# Honoring In Retriever Field Trials



## Coldtrack (Sep 8, 2015)

Subject: *Honoring in Retriever Field Trials*

This communication is to inform your club of a recent change to the _Field Trial Rules and Standard _
_Procedures for Retrievers_. This change originated from the Retriever Field Trial Advisory 
Committee and was approved by the Performance Events Department and the AKC Board of 
Directors.

Effective with stakes held on or after June 1, 2017, in at least one test involving the retrieve of a 
marked fall in all stakes, except Derby, every dog shall be kept on line off leash while another dog 
works. The word “should” has been changed to “shall,” clarifying that honoring is a required 
element of the test. 

The specific change is:

*Standard Procedure for Non-Slip Retriever Trials, Basic Principle #5 *(page 28)*. *

Judges shall in their discretion determine the number of dogs that shall be worked or kept on line 
simultaneously. In at least one test involving the retrieve of a marked fall in all stakes, except 
Derby, every dog should shall be kept on line off leash while another dog works. If a dog has 
failed the test and is asked to remain on line to honor the work of the next running dog, the Judges 
may direct the dog honor on lead or off lead as they deem appropriate.

This change will be reflected in the next reprinting of the Retriever Field Trial Rule Book.

This e-mail is being sent to the President and Secretary of all clubs licensed to hold Retriever Field 
Trials and will be posted on the AKC Retriever Field Trial website. Comments can be e-mailed to 
the AKC.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Thanks for the update.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

It was mentioned to me that the word 'should' was replaced with the word 'shall' in other areas.... I can't find any links to the new changes... have they been published for review online?


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Huh, I guess I just thought that was the case always.


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

It was not , I ran several quals and AMs last season where the honor was waived due to time constraints or lack of by dog.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Seen 1 Qual without an honor due to time constraints, now that it's a requirement most like everyone will honor regardless. Just a question in FT are you allowed to talk quietly to you dog? I believe the answer is NO but can't find the rue for it.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

You can talk to your dog up to the time the handler of the running dog calls for the birds. Once the birds commence going down, you may no longer talk to your dog.


----------



## bakbay (May 20, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Seen 1 Qual without an honor due to time constraints, now that it's a requirement most like everyone will honor regardless. Just a question in FT are you allowed to talk quietly to you dog? I believe the answer is NO but can't find the rue for it.


See page 33, in section 25 under line manners, "During the period from the moment when thehandler signals readiness for the birds to be thrown until the dog’s number is called, the handler of the
working or honoring dog shall remain silent."


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

So as written "every dog shall be kept on line off leash while another dog 
works."
The honor dog could be at the line while the working dog has completed picking up all of it's marks? Not saying you would,but could...


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I don't judge AA but do minors, doing an honor in a O/H Q is never a problem but in a Reg. Q it's almost always is a PITA, waiting for a pro or an Am to show up from another stake, it can be really unfair to the last running dog to have to sit and wait for the next handler to show up, so they can honor them, Guess I'll be looking at only judging O/H Q's in the future...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> I don't judge AA but do minors, doing an honor in a O/H Q is never a problem but in a Reg. Q it's almost always is a PITA, waiting for a pro or an Am to show up from another stake, it can be really unfair to the last running dog to have to sit and wait for the next handler to show up, so they can honor them, Guess I'll be looking at only judging O/H Q's in the future...


Use if a by-dog solves the waiting problem.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

Todd Caswell said:


> I don't judge AA but do minors, doing an honor in a O/H Q is never a problem but in a Reg. Q it's almost always is a PITA, waiting for a pro or an Am to show up from another stake, it can be really unfair to the last running dog to have to sit and wait for the next handler to show up, so they can honor them, Guess I'll be looking at only judging O/H Q's in the future...


It can be a PITA in the open also, especially if the judges wait until the 4th series to do the honor. There are few dogs left and many times a pro has back to back dogs. Really can screw up the running order. With the new rule, I would guess, at least in AA, that the honor will have to be done in the 1st series.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

captainjack said:


> Use if a by-dog solves the waiting problem.


Use of multiple by-dogs can run the cost of the trial up to the hosting club--more shot fliers.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

captainjack said:


> Use if a by-dog solves the waiting problem.



Looks good on paper Glen but it's still a pain in the AZZ , I really don't care if they can sit and watch another dog work, if that is your goal then there are a couple other venues that will test that for you..........


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Take the easy way out. Change the rules so that an honor is never required. 

An all-too-familiar theme on this forum. -Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Honoring has been a traditional part of evaluating working retrievers since the inception of formal field trials. The honor was rarely skipped except in the event of unusual circumstances. It has been bypassed with increasing frequency in the past 10 years, I welcome the rule change making honoring an obligation rather than an option.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

My point regarding the minors is the AA takes priority over them , so if it's a Saturday Q now you have an Open and an Am running and anyone that has a dog in the Q gets there when they can so whether your doing a honor in the first or the last series your going to need a BY dogs, that means more exspence ( flyers) for the club. If thats the case then lets make all stakes equal and not make the minor stakes wait.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Honoring has been a SHOULD for many decades and as mentioned it was a rare that it was not done. Recently it has been skipped more often but WHY. What has changed is the last 10yrs?There was no evaluation or investigation to identify the reasons for judges/ ftc to omit this tradition or the time and financial impact of this new mandate. AKC and RN publish the number of trials and dog entry numbers but not dog/handler numbers these numbers have certainly changed over the last 10 yrs and could hold the reason for the increase in the frequency of a no honor Q or all[age stake.
This change may very well increase the time and cost of a stake.

Tim


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> This change may very well increase the time and cost of a stake.



And you don't know how many time I have heard this from the FT Chairman " You Need to get done today, we have no place for you to go for water tommorro " This rule should help that alot, the only time in the past 8 years that I have done an honor while I was judging in the Q is in a O/H and every time we didn't was because 75% ++ of the dogs were pro run dogs and we knew it would be a large extra exspence to the club if we needed a by dog every other dog. I'm a huge supporter of O/H Q so maybe this is a good thing and will push more clubs to hold them..


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

I think the honor in field trials is an antiquated ritual more than a needed requirement. Honoring harkens back to days when field trials were the only retriever game in town and tests were often found with decoys and such which have all but disappeared from the scene now. 

Honoring is the only "skill" tested that when done properly gains the retriever absolutely nothing toward a placement...done even slightly incorrectly it can cost an entire perfect trial. 

Others may view the move as positive...I see it as a huge mistake and loath the change!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Keith Farmer said:


> I think the honor in field trials is an antiquated ritual more than a needed requirement. Honoring harkens back to days when field trials were the only retriever game in town and tests were often found with decoys and such which have all but disappeared from the scene now.
> 
> Honoring is the only "skill" tested that when done properly gains the retriever absolutely nothing toward a placement...done even slightly incorrectly it can cost an entire perfect trial.
> 
> Others may view the move as positive...I see it as a huge mistake and loath the change!


Well said and yes I do plan on bringing decoys on my first assignment this summer, last time I used them EVERY derby dog checked them out almost like they had never seen one before, wonder why???? Because none had every seen a decoy on route to a mark before. You should have heard the complaining in the crowd that came from placing 4 mallard decoys just off line to a water mark... Shame on the judges that think these dogs could become potential hunting dogs in the future.. And yes they will need to learn to honor but not at the exspence of the club and there workers...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Keith Farmer said:


> I think the honor in field trials is an antiquated ritual more than a needed requirement. Honoring harkens back to days when field trials were the only retriever game in town and tests were often found with decoys and such which have all but disappeared from the scene now.
> 
> Honoring is the only "skill" tested that when done properly gains the retriever absolutely nothing toward a placement...done even slightly incorrectly it can cost an entire perfect trial.
> 
> Others may view the move as positive...I see it as a huge mistake and loath the change!


Just another "antiquated ritual" that adds nothing to the performance? There are many skills that a well trained retriever should have that do not add to but definitely detract from a desirable performance. Are you advocating we should also ignore fighting, hard mouth, breaking, switching, whining and barking on line?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

If I had a dog that crept on every set-up and broke every once in a while, I wouldn't want to have to honor. I might even be tempted to say it was 'antiquated' or required too many 'resources' of the club, or 'took too much time'. BUT if I had a dog that was actually trained to be under control at the line, I would welcome the chance to show my dog had the requisite skills to be called a fully trained retriever.

As an A-list Pro trainer so eloquently stated, " You own what you condone ".

I disagree with the statement that an honor done properly doesn't help a dog to win. I was running in a trial and had a solid 4 series. One of the dogs BROKE on the honor in the last series. My dog won.-Paul


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Hope not more of those 30yd walk out from behind a bush breaking bird flyers!


----------



## Keith Farmer (Feb 8, 2003)

"Are you advocating we should also ignore fighting, hard mouth, breaking, switching, whining and barking on line?"

The topic at hand is honoring. Throughout my involvement with field trials I have voiced my opposition to honoring in field trials as a waste of time. I have watched my own dogs on the line in need of water and cooling down have to sit through two or more honors because of poor quality gun work at the flyer station resulting in no-birds. That may be only one reference but ample anecdotal evidence to support my position is certainly available. 

I have also heard from more judges in opposition to honoring than are in favor of honoring. Maybe it's just the crowd here in snowbirdville but that is my experience.

With regards to the other gibberish...which is just a false equivalence...I think I will reserve comment; no need to argue foolishness.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I can't imagine anyone thinking honoring at the all age level is a waste of time. I consider it to be anything but.


----------



## gum (Nov 11, 2007)

I think it should be the judge's decision what if it's 95 degrees out and you're going to make a dog stay on the line possibly overheat


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Just out of curiosity, has a retriever ever over heated while on honor? If I were judging and felt a dog is in serious need of water, I would allow it before running the next dog. Same as if a dog was limping and allowing the handler to check it out.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

gum said:


> I think it should be the judge's decision what if it's 95 degrees out and you're going to make a dog stay on the line possibly overheat


There are options for honoring under those circumstances, the only requirement is honoring sometime during the stake


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

EdA said:


> There are options for honoring under those circumstances, the only requirement is honoring sometime during the stake


I just judged an Open two weeks ago. Watching test dog we saw there was potential for some pretty big hunts in warm weather. We opted to move the honor to the fourth series water marks, it took a little juggling, but worked out fine.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I just judged an Open two weeks ago. Watching test dog we saw there was potential for some pretty big hunts in warm weather. We opted to move the honor to the fourth series water marks, it took a little juggling, but worked out fine.


That's good judging.


----------



## John Gianladis (Jun 23, 2012)

I am way more of a duck hunter than a field trialer, but do run and judge enough to have an opinion. Hunting two dogs together on a waterfowl hunt has several benefits, especially if the conditions are tough and/or lots of birds shot. However, hunting a pair of dogs will tempt breaking more than hunting a single retriever. Therefore, honoring in field trials makes sense! I'm glad for the new rule because now there is no decision as whether to honor or not. An option for honoring in a field trial is to throw a mark for the working dog to retrieve prior to running a land blind or water blind while the honor dog honors the mark. Honoring on land marks is a bad idea if it is really hot out. As far as decoys, I use them 100% of the time I judge. I have blown a duck call in 2 Opens and 1 Qual. Don't really give a dang what anyone thinks about it either. I am a duck hunter judging duck dogs!!! A thought for field trialers who whine about breaking birds: Go check out an AKC Master test! Every bird is "breaking" bird. Somehow most of the dogs manage to sit!! Why? Because they are trained to be steady!!!!!

Johnny G


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Bottom line... you can have all the opinions you want. From here on out if you are running Field Trials in the Q on up, you are going to honor. End of story. (Unless you are out before they get to it)


----------



## redline (Apr 19, 2003)

Stupid!
To many factors involved 
Large trials 
Lack of time
Lack of space
A dog may have to sit for extended times rebirds dogs at other stakes etc,
Shooting extra flyers
Weather...heat...

And what exactly will they do if judges won't/can't honor. Suspend club? judge ? Another reason not to judge? 
The old timers had it right.
Ain't broke don't fix it. Push the honor but don't play god with damnation involved.
Jan


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

paul young said:


> if i had a dog that crept on every set-up and broke every once in a while, i wouldn't want to have to honor. I might even be tempted to say it was 'antiquated' or required too many 'resources' of the club, or 'took too much time'. But if i had a dog that was actually trained to be under control at the line, i would welcome the chance to show my dog had the requisite skills to be called a fully trained retriever.
> 
> As an a-list pro trainer so eloquently stated, " you own what you condone ".
> 
> I disagree with the statement that an honor done properly doesn't help a dog to win. I was running in a trial and had a solid 4 series. One of the dogs broke on the honor in the last series. My dog won.-paul


hhhhmmmm ???


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I highly doubt it. If I'm running and I'm worried about heat I've got s bottle of water with me on line. I've never had a judge mind if I let the dog have a sip while transitioning to honor after the marks. Rarely have I felt the need to give the dog water either. 



bjoiner said:


> Just out of curiosity, has a retriever ever over heated while on honor? If I were judging and felt a dog is in serious need of water, I would allow it before running the next dog. Same as if a dog was limping and allowing the handler to check it out.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

redline said:


> Stupid!
> To many factors involved
> Large trials
> Lack of time
> ...


I would think that if a Judge or test setup doesn't follow the Official Rules; it would subject the trial to an AKC investigation-hearing, with the possibility of having the results unverified-disqualified and all those placements-points not counting. Bet the people who win and place in such an event would be highly unhappy if the validity of the trial was called into question, just because the judges-trial didn't follow the rulebook. Most likely would get to the point that at the end of the trial, the judges would simply line up all the "qualifying" dogs; shoot a bird off and then let them all honor a bye-dog to full-fill the requirement. Has happened at Hunt tests when judges forget an a requirement. Nothing like getting called back to the line after everyone thinks everything is already finished to run one more requirement that should've been planned for and completed earlier.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I would think that if a Judge or test setup doesn't follow the Official Rules; it would subject the trial to an AKC investigation-hearing, with the possibility of having the results unverified-disqualified and all those placements-points not counting..


FYI The should /shall of Honoring is classified as a Standard Procedure, Not a Rule. That is how AKC could change it without notification and a Delegate vote.

Tim


----------



## redline (Apr 19, 2003)

the judges would simply line up all the "qualifying" dogs; shoot a bird off and then let them all honor a bye-dog to full-fill the requirement. Has happened at Hunt tests when judges forget an a requirement. Nothing like getting called back to the line after everyone thinks everything is already finished to run one more requirement that should've been planned for and completed earlier.

Monday morning maybe the plan! Just not plan A

I would think that if a Judge or test setup doesn't follow the Official Rules; it would subject the trial to an AKC investigation-hearing, with the possibility of having the results unverified-disqualified and all those placements-points not counting. Bet the people who win and place in such an event would be highly unhappy if the validity of the trial was called into question= damnation! like I said


----------



## redline (Apr 19, 2003)

Just kind of wondering if the gods have been kind to this rule? Or has the rule been kind to the gods?
I am sure some judges have had to compromise marking tests to accommodate the honor. Just a guess.
Jan


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

HI JAN -
Post #34 -
One of your Best Posts!

RAC/SOR - JUDGING BY LEGISLATION!!

Trial conditions/club considerations/ welfare of dogs/club mechanics ALL COME FIRST!

Bill Connor


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Ran an open last weekend where they did the honor in the 2nd series. Was a cold honor so no issue with tired/hurt dogs, less dogs to deal with, mechanics were smooth. 

Start with a by dog to run a mark (test dog that demonstrated the blind).
Next dog comes out and honors while previous dog runs a mark. Honor dog released and goes back to holding blind while previous dog completes retrieve. 
Dog that just honored comes out and runs the blind (particular blind was tight to AOF of the mark). 
When blind is completed, this dog will run mark while next dog honors. 

I'd done this several years ago in a Qualifying stake. 

I think I've commented previously on using a mark in conjunction with a water blind while judging an open, however the mark was run first while the previous running dog honors.


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

Dogs should honor! Logistics and planning are paramount to test setup. 
In a bind, do a cold honor!
Test dog runs the blind, comes back. Sits and watches a Mark.
The next dog to run the blind honors the test dog. Test dog is sent, honor dog goes into a second holding blind. After the retrieve is completed, the honor dog runs the blind. When the blind is complete the next dog honors the first running dog. Etc....


----------



## redline (Apr 19, 2003)

Malcolm said:


> Dogs should honor! Logistics and planning are paramount to test setup.
> In a bind, do a cold honor!
> Test dog runs the blind, comes back. Sits and watches a Mark.
> The next dog to run the blind honors the test dog. Test dog is sent, honor dog goes into a second holding blind. After the retrieve is completed, the honor dog runs the blind. When the blind is complete the next dog honors the first running dog. Etc....


Cold honor is a good test, Ive done many.
Honors are important and should be done, but not mandatory if conditions go to hell is all i'm saying.

So any judges, clubs, suspended yet?


----------

