# judge this......



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

First a disclaimer....my dog didn't do this :razz:

Soooooooo....

Dog picks up a decoy on the way to a blind, handler handles dog to the blind, dog drops decoy at where the bird is planted and picks up bird. Dog returns to handler.

The handling and the dog work is excellent so that isn't the question...it's the picking up of the decoy that is the possible issue.

What's your call?

Does it matter what level SH or MH?


----------



## lizard55033 (Mar 10, 2008)

Is the dog picking up the decoy in its mouth; or just getting snagged on it and dragging it along?


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

If the dog is an experienced hunter, and it was a good faith effort to improve the decoy placement, then no problem. Otherwise, ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Under the AKC Rules for Field Trials, a dog retrieving a decoy "shall be eliminated."


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

I would drop him for leaving my decoy in the middle of the lake.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Retrieving ....is the key word here.He carried it out.To retrieve he would bring it to handler.


----------



## mbcorsini (Sep 25, 2005)

Under the AKC Rules for Field Trials, a dog retrieving a decoy "shall be eliminated."

This also applies to Hunt tests at all levels.

Mary Beth


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

What is the definition of "retrieve"? In my mind the dog did not retrieve the decoy because he didn't bring it back. He moved the decoy.

It is not a behavior I would be crazy about, but I'm not sure if done in this manner is grounds for elimination.


----------



## jmondrage (Dec 3, 2010)

Yeah, I am with Mike. The dog didn't retrieve the decoy at all, only moved it.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

No retrieve, no reason for elimination.


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

jmondrage said:


> Yeah, I am with Mike. The dog didn't retrieve the decoy at all, only moved it.


Isn't the question at the end of the day basically, "Would I want to hunt with this dog?" I wouldn't want to. Not to mention if this was in the water, but just as bad on land. It's hard enough to get birds in the spread without a decoy a hundred yards out. Sorry but in my nonjudge opinion I would fail the dog, and would expect my dogs to fail.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Under the AKC Rules for Field Trials, a dog retrieving a decoy "shall be eliminated."


Yeah, like there would be a decoy at a Field Trial! :razz: (teasing)

I too wonder, if the dog didn't bring the decoy in, did he retrieve it?


----------



## Brent Ray (Feb 2, 2010)

I dont see dropping the dog if this was his ONLY infraction (since he did not "retrieve" the decoy)
HOWEVER!! -- what was the rest of his day like? other issues?? 

Sometimes things kinda pile on ... may have simply been the last straw.

So, in answer to the last part of your question...would it matter SH/MH test.. YES .. Master dogs are judged to a higher standard, so, it is possible that a few points missed here and there would have a greater impact on his score card.
I take it the dog was dropped?

Amanda


----------



## mcpoland (Apr 26, 2009)

Dog is out for SWITCHING! ;-)


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Rick_C said:


> Yeah, like there would be a decoy at a Field Trial! :razz: (teasing)
> 
> I too wonder, if the dog didn't bring the decoy in, did he retrieve it?


I've seen decoys at field trials. At our club there are decoys out all summer long. Not a lot of them, but they are out there.

Does a dog have to "complete" a retrieve to call it a retrieve? The attempt was made.

I remember when my old hunting dog was a puppy. He could bring in the decoys just as fast as I could toss them out. It was nice when I was picking them up, but not so nice when I was trying to get out decoys before sunrise!


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2011)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> Isn't the question at the end of the day basically, "Would I want to hunt with this dog?"


No offense, but it's not. The question at the end of the day is did the dog meet the criteria necessary to pass that particular test. If judges could eliminate dogs on whether they would want to hunt with them or not it could/would get ugly. Dogs are judged by a standard not by a judge's personal preference. 

Interesting scenario since the dog did not complete the retrieve.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Buzz said:


> .....
> 
> Does a dog have to "complete" a retrieve to call it a retrieve? The attempt was made.
> 
> .....


That would be my question, too.

What if the dog had started in with the decoy and the handler stopped him and cast him back and the dog then went back and got the bird.

Still not a retrieve???

JS


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

Maybe he was just trying to help the other dogs that ran after him by marking the blind with a decoy.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Not a judge....but I would flunk the dog.....not ready to run that level , picking up a decoy.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

From what little information I have I would drop him. Just because he didn't deliver the decoy to hand doesn't mean he didn't retrieve it. At what point do you call it a retrieve?


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2011)

Jay Dufour said:


> Not a judge....but I would flunk the dog.....not ready to run that level , picking up a decoy.


Understood, but that's your opinion, right? Where is it in the rules? (Hey you brought up the fact that is wasn't a retrieve. :razz I think there a lot of us who see dogs who we think aren't ready to run a certain level, but it's not supposed to be subjective. 

What if the dog picked up a stick but continued on to the blind and successfully retrieved it? Yes, I understand a decoy is specifically referred to in the rules, but again, the semantics of it all. As I said before, interesting scenario.

OK Linda, what was the call and what did the judges say about it? Now we're curious.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2011)

Handler Error said:


> From what little information I have I would drop him. Just because he didn't deliver the decoy to hand doesn't mean he didn't retrieve it. At what point do you call it a retrieve?


*Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

**: to bring in game <a dog that retrieves well>; also : to bring back an object thrown by a person *

If my dog were to pick up something out in the field and not bring it back to me, I certainly wouldn't call it a retrieve! But that's just me. 

My point is folks, it's not about the performance the judge would prefer to see. It's up to them to follow the rules and judge the dog to the standard. 

Dig deeper into the rulebook to see if there is something there that would give the judges true justification to fail the dog (and not just a "well I would if I were judging"). You very well may find something. Let's hear what you find?


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

i see where it's problematic and switching is probably a good call. but, yeah, it's not a retrieve. if a dog picked up a mark and brought it partially back that isn't a retrieve. not any different with a deke.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Melanie Foster said:


> *Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
> 
> **: to bring in game <a dog that retrieves well>; also : to bring back an object thrown by a person *
> 
> ...


So if the dog carries it 50 yards but just because he fails to deliver it to hand you would not consider it a retrieve? These are hunting dogs plain and simple. You are judging them on a hunting test. Part of hunting is leaving the decoys alone. Period.


----------



## mcpoland (Apr 26, 2009)

precisionlabradors said:


> i see where it's problematic and switching is probably a good call. but, yeah, it's not a retrieve. if a dog picked up a mark and brought it partially back that isn't a retrieve. not any different with a deke.


Switching comment was a joke. Dog did not drop a bird it was intended to retrieve in order to pick up another. Agree that dog did not complete a retrieve of the decoy. AKC rules penalize (drop) dog for retrieving decoy and offer no further enlightenment for carrying or rearranging the decoys. Have seen dogs bump or "nose" decoys on way to mark. Have seen derby dog carry decoy several feet while on way to mark without penalty.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Handler Error said:


> So if the dog carries it 50 yards but just because he fails to deliver it to hand you would not consider it a retrieve? These are hunting dogs plain and simple. You are judging them on a hunting test. Part of hunting is leaving the decoys alone. Period.


I might personally agree with you. However, dogs cannot be judged bt what "you think" they should do. They are judged by the rulebook. Know the book and judge by the book and you stay out of trouble.


----------



## Noah (Apr 6, 2003)

I saw a dog at a finished test pick up a decoy that floated away from the spread, in line to the blind. This dog then picked up the blind and delivered both to hand. he got a standing ovation


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

....but did he pass?


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

Dog picked up decoy and carried on to the blind. It did not turn around and start swimming back to it's handler. Dog took every cast and did excellent work on the blind...

This was in training, dog ran SH today...believe she left the decoys alone  ....the question was asked what does the rule book say? Rule book says dogs who retrieve a decoy are to be dropped.

Moving a decoy while on the way to the blind is not retrieve. 

IMO...as a judge I wouldn't even fault it. Like someone said if a dog picks up a stick on the way to the bird we don't fault or drop it.

It doesn't matter what the judges personal preferences are or what they would like to have in a hunting partner. What matters is what the RULE BOOK says.

Therefore doesn't matter if it is a SH or MH test.

Some of the answers here are surprising.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Kasomor said:


> First a disclaimer....my dog didn't do this :razz:
> 
> Soooooooo....
> 
> ...


I took "picks up a decoy" as picking up a decoy and not moving it.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Jay Dufour said:


> Retrieving ....is the key word here.He carried it out.To retrieve he would bring it to handler.


That is how I see it also.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

So how does the rule book define a retrieve? Is it 1 yard, 10 yards or 100 yards? Or must the delivery be to hand for it to be a fault?


----------



## mcpoland (Apr 26, 2009)

Handler Error said:


> So how does the rule book define a retrieve? Is it 1 yard, 10 yards or 100 yards? Or must the delivery be to hand for it to be a fault?


So you send your dog outfor a 150 yard mark - he runs out, pins it, starts back and drops it at 140 yards and returns to you sans bird. Did he retrieve the bird under any definition or understanding of a "retrieve" in any retriever game?


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

Handler Error said:


> I took "picks up a decoy" as picking up a decoy and not moving it.



You got to read the whole sentance ...not just part of it. 

"Dog picks up a decoy on the way to a blind, handler handles dog to the blind, *dog drops decoy at where the bird is planted and picks up bird*."


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Interesting topic, retrieving to me is "Bringing it back" This dog moved the decoy in my mind. 

It's also interesting that we are debating passing or failing a dog for moving a decoy, but we continue to *pass* and *place* dogs every weekend that have line manner problems and are noisy, dogs I know I would not want to hunt with.


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

Todd Caswell said:


> Interesting topic, retrieving to me is "Bringing it back" This dog moved the decoy in my mind.
> 
> It's also interesting that we are debating passing or failing a dog for moving a decoy, but we continue to *pass* and *place* dogs every weekend that have line manner problems and are noisy, dogs I know I would not want to hunt with.


DING, DING, DING, DING!!!


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Well, we've seen lots of opinions, but other than a brief quote from a "field trial" rulebook, nothing from any hunt test rule book. Even with the quote from the field trial rule book, I'd question whether a retrieve was made. The dog did not bring back the decoy, so according to definition did not retrieve.

There's nothing in the NAHRA rule book that would justify DQing a dog for this. I'm not an AKC or HRC judge, so I'm not commenting on those venues.

It'd be worth a mark in my book, but not a DQ.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> No offense, but it's not. The question at the end of the day is did the dog meet the criteria necessary to pass that particular test. If judges could eliminate dogs on whether they would want to hunt with them or not it could/would get ugly. Dogs are judged by a standard not by a judge's personal preference.
> 
> Interesting scenario since the dog did not complete the retrieve.


Actually don't know about in AKC, but in the NAHRA rulebook/judging guidelines, that questions is the underlaying question when judging upper level dogwork. 


If I was hunting with this dog depending on where he took the decoy, I would send him back after it to bring it back to the spread. Judging the dog in Master level, it had better be near perfect the rest of the day. an intermediate level would be a sig nificant fault but not the end of the day.

view may be biased based on just apprenticed a test yesterday and several young dogs (including mine that ran as test dog) checked out decoys even though they had been exposed to them.

Maybe the dog knew that by having something in his mouth would level him out and let him swim faster ;-)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Handler Error said:


> So if the dog carries it 50 yards but just because he fails to deliver it to hand you would not consider it a retrieve? These are hunting dogs plain and simple. You are judging them on a hunting test. Part of hunting is leaving the decoys alone. Period.


Show that in the rules?

/Paul


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

> So if the dog carries it 50 yards but just because he fails to deliver it to hand you would not consider it a retrieve?



Well, lets subsitute "decoy" for "bird" 



If a dog were to "carry" a bird half way back to the handler and drop it..You fail right??? Why? Because the dog DID NOT COMPLETE THE RETRIEVE


The dog in question didn't even make an attempt to return to the hander(so we are told) So therefor what are the grounds for elimination???

Is it something the handler/trainer should be a little concerned about?? Yeah, Probably...

Would I want to hunt with this dog....Probably not until this issue gets resolved....More then likely it will manifest itself again.....Like when the dog decides grab the head of one of my hand carved cedar birds:razz:

Mark the dog down for trainability....Carry it and move on..it did the work


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

I would like to point out something thats important to both the hunt test game and the field trial game. Not to pick on anyone but the rule book has a clear purpose and intent with every rule. If a dog picks up a decoy we can assume a few things...first is the decoy on or off line and are the decoys in the fall area? If the dog picks up a decoy that is off line and abandons his retrieve of the marked fall we can assume the dog didn't mark the bird, or caved into an element. Decoys are really no different than cover, terrain, ect. If the decoys are on line and short of the fall the same would be true, where it may be different is when the decoy is in the fall area of the marked fall. If the dog puts his mouth on a few decoys in search of the bird fine, but if the dog is half way back to the handler the judge has seen what he needed to see. The dog failed by caving into the element of decoys. Interpreting "retrieve" and so on is an attempt to make the rule convenient and apply to your circumstance. We should be careful of this an be conscious of the intent and purpose of a rule. I often hear people say the rule book is vague, I disagree. It becomes vague if you don't read the intent and purpose.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

My dog blew through the decoys a couple of years back and slammed on the brakes to pick up a rubber blow up decoy mixed in with the hard plastic ones. Obviously the dog was ready for the test,,,being an MH many times over. She thought it was a bumper or a prey object.
Can't fault the dog.
Pete


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> Isn't the question at the end of the day basically, "Would I want to hunt with this dog?"


The point has been raised whether the question _*"Would I want to hunt with this dog?"*_ is valid in the context of judging an AKC Hunt Test. I believe it is a relevant point, based upon the following excerpts from the AKC HT Rules:


CH 3.

*Section 1. Purpose. 
*The purpose of a Hunting Test

for Retrievers is to test the merits of and evaluate the abilities
of Retrievers in the field in order to determine their
suitability and ability as hunting companions.

[The above section is reiterated later in the regs in the first paragraph under *Guidelines for the Hunting Test Regulations*] 

CH 5. Section 4.​
Judges in keeping with simulation of realistic but
relatively simple hunting situations must remember the
use of​​​​*numerous decoys*, islands, points of land, rolling
terrain, cover, ditch lines, wind direction, etc. are important
factors to consider when designing test scenarios to
evaluate Junior dogs as capable hunting companions.

CH 5. Section 6 (item 9).​
Master Hunting dogs must
exhibit those qualities expected in a truly finished and
experienced hunting companion.​
Guidelines for the Hunting Test Regulations.​
CH 3. Section 1 is restated (see above).​
Hunting Tests provide a mechanism for identifying,
through the evaluation of the abilities of Retrievers,
those dogs that possess abilities that set them apart as​accomplished hunting companions.
​
The information provided here is intended as a
guide, not only for Judges, but for all concerned with the
welfare and development of Retrievers as superb hunting​companions.
​
​​​


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Show that in the rules?
> 
> /Paul


*Chapter 4. Standards for Junior, Senior and Master Hunting Tests*​*Section 9. *
Upon finding the game, a dog shall quickly pick it up and return briskly to its handler. A dog retrieving a decoy shall be graded “0” on Trainability.​ 
As to analyzing the intended interpretation of the term _retrieving_, I will point to the section of the rules addressing switching:​

*Section 12. *
In Senior and Master Hunting Tests a dog that goes to the area of a fall, hunts, fails to find, and then leaves the area to hunt for another fall, or that drops a bird it is retrieving and goes for another, shall be considered to have switched. Unless in the opinion of the Judges there exist valid mitigating circumstances, a dog that switches shall be scored “0” in Perseverance in Senior and Master Hunting Tests.

This is a clear example where the term _retrieving_ does not require that the bird is brought all the way back to the handler in order for the bird to have been considered as retrieved.​ 
With respect to blinds, I believe the following paragraph from the Guidelines is relevant:​ 
On blind retrieves, wherever possible, the Judges shall plan their hunting situations taking advantage of hazards, such as islands, decoys, points of land, sandbars, ditches, hedges, small bushes, adjacent heavy cover, and rolling terrain. Despite such natural distractions, it shall be possible for a dog to find a well-planned blind-retrieve on the initial line from its handler; that it will do so is highly improbable because of those natural hazards, so it must be handled to the blind. The hunting situation should be planned so that the dog should be in sight continuously. A blind retrieve is a test of Trainability (control, response). A dog that is out of sight for a considerable period cannot be said to be under control. Utilizing natural hazards provides better opportunity to evaluate the abilities required of a superb Retriever.

Decoys are specifically listed among the many hazards a dog must negotiate in demonstrating *training* and control during a blind retrieve.​ 
As handlers, what are our basic objectives in *training* with respect to appropriate behavior with decoys?​

Those of you who consider it acceptable to grasp and carry a decoy to another location, please tell me that you are not training your dogs to do otherwise.​

Jim​ 
Edit: Sorry about the formatting making this difficult to separate my comments from the AKC excerpts ... I tried to fix, but the editor isn't cooperating.​


----------



## mngundog (Mar 25, 2011)

T-Pines said:


> The point has been raised whether the question _*"Would I want to hunt with this dog?"*_ is valid in the context of judging an AKC Hunt Test. I believe it is a relevant point, based upon the following excerpts from the AKC HT Rules:
> 
> 
> CH 3.
> ...


How do you take the things that you high lighted and apply them in this situation? If you did it in this situation couldn't you use the same material to justify pushing your own agenda on other things you personally dislike but are not in the rules?


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

mngundog said:


> How do you take the things that you high lighted and apply them in this situation? If you did it in this situation couldn't you use the same material to justify pushing your own agenda on other things you personally dislike but are not in the rules?


I am simply applying the AKC's specific and repeated use of the term hunting companion (along with adjectives like suitable, capable, experienced, accomplished, and superb) as relevant to a judge's evaluation of a dog in a Hunt Test. I am further asserting that this terminology serves as a general gudeline that is very close to the guideline of _"Would I want to hunt with this dog?"_

Jim

edited to more completely answer your question:

I take the things I hi-lited in #45 in combination with specific standards and rules in post #46 and try to make reasonable conclusions. 

So, I think judgements need to be supported by specific standards and rules, but those rules and standards of performance ought to be measured in the context of actual hunting considerations.


----------



## Geiss (May 5, 2010)

champ said:


> I often hear people say the rule book is vague, I disagree. It becomes vague if you don't read the intent and purpose.


The problem here, and I think throughout this thread, is that there is no universally accepted determination of what the "Intent" of the rule book is. I've read the AKC and NAHRA books a few times, far from enough to judge (and as complete disclaimer, I have not even run a test yet), but having read through other (many other) "rule books" centered around various activities, I can tell you that the vagueness SHOULD be clarified, especially on many situations. 

What is a retrieve? This theoretically should be simple, but clearly it's not, especially among people here who have far more experience than I. 

Moving vs. Retrieving a decoy? You'd think it's clear, but again, with above, it seems not to be.

It would be nice to see official interpretations / clarifications on some of these issues from the Clubs/Associations releasing the rule books. Makes me wonder why, assuming there are hundreds of similar nuance questions, why such a guidance paper hasnt been produced to help answer some of them and increase the clarity of the intent of the rules.

(Heck, a few years ago, I wouldnt mind a dog bringing in a deke so long as it would bring in the duck we shot too... Of course I have a different opinion of a dog now, but should my previous opinion of a "dog I want to hunt with" be considered when interpreting some of the cited AKC clauses?)


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Kasomor said:


> First a disclaimer....my dog didn't do this :razz:
> 
> Soooooooo....
> 
> ...


Sounds like a pretty immature dog to me. A Senior or Master level dog should be trained well enough and experienced enough to not do this. That being said, as a AKC and NAHRA judge, I don't see significant verbiage in either rule book to drop the dog soley based on this instance. For either level, I would deduct for trainability but not give a zero. 

A couple of questions:

1. Was it a lone decoy right on line to the blind?
2. Was it a lone decoy way off line to the blind?
3. Was it in a group of decoys?
4. Age of dog?
5. Breed of dog?
6. Has dog been trained to pick up decoys (I don't agree with doing this but a guy that I have hunted with does train his dogs to do that when instructed to do so.)?

P.S> Sometimes dogs just do things that leave us scratching our head. They're dogs! Dogs (and handlers) make mistakes and do dumb things sometimes. If the rest of the work was good enough to earn a riboon and this was the only mistep the dog made all day......award them a dang ribbon. If you were the handler/owner and your dog did this, what would you ask for from the judges?


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

zeroed and out of the test.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

labraiser said:


> zeroed and out of the test.


Okay. On what basis?


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

It may have been a hypothetical question, but this exact incident occured this past saturday at an HRC seasoned hunt test I was at... 2 dekes were on the exact line to the blind and about 5 feet from the near bank... one dog picked up one of the dekes enroute and continued to handle and carry the deke till he got to the blind... dropped the deke and picked up the blind... the deke was then tangled on the dog and he dragged it back to the handler while holding the duck. judges gave him a pass...


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

stonybrook said:


> Sounds like a pretty immature dog to me. A Senior or Master level dog should be trained well enough and experienced enough to not do this. That being said, as a AKC and NAHRA judge, I don't see significant verbiage in either rule book to drop the dog soley based on this instance. For either level, I would deduct for trainability but not give a zero.
> 
> A couple of questions:
> 
> ...


Ditto all that... well stated Travis.


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

stonybrook said:


> Okay. On what basis?


IMO, A master should be trained to the point of not picking up decoys. A master dog is a finished retriever period. Everyone has their idea of a finished dog and mine is that the dog should not pick up decoys period. I do judge quite a bit of AKC test and that is how i see it.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

stonybrook said:


> Sounds like a pretty immature dog to me. A Senior or Master level dog should be trained well enough and experienced enough to not do this. That being said, as a AKC and NAHRA judge, I don't see significant verbiage in either rule book to drop the dog soley based on this instance. For either level, I would deduct for trainability but not give a zero.
> 
> A couple of questions:
> 
> ...


C'mon folks, get real.  Nit pick the rules trying to find a way to get away with this??? 

If it were my dog (and it could be ... dogs are dogs), it would a moot point; big, booming, "NO ... HERE".

JS


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

stonybrook said:


> Okay. On what basis?


How about zeroing out on style????

Not a very stylish, pleasing performance, IMO.

JS


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

labraiser said:


> IMO, A master should be trained to the point of not picking up decoys. A master dog is a finished retriever period. Everyone has their idea of a finished dog and mine is that the dog should not pick up decoys period. I do judge quite a bit of AKC test and that is how i see it.


Pretty absolute stance. Don't you think that you'd have to weigh in the rest of the dogs work before taking such a position?

I find it hard to believe that if the dog pinnned all marks, had good line manners and ran the other blind(s) well that a judge would dump a pretty good dog for one stupid thing like this. Since it is not mentioned in any rulebook I own as a major infraction or serious fault, I still feel it'd be tough for me to drop the dog. Now if the dog gave 3 cast refusals before picking up the decoy, there'd be no question the dog would get dumped. but if the dog was on line to the blind, never stopped and just grabbed the decoy enroute to the blind, it was a good enough job to pass in my opinion.


----------



## mngundog (Mar 25, 2011)

stonybrook said:


> A couple of questions:
> 
> 1. Was it a lone decoy right on line to the blind?
> 2. Was it a lone decoy way off line to the blind?
> ...


Are age or Breed relevant in judgeing a dog in a HT? I don't know I am just asking?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I love how we're now trying to stretch the rules to find a reason to drop the dog. Style....oh lord.....

Why is it judges aren't continually looking to pass a dog? That is where the focus should be. If the marks are well placed, the blinds well placed, cover utilized well then judges won't be looking for this ticky tacky crap to drop dogs. If I was the judge in this situation I'd probably be busy trying to figure out if the trainability score on the line should be 7.3456543 or 7.3456542


/Paul


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

mngundog said:


> Are age or Breed relevant in judgeing a dog in a HT? I don't know I am just asking?


No. Not really, but for the sake of this conversation, it might be worthwhile to know (which is why I asked) and to better understand why a dog would do that.

Figured someone would ask that. Good question.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I love how we're now trying to stretch the rules to find a reason to drop the dog. Style....oh lord.....
> 
> Why is it judges aren't continually looking to pass a dog? That is where the focus should be. If the marks are well placed, the blinds well placed, cover utilized well then judges won't be looking for this ticky tacky crap to drop dogs. If I was the judge in this situation I'd probably be busy trying to figure out if the trainability score on the line should be 7.3456543 or 7.3456542
> 
> ...


OK, so I'm being a little sarcastic. But if we're trying to determine the forefathers' _intent_, do you really think they considered it necessary to address the possibility that a well trained retriever would someday be "rearranging" the decoy spread?

I expect they would be a little amused that the issue would even create this much discussion. :razz:

JS


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

I'm curious, in a real hunting scenario which would you hate to see the most? You've just dropped a pair of ducks. You send dog #1 for the bird and he/she barks as you send but quickly retrieves the duck and gets back in the blind. Now you send dog #2 and he swims out and carries a decoy and deposits the decoy in the middle of your pocket or even worse yet, outside your spread. Now you are forced to put your waders on (if you are like me and you take your waders off after you set out the decoys) and walk out in the decoys to move the decoy, possibly flaring birds. I know which dog I would rather have in my blind.
Now in a hunt test, how do you score a dog that barks on the line versus the dog that picks up a decoy and carries it?


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

This is interesting, because while judging an HRC Seasoned test this weekend actually had almost the same scenario occur. Dog sent for blind, 2 decoys slightly off line, dog grabs one but only carriers it about 1 & 1/2 feet before letting go of it. Unfortunately the dog DID get tangled in the decoy string and carried the decoy all the way there (TAKING EVERY CAST & WHISTLE) picked up bird and came all the way back. By the time she got back her back legs were so tangled in the string we had to cut it off her. Most important part - dog was fine, except a little scared. 

I know this is a discussion of the AKC HT rules, but just as information, the HRC rulebook has nothing about retrieving decoys. The dog just must return with the bird at all levels.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

If a dog picks up something--he has retrieved it. There is retrieving and there is delivering to hand.

Retrieving a decoy is elimination. Dropping it to retrieve another object--decoy, stick, duck...what have you...it is a switch--elimination.

I was also curious as to the comment "breed of dog"...what difference does that make? Is it okay to commit a cardinal sin if you are one breed, but not for another?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

My favorite scenario in a situation like this is the seasoned dog who goes out to the blind and No bird is there. Upon not finding the bird, and the handler boxing it several times the dog panics on the way in and picks up a decoy. So what do the judges do in this? hmmm HRC rules state a dog must make a retrieve, but their was no bird to retrieve. The line to the blind was good, they judge that, then have a bird boy throw a bird, to the dog, upon which he drops the decoy and picks up the bird. Which is then delivered to the handler, and the judges thank him for helping to clean up they're decoy spread. The dog finishes several more retrieves through the same decoy spread and does not pick up any decoys. It's decided that picked up the decoy was a fluke and The dog continues on to the next series. Still in my opinion a Grey area I don't fault the dog for picking up the decoy he was sent to retrieve something, and he wasn't coming back without something in his mouth. So we chalk it up to weird things happen in the field sometimes, and question whether we are we here to judge dogs and circumstance or find reasons to fail dogs instead.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

What's wrong with having the handler "sit" the dog & the blind planter coming out and planting a bird, which he will then retrieve. He has been judged to the area of the fall/blind.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> If a dog picks up something--he has retrieved it. There is retrieving and there is delivering to hand.
> 
> Retrieving a decoy is elimination. Dropping it to retrieve another object--decoy, stick, duck...what have you...it is a switch--elimination.
> 
> I was also curious as to the comment "breed of dog"...what difference does that make? Is it okay to commit a cardinal sin if you are one breed, but not for another?


I'm having trouble thinking of a pick up as a retrieve. It's not the way I think of it. 

Here's what google say's retrieve is:


> re·trieve   [ri-treev] Show IPA verb, -trieved, -triev·ing, noun
> verb (used with object)
> 1.
> to recover or regain: to retrieve the stray ball.
> ...


Since it mentions fetch with hunting dogs here's what it says about fetch:


> Fetch
> verb
> go or come after and bring or take back; Get me those books over there, please; Could you bring the wine?; The dog fetched the hat;
> be sold for a certain price; The old print fetched a high price at the auction;
> take away or remove; The devil will fetch you!; fetch; Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0; fetch; fetch; The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing ;


Picking something up isn't retrieving IMO.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

All other things being fine. I carry the dog unless.
Decoys being checked out, or carrying had been a problem in other series.
Things that repeat......


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Kasomor said:


> First a disclaimer....my dog didn't do this :razz:
> 
> Soooooooo....
> 
> ...


The dog is toast.....:sad:........Vickie's comments are correct.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I don't see it as a retrieve nor as a switch by definition. Keep trying folks, show a rule in the book


/Paul


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

Kasomor said:


> Moving a decoy while on the way to the blind is not retrieve.
> 
> *IMO...as a judge I wouldn't even fault it. Like someone said if a dog picks up a stick on the way to the bird we don't fault or drop it.*
> 
> ...


First off, congratulations on your Master passes this W/E, nice job taking on another persons dog and handling it like it were your own! Kudos to Sue for training Timber so well... he's a very fine dog!

As to your question, in Senior I _would_ fault it but not fail it.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I don't see it as a retrieve nor as a switch by definition. Keep trying folks, show a rule in the book
> 
> 
> /Paul


I think the interesting thing to come out of this civil discussion is there are different views as to what a retrieve is and what is acceptable. After reading through the posts and hearing that it does happen, maybe the rules committee should make the rules more clear. It is either acceptable to carry a decoy or it's not.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

I have read every post and I guess I and my co-judge are the only AKC judges this has happened too...This very thing..a dog on the way to a blind through a bunch of decoys grabed one and carried it to the blind, released it an picked up the duck and returned ...After some discussion we decided the dog did not retrieve the decoy...The dog went on to recieve a qualifying score and ribbon...I haven't lost a minutes sleep over this in the 10 years or so since it happened... To add to some comments made , I wouldn't want to hunt with a dog that did this on a regular basis or one that brought back sticks or plastic soda bottles ( as I have heard of happening in a field trial many years ago) ...I believe the writers intention on the use of the word retrieve was to apply it to the bringing toward the handler...the word switch implies the laying down of a bird and picking up another ( or attempting to ) and /or to the dog leaving the area of a fall to go hunt another fall area...Steve S


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I don't see it as a retrieve nor as a switch by definition. Keep trying folks, show a rule in the book
> 
> 
> /Paul


It's not there Paul...I just love it when people try and make up rules, don't you? I had someone this weekend ask me how they would explain something to a field rep and my reply was very simple. "Tell them to show you in the rulebook where it can't be done....It's not there, end of story!


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I would mark the dog down.. like a cr or wr... enough to fail the test?.. nope. not if this went along with an otherwise acceptable test.


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

Dman said:


> It's not there Paul...I just love it when people try and make up rules, don't you? I had someone this weekend ask me how they would explain something to a field rep and my reply was very simple. "Tell them to show you in the rulebook where it can't be done....It's not there, end of story!


It's not in the rulebook that a dog shouldn't go out and destroy the bird boys holding blind either. So I guess you would pass fido for that also?


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> It's not in the rulebook that a dog shouldn't go out and destroy the bird boys holding blind either. So I guess you would pass fido for that also?


Is the BB holding blind in the area of the fall or on the line to the bird?


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> It's not in the rulebook that a dog shouldn't go out and destroy the bird boys holding blind either. So I guess you would pass fido for that also?


Are you a judge? If so how would you justify failing this dog?


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

No I am not a judge. I would fail him on trainability. He should be trained not to pick up the dang decoys. Lets remember these are supposed to be hunting dogs. Hunting dogs assist the hunter. How is carrying my decoys off assisting?


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

That's you're opinion. I don't like the fact the dog did what it did, but as a judge, I have absolutely no grounds for failing that dog. Opinions have little relevance in judging dogs.

Some people like fast, almost out of control dogs, others like slow methodical dogs. You going to penalize one over the other because of you're opinion? That's not being fair if both dogs did the work according to the standard.

As a judge, your are tasked with following and enforcing what is in the rule book...not judging based on your personal opinions.

Edit: I haven't forgotten these are hunting dogs. I've been hunting with dogs for 39 years now. Hard to forget something you've been doing that long.


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> No I am not a judge. I would fail him on trainability. He should be trained not to pick up the dang decoys. Lets remember these are supposed to be hunting dogs. Hunting dogs assist the hunter. How is carrying my decoys off assisting?


Ummm...I know of a number of hunters that get their dogs to pick up their decoys for them.

Not something I personally want my dog to do but how cool would that be if I didn't have to actually set out or pick up my spread??


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> No I am not a judge. I would fail him on trainability. He should be trained not to pick up the dang decoys. Lets remember these are supposed to be hunting dogs. Hunting dogs assist the hunter. How is carrying my decoys off assisting?


I dont think anyone is arguing that this is a desirable thing to do.. the arguement is it serious enough, if this is the only fault in the dogs performance, to fail the dog...


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

Kasomor said:


> Ummm...I know of a number of hunters that get their dogs to pick up their decoys for them.
> 
> Not something I personally want my dog to do but how cool would that be if I didn't have to actually set out or pick up my spread??


But those dogs would be sent for the decoys.


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

Dman said:


> That's you're opinion. I don't like the fact the dog did what it did, but as a judge, I have absolutely no grounds for failing that dog. Opinions have little relevance in judging dogs.
> 
> Some people like fast, almost out of control dogs, others like slow methodical dogs. You going to penalize one over the other because of you're opinion? That's not being fair if both dogs did the work according to the standard.
> 
> ...


If opinions have nothing to do with judging, then we wouldn't need judges. If each dog simply has to do a,b,andc and not do x,y,orz then any idiot off the street could judge. If opinions don't count then why on every Sunday or Monday is someone complaining about judges?


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> If opinions have nothing to do with judging, then we wouldn't need judges. If each dog simply has to do a,b,andc and not do x,y,orz then any idiot off the street could judge. If opinions don't count then why on every Sunday or Monday is someone complaining about judges?


Your statement proves how little you understand about judging dogs.

The majority of whiners and complainers are the ones that don't know or understand the rules. Very simple. Some people just love to complain.

You also basically just called all fair judges idiots?


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

No I didn't call anyone an idiot! Go back to what I said earlier. Dog goes out, grabs the bird boys holding blind and shreds it. This is the only thing he did wrong all day. What do you do? I don't think you can find blind devouring in the rule book. So as I see it, common sense and opinions come into play.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Of the people that responded to this thread saying the dog should be failed, how many are judges and how would you respond to the handler of the dog in question if they asked on what grounds you failed the dog?


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

ducks_n_bucks01 said:


> No I didn't call anyone an idiot! Go back to what I said earlier. Dog goes out, grabs the bird boys holding blind and shreds it. This is the only thing he did wrong all day. What do you do? I don't think you can find blind devouring in the rule book. So as I see it, common sense and opinions come into play.


I'm not talkin about you're made up crap. I'm talking about the the original posters scenario.
Answer a simple question. How would you justify, according to the rule book, failing this dog?


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

And I told you trainability. Seems pretty simple to me. My dog picks up a decoy, I pick up my dog.


Edit: oh ya, and at the time the op was also a made up scenario.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

If you pick up your dog, that's fine. Nothing to judge. If you don't, as a judge I should fail your dog for trainibility?


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

That's what I would expect.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Where you running next?


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

Will be spring before I get to run.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Didn't answer the question. I asked where not when.


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

Not exactly sure where.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

okay what area?


----------



## J.D. Penn (Feb 3, 2010)

Oklahoma, what are ya trying to get at?


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Nothing, Just wondered what area you were in.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

steve schreiner said:


> I have read every post and I guess I and my co-judge are the only AKC judges this has happened too...This very thing..a dog on the way to a blind through a bunch of decoys grabed one and carried it to the blind, released it an picked up the duck and returned ...After some discussion we decided the dog did not retrieve the decoy...The dog went on to recieve a qualifying score and ribbon...I haven't lost a minutes sleep over this in the 10 years or so since it happened... To add to some comments made , I wouldn't want to hunt with a dog that did this on a regular basis or one that brought back sticks or plastic soda bottles ( as I have heard of happening in a field trial many years ago) ...I believe the writers intention on the use of the word retrieve was to apply it to the bringing toward the handler...the word switch implies the laying down of a bird and picking up another ( or attempting to ) and /or to the dog leaving the area of a fall to go hunt another fall area...Steve S


First off, thanks for donating your weekend to judge. 
Isn't there a rule about disturbing too much cover? I know, I know, the rule book is referring about the dog disturbing cover and not the handler who now has to walk 100 yards out in the field to pick up the decoy that is now laying where the blind was. 
If I have to get out of my blind and walk 100 yards to pick up a decoy that fido deposited in the middle of the field, while birds are flying, what the heck do I need to have a dog for? If I have to walk to the blind I might as well pick up the bird myself.
Many hunters use fully flocked decoys or at least flocked heads which are pricey. Last season, another hunter and his dog were walking back to their truck. I had some full body decoys on a dike which they had to walk right by. The other hunter's dog picked up one of my decoys by the flocked head. He didn't chew on it he just picked it up and carried it a few feet until his owner yelled at him and told him to drop it. The dog ended up knocking a bunch of flocking off the head and I was pretty pissed. 
I think if it was a flocked decoy and it belonged to the judge, maybe the judge wouldn't think it's title worthy behavior to pick up a decoy.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Dman said:


> That's you're opinion. I don't like the fact the dog did what it did, but as a judge, I have absolutely no grounds for failing that dog. Opinions have little relevance in judging dogs.
> 
> Some people like fast, almost out of control dogs, others like slow methodical dogs. You going to penalize one over the other because of you're opinion? That's not being fair if both dogs did the work according to the standard.
> 
> ...


I don't run hunt tests and I have no desire to and if you read my posts I'm sure you have came to the conclusion that I also don't judge. Like I said I'm not a judge so I am probably wrong, but isn't there a rule about style in the book? Wouldn't you score the dog that runs with a lot more style higher than the piggy, slow methodical dog?


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

The rules say that a dog retrieving a decoy shall be graded "0" in Trainability. 

There is some disagreement about interpreting _retrieving_ as it is used in this rule.

Does a retrieve begin when the dog is sent and end when the bird is delivered? Then during this time period the dog can be said to be _retrieving_.

Or, for purposes of this rule, is the critical aspect the completion of the retrieve? Then, if the decoy is not deliverd to the line, the rule for "0" in Trainability does not apply.

In the classification of faults section, retrieving a decoy is listed as a Serious Fault. There is nothing about decoys (holding, carrying, moving) in the list of Moderate Faults or in the list of Minor Faults.

So, if the decoy must be deliverd in order to qualify as a Serious Fault, then, according to the rules, a dog would be allowed to pick up and carry a decoy on the way to every bird in the test without any deduction or penalty. Assuming, of course, that upon finding the bird, the dog drops the decoy and picks up the bird, all else being excellent.

How can you deduct for Trainability if you don't score a "0"?


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

Seen a dog pick up a fish on a water blind one time and carry it all the way to the blind and i believe it passed. To me there is no difference in a fish and a decoy.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Handler Error said:


> I don't run hunt tests and I have no desire to and if you read my posts I'm sure you have came to the conclusion that I also don't judge. Like I said I'm not a judge so I am probably wrong, but isn't there a rule about style in the book? Wouldn't you score the dog that runs with a lot more style higher than the piggy, slow methodical dog?


Style is subjective. I have a friend who had a dog that was slow & methodical (wouldn't call it piggish, but there again - subjective). Her "style" did not appeal to me, *BUT*, if i wanted to make sure all my birds were retrieved, she is the 1st dog I would grab for the job.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Steve Peacock said:


> Style is subjective. I have a friend who had a dog that was slow & methodical (wouldn't call it piggish, but there again - subjective). Her "style" did not appeal to me, *BUT*, if i wanted to make sure all my birds were retrieved, she is the 1st dog I would grab for the job.


 If you had two dogs that could pick up all the chickens you would pick the slow dog over a faster dog? Well while the slow dog is out slowly and methodically picking up birds, the fast dog will be back in the blind hunting.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

well, i'm certainly glad most of the people on here trying various non-applicable snippets out of the rulebook don't judge. do us all a favor and don't become judges.

i think /Paul had the best line in this entire thread when he questioned why so many judges are looking to fail dogs. good, appropriate tests will select the dogs that deserve to pass. they are sooo easy to judge that it is a pleasure to cook in the sun, swatting skeeters, etc. because the really good dogs LOOK GOOD completing the test. and i love to watch good dog work.

there is NOTHING in any of the rulebooks (AKC, NAHRA or HRC) that would support dropping the dog based on the scenario the OP gave us.-Paul


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I was also curious as to the comment "breed of dog"...what difference does that make? Is it okay to commit a cardinal sin if you are one breed, but not for another?


I was just curious, so I posed the question......which by the way, was never answered......actually, to think about, none of my questions were answered.

I wouldn't judge it differently for one breed v. another, I was just curious.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

paul young said:


> well, i'm certainly glad most of the people on here trying various non-applicable snippets out of the rulebook don't judge. do us all a favor and don't become judges.
> 
> i think /Paul had the best line in this entire thread when he questioned why so many judges are looking to fail dogs. good, appropriate tests will select the dogs that deserve to pass. they are sooo easy to judge that it is a pleasure to cook in the sun, swatting skeeters, etc. because the really good dogs LOOK GOOD completing the test. and i love to watch good dog work.
> 
> *there is NOTHING in any of the rulebooks (AKC, NAHRA or HRC) that would support dropping the dog based on the scenario the OP gave us*.-Paul


 
This is all that matters folks. So easy to judge from the internet.


----------



## Kent W (Jun 22, 2009)

Or at the VERY LEAST a low score (could be a zero) in trainability. Yes, didnt retrieve. But that he picked it up at all is the issue here in my opinion.


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Some folks have made negative comments and would not want to hunt with a dog that picks up and/or relocates a decoy(s) on the way to a downed bird. Mark or Blind...who cares? We use big, tight spreads of decoys at both of our duck blind locations. I can't begin to tell you how many times a dog, on the way to a retrieve, gets hung up on a decoy cord, continues on and picks up the dead duck and then returns to the blind with it dragging maybe 5 or 6 decoys behind him. That's just duck hunting folks, it happens. I'm not gonna fault the dog while hunting, so I'm sure not gonna fault the dog if I'm judging. As the OP stated, the dog simply relocated a decoy by mouthing it, but the handler handled the dog onto the dead bird blind. The dog then dropped the decoy and picked up the dead bird and delivered it back to the handler (AKA retrieved). Actually, I give big kuddo's to the handler for holding it together and handling his dog, w/decoy in mouth  on to the blind. The handler and his dog did their thing, maybe not as you or I would want, but they got the job done. Now, leave it to the judges to ponder the action they're gonna take. If I'm judging, the dog continues on to the next series.

Side note: This very thing happened to a junior dog I was handling at a hunt test 20+ years ago . One of the judges, a close friend and training partner of mine "FAILED" us because my 7 mo. old pup picked up and simply relocated a decoy that was online to the mark, BUT...the pup continued on to the mark, dropped the decoy and picked up the mark and delivered it to hand (AKA retrieved, sorry Vickie). Me and my friend (judge) traveled to that hunt test together and we argued about "picking up" VS "retrieving" all the way home from Idaho to Montana. Steve M, if you're on this site...you're still a bum and you're still off my Christmas card list .


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

stonybrook said:


> I was just curious, so I posed the question......which by the way, was never answered......actually, to think about, none of my questions were answered.
> 
> I wouldn't judge it differently for one breed v. another, I was just curious.


I missed your original post when you asked what breed the dog was but what a ignorant and pathetic question that is. 

I hope you are not a judge now or ever.

I have completely had it with being judged before I even step up to the line simply because of the breed I own. :-x:-x:-x


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Kasomor said:


> I missed your original post when you asked what breed the dog was but what a ignorant and pathetic question that is.
> 
> I hope you are not a judge now or ever.
> 
> I have completely had it with being judged before I even step up to the line simply because of the breed I own. :-x:-x:-x


Well I'm quite sure if you knew me, you would seriously rethink your opinion of me. Sorry I struck such an obviously sensitive cord. I am a judge and I think that most would agree a pretty good one.

Hope you didn't break your ankle jumping to that conclusion regards -


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

The title of the thread is "Judge this....."

By your questioning what breed it was, that tells me and everyone reading this, that one of the questions you ask yourself when judging is what breed is the dog that is running. 

Don't care how good of a judge you think you are that is pathetic.
:barf::barf:


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Sorry to have offended you, Linda. This has been an educational thread and I'm glad that you brought it up. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of me and I wish you the best.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

paul young said:


> well, i'm certainly glad most of the people on here trying various non-applicable snippets out of the rulebook don't judge. do us all a favor and don't become judges.
> 
> i think /Paul had the best line in this entire thread when he questioned why so many judges are looking to fail dogs. good, appropriate tests will select the dogs that deserve to pass. they are sooo easy to judge that it is a pleasure to cook in the sun, swatting skeeters, etc. because the really good dogs LOOK GOOD completing the test. and i love to watch good dog work.
> 
> there is NOTHING in any of the rulebooks (AKC, NAHRA or HRC) that would support dropping the dog based on the scenario the OP gave us.-Paul


Well said sir!


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Geiss said:


> The problem here, and I think throughout this thread, is that there is no universally accepted determination of what the "Intent" of the rule book is. I've read the AKC and NAHRA books a few times, far from enough to judge (and as complete disclaimer, I have not even run a test yet), but having read through other (many other) "rule books" centered around various activities, I can tell you that the vagueness SHOULD be clarified, especially on many situations.
> 
> What is a retrieve? This theoretically should be simple, but clearly it's not, especially among people here who have far more experience than I.
> 
> ...


When you have been in the game for a few years, learn the nature of dogs and how to train them you will have a firm understaning of the intent of each rule. The book will only make sense to someone that understands dogs and the qualities were are rewarding. The objective of each game varies, so having a firm understanding will make everything make sense! Good luck and welcome!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

stonybrook said:


> Well I'm quite sure if you knew me, you would seriously rethink your opinion of me. Sorry I struck such an obviously sensitive cord. I am a judge and I think that most would agree a pretty good one.
> 
> Hope you didn't break your ankle jumping to that conclusion regards -



I'll back Travis up on this one, he's a fine judge, never heard a bad thing about his judging, I could be totally wrong but my first though when he asked the question on the breed was. Some dogs mature differently and some breeds have little quirks that others don't, I'm pretty sure he wasn't zeroing in on the little red dogs......


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

JS said:


> How about zeroing out on style????
> 
> Not a very stylish, pleasing performance, IMO.
> 
> JS


Who's to say a dog can't swim out and handle stylishly on a blind retrieve holding a decoy in his mouth. To do that, drop the decoy pick up the real bird and swim directly back could be a very stylish performance. 

Someone else wanted to score the dog down on trainability, how is that an issue? The dog took every cast to remain on line to the bird, picked up the bird and retrieved it to hand. Now if the decoys were far enough off line for the handler to be able to cast his dog away from individual decoys while remaining on line to the bird, or if he told the judge that he has trained his dog to pick up decoys at the end of the day, and would like to handle him off-line around the decoys, and the dog refused cast to pick up a decoy in spite of his handler, that would be a trainability issue.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> I'll back Travis up on this one, he's a fine judge, never heard a bad thing about his judging, I could be totally wrong but my first though when he asked the question on the breed was. Some dogs mature differently and some breeds have little quirks that others don't, I'm pretty sure he wasn't zeroing in on the little red dogs......


I only know Travis from reading these threads, and I run minority breed dogs, I certainly didn't get any hint of prejudice in his post. I don't think he was presuming Golden's, Toller's or Poodles are any more likely to pick up a decoy than a Lab, I just thought he was posting a list to consider what was going on here, not looking for a way to judge dogs differently. From a judging standpoint all of that is irrelevant, the rules are the same regardless of breed, age or anything else.

John


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Kasomor said:


> ..
> 
> Dog picks up a decoy on the way to a blind, handler handles dog to the blind, dog drops decoy at where the bird is planted and picks up bird. Dog returns to handler.
> 
> ...




I have tried to read this thread over the past few days, and I think this question was posed once, but I can not find if it was answered.

Where was the decoy placed, in relation to the direct line to the blind? Was it in (or just off) line, or was it way off line, etc.

I think location of the decoy in relation to the actual bird will determine acceptable, or unacceptable for me. If the decoy was placed way offline of the decoy, I would most likely fail the dog/handler team, because the handler never should have let the dog get all the way to the decoy before handling to the blind. 

Just my two cents....


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

I guess to add just one more:

At least the handler got some good training in, during this training session. Got to practice swim-by by allowing the dog to pick up the decoy, and then handling them with decoy still in mouth, and also got to teach shopping, by allowing the dog to drop the decoy and pick up a real bird. 

Some good, Some bad.......LOL


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2011)

Handler Error said:


> I don't run hunt tests and I have no desire to and if you read my posts I'm sure you have came to the conclusion that I also don't judge.


OK, eh em, I'll say this is the kindest way I can...considering the information you personally have provided... *WTF are you doing commenting on a hunt test judging thread?*


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> OK, eh em, I'll say this is the kindest way I can...considering the information you personally have provided... *WTF are you doing commenting on a hunt test judging thread?*


Where's the like button? ....Nicely said Melanie


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Melanie Foster said:


> OK, eh em, I'll say this is the kindest way I can...considering the information you personally have provided... *WTF are you doing commenting on a hunt test judging thread?*


Glad you were being as kind as possible, otherwise you might have hurt his feelings.;-)

John


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

BMay said:


> Some folks have made negative comments and would not want to hunt with a dog that picks up and/or relocates a decoy(s) on the way to a downed bird. Mark or Blind...who cares? We use big, tight spreads of decoys at both of our duck blind locations. I can't begin to tell you how many times a dog, on the way to a retrieve, gets hung up on a decoy cord, continues on and picks up the dead duck and then returns to the blind with it dragging maybe 5 or 6 decoys behind him. That's just duck hunting folks, it happens. I'm not gonna fault the dog while hunting, so I'm sure not gonna fault the dog if I'm judging. As the OP stated, the dog simply relocated a decoy by mouthing it, but the handler handled the dog onto the dead bird blind. The dog then dropped the decoy and picked up the dead bird and delivered it back to the handler (AKA retrieved). Actually, I give big kuddo's to the handler for holding it together and handling his dog, w/decoy in mouth  on to the blind. The handler and his dog did their thing, maybe not as you or I would want, but they got the job done. Now, leave it to the judges to ponder the action they're gonna take. If I'm judging, the dog continues on to the next series.
> 
> Side note: This very thing happened to a junior dog I was handling at a hunt test 20+ years ago . One of the judges, a close friend and training partner of mine "FAILED" us because my 7 mo. old pup picked up and simply relocated a decoy that was online to the mark, BUT...the pup continued on to the mark, dropped the decoy and picked up the mark and delivered it to hand (AKA retrieved, sorry Vickie). Me and my friend (judge) traveled to that hunt test together and we argued about "picking up" VS "retrieving" all the way home from Idaho to Montana. Steve M, if you're on this site...you're still a bum and you're still off my Christmas card list .


I think there is a difference between a dog that accidentally drags a decoy and one that intentionally picks one up with his mouth.


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Handler Error said:


> I think there is a difference between a dog that accidentally drags a decoy and one that intentionally picks one up with his mouth.


We're on the "judge this" thread and we're talking about retrieving the bird the dog was sent after...you're talking about something completely different, as in your follow up post to SteveS and your hypothetical dog (in the field) picking up and damaging one of your flocked decoys. Yep, that's different alright, but that's another ball game and a 100 yard walk each way. Ya might want to re-read Melanie's last post.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> Glad you were being as kind as possible, otherwise you might have hurt his feelings.;-)
> 
> John


A lesser man would've been hurt.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2011)

Handler Error said:


> A lesser man would've been hurt.


I'm glad to hear your feelings weren't hurt because that was not my intention. I do not want to hurt anyone. My only goal is to make the world right.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

I have hunted a lifetime, I train my own dogs, volunteered weekends at hunt tests, handle my own dogs in field trials, and have been asked to judge. Do I have to actually judge a hunt test before I have an opinion on whether a dog should receive a title or pass for picking up a decoy? I thought the title of this thread was "Judge This" not "Only Judges Opinions Wanted".


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Handler Error said:


> I have hunted a lifetime, I train my own dogs, volunteered weekends at hunt tests, handle my own dogs in field trials, and have been asked to judge. Do I have to actually judge a hunt test before I have an opinion on whether a dog should receive a title or pass for picking up a decoy? I thought the title of this thread was "Judge This" not "Only Judges Opinions Wanted".


Do you know the rulebook(s)? Everyone has opinions but we are talking about the rules. Part of the problem with opinions here is they have nothing to do with what the intent is of the rules.


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

FinnLandR said:


> :twisted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I recall the decoy was only a yard or so off line in the middle of the blind. The dog was not off line enough to matter.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

No rule book is explicit for every situation encountered. That's why judges are called.....dare I say it...JUDGES! They judge, which in of by itself means opinions are rendered regarding dogs' performances.

The rule book does say that a dog shall be eliminated (FTs) or scored ZERO for trainability (HTs) for retrieving a decoy. The rule book does not define "retrieve". That is where the opinion of the judges comes into play.

If the dog picks up something (retrieves--sorry Howard I do disagree with you that it is a retrieve--just not delivery to hand) that he is not sent for--be it a decoy or a stick he has retrieved something. He has made a retrieve. This is a competition, not a hunting outing. Competition dog vs. dog in FTs; dog vs. standard in HTs. 

Judges are tasked with evaluating performance using the rules stated in the books governing the activity and also applying judgment in their interpretation of such rules. Judges are not supposed to guess about the motivations that were the catalyst for a dog's behavior--unless it was due to some type of interference causing an unfairness to the dog. They should draw or note the performance based upon what they see the dog do--not try to analyze what made the dog exhibit some type of non-expected behavior. 

There are many things that could make a dog want to carry something in its mouth on the way to a bird--too much pressure; immaturity; panic...the list is long if you begin to overthink it. But...it is not a judge's perrogative to guess at motivations--merely judge actual performance.

I don't run HTs and probably never will. But, I do judge FTs and have for nearly 30 years. I don't think that a dog picking up a decoy in competition is a desireable action and I think both FT & HT rule books have enough about picking up (retrieving) decoys to eliminate a dog that does so.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> Do you know the rulebook(s)? Everyone has opinions but we are talking about the rules. Part of the problem with opinions here is they have nothing to do with what the intent is of the rules.


I do know that you cannot retrieve a decoy. Now my idea of what a retrieve is differs from others. Since there seems to be some confusion on the issue, why not clear it up and write in the AKC rulebook exactly what is a retrieve? 

Melanie Foster quoted to me the dictionary definition of a retrieve. So here is the dictionary definition of Master "a skilled practitioner of a particular art or activity". Does the image below represent a a skilled practitioner of a particular art or activity? Does the image below represent a Master Hunter or even a Senior Hunter?


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Jay Dufour said:


> Retrieving ....is the key word here.He carried it out.To retrieve he would bring it to handler.


I agree Jay, let the dog make it!


----------



## Kent W (Jun 22, 2009)

Maybe not.


But a good hold.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Handler Error said:


> I do know that you cannot retrieve a decoy. Now my idea of what a retrieve is differs from others. Since there seems to be some confusion on the issue, why not clear it up and write in the AKC rulebook exactly what is a retrieve?
> 
> Melanie Foster quoted to me the dictionary definition of a retrieve. So here is the dictionary definition of Master "a skilled practitioner of a particular art or activity". Does the image below represent a a skilled practitioner of a particular art or activity? Does the image below represent a Master Hunter or even a Senior Hunter?


Looks like he's pretty skilled at holding a decoy... a Master dog the was skillfully force fetched?


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

In order to be a good judge, you must use good judgment.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I've seen FC/AFC's in training that were so excited to get the bird that they flew in and grabbed a decoy thinking it was a bird. Clearly they need more training and should be failed.

/Paul


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Vicki Worthington said:


> ..snip
> 
> *If the dog picks up something (retrieves--sorry Howard I do disagree with you that it is a retrieve--just not delivery to hand) that he is not sent for--be it a decoy or a stick he has retrieved something.* He has made a retrieve.
> 
> snip.....


I understand the opinion or best judgement involved in _*judging....*_ but not redefining a word..... you may disagree with Howard, but you are also disagreeing with a definition!


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Mike Tome said:


> I understand the opinion or best judgement involved in _*judging....*_ but not redefining a word..... you may disagree with Howard, but you are also disagreeing with a definition!


OK. I now would like to add some more to this. In my search of the AKC Hunt Test rules, I was trying to find a definition of retrieve (obviously not there). BUt in my search, I did find the following:

Under Judges Responsibilities (on Page 34): 


(4) Every bird retrieved, and delivered to the handler,
shall be inspected by one of the Judges. Failure to inspect
retrieved birds must be catalogued as carelessness, and
as an undesirable practice. It is unfair to the dog whose
abilities are being evaluated—not only in respect to the
question of “hard-mouth,” but more particularly, since it
may furnish the explanation for a slow pick-up or some
other oddity in the dog’s pick-up. Any unusual condition of
a bird shall be brought to the attention of the Judges.


Why would the AKC feel they need to add ("and delivered to the handler") after stating "Every bird retrieved", if a retrieve, per the definition, means that the dog returns to handler?

This above statement, to me, means that Vicki is correct in her assessment and that the retrieve occurred when the dog picked it up, and contrary to the definition.

Without having read that, I would agree that since the dog picked it up and it was close to the actual line, no harm, no foul, but after seeing that the AKC felt the need to add, and delivered to the handler, it means they consider a retrieve to be once picked up from ground.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Zman1001 said:


> OK. I now would like to add some more to this. In my search of the AKC Hunt Test rules, I was trying to find a definition of retrieve (obviously not there). BUt in my search, I did find the following:
> 
> Under Judges Responsibilities (on Page 34):
> 
> ...


Ahh, but I interpret what you just posted differently, and that seems to be the sticking point of this discussion. Though it seems the major sees a retrieve as going forth, picking up and *bringing back*. Now I am not an AKC HT judge, but that is how I see a retrieve and that is how I judge it in HRC (where I am a judge). That's me, not saying Vicki is wrong, just that *I* am not of the same opinion of what constitutes a retrieve.

That is the thing about judging, not everything is or can be black & white. I had a handler this past weekend tell me several times "That's why I just run the dogs. I would not want your job, it is too hard." I had another handler tell me that "the judges that can only see in black & white are usually the judges that people do not want to run under". Judging is not easy, you have to know the letter of the rule but also have to understand the intent of the rule. then come to a judgment based upon both.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Common sense would/should tell us that _to retrieve_ means; to go and get something and bring it back.....not go and pick something up and carry it off, right? What am I missing here in the defintion of retrieve?

I think that with all of this, we're all probably looking at more the same than different in that the dog shouldn't have done it, should have known better and that we'd definitely prefer it not do it. Where the judgment comes in is what led up to the decoy being picked up. My guess is that if we had video of the event, it'd be a whole lot easier to "judge". Everyone probably has their own idea in their head of how it went down and the truth is......we could all be right.

I guess the answer to the OP, like many questions posed on this forum, is:

IT DEPENDS!

I'll take "15 Pages of What is a Retrieve?" for $500, Alex regards -


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Mike Tome said:


> Looks like he's pretty skilled at holding a decoy... a Master dog the was skillfully force fetched?


A QAA dog that never had a decoy in her mouth before this morning. Now I'll have to fix this habit.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

"Whats the fundamental purpose of the rule?" How does this rule play into evaluating dog work? Folks your missing the point if your arguing the definition of retrieve. What did you as a judge learn of the dog that attempted to retrieve a decoy? This is the reason we run into intrepretation issues, we loose the meaning of the rule and interject our own personal objective! The real question here is why is this rule in our rule books?


----------



## Pudelpointer (Jul 27, 2010)

I no longer run retriever trials, nor have I ever run a retriever hunt test, but I can't see how a dog could pass after picking up a decoy on the way to a blind. Because he did not bring back the decoy means nothing, what he if he had picked up a dead bird on the way to the blind and then put the dead bird down and returned with the intended bird? Is this good dog work? In my mind, if a dog goes out and feels strongly enough about picking something up they should then turn and "retrieve" that object to the handler without putting it down.....period.

Two cents from a guy who now runs Versatile Pointing Dogs!


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

I think Vickie is correct in her thoughts of picking up a decoy in FIELD TRIALS...a competitive event. The OP of this thread said "Senior or Master" so we were asked to "Judge This" as to HUNT TESTS. AS stated earlier, I judged it only as a minor fault (in that series) and the dog is carried onto the next series. The next series, well who knows? That minor fault could very well become a major fault IF........


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I would have no trouble dropping a dog for picking up a decoy and carrying it somewhere else.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

greg magee said:


> I would have no trouble dropping a dog for picking up a decoy and carrying it somewhere else.


Ya but being a cat lover we would expect that from you.......

/Paul


----------

