# Contrary Marks



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

What do you consider as a contrary mark? Do you think marks can be contrary? Please give explaination with your answer. Just looking for information and opinions. Never can know enough in this game.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi Clay,

The generally accepted definition of a "contrary mark" is a mark set up in such a way that it would be contrary to normal training. Two examples I can think of both relate to water;

Take a "two down the shore" swim past the gun to pick up the bird set-up, but instead throw one or both birds in toward the line. In this case a dog that beached early would be rewarded with the bird, while a dog that fought the factor and swam past the gun would lose the mark. That's one of the reasons I don't like "two down the shore" set ups in a field trial, I can't judge whether the dog is an excellent marker or just a very disciplined swimmer.

Another example would be a long cheating mark where rather than have the gun stand at the corner of the pond and throw the bird behind the pond a bit, so the true line to the bird would be into the water with a long swim down the shore, it is reversed so that the gunner is standing behind the pond but throwing back toward the corner so that the true line is a quick run on land down the shore.

In each case a completely untrained dog would do a very good job, while a well trained dog with conscience would struggle to do the "right" thing. Diagrams would help, but I hope you get it from my descriptions.

John


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

I do get those descriptions. Thanks for replying. I was talking with my training partner and we were discussing this and I just wondered what others may consider contrary or not.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

The one that comes to my mind is the one where the mark is thrown at or near the waters edge with the dog running some distance on land ... Steve S


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> *We call that a dirty bird.* A mark landing before a piece of water. John described what the group I train with would call a contrary mark.
> Walt


a "dirty bird" means something TOTALLY different to me, has nothing to do with dog training


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

I hate contrary marks. We ask so much of these dogs & then we try to undo their solid training with a gimmicky/trick/BS test?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> I hate contrary marks. We ask so much of these dogs & then we try to undo their solid training with a gimmicky/trick/BS test?


Jacob,
You need to have "balance" to your training. For example if we demand that our dog jump in the water whenever they see it, that is not balanced as there are cases where it would be better to scoot by the water.
Try this at your favorite pond and see if you can get your dog to run on land to a simple mark. 
This mark is 50 yards. Run the water mark first(Red) and the land mark second (Green). 
Will dog run on land all the way to the second mark or jump into the water right away?










You could do something very similar as a land blind run close to shore with a poison bird that draws dog to the water. Line to blind does not include water.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

I appreciate your input & diagrams. It would probably help some folks out there. I'll agree with having balance in training 100%, but you'll never sale me on contrary marks. 

Maybe one of these days I'll find a dog worth it's food bill. I'll keep plugging away & sending my dogs through the same program.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Well OK. 
But like your NO chef Justin Wilson used to say "I guarantee" if you hang with Mr Dan you gonna see sum stuff.


----------



## GG (Jan 29, 2006)

Contrary; (definition) opposed in nature or character or purpose. i was taught that contrary marks were two guns of equal distance throwing in the opposite direction. i suppose differnt trainers have different definitions
GG


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As Breck said balance is the key... I would like for it to be that a mark, rather than a trained response is the reason the dogs ended up with the birds.

john


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Breck said:


> Jacob,
> You need to have "balance" to your training. For example if we demand that our dog jump in the water whenever they see it, that is not balanced as there are cases where it would be better to scoot by the water.
> Try this at your favorite pond and see if you can get your dog to run on land to a simple mark.
> This mark is 50 yards. Run the water mark first(Red) and the land mark second (Green).
> ...


I agree with you on this and while we don't train a lot on running by water, we do so enough to make the dogs comfortable with it so they'll take the straightest line possible to the mark. Which is really the point of good training. But, what you've shown is a lot different than throwing a mark in front of water. I saw a junior test where the line was at the top of a side hill, BIG pond at the bottom of the hill so the dogs were looking out at a vast expanse of water. The mark was thrown so the dogs had to run down hill and stop about 5 feet before the waters edge for the bird. Not a mark I would want to see for junior dogs at a test.


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

Thanks for the responses. Some things I have noted through this thread. One, I personally don't like to show dog water and not let him get in it. Two, a trained response is something I look for in my dogs, hence the reason we decheat. For a dog to take a small corner of water when in his mind it is much quicker to go around it is a trained response, and without it you might not get called back to next series. Three, balance is the key to good dog training, but I don't think that involves throwing marks that undo good training. Now what they do at a test/trial we have no control over, you just have to hope the dog can use what he has and what you trained him to have and pull it out. How about indented marks? Does any one consider them contrary? And again, thanks for the responses, no hidden agenda's at all, just looking to learn from people that train hard and have experienced more than myself.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

john fallon said:


> As Breck said balance is the key... I would like to for it to be that a mark rather than a trained response is the reason the dogs ended up with the birds.
> 
> john


What? The English Language eludes you yet again regards.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> What? The English Language eludes you yet again regards.


One too many to's in the sentence.

Sorry for the typo, the post should read..."I would like for it to be that a mark, rather than a trained response is the reason the dogs ended up with the birds." 
Thanks for pointing it out

I have now corrected it in the original post. Perhaps you still don't agree with the posted thought(?). If so. why not ?

What is the plural of to  regards

john


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

*contrary marks*



john fallon said:


> One too many to's in the sentence.
> 
> Sorry for the typo, the post should read..."I would like for it to be that a mark, rather than a trained response is the reason the dogs ended up with the birds."
> Thanks for pointing it out
> ...


Could you give some examples or more info in explaining your statement....? Thanks...Steve S


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

I think it is funny when people say they don't like contrary marks. It is basically saying, I have trained my dog to do a handful of things and don't deviate from those things. I thought the point of a retriever was to watch a bird fall then run/swim a straight line to the bird regardless of where it is. I think FT have gotten really bad at this. I see the same set ups over and over again. Rather than change it up judges just make the marks longer and longer.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Breck said:


> Jacob,
> You need to have "balance" to your training. For example if we demand that our dog jump in the water whenever they see it, that is not balanced as there are cases where it would be better to scoot by the water.
> Try this at your favorite pond and see if you can get your dog to run on land to a simple mark.
> This mark is 50 yards. Run the water mark first(Red) and the land mark second (Green).
> ...


X2!! Unfortunately you do have to train for contrary marks and blinds. You see them at trials and tests every weekend.

Angie


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Nate_C said:


> I think it is funny when people say they don't like contrary marks. It is basically saying, I have trained my dog to do a handful of things and don't deviate from those things. I thought the point of a retriever was to watch a bird fall then run/swim a straight line to the bird regardless of where it is. I think FT have gotten really bad at this. I see the same set ups over and over again. Rather than change it up judges just make the marks longer and longer.



We need a "like" button!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Do we train to master set ups/scenarios or to mark and run straight lines?


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Angie B said:


> X2!! Unfortunately you do have to train for contrary marks and blinds. You see them at trials and tests every weekend.
> 
> Angie


Blinds I don't care about. There's the blind, go run it as you see fit. Big deal.

Marks are totally different. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Nate_C said:


> I think it is funny when people say they don't like contrary marks. It is basically saying, I have trained my dog to do a handful of things and don't deviate from those things. I thought the point of a retriever was to watch a bird fall then run/swim a straight line to the bird regardless of where it is. I think FT have gotten really bad at this. I see the same set ups over and over again. Rather than change it up judges just make the marks longer and longer.


I think it's funny when people get on the Internet & talk about what they have no clue about.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> I think it's funny when people get on the Internet & talk about what they have no clue about.


Does your opinion apply to all age stakes?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> I think it's funny when people get on the Internet & talk about what they have no clue about.


 Maybe when you get out of the Q, you will think differently?
Don't much like contrary marks in minor stakes. But, depending on the set up, I think they can be effective in AA.

Say you use a contrary bird to set up a long stay in the water, punch bird. Throwing it contrary leaves room for the dog to land early, make a mistake on the long retired..
It takes marking/balance to do both birds well..


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> Maybe when you get out of the Q, you will think differently?
> Don't much like contrary marks in minor stakes. But, depending on the set up, I think they can be effective in AA.
> 
> Say you use a contrary bird to set up a long stay in the water, punch bird. Throwing it contrary leaves room for the dog to land early, make a mistake on the long retired..
> It takes marking/balance to do both birds well..



That is very true. Contrary marks in minor stakes, I could do without. Contrary marks in AA stakes is fair game. Your description of leaving room to get lost on a key bird is one good example. Id sure rather see a contrary mark than a marking concept. Have to find the best marking dog that day!


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Just because something will fool a dog doesn't make it a good test.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

jeff evans said:


> That is very true. Contrary marks in minor stakes, I could do without. Contrary marks in AA stakes is fair game. Your description of leaving room to get lost on a key bird is one good example. Id sure rather see a contrary mark than a marking concept. Have to find the best marking dog that day!


What he said


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Nate_C said:


> I think it is funny when people say they don't like contrary marks. It is basically saying, I have trained my dog to do a handful of things and don't deviate from those things. I thought the point of a retriever was to watch a bird fall then run/swim a straight line to the bird regardless of where it is. I think FT have gotten really bad at this. I see the same set ups over and over again. Rather than change it up judges just make the marks longer and longer.



I could not agree more with the above post! 

john


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

jeff evans said:


> Does your opinion apply to all age stakes?


Yes. I don't care for them @ all. Tricking a dog isn't hard to do.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> Maybe when you get out of the Q, you will think differently?
> Don't much like contrary marks in minor stakes. But, depending on the set up, I think they can be effective in AA.
> 
> Say you use a contrary bird to set up a long stay in the water, punch bird. Throwing it contrary leaves room for the dog to land early, make a mistake on the long retired..
> It takes marking/balance to do both birds well..


Agreed. 
To expound on what Charlotte said, I would add that I only think of marks as being "contrary marks" in regards to the training of dogs during basics and transition level training. 
Our ultimate goal is for an all age dog that has the tools, confidence, tenacity, and ability to see the bird fall and get to it in an efficient manner regardless of where it fell.

For instance with a young dog I would consider it contrary to throw a mark in front of water or cover, or towards a dog in a down the shore concept. The reasoning being that for a young dog I want to instill as watery an attitude as possible to overcome their natural inclination to avoid the water when possible, because land is speedier or more preferable to them for whatever reason. Likewise with a young dog I'm going to throw birds where they need to swim to the far edge of the shore or the end of the channel to get the bird
I don't think the dog understands as we do that straight lines to a bird will result in more success. They naturally seek to run around cover or water and get to it asap, without understanding the perils that may intervene and throw them off course so as to make it unlikely to recover successfully.

Once they are out of transition and the "don't avoid cover or water" & "go straight", lessons have been ingrained in the dog then I don't consider any mark to be "contrary"
In effect the "Go straight" standard now supercedes the "Dont avoid cover or water" standard when dealing with what would have been considered a contrary mark for a young dog as it matures into an AA dog.
As such I don't like "Contrary marks" in Derby's or Quals, as it can undermine a trainers progress. However in an AA stake I feel they have a purpose; such as Charlotte's example in her post.
I think you should try to find out who the best marking dog is as opposed to finding the dog that understands or has been taught a particular concept test the best


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> Blinds I don't care about. There's the blind, go run it as you see fit. Big deal.
> 
> Marks are totally different. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.


Not necessarily... Blinds can be very contrary to a dogs training. Think about it. You're statements are very naive... You have much to learn grasshopper.

Angie


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

I run very extreme angle entries & angles running right past the water all the time when I run water blinds @ the house. Everything is for AA. That's why I have put my dogs with who I've put them with. This has nothing to do with me, my dogs, my dog's training, or anything that she has run in a FT. This has everything to do with what I believe to be true. I'm far from the only person who thinks that way. 

If you think I'm naive, that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'll say this & leave this thread alone. The people that I respect and like the most in this FT game (Heck, the same goes for anybody that I've trained with or even discussed FTs @ length with.) would say anything but me being naive. Have a nice day.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2012)

Angie B said:


> Not necessarily... Blinds can be very contrary to a dogs training. Think about it. You're statements are very naive... You have much to learn grasshopper.
> 
> Angie


Yep. How many times have you seen a blind run along the water's edge and the dog is so conditioned to jumping in the water that the handler can't keep them out of it and thus fail the blind?


----------



## bfarmer (Aug 6, 2006)

Melanie Foster said:


> Yep. How many times have you seen a blind run along the water's edge and the dog is so conditioned to jumping in the water that the handler can't keep them out of it and thus fail the blind?


Yes, I see this happening a good amount of the time. So hard to get the perfect balance and maintain it through the trial season. Have had it happen to me with an extra watery dog and it is very hard to change their mind.
Bobby


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

Was kinda hoping for input and knowledge on this thread, if you have some, great post it up and lets discuss. If you don't, and you just want to argue for the sake of it, please start your own thread and have it. I was looking for opinions about contrary marks, if you think there is such a thing or not, and explanation of your reasoning, not the name calling and bickering that comes with so many threads on this forum nowadays.


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

Nate_C said:


> I think it is funny when people say they don't like contrary marks. It is basically saying, I have trained my dog to do a handful of things and don't deviate from those things. I thought the point of a retriever was to watch a bird fall then run/swim a straight line to the bird regardless of where it is. I think FT have gotten really bad at this. I see the same set ups over and over again. Rather than change it up judges just make the marks longer and longer.


So, when you are out training, do you throw two down the shore as converging marks or do you throw them like most everyone throws them? And I am not being critical at all, just interested in what people do and how they train. I train two down the shore like most long time and successful pro's train it, but I have seen them thrown as converging marks at a test and all the well trained dogs seemed to struggle with it, because in their training, I guess, they would be punished for beaching early.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Clay Rogers said:


> I train two down the shore like most long time and successful pro's train it, but I have seen them thrown as converging marks at a test and all the well trained dogs seemed to struggle with it, because in their training, I guess, they would be punished for beaching early.


You just answered your own question Clay.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Lets talk last series of an AA w/ 3 down the shore....Assuming that they are thrown long to short, with an out of order flier thrown contrary. being the middle bird . 

Is there any aspect of the test where the dog is rewarded for not *marking *the birds.

It must swim past the shorter gun only to then have to check down to pick up the last bird down first, then pick up the middle bird and not return to and hunt the AOF of the short bird when doing so, then swim long, past the long gun to pick up the long bird after just getting a flier for having not done so.

This test requires that specially balanced dog that can mark the birds as well as knows and can do when necessary the down the shore concept .

A fitting dog to get the "Blue".

john


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Hey John, I remember a 4th series Amateur in NY with a test very very close to what you describe. I'm gonna search for my drawing of it.
I recall we got a Jam after hosing up the middle bird. In this test, 3 down the shore, the long gun was the go bird Flyer and the other 2 retired.

OK found the pic. This was a tough test. Not exactly contrary but was probably harder than if the middle bird had been thrown in.
Red lines are the throws. Green lines are my dogs work.
All throws R/L. The Middle bird landed on land only a dozen paces behind where the flyer guns positioned their chairs. If the flyer guns turned around and threw a normal bird they could have hit the kid throwing the middle bird. It was tight. 
My dog actually got out of the water almost on top of the bird. Probably thought she had already been there and popped.
If I recall no dog got the flyer as advertised but got up and out and hunted. Tough test.
.
.
.







..
.
.
.


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

Breck, that's the right way to throw down the shore birds. Maybe that flyer should land on the bank, but no big deal in my opinion. Now, if that middle bird was thrown the opposite way(back towards the first bird) then in my opinion that would be contrary to good training.


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Lets talk last series of an AA w/ 3 down the shore....Assuming that they are thrown long to short, with an out of order flier thrown contrary. being the middle bird .
> 
> Is there any aspect of the test where the dog is rewarded for not *marking *the birds.
> 
> ...


So John, by contrary do you mean middle bird is thrown back towards short bird or landing in water with splash? Because that is what I would consider a contrary mark.


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

By the way Breck, that is a great idea for remembering what your dog/dogs did in each series. Do you make notes then get home and google map the site? How do you add the art work?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

I know this test doesn't depict a contrary mark that is thrown in towards the line, but one could argue that, with how tight the middle bird here landed to the flyer guns, this a contrary situation if you consider area of fall and dogs perception of returning to an old fall when faced with this picture. IMHO

I save Earth image as a jpg and edit with the basic Paint program that come with windows or office. pretty easy.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Breck said:


> I know this test doesn't depict a contrary mark that is thrown in towards the line, but one could argue that, with how tight the middle bird here landed to the flyer guns, this a contrary situation if you consider area of fall and dogs perception of returning to an old fall when faced with this picture. IMHO
> 
> I save Earth image as a jpg and edit with the basic Paint program that come with windows or office. pretty easy.


Do you think the test would be harder or easier if you left the middle gun up? Just trying to envision the possible outcomes. Good all age test IMO.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> Do you think the test would be harder or easier if you left the middle gun up? Just trying to envision the possible outcomes. Good all age test IMO.


The middle gun was retired real good back in the heavy brush and if I recall the bird fell in the ditch/cover. If unretired? Dogs may have gotten out tighter to the gun and on wrong side of the wind. I think the flyer guns sitting right there sucked them out a bit. On this test several dogs, while hunting the flyer on land, popped out onto the middle bird from behind. It was rather tight.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> So John, by contrary do you mean middle bird is thrown back towards short bird or landing in water with splash? Because that is what I would consider a contrary mark.


Yes. From the dogs perspective from the line the middle bird is pinched with but deep of the area of the fall of the short bird...No splash on any of the birds they are all well up on land

john


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

So this is what I consider contrary. I know the art sucks but its my first try.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

You throwing away from the line and down the shore, or throwing toward the line? The latter would be a simple example of contrary to swimby.


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

jeff evans said:


> You throwing away from the line and down the shore, or throwing toward the line? The latter would be a simple example of contrary to swimby.


The red line is the line and the blue x's are the gun station.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2012)

Clay Rogers said:


> Was kinda hoping for input and knowledge on this thread, if you have some, great post it up and lets discuss. If you don't, and you just want to argue for the sake of it, please start your own thread and have it. I was looking for opinions about contrary marks, if you think there is such a thing or not, and explanation of your reasoning, not the name calling and bickering that comes with so many threads on this forum nowadays.


<looking left and right to see if I am on a different planet>

Dude,

You asked a question and got some good answers. Do we need to shop for some big boy panties for you? 

Bottom line. We don't like to see them in the minors, especially derby. AA stakes, anything goes. It's a marking game. The bird falls where it falls.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Clay Rogers said:


> Was kinda hoping for input and knowledge on this thread, if you have some, great post it up and lets discuss. If you don't, and you just want to argue for the sake of it, please start your own thread and have it. I was looking for opinions about contrary marks, if you think there is such a thing or not, and explanation of your reasoning, not the name calling and bickering that comes with so many threads on this forum nowadays.



I don't much care for them in either the minor or the major stakes. And I don't like setting them up in either when I judge.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I don't much care for them in either the minor or the major stakes. And I don't like setting them up in either when I judge.


The voice of reason.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Charles C. said:


> The voice of reason.



I would still prefer to see a contrary mark than a marking concept in an all age stake. Course in a perfect world we rely on great bird placement only and let the guns land where they will.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Can you describe a marking setup that is NOT a "concept"?

Seems to me, anything you throw is a concept of some sort. Even a pinched bird in a 3DTS is a "concept".

Whether the birds are well-placed is another question.

JS


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

The fact that a mark involves a concept, does not make the mark a poor one.
The fact that a trained dog may have any easier time finding a mark, does not make the mark a poor one.
It is possible to have a mark where the trained response (e.g. get in water and stay in it) will lead the dog away from the mark, yet not be contrary.

You can have good marks that involve reward both training and marking. That being the case, why bother with contrary marks, unless absolutely necessary? Don't you want to reward the well trained dog?


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

Melanie Foster said:


> <looking left and right to see if I am on a different planet>
> 
> Dude,
> 
> ...


Dude, 
So why not the derby, that stake is ALL about marking, nothing else?

And I dont wear underwear since you asked.


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

I was under the assumption that the reason we trained was to get a "trained response", hence the term "training". I have run some tests were marks were not thrown in relation to proper training, but so what, its a test and we have to run what we brung. But I don't believe contrary marks are needed if bird placement and good grounds are used to full advantage. And a mark is a mark, but if you don't train a dog not to give into factors, will said untrained dog do just that? Heck, sometimes they do it even after being trained.


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

Dog gone it Clay, now see what you've gone and started? When are you gonna come to Kinston and train with us?


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

BuddyJ said:


> Dog gone it Clay, now see what you've gone and started? When are you gonna come to Kinston and train with us?


I think we are gonna go to Kinston Wednesday morning. By the time we get the dogs loaded and trailer packed, we should be there around 9. Can you make it out?


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

Some examples of what i would consider contrary marks include a mark thrown from the crest of the hill down the hill, boat mark thrown to the shore or throwing a mark from the island back to shore. Sometimes a mark turns contrary because conditions change. A mark that rewards the cheaty dog because they will now get a windsave if they cheat and the honest dog who goes a foot off the bird ends up driving long. BTW, If I were to throw these marks on a training day, the would, most likely, be as singles or the go bird of a multiple set up. You need to work these marks, but the key would be how much time and energy would you spend on these contrary marks? 

In training regards, my goal is to get the dog comfortable marking, so they can make the right decision when they need to.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I haven't posted on this thread since my first post where I answered the OP on how I described a contrary mark, I didn't give my opinion of their use in field trials then, but I will now. I don't like them. 

As a judge, I believe they are especially inappropriate in the minor stakes and usually unnecessary in the major stakes as there are many other ways to test dogs and get separation. Though I ocassionally face them in a field trial, and I agree balance is very important, I rarely train on them, I tend to let the chips fall where they will and rely on my's dogs inherent marking ability to figure it out at a trial. Like most people who train, I model my training based on the dog I have. If my dog is a naturally watery worryer, I might do a little balance training, trying to get the dog comfortable getting out of the water, or running down a shore without jumping in the water. On the other hand if I had, and I have had that dog who is always looking to get out early, I never let him out early, I make him swim well past the bird in training, because if I'm lucky he might get out at the bird in a trial. Seeing a contrary mark at a trial would make my day if I was running that dog.

A wise judge who mentored me when I was starting out, gave me good advise when he said, "we dont want to set up test that will make a good dog look bad and a bad dog look good". That could be a textbook definition of a contrary mark.

John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I would like to see a dog that MARKS the bird and makes the correct decisions on the way to it rewarded by finding it. 
If it is by staying in the water if necessary or by gettin out, if it means going short after long on water or land, going long then long again on either, checking down at the base of a hill or the edge of a pond or going to the top or across, taking a thin slice of water or cover or a fat slice etc,etc,etc......... so be it. 

john


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> I would like to see a dog that MARKS the bird and makes the correct decisions on the way to it rewarded by finding it.
> If it is by staying in the water if necessary or by gettin out, if it means going short after long on water or land, going long then long again on either, checking down at the base of a hill or the edge of a pond or going to the top or across, taking a thin slice of water or cover or a fat slice etc,etc,etc......... so be it.
> 
> john


John I think this is one of those rare threads where Ted, you and I all agree. Lets test marking, not trained response.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> How do you separate these two? With the myriad of things we ask an all age dog to do, it seems impossible to me.
> Walt



Ok Walt, I oversimplified; what I'm getting at is avoiding setting up test that are obvious training scenarios to any well trained dog. The "two down the shore" derby double is a prime example. I have seen derbies and even some all age placements completely decided on that last series; first place swam all the way past the long gun and exited right at the bird, second place got out ten feet early, third place thirty feet early and forth place swam just past the gun before he got out and ran to the bird. It is well to utilize cover, terrain and water to try and effect a dog's line, and I believe that can easily be done in a manner that, 1) dog's that make "correct" decisions put themselves in a good spot to find the bird, but all those decisions don't necessarily funnel the dog right to the bird, and 2) test shouldn't be set up that are recognizable as a concept marking scenario which many dogs are trained to recognize and act accordingly.

Given good grounds, you cant beat widely spaced, well placed birds to get answers.

John


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

Should be able to see ya then


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> How do you separate these two? With the myriad of things we ask an all age dog to do, it seems impossible to me.
> Walt



It is difficult to separate the two. But, not impossible. 

I don't have time to mess with a diagram this morning. But, imagine a water mark.
You have three choices:
1) Cheaty mark, where undisciplined dog can cheat all the water then wind the bird from behind the gun - bad choice. A dog that takes the untrained response can find a bird that it never marked
2) Mark where all that is required is that the dog swim to the end of the channel - bad choice. A dog that does not mark the bird can find the bird simply by swimming straight to the end of the pond.
3) Mark that requires a dog to run along a side hill that either pushes into water early or late, then swim diagonally across a pond and then exit the pond before its end - good choice. Lots of decisions that reward training - but a dog with poor training and excellent marking abilities can still find the bird

When I judge, I am trying to construct type 3 marks


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> It is difficult to separate the two. But, not impossible.
> 
> I don't have time to mess with a diagram this morning. But, imagine a water mark.
> You have three choices:
> ...


Excellent examples Ted. To make the hypothetical real, I once won a Qual running under Steve Parker, an excelent judge. The fourth series was a double across early spring ice water so the swims weren't long. There was a flyer square across the water and out in a field beyond, while the key bird was thrown from a hill into a little marshy bay about halfway down the opposite shore. My chief competition going into that series was a very nice dog who had accumulated over twenty derby points the prior year. After getting the flyer clean, my dog angled across the pond, fighting any impulse to beach early which being on the wrong side of the hill would have spelled doom with the flyer out in that field off to the right, and continued to swim into that small marshy bay to the bird. The other, very nice water dog made a very courageous swim down the shore, past the bay all the way to the end of the pond, got lost and had to be picked up.

This was a good example of rewarding dogs who fight elements, but still have to mark the birds.
John


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

There is one type of mark I just hate and I've seen it at every level from junior, to derby and even in a qual. once (I should add that my FT experience is limited to a handful of derbies and 2 Qs, no all age). And that is the cheating mark that rewards the cheater and penalizes the dog that takes the proper line through the water. One where the cheater bank runs and never loses sight of the gun/fall area but due to cover/bank height, the dog that takes the good line does and has to hunt for the mark. Even worse--being penalized for this type of mark!! I have no problem with the cheating concept to test trained responses (though not in a junior test, please!) but....place the fall where the cheater will lose sight of the bird and be penalized. Sadly the opposite is more often true, the cheater is rewarded and all the dogs that cheat find their mark better than the ones that don't.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> The fact that a mark involves a concept, does not make the mark a poor one.
> The fact that a trained dog may have any easier time finding a mark, does not make the mark a poor one.
> It is possible to have a mark where the trained response (e.g. get in water and stay in it) will lead the dog away from the mark, yet not be contrary.
> 
> *You can have good marks that involve reward both training and marking. That being the case, why bother with contrary marks, unless absolutely necessary? Don't you want to reward the well trained dog?*



I agree for the most part, IMO in a perfect world we would strictly rely on good bird placement and let the guns land where they will. Just don't like seeing a marking concept at a trial, favors the pro and his dogs, contrary favors the better marker.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It is almost impossible to throw more than a single and not have a concept involved.

I disagree that contrary marks favor the better marker.

But, you may do what you will when you judge


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Your right that throwing multiple marks involves a concept on paper, when there tight. When they are spred out a dog is not using his concept training to find the birds. Ted, I wouldn't go out of my way to set up a contrary mark, but would rather see that then some of the other things we see at weekend trials.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There is nothing wrong with concepts per se. Nor does the existence of a concept in a mark mean that the dog that successfully navigates the concept cannot mark. 

What's wrong with having a mark tight to the back side of the flyer - so long as the two AOF are distinct?
That's a concept.

What's wrong with having two marks converging towards one another - so long as the two AOF are distinct?
That's another concept.

For that matter, what's wrong with a momma/poppa configuration - so long as the two AOF are distinct?
That's yet another concept

I don't have any quarrel with concepts

What I do have an objection to is a judge who is bound and determined to set up marks with a given concept - without any consideration to the grounds on which the stake is to be held

Ted


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> There is nothing wrong with concepts per se. Nor does the existence of a concept in a mark mean that the dog that successfully navigates the concept cannot mark.
> 
> What's wrong with having a mark tight to the back side of the flyer - so long as the two AOF are distinct?
> That's a concept.
> ...



That summs it up for me! I see it alot...


----------



## LESTER LANGLEY (Jun 12, 2008)

In other words, the judge who decides Thursday afternoon that he's going to do a hip pocket, short retired with a wipeout flyer for this weekends judging assignment, before he ever gets off the airplane?


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

LESTER LANGLEY said:


> In other words, the judge who decides Thursday afternoon that he's going to do a hip pocket, short retired with a wipeout flyer for this weekends judging assignment, before he ever gets off the airplane?



Annnnnd,....let's shoot it out of order and go ahead and retire that go bird while enroute. True story!


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Jacob Hawkes said:


> I run very extreme angle entries & angles running right past the water all the time when I run water blinds @ the house. Everything is for AA. That's why I have put my dogs with who I've put them with. This has nothing to do with me, my dogs, my dog's training, or anything that she has run in a FT. This has everything to do with what I believe to be true. I'm far from the only person who thinks that way.
> 
> If you think I'm naive, that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'll say this & leave this thread alone. The people that I respect and like the most in this FT game (Heck, the same goes for anybody that I've trained with or even discussed FTs @ length with.) would say anything but me being naive. Have a nice day.


I think you just talked outta both sides of your mouth... Sssssshhhhh.. Listen more and talk less...

Angie


----------



## Clay Rogers (Jul 8, 2008)

I have never given thought to blinds being contrary. Can someone give me examples of this? Also, thanks for the discussion on this topic.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Clay Rogers said:


> I have never given thought to blinds being contrary. Can someone give me examples of this? Also, thanks for the discussion on this topic.


Blinds aren't contrary because you are making the decisions and handle the dog accordingly. With marks the dog is making the decisions. Though as Melanie points out your work is made harder by setting up blinds that go against the flow of training.

John


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

I apologize for not having read all the posts on this thread. On the subject of contrary blinds I do not believe there is such a thing in AA stakes....its about handling and making progress towards the blind independant of training style, speed of the dog etc. AA dogs are expected to be able to do just about anything when it comes to blinds...and the handlers are expected to read the blind and act accordingly.

Bill


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

If some of those blinds aren't contrary it must be contrary judges or contrary dogs, maybe even contrary handlers because something sure doesn't fit on some of them.


----------

