to do. They just need to know how to be cast from the line.
I think Ken is trying to catch us with a play on words here!
Bad Ken!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Paul Stuart said:


> I think Ken is trying to catch us with a play on words here!
> Bad Ken!


Paul,
1927 views, 113 votes, and 4 pages and it takes a short little Frenchman to figure it out! :lol: 8) :lol: 8) The genesis of this poll came for a chat room exchange with Chris and his "all cast refusals are not created equal" theme along with the no-go issue. A seed was planted in mind that because what people, in there own mind call something it will reflect on how they judge something. If a no-go is a very serious thing and a cast refusal is a moderate fault then the act of sending a dog must not be a cast for that to work. But, for the folk who do not happen to play that game (me) the act of sending the dog is a cast. I thought this would be a very one sided poll. Still stunned at the almost 50/50 vote :shock: . But I now, because of reading it all understand why each group feels as they do and as Chris had said, just play by the rules of what ever game you chose, it's all good.
Ken Bora


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

this was as good a read 5 years ago, as it is today.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Ken Bora said:


> I had been taught by my grizzled old mentors that *the initial send on a blind retrieve is the first handle of that task. The exact line achieved by here and heel, getting the dogs back bone in perfect line to the destination is the perfect example of a "Literal Cast".* In reading all of RTF this past few days I am wondering if I am correct. In your opinion, if a dog lines a blind retrieve how many times has it been handled? The answer to this may possibly be the answer to a couple of other threads wouldn't it?
> 
> it has not been handled
> 
> ...


If this is considered a handle then most everyone handles on every FT mark.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

There should be a choice in the poll:

"It doesn't matter."


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Evan said:


> Oh, crap! Now you'll arouse UB's ire! :lol:
> 
> Okay; a handle is a cast. No, a cast is a handle. No, wait........a send is a command, which is a .....I'm gettin' dizzy!
> 
> Evan


Exactly.....


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

Whenever my dog's have lined a blind you hear the " but does that dog handle?" from the judges or gallery to which my reply is sure did, only took one. My opinion is that an initial send is still giving guidance, thus a handle of sorts. If the dog lines the blind it has really honed it's skill set to do it in one send.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

To me, the initial send on a blind is a cast. In my feeble mind, a handle is when you stop the dog to change it's direction, no matter how suttle that change may be, then cast the dog in the new direction.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Steve Hester said:


> To me, the initial send on a blind is a cast. In my feeble mind, a handle is when you stop the dog to change it's direction, no matter how suttle that change may be, then cast the dog in the new direction.


This just about says it for me. Someone mentioned that "handling" began at the truck. That is true too. A "handler" manages every step of the sequence from truck to honor. Managing that process is what handling is. BUT....it appears to me that "A Handle" in a test is a specific action that stops the dog from doing what he is doing, or going where he is going, and making him do or go somewhere else. In other words, sending the dog from the line on a blind is definitely "handling" but not "a handle".

This from someone who is just now realizing how much IS handling, good or bad!


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Anyone who questions a dog's ability to handle if it lines a blind should be sent back to retriever school... and particularly a judge who in all seriousness says s/he didn't see the dog handle. The prompt reply should be to next time set up a blind that challenges the dog so it has to be handled..... JMHO....


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

Steve Hester said:


> To me, the initial send on a blind is a cast. In my feeble mind, a handle is when you stop the dog to change it's direction, no matter how suttle that change may be, then cast the dog in the new direction.


The initial line to me is a cast also. If the dog takes a bad initial line then it is marked as a cast refusal.


----------



## Van Ames (Feb 11, 2005)

Once...............................


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

I Broke The Tie!!!!!


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I think I unbroke it again!


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> If the dog lines the blind, it has not been handled, it has been cast.


Not trying to sound like a smarta**, but isn't a cast a handle? _To me_ a handle is when the dog is cast in a direction. Therefore you are _handling_ the dog from the initial _cast_.


----------



## mike olson (Aug 11, 2009)

I thought handlers handle the whole time and I didnt know they were counting.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Buzz said:


> There should be a choice in the poll:
> 
> *"It doesn't matter."[/*QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Johns comments describe how 99 % of FT judges view blinds...myself included.

Bill


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

This was very entertaining. I thought that now that spring had arrived, everyone would be out doing yard work or training their dogs. This looks much like those dismal winter threads where everyone was so bored and cabin crazy. 

Is it still winter up there Ken?? 

Dawn


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

winter? Heck no, it's mud season!


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

That's worse than winter. Can't ski, can't snowmobile, can't ice fish, hunting season is over. No wonder your posting these crazy threads.

dawn


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken,the rules address this question rather clearly.
When all else fails read the rules

john


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Ken,the rules address this question rather clearly.
> When all else fails read the rules
> 
> john


Do you have your copy of the “unwritten” ones I could use????

.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I didnt read through the other 70+ responses but for those that voted and said that the dog has been handled, then by that reasoning if they put a hand down to send a dog for a mark, it has also been handled and therefore are subject to being dropped...if you really want to get into lawyer like semantics then asking the dog to heel or whistling for a return is handling, so the entire argument is silly and absurd


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> if they put a hand down to send a dog for a mark, it has also been handled and therefore are subject to being dropped


Naaa, I think they'll give you that one Bon.



> so the entire argument is silly and absurd


Pretty much my take on it too. :razz:


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> Do you have your copy of the “unwritten” ones I could use????
> 
> .



I'll just paraphrase them for you.

It is possible but not probable to find the bird on the initial SEND........
so one will probably have to HANDLE..........

A distinction with a difference regards

john


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

a bump for the new kids


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

This topic generates some of the STUPIDEST logic possible!

Semantics aside, the object of running a blind is to direct your dog from point A to point B in the most obedient fashion you can. If the dog takes your first command all the way to the objective, within the acceptable parameters and with no further help, how can you get more perfecter than that??? :roll:

JS


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Let's do the time warp again
it's just a jump to the left 
and a step to the right
put your hands on your hips
you bring your knees in tight........


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

If I remember correctly, in HRC parlance, the dog has been cast from the line (not "handled"). But this option is not present in the OP's poll. 

So, being an HRC boy, it has not been handled. ;-)

My view is that from the line-on-out (in a testing context), a handle is when a whistle is blown; a cast is the direction that the handler wants the dog to move after a whistle (except when initially cast from the line). Or course, when the whistle is not listened to/blown off, a verbal "sit" is a handle (or attempt to handle if the dog still is ignoring the handler - bad Fido). LOL

Note that I'm limiting this to the line-on-out during a test.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Phil, I probably should shut up. But dammit my big mouth is going to get me in trouble... again. 

Anyhoo, I disagree that you are not handling a dog on the line when you are lining him up and casting him on the initial line. That is handling in my book. There are 360 degrees and you are casting him on just one of them. If he's within 5 degrees or better of your desired course you've done a good job of handling him on line.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I handled my dog on every mark in every series of a recent Master test and passed;-) Course I only handled him *to* one bird on marks though.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Howard N said:


> Phil, I probably should shut up. But dammit my big mouth is going to get me in trouble... again.
> 
> Anyhoo, I disagree that you are not handling a dog on the line when you are lining him up and casting him on the initial line. That is handling in my book. There are 360 degrees and you are casting him on just one of them. If he's within 5 degrees or better of your desired course you've done a good job of handling him on line.


Wouldn't necessarily disagree with you Howard "I can't keep my mouth shut GDI!" N....  LOL

What I wanted to originally respond with (and should have) was: Let's define the term "cast" and the term "handle" so all of us can hopefully have a meeting of the minds within/without the context of the poll question.

Yeah, we can "handle" the dog at the line, coming to the line, coming to the holding blinds, etc. etc. I get it. 

For operational sake, I'll define "handle" as: Within a testing context and after the dog is originally released from the line, a "handle" shall be defined as stopping the movement of the dog by whistle or voice command for the purpose of redirecting the dog's movement (either in the same direction or different direction); any stopping of movement is from the time of original release (intentional or unintentional) from the line to the moment the dog brings the bird back to the handler.

For operational sake, I'll define "cast" as: Within a testing context a "cast" shall be defined is the original release from the line, or thereafter when the handler directs the dog to move in a certain direction by whistle, voice command or physical command until the moment the dog brings the bird back to the handler.

Ok, beat me up!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I sincerely hope that I can run against the 51% of people who don't believe the dog has been handled if it lines a blind. Its that kind of mentality that gives me an edge just showing up...

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

If you handle a dog twice and it refuses a cast, is it as good as a dog who was handled 10 times and took every cast correctly?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

> ...... a handle is when a whistle is blown; a cast is the direction that the handler wants the dog to move after a whistle (except when initially cast from the line)..


and if your dog pops, and you get it to move again. what was that Phil, an act of God?
and you do know you typed, the initial cast, is not a cast;-)


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Ken Bora said:


> and if your dog pops, and you get it to move again. what was that Phil, an act of God?
> and you do know you typed, the initial cast, is not a cast;-)


A dog that pops is a dog that pops. ;-) It stops on its own. Oh well. 

As to the initial cast, see what I wrote:
_For operational sake, I'll define "cast" as: Within a testing context a "cast" shall be defined is the original release from the line, or thereafter when the handler directs the dog to move in a certain direction by whistle, voice command or physical command until the moment the dog brings the bird back to the handler.

_​I could shore up that defintion by limiting the original release as one that is directed by the handler in order to remove the break scenario. 

Dang Ken Bora making us all think on a Monday! Damn you Ken Bora!! :mrgreen:


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

PhilBernardi said:


> A dog that pops is a dog that pops. ;-) It stops on its own. Oh well.


yes it does
but you typed a handle only comes after a whistle.
so what do you call all the flailing arm motion that may occor after a pop?


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Ken Bora said:


> yes it does
> but you typed a handle only comes after a whistle.
> so what do you call all the flailing arm motion that may occor after a pop?


_For operational sake, I'll define "handle" as: Within a testing context and after the dog is originally released from the line, a "handle" shall be defined as stopping the movement of the dog by whistle or voice command for the purpose of redirecting the dog's movement (either in the same direction or different direction); any stopping of movement is from the time of original release (intentional or unintentional) from the line to the moment the dog brings the bird back to the handler.

_Ken, I didn't go back to any earlier post in this thread so see where I wrote something along the lines that "...you typed a handle only comes after a whistle", so I'm just sticking to my definitions. In my handle definition, I'm fairly certain I was not conveying the idea that a handle only comes after a whistle. If anything, I was trying to convey the meaning that a stop of the dog's movement on a whistle is a handle (or a stop on verbal command). If the dog refuses to stop, then it's refusing to be handled. If the dog doesn't move in the direction dictated by the handler, then it is refusing a cast.

In other words, a "handle" in the general sense is the stopping of the dog's movement (as directed by the handler). Can a dog stop on its own? We already touched on that: hell yes -popping! But a pop is not a handle.

So, Ken Bora, please define for me the following terms (as you understand them to be): "cast" and "handle".


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

PhilBernardi said:


> .....So, Ken Bora, please define for me the following terms (as you understand them to be): "cast" and "handle".


“There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed
With a word she can get what she came for
Ooh, ooh, and she's buying a stairway to heaven

There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause *you know sometimes words have two meanings*
In a tree by the brook, there's a songbird who sings
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven
Ooh, it makes me wonder
Ooh, it makes me wonder”

Yes Phil, words have two meanings. 
Cast, is it like cement, to set? Like cast iron, to pour into a form? Or like a fishing lure, to toss out? Or someone banished being cast out.
One could say, in our world, cast is movement.
Handle, something to grip? Something to hold onto? A thing you grab to move or place an item? Or your name on the C.B. radio or the RTF?
In the dog world handle and cast can almost seem to be the same. But are not. All casts are handles but not all handles are casts.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Ken Bora said:


> “There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
> And she's buying a stairway to heaven
> When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed
> With a word she can get what she came for
> ...


LOL Ok, glad you defined your terms. LOL :snipersmile:


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I am at a hunt test!!

One a them that people secretly count the handels.. ERRR Wait!! maybe it was the one that get all conviluted about TO or IN the AOF!! I dont member,, I was to concerned about my dress that day!

I have to run a double in my last series.. The first series,, I had a handel..

Remeber these are the marks..

Baily goes out retrieves the go bird no problemm.. Comes back,, but looks confused.. 

I line her up,, drop my hand, say Good,, and send ON BACK!!!!!!! I have always sent Baily on "Back" wether it was Marks or blinds..

Did I Handel??

Member I didnt send in her name...

I sent on Back.



Gooser.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

If a dog truly "lines" a blind it is considered by most to be a perfect job. If you want to call the initial cast off the line a handle I don't care, but by the same token would you call the lining up dance we do to select out a mark, then send the dog on that mark a handle? Many people count whistles on blinds, they might say "I had a three whistle blind" rather than say "I _handled_ three time on my blind, or was it four if you count the initial send?" The OP's original question is really one of semantics, whether you call it zero or one handle, it is the same for all dogs and still a damn good job.

John


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> *you know sometimes words have two meanings*
> QUOTE]
> 
> No Ken they do not, now excuse me I have to pull my dog out of the blind so I can run a blind ;-)


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

poll vote 145-146
like wow man, this is trippie


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

146-146 now


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

*cast*



Bob Gutermuth said:


> If the dog lines the blind, it has not been handled, it has been cast.


Bob is correct ..the dog has not handled it was cast ....May be just be semantics as some will say but as Rush Limbaugh said " words have meaning" ...
Steve S PS: What about the case of a dog running a blind from a remote position ? Is it cast or handled on the first send ...????? I believe it is the same as if the dog was by your side ...an initial cast....


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> I am at a hunt test!!
> 
> One a them that people secretly count the handels.. ERRR Wait!! maybe it was the one that get all conviluted about TO or IN the AOF!! I dont member,, I was to concerned about my dress that day!
> 
> ...


You did not handle by using the back command to send the dog....It was the norm many years ago to release the dog on all retrieves with the back command...Training changed but the word used has no effect in my book.....Steve S


----------

