# Judging Opinions



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Here's the scenario that happened at a recent Field Trial:

Land blind (300yds.) with poison bird (leave it bird, diversion bird) thrown towards the true line to the blind (TLTB) that lands within 10 to 15 feet of the TLTB. The cross wind is coming off the poison bird so that the dog has no way of getting past the PB without winding it. The PB is thrown at about 175 yards from the mat.

Handler whistles as dog gets close to poison bird. Dog winds the bird, makes a quick loop and picks up the poison bird and sits. Handler yells "drop". Dog spits the bird out. Handler casts dog back to blind and dog successfully returns with the blind. At no time was the dog more than 10 or 15 ft. off the TLTB and it took no more than 7 whistles to get the dog to the blind.

Do you drop the dog for picking up the PB or do you carry it and score it well for train ability? 

What rule in the book do you base your decision on?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Yes, You drop the dog.

Using the same rule that allows the judge to drop the dog that retrieves any poison bird.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

It's the "good dog" theory. Judge can proclaim behavior or actions witnessed by dog and/or handler to fit their justification for disqualification/drop or not. 

Chalk it up as wasted weekend, have fun training the following week, and move on down the road hoping to limit wasted weekends.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Likely I would be proud if one of mine would do a drop at 175. 

So maybe the handler was a tad late with the follow up back command however at the end of the day most judges would say too bad out of control. 
Dk


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ken Guthrie said:


> It's the "good dog" theory. Judge can proclaim behavior or actions witnessed by dog and/or handler to fit their justification for disqualification/drop or not.
> 
> Chalk it up as wasted weekend, have fun training the following week, and move on down the road hoping to limit wasted weekends.


It didn't happen to me, I was only a spectator and I didn't say if the dog was dropped or not. 

It did generate a lot of discussion in the gallery and nothing I heard from that discussion led me to a definitive conclusion one way or the other.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

labguy said:


> It didn't happen to me, I was only a spectator and I didn't say if the dog was dropped or not.
> 
> It did generate a lot of discussion in the gallery and nothing I heard from that discussion led me to a definitive conclusion one way or the other.


Throwing a poison bird into the line to the blind at the distances you describe would lend enough for justified gallery discussion alone.

Was the dog/handler carried? Did the dog/hander place?

Again, wasted weekend most likely for the dog and handler that did exactly what you describe. Whether the dog and handler were carried or not. Assumming the object in entering a trail is to place and obtain points to qualify for a national or national amateur.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> Yes, You drop the dog.
> 
> Using the same rule that allows the judge to drop the dog that retrieves any poison bird.


Dog did not "retrieve" the PB. He immediately spit the bird out on command and didn't make any attempt to return to handler. He took the correct cast back to the blind and then "retrieved" the correct bird to hand.

It was an interesting discussion in the gallery and like I said, it wasn't me and I'm not disclosing yet if the dog was dropped or not.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Drop. The dog was not under control during the blind retrieve, otherwise he would not have broke sit and picked up the poison bird. 
Serious faults in the rulebook include:
_"6. “Out-of-control,’’ i.e., paying no attention to many whistles and directions by the handler._"

Sadly, I know all too well that "many" in today's all-age stakes is often just 1.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Throwing a poison bird into the line to the blind at the distances you describe would lend enough for justified gallery discussion alone.
> 
> Was the dog/handler carried? Did the dog/hander place?
> 
> Again, wasted weekend most likely for the dog and handler that did exactly what you describe. Whether the dog and handler were carried or not. Assumming the object in entering a trail is to place and obtain points to qualify for a national or national amateur.


Your right, the dog did get dropped ........but.....where in the rule book justifys this decision? 

The dog challenged the test, kept within a very tight corridor and didn't retrieve the PB. Like Dave said, it's pretty impressive control of the dog at a fair distance which is what blinds are mostly about.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> Drop. The dog was not under control during the blind retrieve, otherwise he would not have broke sit and picked up the poison bird.
> Serious faults in the rulebook include:
> _"6. “Out-of-control,’’ i.e., paying no attention to many whistles and directions by the handler._"
> 
> Sadly, I know all too well that "many" in today's all-age stakes is often just 1.


Dog sat immediately when the whistle was blown but because it was a left hand turning dog, it ended up right on top of the PB.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Poor test design, IMO.

The judges would learn more about the dog's training if the PB was thrown to land 40-50 feet upwind of the true line to the blind. By placing it so close to the line to he blind, they gave away the initial line to dogs that were drawn to the PB and they made the job of actually judging the test hard for themselves. They gave up their ability to judge in favor of letting the test ELIMINATE dogs, possibly dropping dogs that were superior markers that could also handle pretty well. 

Given the test that they set up, they had no choice other than to drop this dog.

Again, just my opinion.-Paul


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

labguy said:


> Dog did not "retrieve" the PB. He immediately spit the bird out on command and didn't make any attempt to return to handler. He took the correct cast back to the blind and then "retrieved" the correct bird to hand.
> 
> It was an interesting discussion in the gallery and like I said, it wasn't me and I'm not disclosing yet if the dog was dropped or not.


Dropping the poison bird on command at 175 yds then taking the cast to the blind is an impressive display of control, it would get a whoop of appreciation from me if I had been sitting in the gallery, regardless what the judges decided.

BTW, congratulations on the performance you and Digger put on at the National, you should select larger font for your tag line.
*FTCH AFTCH NOREMAC'S UNDERTAKER (DIGGER) QFTR JFTR 
-2014 Canadian National Retriever Championship Finalist*


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

I picked up the PB once, dropped it and finished the blind just like you described. I got dropped just as I fully expected to.

I have NEVER seen a dog pick up a PB and be carried. That's the crux of the test.

Did all the rest of the dogs do the same thing?

JS


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Clearly you should have let the DOG pick up the birds 




JS said:


> I picked up the PB once, dropped it and finished the blind just like you described. I got dropped just as I fully expected to.
> 
> I have NEVER seen a dog pick up a PB and be carried. That's the crux of the test.
> 
> ...


----------



## K Cordry (Sep 20, 2013)

IT's BS to throw bird that close to the line, My dog has picked up birds 40 -50 ft. of the line before. LOL. But really that is not fair to the dogs or handlers.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Here is my thinking. I would carry the dog for these reasons.

1. The dog stopped on all the whistles and took all the casts.
2. The dog stayed within a reasonably tight corridor.
3. The dog challenged the test and did not avoid any factors.
4. The dog exhibited excellent trained abilities.
5. The dog worked as a team with its handler.
6. The dog ran with style and enthusiam.
7. Even though the dog briefly picked up the PB, it remained under control, well within a tight corridor, made no attempt to return with the PB, accepted directions from its handler and immediately dropped the PB and completed the blind.

So if I carried this dog to the next test where, according to the rule book, would this decision be considered wrong???? Or would it be wrong???


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

labguy said:


> Here is my thinking. I would carry the dog for these reasons.
> 
> 1. The dog stopped on all the whistles and took all the casts.
> 2. The dog stayed within a reasonably tight corridor.
> ...


Yes very wrong. 1. The same as anytime you give an instruction on what the parameters of the blind are and don't follow through. Pick up pb you're out.

2. the dog switched by definition. Doesn't matter that the handler made it.


----------



## Jerry S. (May 18, 2009)

On a poison bird blind you somehow cue the dog that s/he is not supposed to pick the bird up. If s/he does you have failed. It's poison for a reason. I don't care where it lands.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> Yes very wrong. 1. The same as anytime you give an instruction on what the parameters of the blind are and don't follow through. Pick up pb you're out.
> 
> 2. the dog switched by definition. Doesn't matter that the handler made it.


OK, I understand your point but does the switch rule apply to blinds as well as a marking test? The dog didn't complete the "switch" anyway as it dropped the bird on command. Not trying to argue here, just trying to get a sense of what the correct interpretation of the rules are given that much of judging is subjective anyway. 

By definition a switch is giving up on a hunt and leaving the area of fall for another bird. On a blind the dog doesn't know where it is going but relies on direction from the handler. How can this scenario be called a switch??

As for your first point we all know you can't " retrieve" the poison bird. This dog did not retrieve it....it simply picked it up and then dropped it. By definition a retrieve is bringing the bird back and delivering to hand......is it not??

You can see why there was much discussion about this.  Again, not trying to argue but trying to get some clarity.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Look at paragraph 31 of the standard procedure..."or drops a bird he is retrieving and goes for another, shall be considered to have 'switched'."


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

The same wording is in the CKC rules ( I'm not certain but Labguy might be referring to a Canadian Trial )however, "or drops", is normally meant to indict a dog who voluntarily drops its bird, not one which is ordered to do so by its handler.
I doubt many judges envisaged a dog that would pick up a poison bird and then release it on command 175 yds from its handler. Our book does not define the parameters of a PB very closely, lots there for the judges to use their discretion.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

> _7. *Even though the dog briefly picked up the PB, it remained under control,* well within a tight corridor, made no attempt to return with the PB, accepted directions from its handler and immediately dropped the PB and completed the blind._


Is there anyone who does not know that the PB is to be left alone? I think not. This was an AA test, I'm sure. Was not the handler's first rodeo.

Thus, it cannot be said that the handler had control of the dog.

JS


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

blind ambition said:


> "or drops", is normally meant to indict a dog who voluntarily drops its bird, not one which is ordered to do so by its handler.


Yes, thiis!!!!

It's a blind and the dog is taking direction from its handler. The dog didn't retrieve the PB, it didn't switch on its own accord and it didn't do anything other than what it was directed to do.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

JS said:


> Is there anyone who does not know that the PB is to be left alone? I think not. This was an AA test, I'm sure. Was not the handler's first rodeo.
> 
> Thus, it cannot be said that the handler had control of the dog.
> 
> JS


The handler didn't whine about getting dropped but it did raise the question about whether or not he should have.

The dog did leave the PB alone after being commanded to do so.......how much more control do you want. and again.....where in the rules is this absolutely definitive that the dog must be dropped??

Just because "everyone knows" doesn't mean it's backed up by the rules. Everyone knows that a handle on marks is the kiss of death but the rules clearly state that a quick handle is preferable to a big hunt......when was the last time you saw this rule implemented?? Big hunts will get you back long before quick handles will.. Good discussion...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

So the question I asked earlier; "Did all the rest of the dogs do this?" Probably not.

So even if you make the point that it may not call for automatic disqualification, clearly he is out of contention and would be dropped if a large number of dogs ran a good blind _without_ falling for the PB.

Another point you made earlier:



> _3. The dog challenged the test and did not avoid any factors._


The poison bird is certainly a factor, is it not? A factor to be ignored. I'm sure the handler gave some sort for cue to "leave it" and did, in fact attempt to handle past it. Unsuccessfully so.

To be sure, the dog demonstrated a great deal of trainability and obedience when he spit it out. I felt that way (and a little surprised ) when mine did the same thing. Nevertheless, the test is to run the blind without falling for the mark. May not be the dog's fault but they did not do that. Handler error.

JS


----------



## Bill McKnight (Sep 11, 2014)

The rule book does not define every situation were a dog can be dropped. Your situation is a case in point. Another would be multiple marks are thrown, dog picks up go bird, then picks up second bird on return with the first bird....delivering both birds. How do you score this? The recent dialog in FTNS on cast refusals on a remote send on a blind is another case in point.

As long as the judges have a sound reason for their decission and are consistent then I have no problem with the outcome. The rule book is deliberately vague on many issues requiring judges to use judgement in the course of the trial with the intent of being fair to all contestants and dogs.

The other Bill


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Bill McKnight said:


> The rule book does not define every situation were a dog can be dropped. Your situation is a case in point. Another would be multiple marks are thrown, dog picks up go bird, then picks up second bird on return with the first bird....delivering both birds. How do you score this? The recent dialog in FTNS on cast refusals on a remote send on a blind is another case in point.
> 
> As long as the judges have a sound reason for their decission and are consistent then I have no problem with the outcome. The rule book is deliberately vague on many issues requiring judges to use judgement in the course of the trial with the intent of being fair to all contestants and dogs.
> 
> The other Bill



Thanks Bill, well stated. As a judge, what I saw would get this dog carried because there is nothing ( that I could find) definitive in the rules that demands the dog get dropped. Many others did not agree including the judges that day. 

One thing this game teaches is to learn to suck it up and move on.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

JS said:


> So the question I asked earlier; "Did all the rest of the dogs do this?" Probably not.
> 
> So even if you make the point that it may not call for automatic disqualification, clearly he is out of contention and would be dropped if a large number of dogs ran a good blind _without_ falling for the PB.JS


Some dogs avoided the PB to such a degree that they were well out of a reasonable corridor thereby not challenging the blind who were called back.





JS said:


> . The poison bird is certainly a factor, is it not? A factor to be ignored. I'm sure the handler gave some sort for cue to "leave it" and did, in fact attempt to handle past it.
> 
> To be sure, the dog demonstrated a great deal of trainability and obedience when he spit it out. I felt that way (and a little surprised ) when mine did the same thing. Nevertheless, the test is to run the blind without falling for the mark. May not be the dog's fault but they did not do that. Handler error.
> 
> JS


Your reasoning is sound.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

labguy said:


> Yes, thiis!!!!
> 
> It's a blind and the dog is taking direction from its handler. The dog didn't retrieve the PB, it didn't switch on its own accord and it didn't do anything other than what it was directed to do.



the first direction you give a dog in a poison bird blind is "no" - don't get bird that you marked. The second direction you give is "back" - get the bird I want instead. Dog does not follow first direction and you argue it is "trainable"? Give me a break


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

labguy said:


> Some dogs avoided the PB to such a degree that they were well out of a reasonable corridor thereby not challenging the blind who were called back.
> 
> 
> Your reasoning is sound.


that's a reason to drop other dogs, not a reason to carry subject dog


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

labguy said:


> Here's the scenario that happened at a recent Field Trial:
> 
> Land blind (300yds.) with poison bird (leave it bird, diversion bird) thrown towards the true line to the blind (TLTB) that lands within 10 to 15 feet of the TLTB. The cross wind is coming off the poison bird so that the dog has no way of getting past the PB without winding it. The PB is thrown at about 175 yards from the mat.
> 
> ...


Handler went in a training mode...My all-age dogs will do that on a regular basis with a command drop it at 100, 200 yards etc. After they drop bird attrition is used to bring them back and either recast, correct, or bring back to line. Have had dogs drop bird with a "oh s_ _t" look on their face knowing they made a mistake especially if the poison bird is close to the line. Sooo! no the bird off the poison bird, send dog, no flaring and cruise past poison bird wind or no cross wind. In fact have judged many times even with that scenario, where the handler picked up the dog at a trial and would not let them have the bird! Telling dog to leave it or using the no command. The dog should be dropped it is a all-age and a training issue. Verbal command alone is a form of intimidation in my rule book or judge's book.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> the first direction you give a dog in a poison bird blind is "no" - don't get bird that you marked. The second direction you give is "back" - get the bird I want instead. Dog does not follow first direction and you argue it is "trainable"? Give me a break


Thanks for your input Ted. I'd argue that the line to the blind was so close to the PB and so far from the mat that it was extremely difficult to challenge the test without avoiding the factor.

The dog, because it was challenging the test and staying on line, was in a real danger zone. When it picked the PB up it was no more than 10 feet to the left at 175 yards out. When the handler yelled drop, the dog immediately knew it wasn't supposed to be there, dropped the bird and carried on. This after taking 5 or 6 whistles to that point. I'd certainly call that trainable.

And again, where in the rule book does it dictate the dog should be dropped? It took a good initial line, stopped on all the whistles, took all the casts, stayed within a very tight corridor, dropped the PB on command and completed the blind.

This was an unusual situation that requires some thinking outside the box. If I hadn't seen it in person, I probably would agree that the dog be dropped.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Criquetpas said:


> Handler went in a training mode...My all-age dogs will do that on a regular basis with a command drop it at 100, 200 yards etc. After they drop bird attrition is used to bring them back and either recast, correct, or bring back to line. Have had dogs drop bird with a "oh s_ _t" look on their face knowing they made a mistake especially if the poison bird is close to the line. Sooo! no the bird off the poison bird, send dog, no flaring and cruise past poison bird wind or no cross wind. In fact have judged many times even with that scenario, where the handler picked up the dog at a trial and would not let them have the bird! Telling dog to leave it or using the no command. The dog should be dropped it is a all-age and a training issue. Verbal command alone is a form of intimidation in my rule book or judge's book.


I get your point Earl, but why is yelling "drop" intimidation and yelling "back" isn't? 

I know that most AA judges would drop this dog. I'm trying to figure out if dropping the dog is justified according to the rules or just because it's a scenario that doesn't fit into the box or jibe with most people's thinking.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> that's a reason to drop other dogs, not a reason to carry subject dog


I didn't say it was a reason to carry. I was answering a direct question from JS about what some of the other dogs did, not to justify anything.


----------



## Jerry S. (May 18, 2009)

If a dog picks up a poison bird it is dropped. Black and white. No grey areas.
As they say around here
......training regards.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

It is, after all, a team sport. Handler let the dog get in the danger zone and could not prevent dog from making a fatal error. It's not a rule issue but a judgment call by the judges who determined that the team did not perform well enough to merit further consideration.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Couple theories here. Take them for what they are worth as I am about to sit in the chair for the first time. 

Switching is defined under "Serious Faults" as dropping the bird being retrieved and picking up another. Seems to me that is most likely what happened here; although not in the most technical sense, I would argue that switching includes picking up the wrong bird, but that would be an interpretation. Note that it doesn't make a distinction with regard to whether the dog does this on his own or on command by his handler. Of course, a serious fault "describes conduct of the dog which in and of itself justifies elimination from the stake."

Going by what you describe, you really had a whistle refusal. In and of itself that's technically a minor fault if the dog blew the first whistle off but stopped on the first or second. But the whistle refusal led directly to the switch. And, as Ted pointed out, the dog is technically out of control because it did something you told it not to do, assuming you instructed the dog not to pick it up. 

I know with my dog it would be 50-50 at best that close to the line to the blind, but my strategy would have been to stop him maybe 10-20 yards short of the PB and give a momentum cast past it. Out of curiosity, what percentage of the dogs picked up the PB?

I didn't see the test, but my initial thought would be that it would have been better to have the PB further from the line. I would go so far as to say you might want to have it outside the corridor to the blind. In that scenario, the dog and handler have really had to try to get into that situation by getting well off line, and you have multiple problems that justify elimination. Even if you avoid the PB, you are going to have a challenge with other factors to do a good enough job on the blind to get carried. 

Again, take these comments for what they are worth, which may be nothing. 



labguy said:


> Here's the scenario that happened at a recent Field Trial:
> 
> Land blind (300yds.) with poison bird (leave it bird, diversion bird) thrown towards the true line to the blind (TLTB) that lands within 10 to 15 feet of the TLTB. The cross wind is coming off the poison bird so that the dog has no way of getting past the PB without winding it. The PB is thrown at about 175 yards from the mat.
> 
> ...


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Good Dogs said:


> It is, after all, a team sport. Handler let the dog get in the danger zone and could not prevent dog from making a fatal error. It's not a rule issue but a judgment call by the judges who determined that the team did not perform well enough to merit further consideration.


I think your right...it is a judgement call.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Jerry S. said:


> If a dog picks up a poison bird it is dropped. Black and white. No grey areas.
> As they say around here
> ......training regards.


Its not black and white unless it is in the rules. Many times in this game, things are done because that's the way they've always been done with little regard for the rules or the specifics of this particular test.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

labguy said:


> Its not black and white unless it is in the rules. Many times in this game, things are done because that's the way they've always been done with little regard for the rules or the specifics of this particular test.


Agree when thinking about it too. Once had a fellow who gave his commands in Russian (or so he said) not being "fluent in Russian", heck I didn't know what he was telling dog. Dog wasn't much of a dog and he didn't last long , but, ? anything in rules. He was loud as I remember and could have been intimidating dog, who knows.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

RookieTrainer said:


> Couple theories here. Take them for what they are worth as I am about to sit in the chair for the first time.
> 
> Switching is defined under "Serious Faults" as dropping the bird being retrieved and picking up another. Seems to me that is most likely what happened here; although not in the most technical sense, I would argue that switching includes picking up the wrong bird, but that would be an interpretation. Note that it doesn't make a distinction with regard to whether the dog does this on his own or on command by his handler. Of course, a serious fault "describes conduct of the dog which in and of itself justifies elimination from the stake."
> 
> ...


Well thought out response. Thank you. I want to respond to some of your points.

1. It may not be considered a switch because the dog didn't retrieve the PB.....again a judgement call.
2. The dog stopped on the whistle but did so right on top of the PB. It was still basically on line. Unless a dog is well schooled in terminal control (stopping right on top of a bird without picking it up) there's no way a dog isn't picking up that bird. Another judgement call.

As far as the test is concerned, it was what it was. These dogs are so good that many times judges craft a test designed to eliminate dogs which is unfortunate but sometimes necessary.

Good luck with your judging assignment. It's a tremendous responsibility that not everyone takes seriously. People put a whole lot of time, effort, energy and money into this sport and they deserve safe, fair, and challenging tests that allow the best dog that day to rise to the top. Given your thoughtful response I'm sure you'll do well.


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

Out of control. Drop.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Is this a real question? Also, I feel like a lot of folks complain about poison birds close to the line when the reality is that a well trained dog will cast off those birds and will do so stylishly. Out of control does not equal style.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Charles C. said:


> Is this a real question? Also, I feel like a lot of folks complain about poison birds close to the line when the reality is that a well trained dog will cast off those birds and will do so stylishly. Out of control does not equal style.


 Not sure where you get out of control from the description provided? The handler blew the whistle at a critical time while challenging the test. The dog stopped on top of the bird, sat and picked up the bird. He didn't make any attempt to return with the bird but spat the bird out on command and took the correct cast back to the blind. He was never more that 10 ft. off line at any time and the blind was completed with about 6 or 7 whistles.

Im sure you've run enough AA blinds to know that it is not always possible to stop the dog on the exact spot you wish. You might wait a fraction of a second too long to blow or blow a fraction of a second too soon...distance erodes control.....chit happens......and again...where in the rules does it dictate this dog must be dropped???

I know it's difficult to get a true picture from a written description. Maybe you had to be there.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

labguy said:


> Not sure where you get out of control from the description provided? The handler blew the whistle at a critical time while challenging the test. The dog stopped on top of the bird, sat and picked up the bird. He didn't make any attempt to return with the bird but spat the bird out on command and took the correct cast back to the blind. He was never more that 10 ft. off line at any time and the blind was completed with about 6 or 7 whistles.
> 
> Im sure you've run enough AA blinds to know that it is not always possible to stop the dog on the exact spot you wish. You might wait a fraction of a second too long to blow or blow a fraction of a second too soon...distance erodes control.....chit happens......and again...where in the rules does it dictate this dog must be dropped???
> 
> I know it's difficult to get a true picture from a written description. Maybe you had to be there.


I think you're just arguing semantics. The dog didn't technically retrieve in the sense that it picked up the bird and returned all the way to the line with it, but it certainly picked up a bird it was instructed not to retrieve. Isn't that the essence of the test? To have enough control of your dog to stop them and get a good cast in close proximity to a bird that the dog is not supposed to pick up? It's not supposed to be easy.


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> the first direction you give a dog in a poison bird blind is "no" - don't get bird that you marked. The second direction you give is "back" - get the bird I want instead. Dog does not follow first direction and you argue it is "trainable"? Give me a break


if a PB is that tight to the line at 175yds are the judges setting a test which fairly tests a dogs ability to differentiate a separate line to the blind from the mark? Is it enough of an error so as to eliminate a dog for two cast refusals? Our CKC rule book defines out of control as refusing multiple whistles and directions.
second, if a blind has a hazard on line, say a log, or a key hole to pass through, is it an automatic failure when a second cast is required?
Ultimately, when judging we are asked to frame our decisions on what qualities we would want to see in a hunting dog, would the dog in this scenario fail on this one act alone to meet our standards?
Not withstanding the above and because the convention of elimation regarding the PB is so universally accepted, not unlike "intimidation" while dog is in the field being a corruption of the rule books admonishment not to use threatening gestures on line. It might be wise _and_ legitimate for a judge who has flexibility on a PB such as illustrated in this example to inform handlers ahead of time of this fact.

Call me a fool but I can think of few instances where more control is required than getting a dog to drop game at such a distance and on one command carry on an almost equal distance to retrieve a blind....and if this dogs other work supported it, I would be inclined to ask it back for further evaluation.

I was not at the test and know nothing more than what has been posted here by labguy.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

blind ambition said:


> if a PB is that tight to the line at 175yds are the judges setting a test which fairly tests a dogs ability to differentiate a separate line to the blind from the mark? Is it enough of an error so as to eliminate a dog for two cast refusals? Our CKC rule book defines out of control as refusing multiple whistles and directions.
> second, if a blind has a hazard on line, say a log, or a key hole to pass through, is it an automatic failure when a second cast is required?
> Ultimately, when judging we are asked to frame our decisions on what qualities we would want to see in a hunting dog, would the dog in this scenario fail on this one act alone to meet our standards?
> Not withstanding the above and because the convention of elimation regarding the PB is so universally accepted, not unlike "intimidation" while dog is in the field being a corruption of the rule books admonishment not to use threatening gestures on line. It might be wise _and_ legitimate for a judge who has flexibility on a PB such as illustrated in this example to inform handlers ahead of time of this fact.
> ...



I think you are defending a point beyond absurdity. 

Your primary premise appears to be that challenging the blind is more important than picking up the poison bird.

However, there are - in my opinion - few things more subjective than what constitutes the corridor to the blind. That is why I have moved to drawing a diagram for contestants of the "ideal" line to the blind. It eliminates any confusion as to what I want as a judge. I draw a picture to make what can be very grey (what is the line to the blind?) more black and white

In contrast, I think that very few things in a field trial are more black and white than a poison bird blind. You get the poison bird for any reason - no matter how long or short - you are gone.

I also believe that you are mixing apples and oranges. Poor test design does not excuse poor dog or handler performance.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

You are right that it may not be a switch, and I could make at least as strong an argument using the actual words of the rule that it is not a switch for the reason you cited. If you look at the list of faults in the supplement, switching is either giving up after a hunt in the area of the fall for one bird and going to and hunting another area of another fall OR dropping the bird being retrieved and picking up another. Technically the dog you described did this, as he was arguably "retrieving" the PB when he picked it up, at least IMHO, and he dropped it and picked up another - the one he was supposed to pick up all along. We usually think of this in the reverse order, like a diversion bird, but the rules don't seem to distinguish about order of pickup or that the dropped bird was dropped on command; only that one bird was being retrieved and was dropped for another.

There is a specific provision on page 31 of the FT rules regarding the use of a diversion bird on a blind. The only thing really required is that a diversion bird be thrown or shot so that the running dog has a clear view of each such diversion bird as it is thrown or shot. To me, the clear implication is that the dog has to be able to see it so the handler can clearly no the dog off it and send to the blind, but reasonable folks might disagree. I think it supports my theory that you can't place or hide a bird that the running dog does not see on the general path to a blind (no opportunity to no the dog off and the dog could easily pick it up) but you can place flyer crates, bagged birds (not as easily picked up as a single bird and no reason for the dog to pick it up), or bird throwers, but again reasonable folks might disagree.

I also agree that (again sight unseen) it sounds like the test might have been designed a little better, but you never know. It could be a situation where the judges were working with what they had. Not everybody has the good fortune to have the Cattle Ranch grounds to run events on. And, while I doubt my dog would have resisted picking it up had he stopped right on top of it, I have seen dogs that would absolutely do it - at least more times than not.

Thanks for the kind words about judging. I am concerned that I do not have enough experience to make the necessary calls without thinking about it, but I have a very experienced co-judge who will certainly be able to even that out if necessary.



labguy said:


> Well thought out response. Thank you. I want to respond to some of your points.
> 
> 1. It may not be considered a switch because the dog didn't retrieve the PB.....again a judgement call.
> 2. The dog stopped on the whistle but did so right on top of the PB. It was still basically on line. Unless a dog is well schooled in terminal control (stopping right on top of a bird without picking it up) there's no way a dog isn't picking up that bird. Another judgement call.
> ...


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

RookieTrainer said:


> You are right that it may not be a switch, and I could make at least as strong an argument using the actual words of the rule that it is not a switch for the reason you cited. If you look at the list of faults in the supplement, switching is either giving up after a hunt in the area of the fall for one bird and going to and hunting another area of another fall OR dropping the bird being retrieved and picking up another. Technically the dog you described did this, as he was arguably "retrieving" the PB when he picked it up, at least IMHO, and he dropped it and picked up another - the one he was supposed to pick up all along. We usually think of this in the reverse order, like a diversion bird, but the rules don't seem to distinguish about order of pickup or that the dropped bird was dropped on command; only that one bird was being retrieved and was dropped for another.
> 
> There is a specific provision on page 31 of the FT rules regarding the use of a diversion bird on a blind. The only thing really required is that a diversion bird be thrown or shot so that the running dog has a clear view of each such diversion bird as it is thrown or shot. To me, the clear implication is that the dog has to be able to see it so the handler can clearly no the dog off it and send to the blind, but reasonable folks might disagree. I think it supports my theory that you can't place or hide a bird that the running dog does not see on the general path to a blind (no opportunity to no the dog off and the dog could easily pick it up) but you can place flyer crates, bagged birds (not as easily picked up as a single bird and no reason for the dog to pick it up), or bird throwers, but again reasonable folks might disagree.
> 
> ...


You make a very solid argument ( based on the rules) for dropping the dog. I know that in 99.9999% of cases, dogs who pick up poison birds should be dropped for the reasons you and others have cited. 

On the other hand, you and others didn't have the opportunity I did to view the actual situation. Up until that day I would have dropped that dog in a heartbeat. Having seen the test in person, I'd be hard pressed (based on my interpretation of the rules and what I observed) to not bring him back for another look for the 7 or so reasons I cited earlier in this thead.

I think it is important when judging to not always be stuck with the mentality that just because something has never done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done as long as it can be justified within the rules of the game. It is after all called judging and requires a certain amount of subjective analysis.

Side Bar: _ On the subject of rules being ignored, my biggest pet peeve is that so many times a dog who runs around ad nauseum looking for a mark it has no clue where it is, is called back before a dog, whose handler anticipating the pitfall, has a quick handle to the bird (usually a check down). This clearly is against the rules of the game but because people are stuck in the mentality that " you don't call back a handle over a so called "clean" job".........but that's another thread._

Youll do fine with your assignment because you take it seriously. Everyone ( dogs included) deserves a fair shake when coming to line. Have fun.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

labguy said:


> Here's the scenario that happened at a recent Field Trial:
> 
> Land blind (300yds.) with poison bird (leave it bird, diversion bird) thrown towards the true line to the blind (TLTB) that lands within 10 to 15 feet of the TLTB. The cross wind is coming off the poison bird so that the dog has no way of getting past the PB without winding it. The PB is thrown at about 175 yards from the mat.
> 
> ...



Rule applicable - Order of Retrieves - Page 26 - Procedures 8. .......... Sentence 5 - "On marked retrieves the order 
in which birds are to be retrieved shall not be specified by the judges." This is not a marked retrieve so the judges 
may specify the order of retrieve which they apparently did . 

Under no circumstances is it a switch which is defined by 31. on page 31 of the FT Rules. 

I have not seen the question answered "How many dogs did the test & how many of them did it well?"


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> Rule applicable - Order of Retrieves - Page 26 - Procedures 8. .......... Sentence 5 - "On marked retrieves the order
> in which birds are to be retrieved shall not be specified by the judges." This is not a marked retrieve so the judges
> may specify the order of retrieve which they apparently did .
> 
> ...


I didn't see all the dogs run but a guess would be 60% did it (sort of) and 1/2 of them did it well. They dropped about half the dogs on that test. It was a fairly strong cross wind coming off the PB towards the line to the blind.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Charles C. said:


> I think you're just arguing semantics. .


This thread is not worth reading all responses. However IMHO this question is determined by semantics. 
This blind is called a "poison bird" and the word "POISON" is to be taken literally. If you pick up the POISON bird it is OVER you are DEAD and OUT!!!


----------



## Labs a mundo (Mar 20, 2009)

paul young said:


> Poor test design, IMO.
> 
> The judges would learn more about the dog's training if the PB was thrown to land 40-50 feet upwind of the true line to the blind. By placing it so close to the line to he blind, they gave away the initial line to dogs that were drawn to the PB and they made the job of actually judging the test hard for themselves. They gave up their ability to judge in favor of letting the test ELIMINATE dogs, possibly dropping dogs that were superior markers that could also handle pretty well.
> 
> ...


Good thread Brian. Paul's comment above gave some good insight despite the fact that he wasn't there. 

We see these kinds of poison birds far too often, and to the point where a handler has learned to "cheat" the blind by giving the line to the poison bird, then getting the cast off the PB and completing the blind. What dog doesn't run stylishly toward a thrown bird?
I'm aware of how this handler runs blinds and his dog runs very nice blinds, but in this case he was slow on the whistle and he is well aware of the direction his dog turns. Handler error. Anytime we mess up as handlers, we do our best to dig ourselves out of a hole and let the judges judge the results.
The better disscussion here could be about the set-up of a blind that give an initial line to the blind.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Marvin S said:


> Under no circumstances is it a switch which is defined by 31. on page 31 of the FT Rules


Obviously I somewhat disagree. 

The dog did not go to an area, establish a hunt, and then leave the area to hunt another fall. But that's the first definition of a switch. The other is dropping a bird that is being retrieved and going for another. If the bird can be said to be "being retrieved" once it is picked up, which sounds reasonable to me, then what happened here was that the dog dropped a bird that was being retrieved to go for another. Reasonable folks can disagree on this for sure.

Good question and a good discussion. Interesting to test assumptions (pick up poison bird = eliminated) against the actual rules every now and then.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> You are right that it may not be a switch, and I could make at least as strong an argument using the actual words of the rule that it is not a switch for the reason you cited. If you look at the list of faults in the supplement, switching is either giving up after a hunt in the area of the fall for one bird and going to and hunting another area of another fall OR dropping the bird being retrieved and picking up another. Technically the dog you described did this, as he was arguably "retrieving" the PB when he picked it up, at least IMHO, and he dropped it and picked up another - the one he was supposed to pick up all along. We usually think of this in the reverse order, like a diversion bird, but the rules don't seem to distinguish about order of pickup or that the dropped bird was dropped on command; only that one bird was being retrieved and was dropped for another.
> 
> There is a specific provision on page 31 of the FT rules regarding the use of a diversion bird on a blind. The only thing really required is that a diversion bird be thrown or shot so that the running dog has a clear view of each such diversion bird as it is thrown or shot. To me, the clear implication is that the dog has to be able to see it so the handler can clearly no the dog off it and send to the blind, but reasonable folks might disagree. I think it supports my theory that you can't place or hide a bird that the running dog does not see on the general path to a blind (no opportunity to no the dog off and the dog could easily pick it up) but you can place flyer crates, bagged birds (not as easily picked up as a single bird and no reason for the dog to pick it up), or bird throwers, but again reasonable folks might disagree.
> 
> .


In the OP scenario, there could be no switch. 

Page 34 of the Rule Book reads as follows:




> 31. A dog that goes to the area of a fall, hunts, fails to find and then leaves the area to hunt for another fall, or that drops a bird he is retrieving and goes for another, shall be considered to have “switched.’’ Unless in the opinion of the Judges there exist valid mitigating circumstances, this fault constitutes sufficient justification for elimination from the stake.


When the Rule Book refers to "Area of the Fall" it refers to marking tests. See pages 49-50 of the Rule Book.
When the Rule Book refers to "Hunts" it is similarly referring to marking tests. See pages 49-52 of the Rule Book.

The dog never saw the object of his retrieve - the blind - being shot or thrown. Therefore, the test did not involve a mark. Because the test did not involve a mark, by definition, there could be no switch. It is dangerous to read the Rule Book in isolation, picking the parts that you like, without considering how those parts fit into the whole.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Labs a mundo said:


> Good thread Brian. Paul's comment above gave some good insight despite the fact that he wasn't there.
> 
> We see these kinds of poison birds far too often, and to the point where a handler has learned to "cheat" the blind by giving the line to the poison bird, then getting the cast off the PB and completing the blind. What dog doesn't run stylishly toward a thrown bird?
> I'm aware of how this handler runs blinds and his dog runs very nice blinds, but in this case he was slow on the whistle and he is well aware of the direction his dog turns. Handler error. Anytime we mess up as handlers, we do our best to dig ourselves out of a hole and let the judges judge the results.
> The better disscussion here could be about the set-up of a blind that give an initial line to the blind.


Somehow I missed the point that Paul was trying to make earlier (sorry Paul). Thanks for bringing it to light again. Both of your arguments are very sound and caused me even more thinking about this. So now I'm back to not being sure what I would do. 

I appreciate the thoughtful input from everyone in this thread.

The more involved I am with this game as a competitor the more important it becomes to be fair, diligent and thoughtful in all aspects of setting tests and judging these fine animals and their handlers.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Some things never change . The same thing happened to me over 24 years ago @ a Wisconsin FT. I too gave a "non-verbal" drop command (special lower hand motion) from hunting and was dropped. I agree w/Paul it was not well designed. I did have the satisfaction of a great gallery outburst of keep him in because nobody had ever seen a dog do that before. Oh well , memories. History repeats. You run enough trials and you experience some strange things. Ted Shih raised an interesting off-shot w/mentioning "area of fall." Years ago Retriever Field Trial News ran a series of monthly articles as to what constitutes an area of fall. There was disagreement amongst contributors as there can between contestants/judges today. I always ask my co-judge what will we determine the area of fall to be before the 1st running dog. All for the love of dogs.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> In the OP scenario, there could be no switch.
> 
> Page 34 of the Rule Book reads as follows:
> 
> ...


I agree the 1st part is dealing with hunts and fall areas. However the 2nd part "or drops the bird he is retrieving and goes for another" it is a switch, too. It is mostly used in a bulldog or diversion bird situation, where another bird is thrown while, the dog is on the way in from a retrieve. In this case the handler caused the dog to switch. But that's no excuse. 

Had a dog dropped the blind bird on the way back to the line and picked up the "poision" bird, would it not be considered to have switched? Of course it would have. 

However, the main point of the Poison bird blind is to leave the "poison bird" alone. Thus the dog failed the blind, when it grabbed the poison bird.


----------

