# Judging derby marks



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

You are a judge and setting up a water series but due to limited options one bird is quite cheaty. Dog A stays wet all the way while Dog B runs most of the bank and then gets wet. Both dogs go straight to the bird. How would you score it?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

How could they both go straight if they took different lines? Unless you mean one curved in on the bank and one out in the water... Maybe a drawing of what you mean?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

The line or path taken to the bird do not matter. What matters is if the dogs had a "mark" or not. If both dogs got to the area of the fall and immediately came up with the bird then they did an equal job. You would need to look at their other work to place one above the other.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Breck said:


> The line or path taken to the bird do not matter. What matters is if the dogs had a "mark" or not. If both dogs got to the area of the fall and immediately came up with the bird then they did an equal job. You would need to look at their other work to place one above the other.


x2...........


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

kjrice said:


> You are a judge and setting up a water series but due to limited options one bird is quite cheaty. Dog A stays wet all the way while Dog B runs most of the bank and then gets wet. Both dogs go straight to the bird. How would you score it?


Based on what you are telling me, they are equivalent.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Breck, Wade, and Ted. How many derby judges will judge like that though?

Seems like staying wet wins.


----------



## wayne anderson (Oct 16, 2007)

I would hope they would not give "more water" the benefit--after all, this is the derby--natural marking vs. trained attributes.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Breck, Wade, and Ted. How many derby judges will judge like that though?
> 
> .



Not many. I think most derby judges judge lines.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Breck, Wade, and Ted. How many derby judges will judge like that though?
> 
> Seems like staying wet wins.


If you go buy the rule book, I do not see how a judge should differentiate between the scoring of the marks. It cleary states that we are judging marking and not training.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

kjrice said:


> If you go buy the rule book, I do not see how a judge can differentiate between the scoring of the marks. It cleary states that we are judging marking and not training.



I think Howard is simply expressing what happens in the real world. And unfortunately, I agree with his assessment.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I think Howard is simply expressing what happens in the real world. And unfortunately, I agree with his assessment.


I know....


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Wayne or others...So if each line was the side of a football,with each end being the line and the bird ,with 1 being more on the land side and the other side took more water,the dog that stayed in the water would score lower?

For discussion reasons lets say they both "marked "equal and that was the only deciding factor?

I'm still very new in comparison to most,but how could the judge score an assumption that the dog that stayed in the water wasn't naturally more of a watery dog?


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Shawn White said:


> Wayne or others...So if each line was the side of a football ,with 1 being more on the land side and the other side took more water,the dog that stayed in the water would score lower?
> 
> For discussion reasons lets say they both "marked "equal and that was the only deciding factor?
> 
> I'm still very new in comparison to most,but how could the judge score an assumption that the dog that stayed in the water wasn't naturally more of a watery dog?


The rule book doesn't not say we are scoring which dog is more "watery."


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

I agree with Ted and Howard.
I watched a series that wasn't a derby but the line to the long retired bird caught about 10 feet of a cove, dog a went fat in the water and curved back in and front footed the bird while dog B got his feet barely wet and front footed the mark. Both were off line, both showed excellent marking, but the one that got too much water won. Most onlookers agreed that the one that went fat in the water was better, but he was further off the perfect line than the other dog and both showed they marked the bird perfectly.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

kjrice said:


> The rule book doesn't not say we are scoring which dog is more "watery."


Does it say we are scoring which dog is more "cheaty"? I was just curious if that was the only thing to seperate the 2, why would the dog that stayed in the water not get the benefit. If this the line is the only factor ,or why would the dog on land get the benefit?


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Shawn White said:


> Does it say we are scoring which dog is more "cheaty"? I was just curious if that was the only thing to seperate the 2, why would the dog that stayed in the water not get the benefit. If this the line is the only factor ,or why would the dog on land get the benefit?


That is why there is more than one series


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

It's nice if you can set up a mark that makes the cheating dog get lost. Most places don't allow you to do that though.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shawn White said:


> Does it say we are scoring which dog is more "cheaty"? I was just curious if that was the only thing to seperate the 2, why would the dog that stayed in the water not get the benefit. If this the line is the only factor ,or why would the dog on land get the benefit?


We are judging the quality of a dog's marking, not its training. Both dogs had excellent marks. No reason to prefer one over another on the basis of that mark. You will need to look elsewhere for separation


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> We are judging the quality of a dog's marking, not its training. Both dogs had excellent marks. No reason to prefer one over another on the basis of that mark. You will need to look elsewhere for separation


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> We are judging the quality of a dog's marking, not its training. Both dogs had excellent marks. No reason to prefer one over another on the basis of that mark. You will need to look elsewhere for separation


So if you are looking at your judges sheets after the test, to decide placements, what distinctions will they show? You've got 2 dogs that both marked the fall, but on your notes you got one going on an indirect line, No? So the higher placement goes to the dog with the straighter line. How else can you tell the difference between two good dogs?


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Can you judges take a look at the 3rd photo of Derby water in the thread I just bumped titled "Going to watch a field trial".

The photos are in the very last post by me. Look at the left water mark in relation to the handler standing outside the holding blind by herself. If the dog cheated that mark to the left, would you mark it down compared to a dog who took the water?

Edit: sorry I'm too incompetent to paste the photos here


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

mitty said:


> So if you are looking at your judges sheets after the test, to decide placements, what distinctions will they show? You've got 2 dogs that both marked the fall, but on your notes you got one going on an indirect line, No? So the higher placement goes to the dog with the straighter line. How else can you tell the difference between two good dogs?



I don't judge the line. I don't judge whether the dog took water or ran around it. I judge the quality of the mark. 

Both dogs went to the bird without interruption. Neither dog hunted on the way to the bird. The dogs had equivalent marks. 

You tell the difference between a field of good dogs by setting up marks that are tough, so that by the end of the day, you have separation - and a winner, and three placements


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

One reason to run Derby under 8 pointed judges or judges who have judged a National. Even then lines will inevitably come into play. All to often newbee judges are assigned to Derby in their first assignments where the amateur is a better place to start. Many feel Derby is the hardest to judge. While it's supposed to be about marking we all know training has become a major factor.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Can you judges take a look at the 3rd photo of Derby water in the thread I just bumped titled "Going to watch a field trial".
> 
> The photos are in the very last post by me. Look at the left water mark in relation to the handler standing outside the holding blind by herself. If the dog cheated that mark to the left, would you mark it down compared to a dog who took the water?
> 
> Edit: sorry I'm too incompetent to paste the photos here



I don't think that a photo would change my opinion. I repeat. I do not judge the line. I do not judge whether a dog took water or ran around it. I am looking at the quality of the mark - about which you have told me nothing. That is the point of this discussion - don't evaluate the line. Evaluate the quality of the mark


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I have judged and run many,many, derbies over the years. Derbies are the least understood by many judges. The quality and experience of judges plays a part. Sometimes you will get judges that are major stake judges, looking for trained responses. Other times you may get judges that have the minimal combined points to judge. Other times you may be rushed to get it done as the minor stake judges are also judging the qualifying. Many judges haven't run a derby in years. Some may be their first assignment, judging with a pointed judge, after an apprenticeship.

As far as judging the marks it's kinda like not so many years ago a behind the guns , then pick the mark up was the
Kiss of death, even though the dog ringed the guns and put it's head on the mark. From a personal standpoint I pinned all the marks three series, then pinned one water mark, dog ran down the bank on the second mark pinned that one and got a JAM. The winner of the trial was so upset she went to the judges asked why go from a obvious placement to a JAM and was told my dog cheated the last bird. Even though a derby she still brings it up after all these years. Marking is primary sometimes that is forgotten.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Can you judges take a look at the 3rd photo of Derby water in the thread I just bumped titled "Going to watch a field trial".
> 
> The photos are in the very last post by me. Look at the left water mark in relation to the handler standing outside the holding blind by herself. If the dog cheated that mark to the left, would you mark it down compared to a dog who took the water?
> 
> Edit: sorry I'm too incompetent to paste the photos here



Jenn Hope this works for you. I would like the dog to take some of the water, but it is marking in a Derby. I ran test dog in a derby and the very last series was a difficult water mark. It was one where the dog went on a hunt before finding the mark in the water. ML


----------



## wayne anderson (Oct 16, 2007)

Excellent article in current Retrievers Online publication, published by Dennis Voight, discussion by Dennis and Judy Rasmusson on judging derby stakes.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

If you have a nice Derby dog and see a contest with Ted and Earl judging, you would want to go out of your way to run it.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Thanks ML for posting the photo.

And thanks to kjrice for the thread. It was exactly the topic on my mind.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Thanks ML for posting the photo.
> 
> And thanks to kjrice for the thread. It was exactly the topic on my mind.


Good luck this weekend.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Shawn White said:


> Does it say we are scoring which dog is more "cheaty"? I was just curious if that was the only thing to seperate the 2, why would the dog that stayed in the water not get the benefit. If this the line is the only factor ,or why would the dog on land get the benefit?


Do your best to try and not set up "cheaty" tests in the Derby. As has been stated, if your dog stays wet and my dog stays dry but neither have hunted the bird what have you gained? Don't judge the line, judge the mark. As was also stated, find separation elsewhere.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> As far as judging the marks it's kinda like not so many years ago a behind the guns , then pick the mark up was the
> Kiss of death, even though the dog ringed the guns and put it's head on the mark. .


Regretably this kind of judging is not a thing of the past, judging lines to marks is much too prevalent.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Kj, You might want to buy "Retriever Field Trial Judging A Manual". It can be ordered from AKC for $20. It has a very good section on Derbies. On page 51 (figure 1) it has a diagram of exactly the issue you were asking about. One dog runs around the water on the bank and the other takes a direct line. "The point is simply that in a Derby stake marking trumps lining and the marking dog should be scored equally with the dog who both marks and lines, and perhaps ahead of the dog that lines, but does not obviously mark."


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

As someone that recently ran my first 7 derbies I have to say the water marks generally were pretty chesty marks. Not all setups but most. It's not the judges fault, when the good water was available we had more of a marking test. When it was just your plain Jane pond it was two down the shore, etc.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Kj, You might want to buy "Retriever Field Trial Judging A Manual". It can be ordered from AKC for $20. It has a very good section on Derbies. On page 51 (figure 1) it has a diagram of exactly the issue you were asking about. One dog runs around the water on the bank and the other takes a direct line. "The point is simply that in a Derby stake marking trumps lining and the marking dog should be scored equally with the dog who both marks and lines, and perhaps ahead of the dog that lines, but does not obviously mark."


Wayne I have this and also recommend the book. Great info!


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

The derby dogs are so well trained these days due to so many people with access to good grounds a judge cant consistently throw square water entries and get answers. Nothing worse than 16 dogs finishing a derby and 14 people thinking they won the trial. Its a big boy game and as much as some people dont want to hear this good chance if you run the bank or get out early you are green because they will be some dogs that will do the test correctly and getting out early and going to the bird just will not get you a placement in a tough derby field. My opinion the days of the derby being about marking is long gone.The most popular water test in the derby is big memory bird down the shore you will see it week in and week out go run a few and if your dog will not stay in the water be prepared for your green ribbon. Again just my opinion if my dogs bail out of the water early i will be expecting the green.What i hate to see more than anything in the derby is someone throw the birds the wrong way (contrary mark). If i enter a derby dog i believe he/she trained well enough to do a water mark when we are running water it dont always turn out that way but that part of the sport you win some you lose some.Its pretty simple if one enters the derby with the mind frame that the derby is about marking and that a dog does not have to swim on a water mark you will leave disappointed more often than you will leave saying he marked well and placed even though he bailed out 50 yards early or didn't get wet on a cheaty go bird. To be on the safe side if you have a good little dog and are thinking of entering a few derbys get out and teach him to swim on water marks plain and simple because trust me on cheatys test they will be several dog do it 

Brady Collins


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't judge the line. I don't judge whether the dog took water or ran around it. I judge the quality of the mark.
> 
> Both dogs went to the bird without interruption. Neither dog hunted on the way to the bird. The dogs had equivalent marks.
> 
> You tell the difference between a field of good dogs by setting up marks that are tough, so that by the end of the day, you have separation - and a winner, and three placements



Isn't avoiding rough cover or water described as a fault in numerous places in the AKC Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures for Retrievers book? Additionally can a dog that doesn't go "directly" to the area of the fall be described as unnecessarily disturbing cover as described the following quote from Moderate Faults on page 54: 

"II. MODERATE FAULTS. (Infractions in this catego-
ry may actually be so slight as to warrant their consid- eration as only a “minor’’ fault, or they may be so severe as to warrant their consideration as a “serious fault”; also, repetitions of a “moderate’’ fault or combi- nation of several of these faults may readily convert the total infractions into a “serious’’ fault.)
1. Failure to mark the “area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ requiring that the dog be handled to the bird; worse on the first bird retrieved than on subsequent birds.
2. Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or by leaving it.
3. Reluctance to enter rough cover, water, ice, mud or other situations involving unpleasant “going’’ for the dog."



I agree that lines are not and shouldn't be a judging criteria, but would not a dog that avoids water be noted as lacking in courage and or potentially unnecessarily disturbing to much cover?


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

bcollins said:


> The derby dogs are so well trained these days due to so many people with access to good grounds a judge cant consistently throw square water entries and get answers. Nothing worse than 16 dogs finishing a derby and 14 people thinking they won the trial. Its a big boy game and as much as some people dont want to hear this good chance if you run the bank or get out early you are green because they will be some dogs that will do the test correctly and getting out early and going to the bird just will not get you a placement in a tough derby field. My opinion the days of the derby being about marking is long gone.The most popular water test in the derby is big memory bird down the shore you will see it week in and week out go run a few and if your dog will not stay in the water be prepared for your green ribbon. Again just my opinion if my dogs bail out of the water early i will be expecting the green.What i hate to see more than anything in the derby is someone throw the birds the wrong way (contrary mark). If i enter a derby dog i believe he/she trained well enough to do a water mark when we are running water it dont always turn out that way but that part of the sport you win some you lose some.Its pretty simple if one enters the derby with the mind frame that the derby is about marking and that a dog does not have to swim on a water mark you will leave disappointed more often than you will leave saying he marked well and placed even though he bailed out 50 yards early or didn't get wet on a cheaty go bird. To be on the safe side if you have a good little dog and are thinking of entering a few derbys get out and teach him to swim on water marks plain and simple because trust me on cheatys test they will be several dog do it
> 
> Brady Collins


This is realistic. Having seen just one Derby, it was easy to see the above is true. Derby dogs are young by definition, however and maybe not so reliable in holding onto their training in a trial. The dogs who are close to aging out at 20 to 24 months may be radically different than those who are 12 to 15 months - obviously. 

I've done my best de-cheating my dog and nearly done with swim-by, but not proofed by any means. Still going to run her this weekend at 13 months and see what we can do. She's a good marker and can count to 2. I think it will be fun to see where we are and how we improve over the next few months. 

Thanks for the good luck Kjrice! Hope to find you there wearing your land of the lost monkey suit!


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> Isn't avoiding rough cover or water described as a fault in numerous places in the AKC Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures for Retrievers book? Additionally can a dog that doesn't go "directly" to the area of the fall be described as unnecessarily disturbing cover as described the following quote from Moderate Faults on page 54:
> 
> "II. MODERATE FAULTS. (Infractions in this catego-
> ry may actually be so slight as to warrant their consid- eration as only a “minor’’ fault, or they may be so severe as to warrant their consideration as a “serious fault”; also, repetitions of a “moderate’’ fault or combi- nation of several of these faults may readily convert the total infractions into a “serious’’ fault.)
> ...


I was specifically thinking about reluctance to enter rough cover on this thread. I don't often see two straight lines to the same bird but, I guess if the bird got up and walked away it could happen? A live flier maybe? One line will ALWAYs disturb more cover than another.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> Isn't avoiding rough cover or water described as a fault in numerous places in the AKC Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures for Retrievers book? Additionally can a dog that doesn't go "directly" to the area of the fall be described as unnecessarily disturbing cover as described the following quote from Moderate Faults on page 54:
> 
> "II. MODERATE FAULTS. (Infractions in this catego-
> ry may actually be so slight as to warrant their consid- eration as only a “minor’’ fault, or they may be so severe as to warrant their consideration as a “serious fault”; also, repetitions of a “moderate’’ fault or combi- nation of several of these faults may readily convert the total infractions into a “serious’’ fault.)





Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> 1. Failure to mark the “area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ requiring that the dog be handled to the bird; worse on the first bird retrieved than on subsequent birds.


Not applicable here



Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> 2. Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or by leaving it.


Not applicable here



Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> 3. Reluctance to enter rough cover, water, ice, mud or other situations involving unpleasant “going’’ for the dog."


Not applicable here. When I think "reluctance," I am thinking of a dog that slinks into the water, not a dog that runs with abandon around it.



Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> I agree that lines are not and shouldn't be a judging criteria, but would not a dog that avoids water be noted as lacking in courage and or potentially unnecessarily disturbing to much cover?


Not by me.

I think people are spending far too much time focusing on "desired training responses" - training - rather than "marking."

See Rule Book, page 48




> Natural abilities are of great importance in all stakes, whereas abilities acquired through training are of less importance in the Qualifying stake than in those carrying championship points, and are of comparatively minor importance in the Derby stake.



I think that judges need to remember that when you judge a field trial, you are judging a competition, not a training session. Why does it matter if a dog backsides a gun in competition? Particularly, if the gun is retired? But, you will hear judges and contestants comment about it all the time.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bcollins said:


> Nothing worse than 16 dogs finishing a derby and 14 people thinking they won the trial.



This typically occurs because the tests did not have tough tests throughout. 8 hard marks go a long way to eliminating this issue.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Not many retired guns in derbies...


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> When I think "reluctance," I am thinking of a dog that slinks into the water, not a dog that runs with abandon around it
> 
> .


One route disturbs less cover in almost every situation and running with abandon around cover is a pleasurable thing for a dog to do versus entering an unpleasant/slower route which involves mud, ice, cover and water. All these dogs love to open up and run on land, do chose land over water, mud, ice is showing reluctance in the dogs own brain. A choice was made when he saw cover and it was to avoid it. He was reluctant of cover and chose a more personally desireable route. 

I read your definition of "reluctance" as being a slow or unstylish entry. Seems to be a different part of the rule book does it not?


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Not applicable here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.......................


----------



## Jeff Bartlett (Jan 7, 2006)

Well this settles it I can stop training 6 days a week no need to train water as long as she pins birds.
No need to go straight not to disturb cover that's not on line. Looks like she's going to win every trial 
We can run along With every other dog entered. We're all winners kinda reminds me of t-ball ))))) 
If a dog runs around water it absolutely lacks courage if it runs around cover it absolutely lacks courage 
So if two dogs were evenly matched!!completely matched!! going into the 4th series dog a runs the bank pins bird 
Dog b swims to bird pins bird dog a wins and judges should give a better effort when setting marks and or shouldn't judge their buddies


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Jeff Bartlett said:


> Well this settles it I can stop training 6 days a week no need to train water as long as she pins birds.
> No need to go straight not to disturb cover that's not on line. Looks like she's going to win every trial
> We can run along With every other dog entered. We're all winners kinda reminds me of t-ball )))))
> If a dog runs around water it absolutely lacks courage if it runs around cover it absolutely lacks courage
> ...


Ha! Good luck with that.;-)


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

Ok, from a rookie point of view. I agree with and understand Mr. Shih. A derby should be about marking not about trainability, with that said if the marks are well place and the dog cheats or avoids cover would it not put the dog in a bad position to get the marks clean?, just asking. Why would someone consider if a dog avoid water, he/she lack courage, from my limited understanding a dogs prey drive tells him to get the bird as quick as possible and water slows him down. Even though I am a rookie, I would not run derbies until my dog is ready and understands staying in and not avoiding cover...bigger goal is AA stakes and I do not want to create bad habits in the derby. When I think my 10 month old is ready I will run her in the derby but if she tries to cheat, I will use the whistle and suck up my 80 or so dollars. *The most discouraging thing about this sport is the rule book is right there for every one to read, however rules are not always applied and sometimes just flat out ignored* but hey I love to watch my dogs run and love to play the game. Mr. shih, I really have enjoyed your insight on my limited time on RTF!


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Jeff Bartlett said:


> We're all winners kinda reminds me of t-ball )))))


Just because you played T-ball until 5th grade doesn't mean you have to put down the 1st graders for all being winners..lol..


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

russell.jason2 said:


> . I agree with and understand Mr. Shih. A derby should be about marking not about trainability, with that said if the marks are well place and the dog cheats or avoids cover would it not put the dog in a bad position to get the marks clean?, just asking.


This is true but a lot of people judging do not have the knowledge or the grounds to do that so you get the stay in the water marks which i personally am perfectly fine with.Some don't even know not to throw the birds the wrong way and just reward the dog that has no courage to swim because they get to the bird without having to show courage and stay in and swim it out but it PINNED THE MARK


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

russell.jason2 said:


> Ok, from a rookie point of view. I agree with and understand Mr. Shih. A derby should be about marking not about trainability, with that said if the marks are well place and the dog cheats or avoids cover would it not put the dog in a bad position to get the marks clean?, just asking. Why would someone consider if a dog avoid water, he/she lack courage, from my limited understanding a dogs prey drive tells him to get the bird as quick as possible and water slows him down. Even though I am a rookie, I would not run derbies until my dog is ready and understands staying in and not avoiding cover...bigger goal is AA stakes and I do not want to create bad habits in the derby. When I think my 10 month old is ready I will run her in the derby but if she tries to cheat, I will use the whistle and suck up my 80 or so dollars. *The most discouraging thing about this sport is the rule book is right there for every one to read, however rules are not always applied and sometimes just flat out ignored* but hey I love to watch my dogs run and love to play the game. Mr. shih, I really have enjoyed your insight on my limited time on RTF!


That's, all well and good. But all too frequently the derby is off somewhere in a cow pasture, eaten down to the dirt. With a little round pond and no cover. (Or, out west, it may be an irrigation ditch). You work with what you have. If the grounds and water don't lend itself to the type marks to let a natural marker run the bank without being penalized... What do you do? Throw all the marks across the middle of a pond? Again, you can only work with the grounds the club gives you.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

To Ted and a couple of others who espouse that a line to the bird is not important and the mark only is relevant, I have to take exception here and do not agree with you

While the rule book says - _Natural abilities _are of great importance in _all stakes, _whereas abilities acquired through training are of less importance in the Qualifying stake than in those carrying championship points, and are of comparatively minor importance in the Derby stake.

While trained skills may have comparatively minor importance in the derby it does not say to disregard them altogether. 
It goes on to further state

ABILITIES ACQUIRED THROUGH TRAINING
The other group of attributes to be considered by Judges includes those abilities which dogs acquire through training. The importance of these acquired qualities varies in different stakes, for example: A “reasonable’’ degree of steadiness and general obedience are the requirements in Derby stakes. A greater degree of steadiness and some degree of the other qualities are expected in the Qualifying stake. There should be expectation of full refinement in “acquired attributes’’ in those stakes carrying championship points.

The rule book again states that abilities acquired through training, while of lesser importance in the derby should not be overlooked or ignored.


BUT - Most of what we are talking about here with lines to the birds through or not through water, however, is in fact discussed in the rule book under the heading of NATURAL ABILITIES (page 48) which is what we are looking for in the Derby dog primarily (but not exclusively)

DISTURBING COVER is discussed under Natural Abilities
Dogs which disturb cover unnecessarily, clearly well out of the area of the “fall,’’ either by not going directly to that area, or by leaving it, even though they eventually find the bird without being handled, should be penalized more severely than those handled quickly

COURAGE is discussed under Natural Abilities
It may be displayed by a willingness to face, and without hesitation, rough cover, cold or rough water, ice, mud, or other similar conditions which make the going rather tough, _and of doing it repeatedly._
The dog that doesn’t want to get into the water hasn’t shown me any courage and often times demonstrates to me a lack of courage. (Such as when he looks at the bird in or across the water and then finds a way to go around the water to get to the bird or veers from his line to the bird to go around the water)

STYLE is discussed under Natural Abilities
_(7) Style _is apparent in every movement of a dog and throughout his entire performance at trials, for example: by the _gaiety _of his manner in approaching the line, by his _alertness _on-line, by his _eagerness _and _speed _on retrieves, by his _water-entry_, by his _pick-up _of birds and by his _return _with them. Style makes for a pleasing performance; together with ability to mark, they constitute the most important factors for placings in Derby Stakes
The dog that runs around the water has not used the opportunity to show me style and often has demonstrated a lack of style in my mind.

I personally do not think that the only thing that you are looking for in the derby dog is Marking. I will agree that it comes mighty high on the list but it is not the only thing, and the rule book supports that opinion. I do care how the dog gets to the bird and will reflect that in my judging and how I prepare a dog for a derby.

I believe that BCOLLINS hit the nail fairly squarely on the head in his post No 36 as to the reality of the derby as it is played today. I wasn’t around 30 40 years ago, but like the Championship stakes, the derby has changed. Heavens read the rule book to try and find a justification of why your dog was dropped from the all age stake last weekend. It’s probably so minor it’s not in there, but the fact is that you were dropped and you do understand why. The notion of a minor fault doesn’t exist today. Less than minor faults are nowadays certain death at a weekend trial.

Derby dogs today are good and the competition is tough.

As a competitor I would hate to be beaten out by a water cheating unstylish Pig. Equally I would hate to win with a water cheating unstylish pig even if it knew where the birds were.

Mark


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

You don't think that a dog running around the water at break neck speed is exhibiting "untrained style"?
I think you are confusing trained abilities with natural abilities


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Thank you Mark, I liked your post.



> _*Natural abilities are of great importance* in all stakes, whereas *abilities acquired through training *are of less importance in the Qualifying stake than in those carrying championship points, and *are of comparatively minor importance in the Derby stake.*_


Of comparatively minor importance *does not say of no importance.

*Any dog who goes straight to a bird has disturbed less ground than a dog who goes in a roundabout way. A straight line will always be shorter than a banana line to the same points. A dog who stays in water disturbs less ground than a dog who runs the shore.

I think that good arguments can be made for placing dogs who are water honest and run straight to the area of the fall higher than dogs who cheat water or take a less than straight line to the area of the fall. In my mind the gray area is when the honest dog misses the mark and has a hunt and the cheaty dog nails it. How minor is, "_of minor importance_?" I don't really know, I want to see it. The answer I come up with might be different than what you come up with. That's judgement.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Wow this thread took off from last night. Haven't gone back and read all the posts. I think there is some misunderstanding on the non-cheating tests vrs long distance from the water, could be a cheater, technical water, going behind guns, gorilla hunts, etc, etc, in derbies. Sometimes you get whatever grounds, water available, using two water marks in the open, sometimes done. There are some very well trained derby dogs, it's not their fault they are well trained, straight to the mark, pin it, stylish, vrs a straight line trained response then puts on a hunt on at least one bird in each series vrs a stay in the water can't stand it, gets out early runs around gets the bird on the fly pick up. I have been very fortunate to have owned and trained some nice derby dogs. FC/AFC Yo You Kaytee KK at 23 months old won a five series derby for me then got 2nd place in the amateur all age at the same trial. FC/AFC Criquetpas Gettum Duke owned by myself and Dick Dallassasee won a amateur-all at 20 months old and won the derby at the same trial with his littermate all amateur trained. These dogs were trained all-age dogs that were very mature at a early age. I don't think anyone is suggesting to down play a trained response, but, not all derby dogs are the same! The derby should be a fun stake and there is nothing wrong with carrying as many dogs as possible in each series. The winner is the winner and once that is established it is the judges decision from there on . Should a dog win or receive a high placement for a water cheat, it's all relative to what the rest of the field did!


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

There is one advantage to the cheating dog. They are likely able to see the area of the fall/mark all the way to the mark. However, the dog which does not cheat may only have the land to H2O and the exit from the H2O to the mark to view the mark. During their water travels, and it could be training or natural ability, they will usually be at a disadvantage. 

Running 2 derby series where cheaters never win could be hard in a flat field with a round pond.


----------



## Ken S. (Feb 2, 2005)

I must respectfully agree with Mark. The rules clearly state that courage is a natural trait. Avoiding rough or difficult going is a fault. It may be very minor, but when repeated is enough to place one dog over another. Ted and others, you are a bit off base here in my opinion. It may not be enough in one series, but it can over time. Further, just because a trait can be acquired or improved with training does not mean it is not a natural trait as well. Marking being a great example of that. A dog described as a great "natural" marker is presumed to have natural traits which exceed others, even though they may have been trained to be great markers.


----------



## Ken S. (Feb 2, 2005)

Dan, I must disagree with you as well. When a dog runs around cover, and one of the reasons it is undesirable, is that they lose their perspective of where the mark is. They can't use their depth perception and remembrance of other points of reference. Where we are going to pick up a bird we shot or chasing a golf ball, when do you have the best chance of finding it? When you go straight to the area.


----------



## Suzanne Burr (Jul 13, 2004)

Sal Gelardi taught me years ago that it makes no difference--each dog marked the bird and should be scored the same. A good lesson learned and I use it to this day. My favorite stake to judge has and always will be the Derby--love those pups.
SuzanneB


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

Ken S. said:


> Dan, I must disagree with you as well. *When a dog runs around cover*, and one of the reasons it is undesirable, * they lose their perspective of where the mark is*. They can't use their depth perception and remembrance of other points of reference. Where we are going to pick up a bird we shot or chasing a golf ball, when do you have the best chance of finding it? When you go straight to the area.


ken,
respectfully, you are saying that if the dog goes straight it has a better chance of finding a given mark. we all know this to be true.(even though my dogs never seem to get it) does this not mean that the dog who went straight and pinned the bird has not marked the bird nearly as well as a dog that can run all around "hell and half of georgia" and also still be able to pin the bird?(think of how good that bank running cheater may be year after next when he learns to do it right);-)

i have only run a few but in my limited exp brady is correct on how derby dogs are judged in the south east. the dogs i see are nice dogs AND WELL TRAINED! 

btw, i been hearing brady's pups are really good in the water this year......must be the new pond!


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

Ken S. said:


> Dan, I must disagree with you as well. When a dog runs around cover, and one of the reasons it is undesirable, is that they lose their perspective of where the mark is. They can't use their depth perception and remembrance of other points of reference. Where we are going to pick up a bird we shot or chasing a golf ball, when do you have the best chance of finding it? When you go straight to the area.


Sorry but my post was pertaining to water. The dog in the water is at the disadvantage because it loses the depth, as you stated, perception. Especially in 2 down the shore. You cannot hit a golf ball in Glacier National Forest in Montana and come in via Canada expecting to find your ball, correct.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Yup Agree with Mark....Its a blue moon around here to see a cheater win over a pup that gets em right.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Ken S. said:


> Dan, I must disagree with you as well. *When a dog runs around cover, and one of the reasons it is undesirable, is that they lose their perspective of where the mark is*. They can't use their depth perception and remembrance of other points of reference. Where we are going to pick up a bird we shot or chasing a golf ball, when do you have the best chance of finding it? When you go straight to the area.


I have a youngster that disproves that statement big time. To clarify, I didn't want her cheating but that was not the part of the training at that time in her life. And yes, I do agree about finding...but you can tell when a dog marks the AOF regardless of how they got there.


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

I hate the ole disturbance of cover crap. That's just a crappy way of saying I'm going to judge the line. And how can you say a dog that hauled tail around a clean bank at Mach 2 is disturbing cover.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

BrettG said:


> I hate the ole disturbance of cover crap. That's just a crappy way of saying I'm going to judge the line. And how can you say a dog that hauled tail around a clean bank at Mach 2 is disturbing cover.


How about just avoiding water?


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

Call it what it is. Avoiding water because the judge wasn't crafty enough to create a good test.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

It is what it is to me. It's not a secret what's expected. Bring a dog that's ready and don't worry about the setups.


BrettG said:


> Call it what it is. Avoiding water because the judge wasn't crafty enough to create a good test.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ken S. said:


> Dan, I must disagree with you as well. When a dog runs around cover, and one of the reasons it is undesirable, is that they lose their perspective of where the mark is. They can't use their depth perception and remembrance of other points of reference. Where we are going to pick up a bird we shot or chasing a golf ball, when do you have the best chance of finding it? When you go straight to the area.


 That's why we train the dog to run straight. It gives them the best chance of pinning the marks.

You can't train a dog to pin every mark. 
You can train a dog to run straight lines.

If you don't like dogs running cheaty lines, place the birds in your test so that the cheaty dogs get lost on the marks. 
The cheaty dog that STILL pins the marks in your test, has to be a pretty damn good marker.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I'd hate to think that the difference between placements in ANY Field Trial, came down to choosing the dog that was an inferior marker. But, ran the straightest lines. 

I'd rather own the dog that knew where every bird was, and took the most expedient route to each one.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

copterdoc said:


> That's why we train the dog to run straight. It gives them the best chance of pinning the marks.
> 
> You can't train a dog to pin every mark.
> You can train a dog to run straight lines.
> ...


That's not a terrible idea. I'd put my dog in that fight.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Two general observations about derbies and FT judging in general.

First, it is easy to judge lines. It is more difficult to judge marks. But, I believe you get a better feel for the quality of a dog when you are judging marks. 

What does that mean exactly - judging marks? It means you look for:
- Dog focus on the mat
- Dog orientation on its return from a previous retrieve
- How the dog re-orients itself on the mat
- How much - or how little - the handler is working to line the dog
- The path that the dog takes to the bird 
- Where the dog begins its hunt (where its momentum breaks down, tail crack, when the dog drops its head, which way the dog turns when it begins its hunt, etc.)

It means you look at more than just a pass/fail parameter, such as
- Did the dog take the water
- Did the dog jump the log
- Did the dog slice the cover

It means that you are looking at the dog's performance as a whole.

It is not easy. It requires a lot of concentration and effort to evaluate the dog's performance as a whole. But, I think that is what we as judges owe the dogs and their handlers.

Second, there is a difference between training and competition. In training, we focus on the line. Why? Because if a dog doesn't mark a bird, but can hold a line, you can optimize your chances for success. Because we use the line as a training tool to teach dogs how to fight factors and optimize their ability to find birds.

So, in training, when a dog runs behind a gun, we may handle - because the dog is not holding the line. But, in competition, who cares?


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Ted Shih said:


> Two general observations about derbies and FT judging in general.
> 
> First, it is easy to judge lines. It is more difficult to judge marks. But, I believe you get a better feel for the quality of a dog when you are judging marks.
> 
> ...


That's a neat insight! Thanks for making the effort to explain that!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think that when you look at young dogs running around cover, water, etc. you need to consider the big picture.

I think people use words like "courage" to justify their down grading performance that they don't like - because it doesn't represent the ideal line, because it doesn't represent the trained response, because it simply offends their sense of propriety. 

First, consider what the Rule Book says about courage.

If you look at the Rule Book it refers to repeated conduct when talking about courage. See page 50




> (5) Courage, too, is a trait which cannot be tested at every trial. It may be displayed by a willingness to face, and without hesitation, rough cover, cold or rough water, ice, mud, or other similar conditions which make the going rather tough, and of *doing it repeatedly*.



Note that the Rule Book highlights the words "doing it repeatedly." In this scenario, people are willing to find that a dog lacks courage, because it avoids the water once.

Second, if you have been around dogs - especially young dogs - think about what you know about them. I have been around plenty of fire breathers, who avoided water or cover at 2, less so at 4. Did they develop more courage? Or did they simply accept their training? I think the latter. 

Third, have you ever stopped to consider that the dog that runs around the water is exhibiting a higher degree of desire - that is, it is simply impatient about wanting to get the bird. If you thought about water avoidance as exhibiting high desire, you might argue that the dog who runs around the bank at warp 5 is demonstrating "eagerness" to retrieve - a key component of style.

Fourth, have you ever stopped to consider that the dog who runs around the water is exhibiting "intelligence" by taking the faster route to the bird?

The point is this - don't give into easy methods of characterizing a dog's performance - evaluating lines, looking at whether a dog back sides a gun, or whether a dog enters water or cover

Look at the big picture when you judge dogs in the derby - or any other stake

.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Two general observations about derbies and FT judging in general.
> 
> *First, it is easy to judge lines. It is more difficult to judge marks.*But, I believe you get a better feel for the quality of a dog when you are judging marks.
> 
> ...


BAM!

That's it. If you can't resist being critical of the dog's line, fine. But, judge the line on the dog's blinds. Not on it's marks.

If you set up a quality marking test, with well placed marks, the cheaters will punish themselves.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Ted's comments are spot on and clearly illustrate the difference between JUDGING and simply looking for faults. However much I agree with him though, I'll keep working on my pup to avoid hooking the gun as that is the kiss of death in every trial I've run or watched in the SE. By way of llustration, and not complaining (learned long ago that does no good) pup went out in a derby for "hooking the gun." Just before he went a couple of feet behind the gunner to scoop the bird on the run the judges were commenting on well we was "fighting the wind to hold a nice tight line" on a long diagonal swim before an 75 yard angled uphill climb to the bird.
Ted's comments are applicable as well to HTs and should be considered by any judge. Thanks.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Good Dogs is right on. Regardless of your philosophy on derbies, unless you are judging it has become the way he has described... Not only that, it's pretty much been that way for as long as I can remember. Everyone talks about how it should be... But when it gets right down to the judging, 99% of the time if your dog avoids the water or backside the guns in a derby you are behind the 8 ball.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Ted,

Thank you for all of your comments. It has definitely been enlightening for my learning.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Unfortunately judging derbies in the past 30 years hasn't changed much. Hooking a gun carries the same stigma now as it did in the 1980's. The work , tests, are unlike all age stakes hasn't changed much contrary to what the newbies think in that time period. In fact many dogs ran the all age and/or the qualifying while still in the derby and became QAA as they derbied out. I ran against Lottie and judged her in the derby through her career. My Magic had a tendency to hook at least one gun. We made the Derby List with so many 4th places and RJs it was tiring. Lottie watched the birds down and didn't hook guns. We put the last one on the Derby List a few years ago and the penalty was the same. I use to judge that way, but, in recent years have changed my total position and we have judged derbies too ,recently. Will judge one in July. Members of my groups we have with, my good friend Dick D. good friend Chris V , mouths of babes, and those judges like Ted have educated me, others should take thier advice! Judging all field trial stakes should heed Ted's 
advice. He is judging the National Amateur stake for a reason and it ain't political. One thing Ted isn't , is telling people what they want to here! Off my soap box, looking outside with cold, ice, snow, thinking about my dog at Ledford's Academy in Ga. and having a cup,of coffee. I am bored.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

All these comments are fine and dandy but the reality is the Derby gives you basically one criteria to judge dogs.. and that is marking. Thats like saying you are going to cut all NBA players who can't shoot a 3. You still will be left with a ton of guys. Same way with a derby field dominated by the pros. You will have to decided what minor faults are exceptable to you and then you and your co-judge will have to agree on them...


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Here is a qestion then to provoke: If I was purely a Derby guy and if lines didn't matter, what would happen if I allowed a pup to cheat in training and tests? Other than Pi$$ing everyone within eye and hear shot, could I win?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Fourth, have you ever stopped to consider that the dog who runs around the water is exhibiting "intelligence" by taking the faster route to the bird?
> 
> .[/SIZE][/FONT]


Fifth: have you ever stopped to considered that the dog that takes an indirect route but breaks down and establishes their initial hunt at or near the bird is actually a better marker than the one with a straight line that "trips" over it.

Marking is evaluating the dog ability to see and recall a picture.
We teach good lines to marks to aid the dog in remembering the picture of that fall. Judges try to challenge those lining abilities with various obstacles(water,cover, terrain, other guns...) to force the dog to rely on their memory of each the bird. The more the dog gives in to the obstacles the more memory(the more vivid picture) the dog will need to get to the desired destination.



Tim


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Duckquilizer said:


> Here is a qestion then to provoke: If I was purely a Derby guy and if lines didn't matter, what would happen if I allowed a pup to cheat in training and tests? Other than Pi$$ing everyone within eye and hear shot, could I win?


Would you want to?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

huntinman said:


> Would you want to?


Just a hypothetical and I've never seen or heard of it happening. This was directed towards if lines mattered or not when judging. I suppose I'm curious if there could be the possibility of different Derby training, solely for Derbies, if lines truely didn't matter.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Duckquilizer said:


> Just a hypothetical and I've never seen or heard of it happening. This was directed towards if lines mattered or not when judging. I suppose I'm curious if there could be the possibility of different Derby training, solely for Derbies, if lines truely didn't matter.


I know what you meant... Just thinking, how enjoyable would it be to watch a dog run around every obstacle for 4 series assuming it was called back?


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

I dont understand this courage thing...just because a dog wants to avoid water to get a mark, he is not showing courage??? I put my young female in a duck blind, no matter if its icy or what, she jumps in the water and swims to bird with eager and desire, you put her in training and throwing a mark with a 200 yrd entry on a little pond and if given a chance would run around it at the speed of sound to get the bird...you saying she dont have courage??? She wants the bird, the fastest way she can get it. I train her to stay on the line sent and to go through no matter what on that line but what I understand this is taught behavior, not natural. If there was a tree top or hell, the nastiest stuff you can think of where a birds lands on the other side of the water...the dogs cheats the water but goes through hell and would fall of a cliff to get the bird, is that not courage??? Bottomline what I am getting from this thread is there are folks that love to see and judge a derby pup's natural ability to mark and there are folks that love to see and judge how well the dog is trained? Hopefully when my pup is ready to run a derby she will be prepared for both.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Duckquilizer said:


> Just a hypothetical and I've never seen or heard of it happening. This was directed towards if lines mattered or not when judging. I suppose I'm curious if there could be the possibility of different Derby training, solely for Derbies, if lines truely didn't matter.


I don't think any successful trainer pro or amateur trains exclusively for the derby. Just about all are training for all age just running the derby along the way. This line thing is getting blown out of context. As a judge if you have a field of 15 dogs or so a smaller entry. You could have 100 derby points between the entries. Conversely you could have a a 15 dog entry, with younger derby dogs, but with a heavy hitter or two already on the derby list. As Dex indicated you haveto come up with a winner,can't carry all the dogs just to be nice, and judge accordingly. After all you are judging two marks or six to eight marks in a stake total, for the most part. No blinds, control breaks will keep you playing, maybe, no blinds, line manners, maybe, style etc. The pros for the most part dominate the derby, so you are looking at very well trained dogs as well as good markers. Now having said all that, there times s$&t happens, wind changes, dogs are just having a bad day, etc, then perhaps you lose top dogs in the last series, the not so good markers extreme cheaters could win or place.You just need a winner! Not too often though, but, it could and does happen. It's called backing into a win for lack of a better answer and happens all the time in the major stakes.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

From a contestants point of view bring a well trained dog and point them in the right direction then cross you're fingers. If you dissect all of the issues you will incounter and rules that are not clearly written you will make yourself go nuts trust me. You have to beat the dog of the week run by the pro that owns the grounds and judged by one of his clients that will be judged by another client the following week. You have rules that say shall and should and definitions that have holes so big you can see through them and this is the reason these conversations exist. The rule as I see it says both are judged equally the one that runs the bank and the one that swims the channel but in reality seldom is this the case.


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

Any time Ted gets in the test building or judging discussion I always think I would love to run under a guy like him.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> All these Comments are fine and dandy but the reality is the Derby gives you basically one criteria to judge dogs.. and that is marking. Thats like saying you are going to cut all NBA players who can't shoot a 3. You still will be left with a ton of guys. Same way with a derby field dominated by the pros. You will have to decided what minor faults are exceptable to you and then you and your co-judge will have to agree on them...



I disagree. Good judges with good grounds and help can create separation with 8 good marks.

Yes, if you have poor grounds you may have to go long or tight or both to get action. 

But, with good terrain, you can create action without getting technical. I learned this from judging with Vicki Lamb, early in my judging career. She created tough tests that really separated the field, but allowed most of the dogs to play. If your dog didn't eat a bird, switch, or hunt an old fall, you were back. It was an eye opener for me. 

Part of the problems with derbies - and a reason that I don't like to run them - is that the derby typically gets the worst grounds, least help, and most inexperienced judges. It is not a recipe for success.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Duckquilizer said:


> Here is a qestion then to provoke: If I was purely a Derby guy and if lines didn't matter, what would happen if I allowed a pup to cheat in training and tests? Other than Pi$$ing everyone within eye and hear shot, could I win?


Win - in real life, probably not. Like it or not, many judges judge lines and things like avoiding water or back siding guns are the kiss of death. As should be obvious, I don't agree. But, my position is the minority one.

However, you are also mixing training and competition. In training, you are teaching habits that you want to carry into competition. Why let your dog learn bad habits in training

For that matter, why let your dog learn bad habits in competition?

I have seen plenty of owners who let their dogs cheat, howl, creep - all in the name of getting points. Sometimes they got them, sometimes they did not. But, almost always they got problems down stream. 

I can also remember Kweezy running the derby, not getting in the water as quickly as Judy wanted - and hearing "No, here."


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Yes, and that is like expecting it to snow on Christmas every time. Derbies get what is left over 99% of the time. Even good judges have a hard time finding 8 good birds on the grounds they are left with. Not sure I remember every running one with 8 good birds. Most will end up with 2-4. That is just reality..



Ted Shih said:


> I disagree. Good judges with good grounds and help can create separation with 8 good marks.
> 
> Yes, if you have poor grounds you may have to go long or tight or both to get action.
> 
> ...


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> I learned this from judging with Vicki Lamb, early in my judging career. She created tough tests that really separated the field, but allowed most of the dogs to play. If your dog didn't eat a bird, switch, or hunt an old fall, you were back. It was an eye opener for me.
> 
> Part of the problems with derbies - and a reason that I don't like to run them - is that the derby typically gets the worst grounds, least help, and most inexperienced judges. It is not a recipe for success.


I wondered where this type of knowledge came from. I worked with Vicki on a 5 series event several years ago and 2 other extremely knowledgeable judges and enjoyed the discussion during the set up of every series. I loved the discussion on judging the line. I learned more about setting up test and how to really look at marking during that event.


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

I've got a good test to discuss, I ran test dog on this set up and was proud of the job my dog did on. This was an Srs set up for a score so remember that if you handle on a mark it's a 12 point add for the first whistle.

Here you go:
On a slight hill overlooking a large pond with multiple islands and points. Mat is about 75yds from water. Bird 1- 285 yds standing on levee throwing angle back from right to left with bird landing on top of the levee. Gunner retires on release of the dog for first retrieve. Bird is thrown in the hip pocket bird 2. Bird 2- 155 yds thrown as splash bird from right to left with a channel swim swim past the point gun station is on. (Gun station is about 15 yds up the point) Pick up the go bird and then swing almost 90 degrees left and run a 198yd blind with long angle entry past a point and onto the next point. Return and pick up the memory bird. 

Dog A- perfect on the go bird runs a great blind then goes under the arc of the go bird (does get on the point in front of the short gun station then back in the water) drives all the way to beach within 5 feet of the bird.

Dog-B perfect on the go bird runs a great blind, then goes fat right avoiding the gun station which puts him back in the water just barely then back out quickly and on the bird.

Dog-C perfect on go bird runs great blind, then is handled once to put on proper line close to backside of short gun station he then carries that line all the way to the bird perfectly.

Which dog do you think was scored the lowest? 
And if you have to know my dog was perfect on the go bird, 2 whistled the blind and then beached early short of the memory bird he put on a good hunt but just couldn't get deep enough so i had to handle him. he found the gunner and just wouldnt hunt past where he was hiding beneath the levee.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

BrettG said:


> I've got a good test to discuss, I ran test dog on this set up and was proud of the job my dog did on. This was an Srs set up for a score so remember that if you handle on a mark it's a 12 point add for the first whistle.
> 
> Here you go:
> On a slight hill overlooking a large pond with multiple islands and points. Mat is about 75yds from water. Bird 1- 285 yds standing on levee throwing angle back from right to left with bird landing on top of the levee. Gunner retires on release of the dog for first retrieve. Bird is thrown in the hip pocket bird 2. Bird 2- 155 yds thrown as splash bird from right to left with a channel swim swim past the point gun station is on. (Gun station is about 15 yds up the point) Pick up the go bird and then swing almost 90 degrees left and run a 198yd blind with long angle entry past a point and onto the next point. Return and pick up the memory bird.
> ...


This scenario is completely irrelevant to the topic.
The topic is Derby judging.Your scenario involves blinds & handling on marks
Per the rule book there are no blinds in a Derby, also if you handle in a Derby you are out


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Not applicable here. When I think "reluctance," I am thinking of a dog that slinks into the water, not a dog that runs with abandon around it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

Mark said:


> To Ted and a couple of others who espouse that a line to the bird is not important and the mark only is relevant, I have to take exception here and do not agree with you
> 
> While the rule book says - _Natural abilities _are of great importance in _all stakes, _whereas abilities acquired through training are of less importance in the Qualifying stake than in those carrying championship points, and are of comparatively minor importance in the Derby stake.
> 
> ...


Great post. I agree with you.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

kjrice -

I have sent you a PM -

Bill Connor


----------



## TS (Sep 8, 2003)

Great read!

A big problem IMO is that a lot of judges in the derby highly value attributes desired in TRAINING. They have observed a lot of training and what is desired during training. They have observed what makes the person/persons happy/unhappy during training and carried that over to JUDGING.

Training is DIFFERENT then judging.

The dog that most efficiently brings back the birds should win. This includes a lot of things such as style, desire, brains, etc. It does not include hooking a gun or missing a little piece of water.

Heavily rewarding only trained behaviors in the derby is detrimental to the dogs and their training if the dog will go beyond the Qualifying stake.

Thank you to everyone for bringing up a good topic and commenting! Thank you to everyone who sticks their neck out and judges and does their best to evaluate these fine animals!

Tim Springer


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Just because you played T-ball until 5th grade doesn't mean you have to put down the 1st graders for all being winners..lol..


Jeff was always picked last in t ball

/Paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I feel that the rules for the Derby as written have out lived their usefulness, and should be abandoned (changer) rather than just ignored......

I for one am in favor of a revised set of Derby Rules that are a realistic representation of that which is necessary to to actually find (from a relative merits perspective), the best dog under the age of two to have been entered that day.

In a nutshell, Rules that are in keeping with how the Derby actually "IS" in 2013 .

john


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

John Fallon has made a viable point about derby rules because the entire training program has changed a great deal over the past 40 plus years. The primery catalyst for the change is the variable intensity collar. Use of the remote collar initially by Rex, later by 'proteges' relied on lining and force thru 'hot spots' so as to overcome trouble. Misuse created 'walkers' and tentative animals. The varible intensity collar did a great deal to avoid that stigma and less than stylish performances. 

Purists ... and many of my co-judges over the years ... wanted to discredit a derby dog for a handle ... any degree of handle with a myriad of reasons. Of course evaluating derby dog's "relative merits" and if handled, is relative to a lot of things. 40 - 50 years ago a handle in any stake was judged relative to what happened - that dog, that handler and the field. Derby dogs then were not good handlers ... but handling then didn't mean mandatory elination.

Today, derby dogs are handling at 10 to 12 months in training, but now it's mandatory elimination and "not of great value"! I disagree with the change.

James Lamb Free talked about a year old pup. Today 4-6 month old pups are started and groomed for all-age. There may be a Qual. or two in the mix, but today's programs combine running lines, yard work that includes handling, and creating interest and enjoyment running lines as well as marking singles,
doubles, etc. Today the end product has a better chance for success in competition, in the marsh, providing the pup's inherent qualities are there.

Like the book says ... "judging and training are not an exact science". What is exact is Consistency.

Yes, of course performance in all age levels and testing reflects training. Conduct by dogs in training, good or bad, surfaces in competition. Judges judge what they see in the field. Field seminars are so important. A Mike Lardy, a Dave Rorem, a Danny Farmer on the spot can address, pick out problems and issues. Judges scoring relative merits ... natural and trainable qualities Judges, do the same.
The difference may be interpretation. If judges agree to disagree, the only proper recourse is another series, whether derby, qual, amateur or open.

Relative dog work has inherent factors consciously put in place by judges. There are basic areas judges consider in any stake: "lines thru impediments to the area of the fall; conduct at or around the AOF; willing ness to please ... coming to the line, steadiness, taking direction is of great value; style, courage,
eagerness, attention, memory, and that genetic mystery ... good marking ability".

Of course Marking is always of primery importance. Judges can advertently or accidently impair/impact'good marking dogs ... like runnig blinds first, blinds interrupting marks ect. Size of trials, conditions of grounds, 'club mechanics', incompatibility of judges all are cancers to the game. That's been going on for a long time.

I have this off my chest for whatever it's worth to all ... those that understand and largely concur as well as those who follow other beliefs ...

W.D. Connor


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

What if they took away the competition aspect in the derby?

Just have it like a hunt test, where your dog meets a standard. You have to meet that standard so many times before you could claim you have a "derby Dog"

Would the judges then be able to focus and judge what untrained Natural abilities the dogs have? 

Gooser


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Hey just buy smart works and your he next derby high point dog. No problem

/Paul


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> What if they took away the competition aspect in the derby?
> 
> Just have it like a hunt test, where your dog meets a standard. You have to meet that standard so many times before you could claim you have a "derby Dog"
> 
> ...


Gooser, would that be a field trial? Some of us love the competition and having the best dog that day on that test. Good training will always compliment good natural ability.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I haven't really kept up with this thread but this post is out there. Avoiding water or cover does not equate to a lack of courage but rather a lack of training. Out to sea marks take courage. It's not rocket science what wins the derby, destroying marks. Anyone knows it when they see it.


Jeff Bartlett said:


> Well this settles it I can stop training 6 days a week no need to train water as long as she pins birds.
> No need to go straight not to disturb cover that's not on line. Looks like she's going to win every trial
> We can run along With every other dog entered. We're all winners kinda reminds me of t-ball )))))
> If a dog runs around water it absolutely lacks courage if it runs around cover it absolutely lacks courage
> ...


----------



## Ironwood (Sep 25, 2007)

kjrice said:


> You are a judge and setting up a water series but due to limited options one bird is quite cheaty. Dog A stays wet all the way while Dog B runs most of the bank and then gets wet. Both dogs go straight to the bird. How would you score it?


You asked the question? Now show the courage to answer it. Years ago this thought was formulated in a different way. "If you ask the question be prepared for the answer." 
It applies to the derby as much as it does to an all age stake carrying championship points.

There are many traits that are being looked for and evaluated on a daily basis and in training and in competition whether it is a developing pup or high point dog or national champion we are working with.
The training sessions are in reality controlled competitions even if you are by yourself with your dog, you still are competing, constantly evaluating.

The original poster has his answer. It is in the drawing on his page as he described in his original post, accept the answer.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

did you really take the time to type this?


MooseGooser said:


> What if they took away the competition aspect in
> Just have it like a hunt test, where your dog meets a standard. You have to meet that standard so many times before you could claim you have a "derby Dog"
> 
> Would the judges then be able to focus and judge what untrained Natural abilities the dogs have?
> ...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> What if they took away the competition aspect in the derby?
> 
> Just have it like a hunt test, where your dog meets a standard. You have to meet that standard so many times before you could claim you have a "derby Dog"
> 
> ...


i don't like that idea

/Paul


----------



## Kory Poulsen (Jul 6, 2010)

I have a question for Ted regarding handling a derby dog, more specifically the dog who takes the land route instead of getting in the water.

If this was your dog and you recognize what was about to take place (approaching the water then takes the land route) would you let him continue his route? Also, if you let him continue taking the land route and you are running a derby the following week, what would you expect out of him around the water? After educating him all week in training regarding the correct positioning in water, do you think he will catch on that their are no rules at a trial?

Will allowing behavior like this have a negative impact on this dogs FT future?

Kory


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> What if they took away the competition aspect in the derby?
> 
> Just have it like a hunt test, where your dog meets a standard. You have to meet that standard so many times before you could claim you have a "derby Dog"
> 
> ...


The reason I typed this:

First, remember I have really only ever attended 2 FT where I got to watch a derby,and I posess very untrained eyes, but!

It seemed to me that the dogs that really had a chance for a placement or win, were very close to each other in talent.
All of them clobbered the first 3 series marks. Very little difference ,at least to my untrained eyes. I thought they were equal..

Then, the last series.

Seemed to me, that THATS when the training aspect od those dogs came into play. It was definatly the line to the bird, or the cheat or dont cheat senario . The stuff Ted talked about the he feels shouldnt be judged, or judges taking the easy way out..

It seemed it is that way because the judges are forced to pick a clear winner.(a position I would not want to be placed in) So, then it it seemed to me to be the dog, that wasnt really displaying Natural talent, but rather a dog that could very well be running a higher staked , like maybe a Qual.. 

So, does the dog that wins, really represent what FT'ers deem a derby or a young dog showing Natural Talent?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

How many times have you heard, so ans so's dog is really nice! He just KNOWS where the birds are?

There are dogs that cheat like he!! but go directly to the bird via their own road.

Gooser


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

MooseGooser said:


> What if they took away the competition aspect in the derby?
> 
> Just have it like a hunt test, where your dog meets a standard. You have to meet that standard so many times before you could claim you have a "derby Dog"
> 
> ...


 The competition is what got me hooked on FT's. Thats where the rush is.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

I'm excited about a young Grady female I have. Can mark and has a great water attitude. Just over a yr old. I threw a land mark last week and she takes off and makes a hard 90 deg right, jumps in my swim by pond,swims around a little and gets out and goes and nails the bird. Judge that lol


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

The trick is to set up marks where if there is a cheat of water or cover, it is tough to recover from and get the mark clean. That hasn't always been the case when I have judged, but is has sometimes. It sure is nice and easy to judge when the test does the judging for you. 

With that said, you should not differentiate between the two dogs in a derby.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

labman63 said:


> I'm excited about a young Grady female I have. Can mark and has a great water attitude. Just over a yr old. I threw a land mark last week and she takes off and makes a hard 90 deg right, jumps in my swim by pond,swims around a little and gets out and goes and nails the bird. Judge that lol


We actually had this happen in the last derby I judged. The handler/owner smiled and said, "I think he may be getting my point." We carried him to the 4th.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> It seemed to me that the dogs that really had a chance for a placement or win, were very close to each other in talent.
> All of them clobbered the first 3 series marks.


Yup, that's why the tests get harder and harder. The dogs are so darn good and at the top can be bunched up and you've got to find winner. Damn it's great when you nail it and get just enough test without going over everybody's head. Not so great when you have 6 dogs finish cleanly and you've got to nit pick a winner and places.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm not going to speak for Ted but I believe there are a lot of owners/handlers that would stop the dog and handle the dog back into the water. I believe they would give up a greenie for the betterment of their dogs future. 
As a judge I learned a while ago on advice from a very well respected trialer, National judge and a person who has been around the FT game a long long time, "put some water right in front of young dogs and watch what happens". From that point on I have tried to always remember his words when I set up water tests for Derby dogs. Cheating tests are not the end all be all to find your separation. For those owners/handlers who allow their dogs to run around the water I believe "Yes" who could set them back in their training.



Kory Poulsen said:


> I have a question for Ted regarding handling a derby dog, more specifically the dog who takes the land route instead of getting in the water.
> 
> If this was your dog and you recognize what was about to take place (approaching the water then takes the land route) would you let him continue his route? Also, if you let him continue taking the land route and you are running a derby the following week, what would you expect out of him around the water? After educating him all week in training regarding the correct positioning in water, do you think he will catch on that their are no rules at a trial?
> 
> ...


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Ted, I am not so sure I follow your discussion on judging marks.

Ted stated.....

What does that mean exactly - judging marks? It means you look for:
- Dog focus on the mat
- Dog orientation on its return from a previous retrieve
- How the dog re-orients itself on the mat
- How much - or how little - the handler is working to line the dog
- The path that the dog takes to the bird 
- Where the dog begins its hunt (where its momentum breaks down, tail crack, when the dog drops its head, which way the dog turns when it begins its hunt, etc.)

I have seen dogs do all sorts of crazy things on the mat, I have seen them jump forward and get back to the mat by the time the bird has been thrown for the second mark. I have seen them creep, not look at any bird but the flier, etc, etc. and dogs go out and hammer all the marks. 

It sounds to me you are looking for your favorite marking dog, not just the best marking dog. Do you give a better grade to a dog that looks great, comes back and turns willingly to the mark and gets it clean over a dog that comes back, does a little looking around, but gets focused with his handlers help and also gets it clean?

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but judging marking is judging marking, and I don't think what goes a head of it or behind it makes any difference. We should judge the dog on it's ability to find marks, plain and simple.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I have no trouble and don't lose a bit of sleep over dropping a dog that doesn't get wet. It may be about marking but the dogs are supposed to be tested equally on land and water. If you didn't get wet, you failed the second part of the criteria. If they ran around they disturbed to much cover.


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

kjrice said:


> You are a judge and setting up a water series but due to limited options one bird is quite cheaty. Dog A stays wet all the way while Dog B runs most of the bank and then gets wet. Both dogs go straight to the bird. How would you score it?


While both dogs obviously knew where the bird was the dog that took the straight line through the water to the bird would mark higher on perseverance and trainability thus receive the higher score


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

JTS said:


> .......however the rule book does not thoroughly support your opinion as it pertains to judging the derby stake.


I agree with you. However the rulebook says this: Moderate fault

_3. Reluctance to enter rough cover, water, ice, mud or other situations involving unpleasant "going’’ for the dog.

_And this: Minor fault

_1. Going out of its way by land, to an excessive degree, on the return from a water retrieve 



_


_





_


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

greg magee said:


> I have no trouble and don't lose a bit of sleep over dropping a dog that doesn't get wet. It may be about marking but the dogs are supposed to be tested equally on land and water. If you didn't get wet, you failed the second part of the criteria. If they ran around they disturbed to much cover.


actually what if the cover was in the water and the bank was absulutly clear of cover? The disturbing too much cover is a crutch some judges use to make up for a poorly designed test. And how much is too much disturbance?

/Paul


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

BuddyJ said:


> While both dogs obviously knew where the bird was the dog that took the straight line through the water to the bird would mark higher on perseverance and trainability thus receive the higher score


Are perseverance and and trainability judged in the derby?


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> actually what if the cover was in the water and the bank was absulutly clear of cover? The disturbing too much cover is a crutch some judges use to make up for a poorly designed test. And how much is too much disturbance?
> 
> /Paul




This is an interesting point.

What is the purpose of the "too much cover" caveat?

Dog goes for a retrieve, handler directs him on a straight line resulting in dog flushing a bunch of waterfowl on the way vs. handler that directs dog to run the shore, disturbing no wildlife.

Which handler is the better sportsman?

Newbie regards...


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

We'll make it easier and use a set of Derby land marks for this question... Dog A takes a straight as a laser line line toward a mark but once in the AOF has a *tight* hunt befor coming up with the bird. Dog B takes a "Banana" line indicative of avoiding some factors but goes directly to the AOF and the bird and picks it up and returns to the handler. Dog C takes the same laser line as A but in a similar fashion to B has no hunt............

Should either dogs Mark on that bird significantly out score the others?

john


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Ironwood said:


> You asked the question? Now show the courage to answer it. Years ago this thought was formulated in a different way. "If you ask the question be prepared for the answer."
> It applies to the derby as much as it does to an all age stake carrying championship points.
> 
> There are many traits that are being looked for and evaluated on a daily basis and in training and in competition whether it is a developing pup or high point dog or national champion we are working with.
> ...


I didn't know I lacked courage and didn't think it really mattered, but I would judge the marks equally.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

kjrice said:


> I didn't know I lacked courage and didn't think it really mattered, but I would judge the marks equally.



In the spirit of your Avatar, you should've added "umm kay?" 

Nice thread Kevin! For what it's worth, in our second Derby, we passed the water series after my dog chose to run the very groomed bank after a long land to water entry. Despite her cheat, she perfectly marked the bird that fell in very heavy cover and took water on the return. It was clear to many that this was not a case of lack of courage. It was simply the fastest way to the bird. And her marking was good enough to produce it quickly. Not that I was happy she cheated. I realize that was a bad thing in the big picture. But if we had been hunting, the route she chose was definitely one that disturbed the least cover and made the least noise.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Good thread! Philosophically I agree with Ted, but I break my approach to cheating derby marks into two categories;

1) The Ideal world, where all judges understand that 90% of untrained young dogs will cheat water if tempted, understand that in the derby we are trying to test natural marking abilities over trained response and therefore set up challenging water marks without any, or at least with a minimal cheating aspect.

2) The Real world, where we see cheating water marks in the derby all the time, so as a handlers we need to have a plan in place to deal with it. Unfortunately that usually means you have to look at long term implications of allowing your dog to cheat in a trial, versus never in training, so you throw away your entry fees and pick up your dog. That decision is made easier knowing that most judges that set up cheating test obviously feel that trained response is very important so even if you get called back after cheating water, yet marking the bird well, all you can expect is a JAM. The lesson here is to either cross your fingers and hope you don't get a cheating test, or hold off on entering trials until the dog is further along in training and consistently disciplined on cheating water.

I like Ted's description of the good marking hard charging, very birdy, fire-breather. This dog's motivation in cheating water is not a lack of courage, but an extreme desire to get that bird which is right there! 

Back in my hunt test days I saw many dogs who lacked courage and were averse to entering heavy cover, water or hard going. These were typically not "cheating" set ups, just cover or water directly in the path to the bird, and dog's would slow down or stop, then work hard to find some other easier route to the bird. That's not what we are talking about here. I once ran a derby with my good marking fast dog, we were way ahead of the pack after two very hard land series, the third had one very cheating mark. I usually won't let my dog cheat in a trial, but in this case after he showed discipline on the go-bird by swimming past the gun right to the bird, and since there was some non-cheating water that he went through, I let him run the far bank and pin the bird. The fourth series was a more challenging, bigger water series, again my dog was way ahead of anybody with big long swims to the birds. End of the day we got a JAM. Regardless of this discussion, it just doesn't pay to let your dog cheat in a trial. It's funny how cheating marks are way less prevalent in the all age.

John


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Good thread! Philosophically I agree with Ted, but I break my approach to cheating derby marks into two categories;
> 
> 1) The Ideal world, where all judges understand that 90% of untrained young dogs will cheat water if tempted, understand that in the derby we are trying to test natural marking abilities over trained response and therefore set up challenging water marks without any, or at least with a minimal cheating aspect.
> 
> ...


Ha I was waiting for a real world post in this discussion.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim West said:


> Ted, I am not so sure I follow your discussion on judging marks.
> 
> Ted stated.....
> 
> ...



Tim

I guess I don't understand what your confusion is about

Here is what the Rule Book says on page 48



> Ability to “mark’’ does not necessarily imply “pin-pointing the fall.’’ A dog that misses the “fall’’ on the first cast, but recognizes the depth of the “area of the fall,’’ stays in it, then quickly and systematically “hunts-it-out,’’ has done both a creditable and an intelligent job of marking.


The Rule Book says that you need to evaluate a "hunt" as part of a dog's mark. Given that, why wouldn't you want to consider:

"Where the dog begins its hunt (where its momentum breaks down, tail crack, when the dog drops its head, which way the dog turns when it begins its hunt, etc.)"

The Rule Book also says on Page 49



> Often a dog gives definite indication of “memory,’’ and of his marking ability, at or after delivery of a first bird, by aligning himself toward, or by looking eagerly in the exact direction of an unretrieved “fall”; at times, even leaving at once or leaving on command, but without benefit of a precise line to the “fall’’ given to him by the handler




There will always be those who say "I know a mark when I see it."

I think it is more difficult - and useful - to define what are the signs that tell you a dog has a good mark

That is why I look for what I look for.

That's why I say that I look for: 




> What does that mean exactly - judging marks? It means you look for:
> - Dog focus on the mat
> - Dog orientation on its return from a previous retrieve
> - How the dog re-orients itself on the mat
> ...



It has nothing to do with pre-selecting the type of dog I like
It has everything to do with evaluating a dog's ability to mark


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

This mark is from a derby I recently judged. Actual routes as noted in my book. They all got wet. Which is the best derby mark?


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

now this will be interesting


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> This mark is from a derby I recently judged. Actual routes as noted in my book. They all got wet. Which is the best derby mark?
> View attachment 13344



i'd say red did the best placement wise but clearly purple was the better marker as he was able to deviate so far beyond the correct line and still make his way back to the bird. assuming he didnt start hunting until he was right on the bird or no hunt at all


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

blake_mhoona said:


> i'd say red did the best placement wise but clearly purple was the better marker as he was able to deviate so far beyond the correct line and still make his way back to the bird. assuming he didnt start hunting until he was right on the bird or no hunt at all


Interesting. And what's wrong with the green dog's route? Do you understand what s/he did (when s/he lost sight of the gunner down in the water)?


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Red and green tried to stay honest and did a great job of it. Green obviously didn't want to come out of the water, which would have made me very happy as the handler. Red wins in my book, went at the bird and put on a tight hunt, tough to beat in my book.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Too important to leave out of the discussion is where was the other bird placed? If this mark is the memory bird I would like to know what influence the go bird could have had.


Mark Littlejohn said:


> This mark is from a derby I recently judged. Actual routes as noted in my book. They all got wet. Which is the best derby mark?
> View attachment 13344


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Red had a better line but what was wrong with purples mark.....as to Red and Greens mark, which way was the wind blowing ?

john


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> Interesting. And what's wrong with the green dog's route? Do you understand what s/he did (when s/he lost sight of the gunner down in the water)?


i didnt think of that i just thought purple took an extremely wide line and still pinned the mark. green didnt do bad at all in my book. in fact he was clearly better trained or progressed further in training than purple. but i dont know many dogs that could take 3x the length of the intended mark (ex: what would be a 100 yard mark the dog actually ran 300, 300=900 etc.) and still pinpoint it like that. 

green showed good courage to recover like that and in all honesty probably deserved to win under modern derbies because of the combination of lack of hunt and little to no cheating. however in most derbies red would have won because the line was almost perfect and tight hunt. and in a theoretical world purple would have won because of his marking skills (and not training skills)

watch out for purple dog in the future though that could be a heck of a dog


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

1. Go bird was off to the right and did not influence this mark
2. Wind was from behind our left shoulder
3. No dog broke stride en route to aof
4. This mark was in 3rd series


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

blake_mhoona said:


> i didnt think of that i just thought purple took an extremely wide line and still pinned the mark. green didnt do bad at all in my book. in fact he was clearly better trained or progressed further in training than purple. *but i dont know many dogs that could take 3x the length of the intended mark (ex: what would be a 100 yard mark the dog actually ran 300, 300=900 etc.) and still pinpoint it like that.
> *
> green showed good courage to recover like that and in all honesty probably deserved to win under modern derbies because of the combination of lack of hunt and little to no cheating. however in most derbies red would have won because the line was almost perfect and tight hunt. and in a theoretical world purple would have won because of his marking skills (and not training skills)
> 
> watch out for purple dog in the future though that could be a heck of a dog


So what you are saying is the Red and Green showed better trainability but purple showed superior marking even in the face of the route. What are we judging at derby again?

/Paul


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

It depends.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> So what you are saying is the Red and Green showed better trainability but purple showed superior marking even in the face of the route. What are we judging at derby again?
> 
> /Paul


exactly purple should of made it to the next series theoretically but i'm guessing with the trend of most derbies purple would of been lucky to make it to the next series let alone place.

red showed best training very acceptable marking
green showed great training and great marking
purple showed decent training and best marking


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> This mark is from a derby I recently judged. Actual routes as noted in my book. They all got wet. Which is the best derby mark?
> View attachment 13344


All three excellent marks. If this is all I have to distinguish the dogs, which is basically no difference in my mind, the 4th is going to be tough


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

The purple route would absolutely still be playing and be in contention. If it were my dig it would have been picked up. It's just not worth the after effects.


blake_mhoona said:


> exactly purple should of made it to the next series theoretically but i'm guessing with the trend of most derbies purple would of been lucky to make it to the next series let alone place.
> 
> red showed best training very acceptable marking
> green showed great training and great marking
> purple showed decent training and best marking


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

I may look at the diagram of the marks wrong but they way it looks I really feel sorry for the trained dogs when the derby marks are pitched the contrary (wrong) way. Hats off to that
dog that stayed in the water


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

Sorry went back and looked bird is throw the right way my bad


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

The posts in this thread, what the rule books says versus how most derbies are judged are part of the reason why I don't run many derbies (usually 4-5 just to see how my young dogs respond to a trial environment). The other more important & primary reason applies to all field trial stakes and that is that running a dog without the ability to correct the dog as you would consistently do in training erodes training - even for accomplished AA dogs, so I limit my entries into trials in favor of maintaining stds in training. For one dog that might mean 8-10 trials a year, to another it might mean 15-18 trials - and in all cases usually one more that I should have run. Related to derbies (since it is the topic), training for dogs of derby age is especially critical related to cheating water, dealing with terrain factors, the placement of marks & their relation to one another, wind, line manners etc. This training & how the dog might respond to the marks thrown during the derby competition go a long way toward how the dog will respond as it ages. Let a dog cheat water enough, creep enough, etc & you will be faced with those issues over the dog's entire competitive life. And for those who live for derbies almost exclusively, they don't worry about the bad habits formed, they just pass them off to someone else when the dog ages out of derbies. I realize that some dogs don't seem to be adversely affected by a lot of derby entries, but I just haven't owned or trained any of those.

Specifically related to judging derbies, I fall into the following the rule book (as it is written) group that believes that derbies are for marking ability & trained responses are of minor (very) consideration. So when I judge a derby, I try very hard to eliminate conditions that would give a heavy advantage to training over marking ability. I think hooked guns irrelevant unless it results in a hunt, lines irrelevant under most circumstances, etc., but my observation of derbies in recent years is that I am in a small minority.

Meant to say also, rather than just posting one marking set up & ask how it would be judged, instead show 4 series that consistently test marking (rather than training) and see how the combination of those 4 series will provide the separation sought so that judges don't have to split hairs on the lines run.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If we were going to nitpick...

The Red dog was the only dog ever to have been in a position to wind the bird.

The Green dog caved into the wind, but had a good mark and pulled it off.

As far as the purple dog getting some water, it thought about cheating but decided to "do the right thing" and had a good outcome....... 

As far as handling or picking the purple dog up , it got the BMR (but the handler should continue working on its proclivity to cheat during the week).




But we are not they are all back .......
john


----------



## sunnydee (Oct 15, 2009)

blake_mhoona said:


> exactly purple should of made it to the next series theoretically but i'm guessing with the trend of most derbies purple would of been lucky to make it to the next series let alone place.
> 
> red showed best training very acceptable marking
> green showed great training and great marking
> purple showed decent training and best marking


Ran a derby with my dog a few years back. She would have been purple but didn't touch any of the water, we did not make it back to the next series. I'm not sure if "Pin To Win" is always the case


----------



## John Shoffner (Jan 27, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> We are judging the quality of a dog's marking, not its training. Both dogs had excellent marks. No reason to prefer one over another on the basis of that mark. You will need to look elsewhere for separation


Agreed.
John


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

I'll play. If wind is blowing from bottom left to top right, I think the purple dog was the dog least likely to have used scent to find the bird. Red dog got in the vicinity and circled, then winded it. Green dog looks like he's been taught to stay in the water, but doesn't understand why. Can't tell the terrain from the diagram, but if there was a downhill slope from bird to water, I'd speculate that the scent may have been sinking downhill and the green dog swam until he intersected the scent stream. But, since I am human and can't scent like a dog, I'd have no way of knowing for sure how the scent was drifting and whether the green dog scented it or not. I'd call it a draw.

(Fun question!)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

While I won't pick a winner from one mark, I will point out an easy observation...the purple dog didn't avoid the water, just took a shorter portion of the water. In my experience a dog that is purposely avoiding water will avoid it altogether in a situation like that shown (especially a stylish dog). Clearly the green dog exhibited a trained response not unusual for a derby age & the red dog a more balanced line expected of a trained dog but not as good a mark (because of the AOF hunt) as either purple or green.

But this might be a good time to remind folks of what Ted said early on in this thread. Specifically that the combination of 8 marks should provide the separation required to get a winner if the testing is challenging and varied without having to resort to training tests. Point being that by observing the dogs' responses to this mark it should provide some background that could be used to set up other marks where the dog's marking skills could be further tested where a cheat or a over-watery response would not be rewarded unless the dog was in fact an outstanding marker - the intent of derby judging to find the best marker in the entered field of dogs.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Since the Op didn't state anything about wind, slope or cover I can't speculate about that. I also don't know how visible the gun is from the line and from the water, (it's common for dogs to loose sight of the gun from the lower, in-the-water view). I wish Red had a slightly smaller hunt, but if you consider a typical throw is 50-60 feet, the fact that the dog kept his hunt between the gun and the bird and worked it out in one circle, I think that is a very reasonable, intelligent hunt. I hate Purple's initial line, this is far from a cheating mark, the dog actually took about as much water as he would have if he swam straight to the bird. Then to pop out of the water, see the gun and change course, or did he suddenly remember the mark, regardless, I don't like it. Without seeing the setup in person I don't know what to make out of green, I assume his training response took over during the swim and channeling became more important, or safer than going straight to the mark.

If Red's hunt was smaller it would be a no-brainer, as is there are seven other birds to judge, I would hope to get answers there, but I lean toward Red on this one bird.

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I don't like trying to judge marks on paper. But, I am interested in the suggestions that one dog should be penalized for using the wind. If we believe that a good nose is an admirable quality (as the Rule Book says we should) and if our emphasis is on the dog's recognition of the area of the fall (as the Rule Book says we should), why are we penalizing a dog that gets to the area of fall and then uses its nose to locate the bird. I think that this thinking is just another example of how people judge lines, not marks


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

Ted, for this newbie, could you clarify the importance of vision/memory/depth perception vs scenting ability (or the dog's reliance on scent) in judging performance? Dog's generally can't see as well as people (well, my dog can see better than me, but that's not saying much) and they don't have the memory that people have. What they do have is a sense of smell that is many, many times better than a person's. Yet, from reading the way dogs are judged, especially in field trials, it seems that a dog that relies more on scent than vision or memory is heavily penalized.

Do judges try to strike a balance between scenting ability vs marking? Or maybe that topic should be a different thread.

(BTW, somewhere in the prior threads, it was said that the wind was behind the handler's left shoulder.)


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

PalouseDogs said:


> Ted, for this newbie, could you clarify the importance of vision/memory/depth perception vs scenting ability (or the dog's reliance on scent) in judging performance? Dog's generally can't see as well as people (well, my dog can see better than me, but that's not saying much) and they don't have the memory that people have. What they do have is a sense of smell that is many, many times better than a person's. Yet, from reading the way dogs are judged, especially in field trials, it seems that a dog that relies more on scent than vision or memory is heavily penalized.
> 
> Do judges try to strike a balance between scenting ability vs marking? Or maybe that topic should be a different thread.
> 
> (BTW, somewhere in the prior threads, it was said that the wind was behind the handler's left shoulder.)


I would love to hear ANY judges opinion on this. Great question.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

Of the 3 jobs I see little separation. You need to see other marks to separate. I don't draw out a dogs line to the fall area unless he goes cluelessly off into another area and wanders over to the mark. What I'm interested in is where he puts on his hunt because in my mind thats where he marked the bird. I care very little if he hooks the gun but goes to the fall area and hunts. Setting up a hunt behind the gun is another matter because he has marked the bird in the wrong place. I don't see penalizing the dog for a "wind save", aren't they supposed to use their nose?

Everytime I judge I learn something and I still have plenty to learn. Great topic!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

PalouseDogs said:


> Ted, for this newbie, could you clarify the importance of vision/memory/depth perception vs scenting ability (or the dog's reliance on scent) in judging performance? Dog's generally can't see as well as people (well, my dog can see better than me, but that's not saying much) and they don't have the memory that people have. What they do have is a sense of smell that is many, many times better than a person's. Yet, from reading the way dogs are judged, especially in field trials, it seems that a dog that relies more on scent than vision or memory is heavily penalized.
> 
> Do judges try to strike a balance between scenting ability vs marking? Or maybe that topic should be a different thread.
> 
> (BTW, somewhere in the prior threads, it was said that the wind was behind the handler's left shoulder.)


Sorry I missed that follow-up post about the wind. I still think that based on a normal throw Red's hunt was pretty small, he turned back into the AOF without wind (got the wind after he looped around to the right). Nice hunt. 

won't speak for Ted, but for myself, I don't believe judges should penalize a dog, or make assumptions about a "wind save" unless the dog is way out of the picture going full tilt, then turns hard into the wind from some long distance away. If a dog checks into the wind and goes to the bird from reasonably close, I don't assume the dog wasn't going to make that turn anyway based on his marking, and like Ted said, when did a dog honoring its nose and using it in conjunction with his other marking senses turn into a negative? Judges like to set up marks downwind, but it is a rare field trial where the wind holds steady for a whole series. To answer your question, I believe marking is more about vision, memory, depth perception, and for some of the great markers, some weird voodoo that I don't understand. That said, when the opportunity arises, I expect a dog to use its nose to advantage along with the other important traits. 

John


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

PalouseDogs said:


> Ted, for this newbie, could you clarify the importance of vision/memory/depth perception vs scenting ability (or the dog's reliance on scent) in judging performance? Dog's generally can't see as well as people (well, my dog can see better than me, but that's not saying much) and they don't have the memory that people have. What they do have is a sense of smell that is many, many times better than a person's. Yet, from reading the way dogs are judged, especially in field trials, it seems that a dog that relies more on scent than vision or memory is heavily penalized.
> 
> Do judges try to strike a balance between scenting ability vs marking? Or maybe that topic should be a different thread.
> 
> (BTW, somewhere in the prior threads, it was said that the wind was behind the handler's left shoulder.)


IMO, a great marking dog uses 3 abilities to find it's bird:

Sight
Depth perception 
Nose

A good dog will always put itself in a position to locate the mark using those 3 abilities. For me to properly judge a mark, I need to take all into account. 

The route it takes will be a direct reflection of the extent of training and the # of marks it has seen.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

Judges its an aweful shame when you see the handler pick up the dog that was leading going into the fourth, not because he doesnt know where the bird is but because he is going to cheat purely due to your set up. Did that once and I said to myself shame on me as a judge. He had already shown me that he was a fine marking animal with courage who liked the water. If you set up a test with that intention where you really tempt the dog to cheat shame on you. Now if the handler picks up because the dog is a scoundrel thats a different story. Its not hard to tempt a young dog, that is why we work so hard on it.


Mark


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Mark said:


> Judges its an aweful shame when you see the handler pick up the dog that was leading going into the fourth, not because he doesnt know where the bird is but because he is going to cheat purely due to your set up. Did that once and I said to myself shame on me as a judge. He had already shown me that he was a fine marking animal with courage who liked the water. If you set up a test with that intention where you really tempt the dog to cheat shame on you. Now if the handler picks up because the dog is a scoundrel thats a different story. Its not hard to tempt a young dog, that is why we work so hard on it.
> 
> 
> Mark


Awesome perspective!


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Bill Billups said:


> Of the 3 jobs I see little separation. You need to see other marks to separate. I don't draw out a dogs line to the fall area unless he goes cluelessly off into another area and wanders over to the mark. What I'm interested in is where he puts on his hunt because in my mind thats where he marked the bird. I care very little if he hooks the gun but goes to the fall area and hunts. Setting up a hunt behind the gun is another matter because he has marked the bird in the wrong place. I don't see penalizing the dog for a "wind save", aren't they supposed to use their nose?
> 
> Everytime I judge I learn something and I still have plenty to learn. Great topic!



If I understand the rule book correctly, isn't this the correct "way" to judge a derby? If lines don't matter, here's the answer!


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

jeff evans said:


> If I understand the rule book correctly, isn't this the correct "way" to judge a derby? If lines don't matter, here's the answer!


I don't have nearly the points as most of the folks posting here but I will say that to me, at some point, lines matter. I agree with Mark. If possible, I want to make it difficult for a dog to cheat, not just ignore it if the dog does. So, if I make it very difficult to cheat and the dog does, I feel comfortable considering that a fault, not that the dog is less trained than the others.

For example, in one derby the water we had to work with required us to have an angle entry for the go bird to get the memory bird where we wanted and not have them too tight. So, we moved the line to the base of the dam and put the mat right at the water's edge. One step and the dog was swimming. If the dog did not want to get wet at all it really had to work at it--in fact it couldn't get there by land without essentially going backwards. Some didn't get in and most handlers picked them up when that happened, which you hate to see but they really were being 'scoundrels' if they did. If the handler let them roll, I did not feel bad considering that reluctance to enter the water, in that case.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

This is all probably worth less than the money it cost to read this, but this is simply my take on it. Judging lines alone do not tell you that much on a mark. That said, if a dog can cheat the water (Cheat, not completely avoid it. There's an obvious difference here. Avoiding is showing lack of courage IMO & should be dinged for such.) & still hit the marks, I don't get the mark. You can't as a judge fault the dog. You set it up where they don't get penalized for cheating, so you have to deal with it & judge the mark, not the line to it. Judge the mark itself & not the line. Ding a dog for obvious lack of courage if it runs around a pond. Just my simple take on what the rules state.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> This is all probably worth less than the money it cost to read this, but this is simply my take on it. Judging lines alone do not tell you that much on a mark. That said, if a dog can cheat the water (Cheat, not completely avoid it. There's an obvious difference here. Avoiding is showing lack of courage IMO & should be dinged for such.) & still hit the marks, I don't get the mark. You can't as a judge fault the dog. You set it up where they don't get penalized for cheating, so you have to deal with it & judge the mark, not the line to it. Judge the mark itself & not the line. Ding a dog for obvious lack of courage if it runs around a pond. Just my simple take on what the rules state.


We TRAIN dogs to take the less efficient water route rather than the quicker way by land. I don't think a dog that cheats is necessarliy lacking courage but is likely very eager and taking the way that was successful in the past. If you have good water hopefully you can set up good non cheaty marks but sometimes a cow pond is all you get. If they do cheat and get the mark I don't think its a poor mark by the rule book.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

You missed the words cheat & avoid as being separate identities????


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

JTS said:


> How can lines matter and be judged in a derby when the rulebook does not support your opinion?


I think that the rulebook indeed supports my opinion. Reluctance to enter water is a moderate fault, in the rulebook. If as I described a dog will not get in the water from the water at all from a mat right at the waters edge, that, to me is reluctance. Courage is also a highly desirable trait (and a Natural Ability). I am not going to set up cheaty water marks in a derby if I have any say but I am not talking about a dog that skirts a little corner of a pond on a 150 yard angle entry.

Are you saying that a dog that flat refuses to get in the water and in fact goes away from the mark to avoid it has done a great job even if it goes right to the bird? If so, we are never going to agree. While marking is of primary importance, it is certainly not the only thing covered by the rules.

I think the reality in derbies is that many judges are much more willing than those who have posted here to judge lines and most handlers know it.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

The problem is that most cheating has very little to do with courage and much more to do with training. You may want to justify the line run by telling yourself it is a courage issue but it usually is not. I know this by the natural tendencies I see in my dogs when young that have not been water forced, have not yet been through cheating singles. I'll use my current 2.5 yr old dog. He loves the water. When out airing if he sees water he goes directly to the water & it is very difficult to get him out, he just swims and swims - and he has been doing this since he was first introduced to water at 8 wks old. That same dog prior to water-forcing, swim-by & cheating singles would virtually always cheat an entry or and exit when retrieving a mark - he was just smart enough to know he could get there faster by land. It had absolutely nothing to do with courage but everything to do with desire to retrieve the mark and not yet having been exposed to a consistent regiment of correction for cheating after water force, swim-by & cheating singles. The point is it is training that conditions young dogs to not cheat & in derbies you should pay little attention to training - and rather than search the rule book to find some justification for judging lines, just do your best to find 8 marks that will judge marking without factors that are best dealt with through training.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> You missed the words cheat & avoid as being separate identities????


Yes it appears I missed your distinction. I agree with what you posted.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> The problem is that most cheating has very little to do with courage and much more to do with training. You may want to justify the line run by telling yourself it is a courage issue but it usually is not. I know this by the natural tendencies I see in my dogs when young that have not been water forced, have not yet been through cheating singles. I'll use my current 2.5 yr old dog. He loves the water. When out airing if he sees water he goes directly to the water & it is very difficult to get him out, he just swims and swims - and he has been doing this since he was first introduced to water at 8 wks old. That same dog prior to water-forcing, swim-by & cheating singles would virtually always cheat an entry or and exit when retrieving a mark - he was just smart enough to know he could get there faster by land. It had absolutely nothing to do with courage but everything to do with desire to retrieve the mark and not yet having been exposed to a consistent regiment of correction for cheating after water force, swim-by & cheating singles. The point is it is training that conditions young dogs to not cheat & in derbies you should pay little attention to training - and rather than search the rule book to find some justification for judging lines, just do your best to find 8 marks that will judge marking without factors that are best dealt with through training.


Wow! Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Nothing more to add here.

John


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> The problem is that most cheating has very little to do with courage and much more to do with training. You may want to justify the line run by telling yourself it is a courage issue but it usually is not.


David,

I completely agree with you and I am always looking to make it extremely difficult to cheat, but I do want to see the dog get in the water and then come back to another series and get back in the water. 

Is it your position that when judging a derby a dog that will simply will not get in the water is just as good as those that do (and I am asking this not to be argumentative but because I respect your opinion and would like to know your thoughts). In my experience, no matter what you do some dogs will try to avoid the water. The case I described above was a mark that I would be comfortable throwing in a JH test and even though the mat was right at the edge some dogs would not get in.

This is basically the situation I described:








The mark is the go bird of a double and that black thing in the water is a rock outcropping that is both in the water and on the land. The mat is literally on the edge of the water.

As I see it, green and yellow are excellent. I know what orange was thinking but can't judge that so it is really no different than green and yellow. Assuming the red dog's handler let it do that, would you say that was just as good as the others?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

JTS said:


> Hopefully the seven other marks gave separation needed, this mark did not imo.


Fair enough. Certainly hard to use one mark as an example. Let me ask you this: should I feel bad as a judge that I set this up and a dog cheated on this mark, forcing the handler to pick it up? What could we have done, short of putting the line on the point and thrown two from there (which would have been on the short side for a JH test), to ensure that the dogs could not cheat it? Assuming that we could not have made two 100% uncheatable tests and this same dog managed to pick them all up without getting wet, should there be no consequences?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

DoubleHaul said:


> David,
> 
> I completely agree with you and I am always looking to make it extremely difficult to cheat, but I do want to see the dog get in the water and then come back to another series and get back in the water.
> 
> ...


Just curious why the setup didn't have the line at the lower left corner of the pond, maybe even slightly up the left side - much less cheaty. Again, I don't like to comment on just one mark. Yes, I agree that a dog should get in the water but think in this setup it seems more to test the observation skills or intelligence of the dogs than courage or marking skills. Trust when I say this but I have never been accused of setting up easy tests but I think even in derbies hard, challenging marks can be setup that avoid dealing with factors that are overcome through training.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Anyone who judges a dog's ability to mark SOLELY on his line to the AOF obviously doesn't get it. A lot of things about a dog's demeanor give you clues as to how well the dog marked the bird. Ted mentioned a few.

HOWEVER, isn't there anyone here who believes the line the dog takes is worth some consideration in his marking ability?

If the dog knows for certain where the bird fell when he leaves the mat, why does he hook the gun?

If, after 3 series, you see a dog that shows a pattern of going to the wrong side more times than to the side where the bird fell, what are you thinking? Are you still calling him back to the 4th along with dogs that went DIRECTLY to the AOF? And what do you do when it's time for placements?

Can you always be sure that straight lines are trained? Am I the only one here who has seen derby age dogs who will NATURALLY (on a reasonable set up) run straight to the bird? Sure, they are few and far between but when you are judging, how can you ASSUME the "red" dog (in the FIRST example posted) is not one of them and therefore give him his due credit for going DIRECTLY to the area and coming up with the bird?

You gotta judge what you see and not make a lot of assumptions about WHY Fido did what he did. Trained or not.

JS


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> Fair enough. Certainly hard to use one mark as an example. Let me ask you this: should I feel bad as a judge that I set this up and a dog cheated on this mark, forcing the handler to pick it up? What could we have done, short of putting the line on the point and thrown two from there (which would have been on the short side for a JH test), to ensure that the dogs could not cheat it? Assuming that we could not have made two 100% uncheatable tests and this same dog managed to pick them all up without getting wet, should there be no consequences?


It's not the most cheaty test I've ever seen, but you could have moved the line to the left around the pond and put a bird on the point as well as keep the mark you have. At that point you could even back the line up a bit. Personally I think it is a bit cheaty for a Junior HT, but fine for a Master.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

JS said:


> Anyone who judges a dog's ability to mark SOLELY on his line to the AOF obviously doesn't get it. A lot of things about a dog's demeanor give you clues as to how well the dog marked the bird. Ted mentioned a few.
> 
> HOWEVER, isn't there anyone here who believes the line the dog takes is worth some consideration in his marking ability?
> 
> ...


Ok I'll say it;
1) If at the end of the day two dogs are tied on every mark, then I could see it coming down to straightest line as a tie breaker.
2) Going to the wrong side of the gun in three series probably leaves room for other dogs to place ahead of this dog, but I usually take every dog that picked up the chickens on to the next series. Green ribbons are cheap, and particulary in the derby level, can keep a newbie enthused about the sport.
3) You are not the only one, I also have seen many very good markers, I can tell they are good markers because more often than not, they do run directly to the bird.
4) I also like the red dog's job the best, but would like to see that good work over seven other marks of some difficulty.

John


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

JS said:


> Anyone who judges a dog's ability to mark SOLELY on his line to the AOF obviously doesn't get it. A lot of things about a dog's demeanor give you clues as to how well the dog marked the bird. Ted mentioned a few.
> 
> HOWEVER, isn't there anyone here who believes the line the dog takes is worth some consideration in his marking ability?
> 
> ...


Yes a dog that runs straight lines is of great value. But even those few dogs that seem most naturally to run straight lines are affected by factors (terrain, cover, wind, water) that alter the line taken & it is training that perfects the skill of running straight. My observations of derby dogs trained by Bill Hillman represent some of the very best line running dogs I have seen in derbies and the results are that he has won many derbies because straight lines play a large role in marking success (there is a hint here). But the rules say we are to give training little consideration in a derby so to level the playing field so that training doesn't win the day in derbies, you have to set up tests that don't heavily favor a trained response to conditions within the tests. And even with a judges best efforts to maximize natural marking skills, training still plays a large role & rarely penalizes a well trained dog. And that well trained dog that runs good lines will be rewarded continually as it advances to AA stakes.

And the hint to judges here is to attempt to minimize factors that favor training.........


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Keep in mind that a dog using his nose is a "natural" thing NOT a trained response. Also, I will add this about cheating and the word courage. A dog that runs balls to the walls around a piece of water to get to a mark to me DOES NOT show lack of courage. It does however show a great amount of desire to pick up that bird and deliver it to hand.




PalouseDogs said:


> Ted, for this newbie, could you clarify the importance of vision/memory/depth perception vs scenting ability (or the dog's reliance on scent) in judging performance? Dog's generally can't see as well as people (well, my dog can see better than me, but that's not saying much) and they don't have the memory that people have. What they do have is a sense of smell that is many, many times better than a person's. Yet, from reading the way dogs are judged, especially in field trials, it seems that a dog that relies more on scent than vision or memory is heavily penalized.
> 
> Do judges try to strike a balance between scenting ability vs marking? Or maybe that topic should be a different thread.
> 
> (BTW, somewhere in the prior threads, it was said that the wind was behind the handler's left shoulder.)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

All hooked guns are not equal relative to scoring a Derby mark.

The dog that caves in to the factors and simply "button hooks" the gun and goes directly to the bird may have marked the bird.....

The dog that fights the factors to end up hunting behind the gun before working its way to the mark may not have done so.


john


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> This mark is from a derby I recently judged. Actual routes as noted in my book. They all got wet. Which is the best derby mark?
> View attachment 13344


Which dog demonstrated that it had the best mark?

I'd say that purple never lost reference.
Red and green both did.

But, red was positive in his mark, even when he lost reference. He maintained his confidence and continued to hold his line. 
When he recovered reference, it was at a similar perspective, and he put on an intelligent hunt in the AOF.

Green also lost reference, and with it confidence. He then faded with the wind, and stayed in the water. 
When he beached, he saw the gun and headed right at it.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

It's not ABOUT the line. The line TELLS a story.

The line itself isn't the story.


----------



## Jerry S. (May 18, 2009)

Granddaddy said:


> Yes a dog that runs straight lines is of great value. But even those few dogs that seem most naturally to run straight lines are affected by factors (terrain, cover, wind, water) that alter the line taken & it is training that perfects the skill of running straight. My observations of derby dogs trained by Bill Hillman represent some of the very best line running dogs I have seen in derbies and the results are that he has won many derbies because straight lines play a large role in marking success (there is a hint here). But the rules say we are to give training little consideration in a derby so to level the playing field so that training doesn't win the day in derbies, you have to set up tests that don't heavily favor a trained response to conditions within the tests. And even with a judges best efforts to maximize natural marking skills, training still plays a large role & rarely penalizes a well trained dog. And that well trained dog that runs good lines will be rewarded continually as it advances to AA stakes.
> 
> And the hint to judges here is to attempt to minimize factors that favor training.........


This about sums up the whole thread IMHO.
Thanks David.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> Just curious why the setup didn't have the line at the lower left corner of the pond, maybe even slightly up the left side - much less cheaty. Again, I don't like to comment on just one mark. Yes, I agree that a dog should get in the water but think in this setup it seems more to test the observation skills or intelligence of the dogs than courage or marking skills. Trust when I say this but I have never been accused of setting up easy tests but I think even in derbies hard, challenging marks can be setup that avoid dealing with factors that are overcome through training.


I didn't draw the whole thing (as you can see it is not my best skill). Moving to the left would negatively impacted the memory bird, which was the one that really gave us what we wanted to see. I didn't draw the whole pond, but that really wasn't an option.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

If my dog cheated his way around the whole pond, and I knew that the dog knew exactly where the bird was, i wouldnt like it one bit and would pick the dog up. To those of you judges who think it doesn't matter one bit because he knew exactly where the bird was, I just took away from you the opportunity to give him a blue ribbon . I think that that opportunity removed is a good thing. 

For you guys pontifcating the merits of the cheating dog go and watch a derby one of these days. There is not normally just one good dog there, there are plenty of them and most weekends its a fight for the blue up til the last bird is picked up. Often the previous seven tough marks have not distinguished an outright winner, so you better do the last one pretty damn well.

Thats just the reality of the derby these days despite what you might want to read into the rule book. If you have a cheating dog he will stand out of the pack, and by standing out i mean he either wont be there at the end or will be the first dog called out at the awards. Remember they call the places in reverse order greeens first.

Back to reality 



Mark


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Mark said:


> If my dog cheated his way around the whole pond, and I knew that the dog knew exactly where the bird was, i wouldnt like it one bit and would pick the dog up. *To those of you judges who think it doesn't matter one bit because he knew exactly where the bird was*, I just took away from you the opportunity to give him a blue ribbon . I think that that opportunity removed is a good thing.
> 
> *For you guys pontifcating the merits of the cheating dog go and watch a derby one of these days.* There is not normally just one good dog there, there are plenty of them and most weekends its a fight for the blue up til the last bird is picked up. Often the previous seven tough marks have not distinguished an outright winner, so you better do the last one pretty damn well.
> 
> ...


Mark, the reality is that we have judges these days that don't understand how to set up tests that minimize training & maximize marking skills, so instead they set up training tests and reward training over marking. We who have advocated here that a dog who cheats can be judged essentially like a dog that doesn't cheat yet has a similar mark comes directly from the rule book emphasis on marking versus training. I also indicated previously that even judges who minimize the exposure to factors within a set up that test a dog's line do not penalize dogs who have been/are being trained to run straight even through factors like water, wind, terrain & cover. Although challenging, it is possible to set up tests most times that reward marking without making training the higher criteria for success. In fact many dogs who cheat, who take a roundabout route to a bird, will penalize themselves by getting lost in a good set up, so good judges don't have to add the line run to the evaluation of the work in order to reward marking - the intent of derby judging if the rules are to mean anything. And it does matter to me as a judge to see a young dog creep, cheat cover or water etc because I know what that is going to do to erode training toward AA status but the rules state clearly that in derbies trained skills are not to be considered as they would be in AA stakes. In fact I wonder (out loud at times), why would a owner/trainer/handler enter a dog that would so significantly violate the basic tenants of training that would lead to AA success but as a judge you have to follow the rules if you are to honor the game.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

This might be a dumb question but If I don't ask I won't know. I have been running HT's for several yrs but have not yet ran a derby but hope to either late summer or fall. I know what I would do if I was running the Red dog in Doublehaul's drawing. As soon as he made that break to go around the rocks he would get a sit whistle. (I know, thanks for my donation to the club). Now here is my question. Would calling him in be enough to let him know he did wrong or would you try to get him in the water to show him what you wanted. I know in training depending on the set up I might recall and send again or might just handle into the water and to the bird to show him what I wanted. (he should have know by sending him towards the water anyway) Would putting him in the water after stopping him be frowned upon or just call him in and go home and train. I think I would want him to understand he can't get away with it at a trial and get your butt in the water. BTW this is a great learning thread for me. I've already called one poster to ask a question about a comment they made,just trying to learn all I can. I hope to get to Rocky Point tomorrow early enough to watch some of the derby and Q before the HT this weekend.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

labman63 said:


> This might be a dumb question but If I don't ask I won't know. I have been running HT's for several yrs but have not yet ran a derby but hope to either late summer or fall. I know what I would do if I was running the Red dog in Doublehaul's drawing. As soon as he made that break to go around the rocks he would get a sit whistle. (I know, thanks for my donation to the club). Now here is my question. Would calling him in be enough to let him know he did wrong or would you try to get him in the water to show him what you wanted. I know in training depending on the set up I might recall and send again or might just handle into the water and to the bird to show him what I wanted. (he should have know by sending him towards the water anyway) Would putting him in the water after stopping him be frowned upon or just call him in and go home and train. I think I would want him to understand he can't get away with it at a trial and get your butt in the water. BTW this is a great learning thread for me. I've already called one poster to ask a question about a comment they made,just trying to learn all I can. I hope to get to Rocky Point tomorrow early enough to watch some of the derby and Q before the HT this weekend.


I would not hesitate to handle the dog into the water. If the dog responded correctly you got some good training done even if disqualified. If the dog didn't get in the water with the first whistle, I'd call the dog in. I just don't believe in rewarding behavior that erodes training by allowing the dog to get the bird without doing it correctly, especially a young dog.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

labman63 said:


> This might be a dumb question but If I don't ask I won't know. I have been running HT's for several yrs but have not yet ran a derby but hope to either late summer or fall. I know what I would do if I was running the Red dog in Doublehaul's drawing. As soon as he made that break to go around the rocks he would get a sit whistle. (I know, thanks for my donation to the club). Now here is my question. Would calling him in be enough to let him know he did wrong or would you try to get him in the water to show him what you wanted. I know in training depending on the set up I might recall and send again or might just handle into the water and to the bird to show him what I wanted. (he should have know by sending him towards the water anyway) Would putting him in the water after stopping him be frowned upon or just call him in and go home and train. I think I would want him to understand he can't get away with it at a trial and get your butt in the water. BTW this is a great learning thread for me. I've already called one poster to ask a question about a comment they made,just trying to learn all I can. I hope to get to Rocky Point tomorrow early enough to watch some of the derby and Q before the HT this weekend.


Good question, as you point out, the main thing is to not let him get away with cheating and be rewarded with the bird. Getting a JAM in a derby or ribbon in a hunt test is not worth the long term ramifications. Either a pick-up with an intimidating "No-HERE!" or a handle into the water would get the point across depending on where your dog is at in training. Some people don't like to train at a hunt test, but I believe since you paid your entry and handling to the bird wouldn't take any more time than a dog that swims to the bird without a handle, go ahead and handle if you feel the dog needs to understand what you want in this situation.

John


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

i think most of the pros tend to pick up and save the training for when they are at their own grounds. the am's seem to handle/train. i myself have yet to run one and dont know what i would do in that situation. i would obviously like to train and handle but what if he refuses? i have nothing to correct him with. so i'd be more inclined to pick him up


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

blake_mhoona said:


> i think most of the pros tend to pick up and save the training for when they are at their own grounds. the am's seem to handle/train. i myself have yet to run one and dont know what i would do in that situation. i would obviously like to train and handle but what if he refuses? i have nothing to correct him with. so i'd be more inclined to pick him up


I have seen pro's handle on a mark just as much as amateurs. You don't get the opportunity teach in a real hunt test or FT environment very often, at least hopefully not.

John


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

labman63 said:


> I *hope to get to Rocky Point* tomorrow early enough to watch some of the derby and Q before the HT this weekend.


.
Be at the Derby 8:00 AM Friday morning and watch the whole thing. There are only 21 dogs so Derby will probably be over around 2:00.
Make it a point to carefully watch dogs 6, 17 & 18 run. Although it's their 1st Derby watch what dogs 14 & 20 do as well.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Mark, the reality is that we have judges these days that don't understand how to set up tests that minimize training & maximize marking skills, so instead they set up training tests and reward training over marking. We who have advocated here that a dog who cheats can be judged essentially like a dog that doesn't cheat yet has a similar mark comes directly from the rule book emphasis on marking versus training. I also indicated previously that even judges who minimize the exposure to factors within a set up that test a dog's line do not penalize dogs who have been/are being trained to run straight even through factors like water, wind, terrain & cover. Although challenging, it is possible to set up tests most times that reward marking without making training the higher criteria for success. In fact many dogs who cheat, who take a roundabout route to a bird, will penalize themselves by getting lost in a good set up, so good judges don't have to add the line run to the evaluation of the work in order to reward marking - the intent of derby judging if the rules are to mean anything. And it does matter to me as a judge to see a young dog creep, cheat cover or water etc because I know what that is going to do to erode training toward AA status but the rules state clearly that in derbies trained skills are not to be considered as they would be in AA stakes. In fact I wonder (out loud at times), why would a owner/trainer/handler enter a dog that would so significantly violate the basic tenants of training that would lead to AA success but as a judge you have to follow the rules if you are to honor the game.


I still want to see a dog get in the water and swim and show me he can still remember the second memory bird, and will get back in the water to get that bird. If the water work is not that important and you are not going to judge it, throw 4 sets of land marks and forget about the swimming. But I dont think that is what the rule book says either .

Now I am not talking about the bird where the line is paralel to and 4 ft off the bank all the way to the bird where you are going to find your winner by default when the handler picks up his dog. As I said previously I dont believe that is a good setup for a derby dog.

Part of the problem is that when the dog runs all the way around the water to the bird most of the time he doesnt lose the mark because he is running to that big white gunner and falls over the bird on the way there, while the dog that takes the line in and out of multiple pieces of water doesnt see the gun most of the way and has to rely on knowing where the bird is. I just dont think that in most cases that is equal work.

Is the rule book outdated and does it need tweaking to reflect what most of us see as important in a young dog headed for the all age stakes?

In reality week in and week out we are playing a different game than you are espousing. There are a limited number of judges and grounds where you can accompish the theory that you calling for, (dog doesnt take the line and gets lost), but most of the time either those judges or the grounds have been taken by the open or AM. Theory and reality are two different things. As I say go and watch or run a derby and you will quickly see what I am saying.

I am not saying that the way it is is a bad thing. Normally its the guys with the dogs that dont like the water and arent ready for a derby as it is run today that cry foul that we arent playing by the rules. If we need a better trained dog to compete should we raise the age limits to allow the dogs to prepare a little longer. The dogs competitive derby career is pretty short right now because most dont enter a dog until it is solid enough to do the work that I am talking about.




Mark


----------



## Chris Videtto (Nov 4, 2010)

Mark, 

Check your in box!
Thanks, 

Chris


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

What I find interesting is those judges who ding a dog for scalloping around water yet knows exactly where the bird is, purple line, will at the same time completely ignore the barking, howling, creeping line manners going on with the dog that took the straight line. 

/Paul


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Interesting conversation about water work.

Why so much agony about water cheating? Why are the cheaty ones penalized by judges so much more than the pups that run around the clump of sage or fade with the wind?


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Breck said:


> .
> Be at the Derby 8:00 AM Friday morning and watch the whole thing. There are only 21 dogs so Derby will probably be over around 2:00.
> Make it a point to carefully watch dogs 6, 17 & 18 run. Although it's their 1st Derby watch what dogs 14 & 20 do as well.


I want to but it's not possible this time. I do hope to be there before 2pm. I have been working day shift 7 to 7 all week and training from 7:30 til dark and have stuff I have to do tomorrow morning before leaving for the weekend. My wife's cousin just moved 5 min from the grounds last summer so I'm hoping to get down that way more often. Hopefully I can get hooked up to train there a few times. Awesome grounds


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> What I find interesting is those judges who ding a dog for scalloping around water yet knows exactly where the bird is, purple line, will at the same time completely ignore the barking, howling, creeping line manners going on with the dog that took the straight line.
> 
> /Paul


The short answer is, "marking is of primary importance." How do we know judges completely ignore barking, howling, creeping, and bad line manners?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

mitty said:


> Interesting conversation about water work.
> 
> Why so much agony about water cheating? Why are the cheaty ones penalized by judges so much more than the pups that run around the clump of sage or fade with the wind?


Renee, most of us make "good dog-bad dog" evaluations in training based on the dog making, or not, the correct decision and putting in a good effort to do the right thing, such as fight the urge to get that bird fast and decide it is better to enter the water on line and swim the length of the mark to get the bird. I believe some judges carry that tendency to judge a dog as good or bad on those trained responses into field trials.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> Renee, most of us make "good dog-bad dog" evaluations in training based on the dog making, or not, the correct decision and putting in a good effort to do the right thing, such as fight the urge to get that bird fast and decide it is better to enter the water on line and swim the length of the mark to get the bird. I believe some judges carry that tendency to judge a dog as good or bad on those trained responses into field trials.


I've seen tests where the dog has to blast through thickets to go straight to the bird. In the tests, some dogs went straight, some circled the thicket just like you see dogs running the shore instead of swimming across. It is faster/easier to run around the shrubs. Running through the cover is a trained response.

I've also seen tests where dogs have to hold a line up the side of a hill for a couple hundred yards to run straight to the bird. Some dogs did this like they were trained to do. Some dogs ran the road, which was easier, then turned left and ran up the hill to the bird. 

The discussions of derby lines always seemed focused on water cheats. It's like no one notices all the training that goes into getting a dog to run straight on land.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

mitty said:


> I've seen tests where the dog has to blast through thickets to go straight to the bird. In the tests, some dogs went straight, some circled the thicket just like you see dogs running the shore instead of swimming across. It is faster/easier to run around the shrubs. Running through the cover is a trained response.
> 
> I've also seen tests where dogs have to hold a line up the side of a hill for a couple hundred yards to run straight to the bird. Some dogs did this like they were trained to do. Some dogs ran the road, which was easier, then turned left and ran up the hill to the bird.
> 
> The discussions of derby lines always seemed focused on water cheats. It's like no one notices all the training that goes into getting a dog to run straight on land.


We might not discuss it much here, but believe me, judges notice straight running dogs on land.

John


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Yes marking is of primary importance, then they drop a dog for not holding lines, a trained aspect. 

/Paul


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

It has been suggested that as a judge a poster might want to see a certain response. As long as it is in compliance with the rules that's ok, otherwise you need to comply with the rules as a first priority. In this regard if you want to see a dog get in the water then set up a test that requires the dogs to get in the water to be successful rather than a cheaty test. As for avoiding cover on marks that doesn't bother me either even in AA stakes because I don't judge lines. But I do make sure factors are encountered by the dogs enroute to marks not for the purpose of scoring lines but to challenge a dog's making skills.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Some general thoughts

1. Field Trials are governed by Rules/Recommendations which are then subjectively interpreted. So there will be variation. Over time, you learn who likes what and then make your decisions about where you run. To Paul's comment about line manners, I would say: a) some judges seem not to care; and b) some do. I have seen judges drop a dog with good marks who paraded around the handler several times before delivery - DROPPED. I recently attended a FT where a dog went out a distance and then returned - DROPPED before it picked up the marks. As for me, I have not dropped a dog for line manners alone - yet. But, I ehave made notes about offenders about whom I was concerned and given advance thought as to what I would do if the behavior continued. And I have done the same when it comes to style. So, as Lisa Van Loo would say "It depends."

2. Field Trials are competitions, not training. There is a difference, which I think is neglected - especially when it comes to judging marks versus lines. It is easy to judge a line. It is more difficult to judge a mark and requires more attention to detail. In addition, there are wonderful training marks that are poor competition marks. For example, a mark may be great in training, but lousy for competition, because the bird boy can tell you what a dog is doing when it is out of sight. Not so in competition, where you judge what you can see.

Similarly, cross wind marks are great for training - they show you how a dog fights factors. Not so in competition where a dog that caves may be placed in a position to wind the bird, while one that fights the factors might end up behind the gun and never check down

3. I think that all of these conversations are interesting and stimulate thought - but it is very hard to discuss these concepts without seeing them in the flesh


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I had to bump this thread after receiving the latest Retriever News Saturday and reading that great article by Dennis Voigt and Judy Rasmuson on this very subject. Eight in-depth pages of very good stuff. I've had the real pleasure of judging with Judy twice, her knowledge, attention to detail, work ethic and sense of fair play is outstanding. If you ever get the chance to judge with Judy, jump on it, you will learn a lot and have a lot of fun in the process. I haven't met Dennis in person, but have read Retrievers Online for years and think very highly of him.

John


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Is FTRN the same thing as Retriever News? Look forward to seeing that article!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Is FTRN the same thing as Retriever News? Look forward to seeing that article!


Yes, I just looked. I thought it used to be called Field Trial Retriever News. I'll edit my post.


----------

