# Out Of Sight,out Of Control, Out Of Trial



## lanse brown (Apr 22, 2004)

The fact that we now have a way for judges to eliminate, not judge dogs should help shorten the time it takes to put on a trial. It is very simple do not consider the dogs, nor the time it took to attend nor the economics. Just put on a blind where the handler and the judges cannot see or correct a dog who may be off line- wait and when the dog appears 80 yards out of the area then tell the handler thank you, goodbye. It is really very simple to do and definately eliminates dogs.If the judge does this he will never have to place birds correctly on marks and he can put the water blind where you never see your dog until he asks you to pick the dog up. Hey let's put the land blind where the dog enters cover to the blind and when the dog appears 70 yards beyond the blind we ask the handler to pick up his dog. Damn this judging is easy and I don't even have to train a dog.. WELL THIS IS WHERE OUR SPORT IS HEADED UNLESS THE POLITICALLY ENDOWED WHO DICTATE OUR RULES AND INVOKE A RULE FORBIDING, I SAID FORBIDING, THE DOG FROM BEING OUT OF SIGHT FOR SAY 4 SECONDS. The rules committee , after a NARCCS held in McCall Idaho placed blinds in the field to trick dogs and put gunstands out where a bird had never been shot to suck dogs -- it took only 6 months to FORBID- no should or shall verbige-FORBID-ILLEGAL, IN VIOLATION OF AKC RULES . Well the same can be done regarding dogs being out of sight - Nationals set precedents and if a relatively inexperienced judge sees this done in a National then he feels that he has a carte blanche to do the same at a weekend trial.The answer is that YOU have to contact the people who are calling the shots- the rules committee, the National club officers, the directors of the Labrador Club, the power brokers who run the Double Header Club, the Hall of Fame. If the people who suffer from these types of tests ALL speak out then as shown in the most recent national election maybe they will, like Obama, get the message. This is my opinion only and in time if nothing is done to FORBID these types of blinds and marks then we are just tossing the dice and not judging. Please do not take this as a thread- there is NO discussion needed-if you agree contact the power brokers, if you disagree then sit down., shut up and await the consequences-there will be no change so you will have it your way.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

A Men, A Men!!!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Where is my like button?

Oh yea, this is RTF not facebook! ;-)


Dave Bezesky


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Where is my like button?
> 
> Oh yea, this is RTF not facebook! ;-)
> 
> ...


At the top there's a dropdown for "rate this thread"....pick your stars and click....


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Booo! Booo! I wanted to start a service where I would watch the dogs running from a distance (outside the field trial area and relay the info to a person on the grounds who could lean one way or another to signal which way the dog was going while out of site from handlers and judges. all the handler would have to do is look at which way a person their was standing to know. I am sure a handler could easily teach a dog to take a right or left verbal cast, and of course they would already have a verbal back. Think there might be a few handlers that would like my services?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> A RULE FORBIDING, I SAID FORBIDING, THE DOG FROM BEING OUT OF SIGHT FOR SAY 4 SECONDS.


Pretty hard to do Lanse. Out of sight for whom? Six foot way up there Jim Gonia or 4 feet something like some of our diminutive lady handlers. 4 seconds dead on line or 4 seconds in the corridor? Whose corridor anyway? 

It's damned hard to legislate common sense.

BTW, how do you really feel about this?


----------



## Doug Moore (Nov 8, 2006)

Howard N said:


> BTW, how do you really feel about this?


Howard you know Lanse isn't bad for beating around the bush.:mrgreen:


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The autonomous way by which FT's are judged is not a recent phenomenon.

john


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Or we could do like the pointers and use scouts on horseback to locate dogs out of sight of the handler....


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I betcha if everyone was taller it wouldn't be a problem...

Angie


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Howard has it right on ...."It's damned hard to legislate common sense." 

Or morality......Steve S


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I betcha if everyone was taller it wouldn't be a problem...:razz:


OK long legged lady. Rub it in.

Short and stubby regards,


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I have a "pocket lab". She handles like a dream. On a senior test land blind, she disappeared in a little dip in the terrain. This hadn't happened with larger dogs. When the pro stopped her to (prophylactically) call her back into sight, she was practically sitting by the bird. Naturally, the come in whistle at this point sort of confused her, but after a few whistles she came trotting in. Sat on the next whistle, took a cast and (disappeared again) but came hot-footing it back with the bird. The judges assumed that she was running around when she didn't come immediately the first time she was called in. Because she was out of sight she was assumed to be out of control. 

It was frustrating. I've seen judges set up the line near (but not on) the top of a dam and when a small female lab (and petite handler) set themselves up on the line, they couldn't see squat. 

You don't want to fail, but if you do... you want it to provide you with some insight you can use in training. This kind of sloppy judging is very frustrating.


----------



## Kasomor (Nov 29, 2008)

1tulip said:


> I have a "pocket lab". She handles like a dream. On a senior test land blind, she disappeared in a little dip in the terrain. This hadn't happened with larger dogs. When the pro stopped her to (prophylactically) call her back into sight, she was practically sitting by the bird. Naturally, the come in whistle at this point sort of confused her, but after a few whistles she came trotting in. Sat on the next whistle, took a cast and (disappeared again) but came hot-footing it back with the bird. The judges assumed that she was running around when she didn't come immediately the first time she was called in. Because she was out of sight she was assumed to be out of control.
> 
> It was frustrating. I've seen judges set up the line near (but not on) the top of a dam and when a small female lab (and petite handler) set themselves up on the line, they couldn't see squat.
> 
> You don't want to fail, but if you do... you want it to provide you with some insight you can use in training. This kind of sloppy judging is very frustrating.


Welcome to my world.:sad:

Short dog regards


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

AB111, I thought you got this out of your system in Missioula in 06! Sorry to see it is still bothering you.

wdm


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

what you need is a big fluffy golden with a big fluffy tail....


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

I think part of the problem is during set up before the trial begins ,the judges do not use or have a dog available to them until the test dog runs in front of the handlers .
Running a dog on what you think you will use as a blind or marks for the test could eliminate some of the mechanical problems we see on the weekends . JMVHO. However ,this one comedian has made alot of $$$ with the phrase "you can't fix stupid ".


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Ecellent observation Lance, and I agree with you.
Those that have been dropped for "out of sight, out of control" know this. Those that have not, your day is coming... probably.

I've never been able to figure out how judges can judge dogs they cannot see.


----------



## fetchtx (May 12, 2005)

GPS collars on all dogs, judges stay home do their judging thing from computers, email us results, or TEXT us, thus saving them the quick get a way out of town after. Also no names of judges on entrys just a number known to sources unknown. 
All judges picked by bingo draws, no more buddy phone calls, or expenses paid etc etc. Pictures of all tests ( and approval by owners) before entrys close also would be handy posted online of course. All protests handled by a poll taken by unknown people and results posted a year after event. Oh yes then the clubs should guarantee full refunds for all unhappy participants. All of this must be available on Blackberry, etc. Maybe we should get the government involved to make it all understandable also.


----------



## lanse brown (Apr 22, 2004)

PLEASE this topic is not intended to be a discussion the choice is simple If you want to have the judges continue to set tests where you do not see your dog until you are asked to pick up the dog then DO NOT respond. If as recently occurred at the NRCCS (3tests) dogs run by 6ft5 handlers and 5ft 2 handlers were unable to see their dogs for elapsed periods of 30, 25 and 50 seconds and because of this were not called back then DO NOT respond on this site- write the Officianodos who are responsible for allowing this transgression to continue.


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

lanse it happens every weekend except when i judge.


----------



## signgirl (Jun 4, 2006)

By all means, go the route of having the rule changed and made explicitly clear...but we have power in the meantime.

If prolonged out of sight blinds are set up at a trial or test...withdraw en masse. If enough do, you will have spoken. I was at a Derby last summer that had a hidden and dangerous ditch on the go bird. Two pros said they would withdraw (multiple dogs) unless it was changed....it was changed.


----------



## Dan Hurst (Nov 30, 2007)

Out of sight for even 2 seconds at a critical place in the blind is too long to be out of sight. Must have a chance to recover.
Really just wanted to have this thread on page 1 again.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

I've been at one trial that I recall where a handler questioned the judges after the test dog had run. The handler said, "Gentleman. Will you be able to see your dog in order to handle?" There was a long silence, and eventually the judges moved the line up a long ways so that handlers could see the dog. I thought this handler asked in an appropriate tone of voice--he was not sarcastic or in any way offensive.

Handlers are allowed to ask questions, so maybe we should be asking more often.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

lanse brown said:


> PLEASE this topic is not intended to be a discussion the choice is ....[/quote]
> 
> HA! Good luck with that, on RTF all we do is discussssss ;-)
> and the choice is never clear. I started a thread one time asking if handlers could stand on a box. What is the old Kate Simonds line?
> ...


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Judges should run a dog on each setup when they first set them up, rather than just running out there the afternoon before, looking at the grounds for ~10 min, then going off to the club dinner. Heck I'd go so far as to say they should run their own dog on it, after all in order to judge at each level you are required to have or have had a dog which can compete at that level. If the judges were shipped in the club could provide a dog at each level. That way the judges could appericate the pitfalls and dangers associated with their tests. I'm tired of seeing dogs impailed, ripped open, suffer heat stoke or become lost, because judges were not aware of the conditions, what was out in the field, or under the water, during a test. I've seen only a couple of judges actually do this, and it usually results in much better, and more challenging test, where dogs either fail or pass and don't have to be penciled out.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Just because you haven't seen a judge use a set-up dog doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I try to use a set-up dog whenever I can but it happens the day before the trial when you won't see it. In addition, it is routine to use a test dog so all who are there can see the actual set-up prior to the 1st running dog. And while there may be some judges who look at the grounds for 10 mins then head off to the club dinner, most judges spend enough time on the grounds to set-up (at least conceptually) all four of their intended tests after they have studied the predicted weather (wind direction, sun location etc), considered the logistics of the set-up versus the number of dogs running and most importantly considered bird placement given the terrain. Most judges take their assignment seriously, and prepare as they would want those (the judges) they run under to prepare. Let's not paint such a negative picture to whitewash all judges.

It is up to the clubs to insure they recruit judges with enough knowledge & experience to setup tests that fairly challenge the dogs & up to the judges to fulfil their assignment with the required care & expertise with equity to those who are entered. As for being out of sight on a blind, the rules already speak to the issue. We don't need more rules just assurance that the judges will follow the rules.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Judges should run a dog on each setup when they first set them up, rather than just running out there the afternoon before, looking at the grounds for ~10 min, then going off to the club dinner. Heck I'd go so far as to say they should run their own dog on it, after all in order to judge at each level you are required to have or have had a dog which can compete at that level. If the judges were shipped in the club could provide a dog at each level. That way the judges could appericate the pitfalls and dangers associated with their tests. I'm tired of seeing dogs impailed, ripped open, suffer heat stoke or become lost, because judges were not aware of the conditions, what was out in the field, or under the water, during a test. I've seen only a couple of judges actually do this, and it usually results in much better, and more challenging test, where dogs either fail or pass and don't have to be penciled out.


I wanted to respond to your "observations" one at a time, but I just can't do it...


----------



## KEITH L (Nov 2, 2005)

ditto here lance nothing pisses me off more and hearing of it promoted at a 
national. been in to many of those driver seats and go up in flames because 
i tried to thread the needle. couldn't see to handle .

keith l.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

The difference at a Nat'l is how the blind is judged versus a weekend trial - as a general observation. At a nat'l even with a blind where the handler loses sight of his dog for some period, the judging approach generally seems to be that if the handler can recover he is not dropped. In a weekend trial you're gone for a dog going off line while out of sight - again as a general observation. Of course the problem is in application. Folks see the out of sight blind run at a nat'l & mimic the concept, forget how the blind was judged & apply a different, clearly arbitrary & unfair std at the weekend trial & drop dogs that go off line while out of sight.

I understand the idea of not running a blind where a dog goes out of sight & I AGREE with the idea of not running such blinds as a general rule. That said, there will be occasions where a reasonable blind can't be run without a dog being out of sight for at least 1-2 seconds. I would be satisfied if judges would recognize the rules about a dog must be seen to have control & not penalize a dog when he goes off-line while out of sight.

The problem with changing or adding rules such as suggested is that some folks will then decide a blind shouldn't be run if a dog can go out of sight even if the out of sight condition is off line to the blind - meaning the dog could have been controlled while in sight but wasn't. I just don't think we need new rules, maybe some concise clarification in some places & more than anything we need judges who apply an experienced, informed common sense approach to their set-ups and their judging.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

lanse brown said:


> DO NOT respond on this site- write the Officianodos who are responsible for allowing this transgression to continue.


As clubs have their annual meetings this would be a topic. Clubs could vote and send a letter to the RAC/SOR for a simple statement to be added:
"Judges should judge what they see. If you can not see the dog you can not judge the dog."

Tim


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> As clubs have their annual meetings this would be a topic. Clubs could vote and send a letter to the RAC/SOR for a simple statement to be added:
> "Judges should judge what they see. If you can not see the dog you can not judge the dog."
> 
> Tim


And you think that would make a difference?

Not hardly


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I am as aware of the problem cited by Lanse as anyone

However, I don't like the cure. The solution is not more rules, but rather better judging

The Rule Book already addresses the issue. It state as follows:

*Nevertheless, the test should be planned so that the dog should be “in sight” continuously. A blind retrieve is a test of control, and dog which is out of sight for a considerable period cannot be said to be under control.*

I think it is difficult to construct a good All Age Blind without some out of sight portions. The issue is what you do with dogs that reappear off line.

I subscribe to the two whistle rule. That is, if there is a critical portion of a blind, a good handler with a fast dog should be given an opportunity to get two whistles and casts. 

I try to make it so that a good handler has an opportunity to stop the dog and make the critical cast ... and if the dog does not take it, the handler gets another shot. If you can't get the cast in two tries at a critical point .......

Judging involves JUDGEMENT.
Be careful about imposing rules that eliminate JUDGEMENT.
We already have too many rules.
We don't need more rules, we just need better JUDGEMENT.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> We don't need more rules, we just need better JUDGEMENT.


Amen brother.
Can anyone say "good dog"? ;-)

john


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> The Rule Book already addresses the issue. It state as follows:
> 
> *Nevertheless, the test should be planned so that the dog should be “in sight” continuously. A blind retrieve is a test of control, and dog which is out of sight for a considerable period cannot be said to be under control.*


Just trying to learn here:

So are the problems mentioned about weekend tests droping dogs for being off line when they come back into view because some judges interpret the second sentance to mean that the dog failed because they "cannot be said to be under control."?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Rick_C said:


> Just trying to learn here:
> 
> So are the problems mentioned about weekend tests droping dogs for being off line when they come back into view because some judges interpret the second sentance to mean that the dog failed because they "cannot be said to be under control."?


I agree Rick, that sentence is a bit vague in that it really doesn't address the issue of whither the dog was out of sight because he was out of control and the handler wasn't able to keep him online and in sight, or was he out of sight because the judges set the test up with some portion of the line being out of sight? The way the sentence reads to me is almost an out of sight dog is by definition out of control. If so and if the judges set up an out of sight test, isn't that on the judges?

I pretty much subscribe to Ted's real world way of viewing test. Hopefully the judges can find a nice challenging blind with no out of sight, but if that's impossible, then the out of sight should be very short without hidden traps, and a dog that comes back into view off line should be given an opportunity to be handled back on line. I was dropped once after my dog fought too hard against a super hard cross wind while he was out of sight, it took one big over with the wind to get him back on line and to the bird. That is the kind of thing that doesn't seem fair to me.

I once set up a land blind with a low middle section that was out of sight, my co-judge and I didn't have many options on this limited ground, and there were no traps, or obsticals of any kind in this out of sight section. Every dog but one pushed through this flat open ground without problem, but that one dog that somehow made a 90 degree left turn while he was out of sight, and didn't came back into view until he was over a hundred yards out of the test. I always felt bad about that.
John


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Thanks John, great explanation.

There seem to be many rules in both the Hunt Test and Field Trial venues that are open to some interpretation depending on if the person reading the rule is more of a black and white vs. a practicle thinker.


----------



## Philip Carson (Mar 17, 2009)

Ted is right on that there's already plenty of rules, and what is needed is good, better judging. I disagree it's difficult to set up an All-Age blind without losing sight of the dog; depends on terrain available.


----------



## Labs a mundo (Mar 20, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I am as aware of the problem cited by Lanse as anyone
> 
> However, I don't like the cure. The solution is not more rules, but rather better judging
> 
> ...


Well said.
Some grounds prevent all lines to marks being in full view but IMO the area of the fall better be in full view. If a hunt is happening out of sight AND outside of the area of the fall..... well.... hmmmm

BUT, all lines to blinds, and the corridor, should have full view. If there is a loss of vision outside the corridor, all's fair. That's what I call suction.
Marks= a test of marking ability
Blinds= a test of control

Deb


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

lanse brown said:


> The fact that we now have a way for judges to eliminate, not judge dogs should help shorten the time it takes to put on a trial. It is very simple do not consider the dogs, nor the time it took to attend nor the economics. Just put on a blind where the handler and the judges cannot see or correct a dog who may be off line- wait and when the dog appears 80 yards out of the area then tell the handler thank you, goodbye. It is really very simple to do and definately eliminates dogs.If the judge does this he will never have to place birds correctly on marks and he can put the water blind where you never see your dog until he asks you to pick the dog up. Hey let's put the land blind where the dog enters cover to the blind and when the dog appears 70 yards beyond the blind we ask the handler to pick up his dog. Damn this judging is easy and I don't even have to train a dog.. WELL THIS IS WHERE OUR SPORT IS HEADED UNLESS THE POLITICALLY ENDOWED WHO DICTATE OUR RULES AND INVOKE A RULE FORBIDING, I SAID FORBIDING, THE DOG FROM BEING OUT OF
> SIGHT FOR SAY 4 SECONDS. The rules
> committee , after a NARCCS held in McCall Idaho placed blinds in the field to trick dogs and put gunstands out where a bird had never been shot to suck dogs -- it took only 6 months to FORBID- no should or shall verbige-FORBID-ILLEGAL, IN VIOLATION OF AKC RULES . Well the same can be done regarding dogs being out of sight - Nationals set precedents and if a relatively inexperienced judge sees this done in a National then he feels that he has a carte blanche to do the same at a weekend trial.The answer is that YOU have to contact the people who are calling the shots- the rules committee, the National club officers, the directors of the Labrador Club, the power brokers who run the Double Header Club, the Hall of Fame. If the people who suffer from these types of tests ALL speak out then as shown in the most recent national election maybe they will, like Obama, get the message. This is my opinion only and in time if nothing is done to FORBID these types of blinds and marks then we are just tossing the dice and not judging. Please do not
> take this as a thread- there is NO discussion needed-if you agree contact the power brokers, if you disagree then sit down., shut up and await the consequences-there will be no change so you will have it your way.




Bump to the front! I don't understand why when we see a test that is clearly against the rules the field trial committee doesn't do what the rules prescribes for a situation like this? Can an experienced judge answer that question, why don't we stop those tests from ever running?


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

I ran a blind that you could say was a keyhole blind. This was at the Master National at the Busch grounds. There were three judges and one was behind the line and one on either side of the long path to the blind. There was a tree line on both side of the path to the blind and if any one the three judges could not see your dog the entire way you were asked to pick the dog up.

These three judges never judged again.

Cindy R.


----------



## rednek (Apr 24, 2011)

from the CKC rulebook;15.3.3 (g) ...the test should be planned so the dog should be in sight continuously.

I love rules that are vague,not really rules are they?


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

rednek said:


> from the CKC rulebook;15.3.3 (g) ...the test should be planned so the dog should be in sight continuously.
> 
> I love rules that are vague,not really rules are they?



That's not vague to me...I would interpret that to mean...any and all tests I set up the dog "should be in sight continuously."


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Lanse what you posted, in regards to judges setting up blinds, IMO is *the most* *common fault I see judges make .* Setting up blinds where fast stylist dogs are eliminated with the handler having no chance to cast to keep the dog on line. And the slow dogs, some who trot out, get carried. I repeat it is* the most common fault I see judges make.*


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

rednek said:


> from the CKC rulebook;15.3.3 (g) ...the test should be planned so the dog should be in sight continuously.
> 
> I love rules that are vague,not really rules are they?


Should has been replaced with shall a few times in the AKC rules book.

BTW wasn't most of the dogs, of any series, lost in the 3rd series of the National Open last year, because of this issue?


----------



## tripsteer1 (Feb 25, 2011)

Bravo Lanse,
You have forgotton more than alot of these yahoo"s THINK they know.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I don't understand why when we see a test that is clearly against the rules the field trial committee doesn't do what the rules prescribes


Maybe it's because the field trial committee doesn't set up the test the judges do. The committee can intervene for safety reasons.


----------



## Doug Kennedy (Jul 8, 2010)

I agree that a dog should be visible for a judge to judge. How many times have you seen a handler let the dog roll out of sight on either a blind or mark??? Hoping they will stumble back into the area instead of a crisp handle.If the dog is out of sight a judge cannot judge it. Unfortunately I have seen handlers create a problem for themselves.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Maybe it's because the field trial committee doesn't set up the test the judges do. The committee can intervene for safety reasons.


Thanks Howard I could answer that! I mean when the field trial committee sees or hears of an illegal test at a trial why doesnt the committee call question to the test and end such a test. Who does a judge have to answer to about the legality of a test? Insight please Howard, you know more than most on this subject, help me. The reason I bumped Lanse's post was to bring to light again the subject, keep the subject alive until there's an answer.


----------



## Ironwood (Sep 25, 2007)

Lance you are wrong to think a rule change will solve the problem.
From the country and western song title a lesson for all of us about the rule book; "Don't Fence Me In"


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

It's an interesting (to me anyway) demonstration of how far US type Trials have diverged from the UK model where the dog can be out of sight for some time hunting in deep cover.

When the rule states that a blind is a measure of control, with no mention of game finding ability, you can see the length of the journey taken.

I think some may have seen this before, but note Robin Watson several times handling his dog back into thick cover after the running cock bird and then folding his arms (!) whilst the dog works the maize game crop for the duck. OUT OF SIGHT

Eug


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

champ said:


> Thanks Howard I could answer that! *I mean when the field trial committee sees or hears of an illegal test at a trial why doesnt the committee call question to the test and end such a test.*
> Champ, I do not believe the committee can officially do anything other than bring the alleged illegality to the attention of the judges. Still it's the judges' test and they basically can do anything they want. It can't be unsafe so the committee could say a test is unsafe. Other than saftey, how can a committee end a test? Fire the judges?
> 
> Who does a judge have to answer to about the legality of a test? Probably nobody. They have agreed to judge by the rules of the AKC. I have heard of the AKC asking judges about a test a week or two later. Never heard of anything actually happening.
> ...


I don't think there is an answer. I know within my training group. People I've trained with for years have different ideas of how far the dog should have to go out of sight. AND I've seen these ideas of how long the dog can be out of sight change as we've had different dogs.

One of my training partners got his dog through the blinds that started this thread at the nat'l. He said you had to put your dog at the right place on the dike and stop him there and cast into the water. If the dog didn't take the cast and hugged the shore, stick a fork in the you, you were done. If the dog took the cast you could see the dog shortly if you moved left like the judges said you could. He didn't think it was such a big deal. But to others, big outcry. He said he'd never heard so many pros whining.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Howard N said:


> I don't think there is an answer. I know within my training group. People I've trained with for years have different ideas of how far the dog should have to go out of sight. AND I've seen these ideas of how long the dog can be out of sight change as we've had different dogs.
> 
> Thanks Howard your insight is appreciated. I feel this is a major issue in the game today and whats scarry is the fact a rule can be written so clearly yet we don't follow it. This is a pivotal time in our sport, the guys that started this sport are becoming to an age where they wont be around much longer. If the new blood thinks they can follow the fad, that is clearly against the rules were in for trouble with this issue and many more, and then we look back and our sport has deteriated to a game of luck and not the finely trained animal. We NEED a rule that clearly states the recourse for an illegal test, if the committee can decide if a test is safe they can easily stop an illegal test from proceeding. I don't see any need for a rule change, just recourse for when we see the problem! Very simple!! Folks keep the subject alive until we have a solution. The major problem I see is the lack of respect for the rules book. Soo many people think there are unwritten rules and interpretation issues, just ask the AKC rep for a list of unwritten rules, you'll get a blank piece of paper. We need to have respect for this issue what's next??


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

This discussion seems odd to me. I have not known a judge to set up a blind with the intent of being out of sight. AB111 routinly set up such blinds,yet finds reason to complain...he must have been dropped for poor handling!

What is the difference between out of sight due to terrain and out of sight due to hight of handler ( or dog) , color of dog and ground cover, line of sight behind the handler, lighting conditions, the eye sight (lack of) of the handler and or handler mobility ( to move to see the dog), etc. They are all out of sight or creat out of sight situations and demand exactness in handling.....anticipating problems while timing your whistle and cast to the situation.

That said out of sight at a critical point..were there is no room for recovery, is indeed a problem judges should consider and eliminate in test construction.

Bill


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

moonstonelabs said:


> This discussion seems odd to me. I have not known a judge to set up a blind with the intent of being out of sight. AB111 routinly set up such blinds,yet finds reason to complain...he must have been dropped for poor handling!
> 
> What is the difference between out of sight due to terrain and out of sight due to hight of handler ( or dog) , color of dog and ground cover, line of sight behind the handler, lighting conditions, the eye sight (lack of) of the handler and or handler mobility ( to move to see the dog), etc. They are all out of sight or creat out of sight situations and demand exactness in handling.....anticipating problems while timing your whistle and cast to the situation.
> 
> ...


Bill, in ab111's defense this is an old thread revived from the dead, but I bet he still isn't over it!!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

champ said:


> Bill, in ab111's defense this is an old thread revived from the dead, but I bet he still isn't over it!!


:lol: 

I bet you're right.

:lol:


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

Looks like this thread may have had something to do with Kate Simmons bring up the subject of out of sight blinds at the National Amateur meeting this year.

"During 2010 it has come to the committee's attention that in some cases field trialers are either not familiarizing themselves with the rules or ignoring them. One case that is becoming frequently ignored is setting blinds where the line to the blind requires the dog to be out of sight for substantial periods of time. The Rulebook is very clear about this on page 42; the dogs are supposed to be in sight for the entire time."


----------

