# Another unwritten rule ---- why? what's the logic



## Tville (Jun 29, 2005)

Scenario: Dog running a water blind.

Dog 1 - at about 50-75 yds from line dog gives too much angle with the cast. Handler blows sit whistle and at the top of his lungs gives a verbal BACK!!

Dog 2 - same as above. Handler blows sit whistle and in non-threatening voice/tone says NO and then give a silent back.

Both dogs respond in an identical manner.

Which dog gets carried and why?


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

2nd dog out, Don't say no in a test! 1st dog get warning, if it continues in next series. judges talk about it.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Tville said:


> Scenario: Dog running a water blind.
> 
> Dog 1 - at about 50-75 yds from line dog gives too much angle with the cast. Handler blows sit whistle and at the top of his lungs gives a verbal BACK!!
> 
> ...


Once the word "No" is said, you have begun training. So, that dog is out.


----------



## Chris Meyer (Aug 10, 2008)

labraiser said:


> 2nd dog out, Don't say no in a test! 1st dog get warning, if it continues in next series. judges talk about it.


Agreed with 2nd dog out, but why a warning on the first dog? You should be able to use your voice to drive the dog back. Especially if there was a long distance to the bird yet.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

John Daniels said:


> You will be dropped in an AKC test or trial. However, You can tell your dog no in UKC HRC test.


True... I just try to keep it consistent, otherwise, I'd forget which venue, and accidently blurt out a "No."


----------



## Udder Brudder (Jan 15, 2003)

You can say no in test or trial. Why do you say you cannot say no?

Ffor instance, No bird on a honor, no here if there bis a poison bird blind. 
I think it is all in the tone of your voice.

This is a good question...UB


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

There is no rule or regulation about either scenario. 

It comes down to you have to be there to see it.


----------



## tshuntin (Mar 22, 2003)

Based off of your description only, both dogs pass or get carried. There are too many unstated variables that could lead to each of the participants actions. For example, handler 1 may be very hard of hearing therfore causing him to yell commands louder than the average person. We are judging dogs, not people. Granted people may do certain things to cause the dog to fail, but I don't feel either of the above examples justify failure...

Please someone show me where in the AKC HT rule book it says you can not say "NO"?


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

I mean, if the second dog is given a back that is screamed out, then i have issues with that. Remember this is a hunting secenero. You don't scream back when handling a dog while hunting ducks. Your screaming back and a flight comes over, those ducks will say see ya.


----------



## Tville (Jun 29, 2005)

My take on this is -- intimidation and only intimidation. Why is NO any more training than BACK or OVER? I think the "forbidden/mystery" words really need to be purged from judging.
The issue is INTIMIDATION! --- same reasoning leads must be completely in your pocket and your gloves are to be on your hands not carried rolled up as something you could INTIMIDATE your dog with. Voice level and tone can and do intimidate.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

In my opinion both dogs carry. In the real world a "no" while the dog is running a blind is going to remove your name from the callback list. You can sometimes say it at the line but rarely when the dog is out in the field. 

Know your judges before you try either. In the excitement of the test I have boomed "back" and was warned that some judges would call that intimidation. I carried but did learn a lesson.
Mark L.


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

No is a training command, your running a AKC test, no training in a test. no bird quietly is ok.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

I've said "no" many times in a test. At the line I use it to "no" my dog off a flyer station to run a blind and other situations of the same.

I've never used it as stated above, but have a real hard time thinking the simple use of the word "No" as described above constitutes failure. This whole argument of once you say "no" your training, is a big pet peeve of mine. As a handler my goal is to get the dog to pick up every bird as efficiently as possible, using any and all means at my disposal within the limits of the rules. If saying "No" to the dog as described above accomplishes this goal, then Kudo's to the handler for a smart handle.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Both dogs carry to the next series!! Both better improve!


Common sense rule!


Get rid a yer egos Judges!!!


Gooser


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Tville,

i have seen dogs that were not intimidated by a whiffle bat on their backside. how can you be sure that that a dog in the water, at a distance as was described, is intimidated by either of the handlers in this example? 

now, if it was a land blind, and the demeanor of the dog changed (slinking, tail tucked, walking) it would be justifiable to say the dog was intimidated by the handler. the style score would be a zero in my book and i would consult my co-judge to see if he did the same.

as far as the regulations go, there is nothing in there to support dropping either dog UNLESS THE JUDGES CAN SEE that the dog was intimidated. judge what you se, as has been said by many experienced judges that frequent this site.

unless the handler uses the phrase "no, here!" i want to see what happens next before i close my book.-Paul


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I don't think any words should cause you to fail like Tville said it's the way you say it that determines the intimidation factor who's to say that to that dog no means to go back to me no is almost the same as blowing a whistle it stop the dogs momentum when it's going the wrong way.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

labraiser said:


> No is a training command, your running a AKC test, no training in a test. no bird quietly is ok.


This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard about dogs in a long time. The whole "no" thing that some folks get so anal over just amazes me. Show it to me in the rulebook. This is just one of those things that somebody foolishly interpreted along the way and it has now somehow become part of the culture.
A good judge does just that: judge the dog work. If the handler is intimidating the dog, it is obvious to anyone who knows dogs. If the handler decides to make the test a training session, it is obvious to anyone who knows dogs. It doesn't matter what words the handler uses.
A poor judge resorts to nit-picking and pencil-whipping to fail dogs, regardless of the venue.
It's no different than the idiots who make a big deal out of a tag hanging off the collar on a junior dog or the UKC folks who freak out about a choke chain on the way to the holding blind or if the handler is wearing gloves or not. I've even heard discussions about not allowing junior or started dogs to wear a long collar too tight because it "simulates wearing an e-collar". Some people just can't seem to see the forest for the trees. One man's opinion.


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

This all makes or interesting conversation.
But in life things never go perfectly.
My old Grand Pa once told me;
"Sometimes YOU get the bear, sometimes the bear gets YOU!!"

Do the best you can, over train for the toughest stuff you can and try to enjoy.

When a judge sets up a test they have something in mind, usually it is not to hurt anyone's feelings or screw over a dog.

When I judge I want every dog to pass.
It's up to the dog & handler what happens.

Enjoy these moments no matter the outcome, life is WAAAAY to short folks.
Trust me on this one!!

stan b & Elvis


----------



## DenverB2B (Feb 22, 2009)

Totally up to the judges. Let me explain. Last weekend young dog (mine) already titled and wanted to see if she would break. I go to the line sit her and call for bird. Before bird hits ground she is half way across the water. I yelled "No Here" she came back and healed her and sent her for the bird. As she was returning I turned to the judges and said thank you and that they dont need to waste a flyer on her since she is done. They told me she is not done that you are allowed a "controled break". I told them I found out what I was looking for in how she was going to do at the next level. I lined her up for the flyer and she got the bird and on to the next series and a ribbon. All I can say is all judges are not created equal.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Shayne, tell them about "Good Dog"  

Jerry


----------



## Chris Meyer (Aug 10, 2008)

No is a command just like any other. It doesn't always invoke training. As long as it's not said to intimidate there's "no" reason not to use it.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

If the word "no" slipped out of my mouth while I was running an AKC Hunt Test, I would start shaking in my boots wondering what the judges would do; I'm not judging I'm just saying;-)....but, I would proceed with the test until the judge told me different...let the judge judge.....
________
Ipad guide


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

> *INTIMIDATION*
> Main Entry:in·tim·i·date Pronunciation: \in-ˈti-mə-ˌdāt\
> 
> Function:_transitive verb_ to make timid or fearful *:* frighten ; _especially_ *:* to compel or deter by or as if by threats <tried to _intimidate_ a witness>
> ...


Intimidation has nothing to do with the words spoken or even how loud a word is spoken. It has to do with the effect of the handlers behavior on the dog. 

The guide has this to say regarding intimidation under serious handler faults


> 9. Threatening Gestures - or any form of intimidation
> made to the dog.


Judges should be experienced enough to understand intimidation by reading the dogs reaction and not be focused on what word is used.

Last time I ran under bubba, I told him flat out that my goal is sometime actually intimidate Pete when running a test....

/Paul


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

show me in the rule book where it lists words you are not allowed to say under judgment.
David Jansma


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

I find this interesting that few of the droppers in this instance have taken a firm stand. Like someone else said, say no, shake in your boots at an AKC test. The handler gave a very hard back. So what. Are we all to be monotoned nomal speaking voice only handlers?
But where to draw the line? ie, you have two cast refusals so this time blow whistle, say no, handle. Now what? The line has to be drawn somewhere.
For me, in most cases, the line for NO is drawn at the line. Like for NOing off a bird


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Dog is running a blind under the arc of an old fall....wants to go back to the old fall....handle once - dog scallops back and tries to go to the fall area...Handler whistles again, says 'NO' and casts the dog again...Dog holds his cast and drives through the area....

Or, same scenario but use the command 'LEAVE IT' or 'OUT' instead of 'NO'..with same results...

how do the judges know you have not trained the dog that the word 'OUT' is associated with a correction in training? They don't....

It shouldn't matter what words you use, as long as the dog responds and you are not spitting up blood as you scream at the top of your lungs....(I would think in this case the dog was already out of the handler's control...LOL)

Juli


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

ONE scallop and the dog is out of control????!!!!

more and more i'm convinced that the HT world has lost touch with what is a hunting dog...-Paul


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

who said one scallop and the dog was out of control?

Juli


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

ummmm, i think you did, in post #27...-Paul


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I have no problem with the word NO at the line as in an honor situation or one where you are trying to convince a dog to leave the poison bird alone and go where you are pointing. Once the dog has left the line, NO should be followed by HERE.

I have no problem with a loud back, but I think it is self defeating, if you have to drive the dog that hard on a 100 yd blind you are likely in trouble.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

sky_view said:


> Dog is running a blind under the arc of an old fall....wants to go back to the old fall....handle once - dog scallops back and tries to go to the fall area...Handler whistles again, says 'NO' and casts the dog again...Dog holds his cast and drives through the area....
> 
> Or, same scenario but use the command 'LEAVE IT' or 'OUT' instead of 'NO'..with same results...
> 
> ...



I agree. If it was that easy to intimidate my dog into doing the right thing in a trial just by saying no, I would develop some other intimidating code words just between me and my dog. I don't think it's that easy. I pretty much avoid using "no" as it doesn't really serve a purpose as a command. I use "sit" if my dog breaks, and other conventional commands, if my dog is being a good dog he complies, if he's bad he doesn't and I'll get dropped.

John


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

labraiser said:


> I mean, if the second dog is given a back that is screamed out, then i have issues with that. Remember this is a hunting secenero. You don't scream back when handling a dog while hunting ducks. Your screaming back and a flight comes over, those ducks will say see ya.


So if your just giving silent arm signals that wouldn't scare off ducks? Must be nice to always have perfect hunts where no one yells at a dog.

I've said "no" plenty of times in tests and suffered no ill affects. Guess we have better judges down here.


----------



## short retired (Jul 7, 2008)

labraiser said:


> I mean, if the second dog is given a back that is screamed out, then i have issues with that. Remember this is a hunting secenero. You don't scream back when handling a dog while hunting ducks. Your screaming back and a flight comes over, those ducks will say see ya.



I would not be worried about a flight working our rig if I have a dog in the water. I would think you do whatever you need to to get to the bird while hunting. Yell back, no ,over...whatever...get the bird and get your dog back. Then worry about the next flight.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

brandywinelabs said:


> Are we all to be monotoned nomal speaking voice only handlers?


I guess judges will just have to start carrying decibel meters in their judging kits, along with all the other stuff they bring.

Lisa


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

paul young said:


> ummmm, i think you did, in post #27...-Paul


 
no I didn't....

I said if someone had to yell at their dog so loud that they were spitting up blood their dog was probably out of control (meant to be a tongue in cheek comment note the LOL at the end of the sentence).....I didn't say it in the same paragraph as the comment about using 'no' or 'out' or 'leave it' to get a dog away from suction...in fact it was stated three paragraphs/comments later and not meant to be related to the previous statements, except that a handler screaming NO NO LEAVE IT!!! has probably tried several times to cast their dog away from the suction of the old fall or ?......

Juli


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

my bad.....back to grammer class for me....-Paul


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

I can't wait till I get bounced for telling my dog *"GOOD DAWG ELVIS!!"*In my standard louder than normal voice!!
And frankly, don't much care if they do.
It's about me and Elvis, not them!!


just sayin'


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

This is where clarification needs to be worked out. A judge can not and should not tell you how to handle your dog. A no to one person might be intimidation and to another person may be a handle. Just like no judge should be able to drop a dog if they continue to take a wrong turn on a back cast. Maybe dog is only three hand casted.

Many times I believe judges take to much for granted and try to judge dogs and not the standard.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

If your dog takes a bad cast and you give an immediate whistle and say, "No." What is the judge supposed to think? Have you made a correction when running the blind?

What if you have a nervous, up tight dog, and you say, "Good dog," to him after an early whistle. Have you run the same bind as other handlers who didn't have to relax their dog?

What's the judge supposed to think? Does anything go? Or are you supposed to run a businesslike blind with the minimum of verbage.


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

Howard N said:


> If your dog takes a bad cast and you give an immediate whistle and say, "No." What is the judge supposed to think? Have you made a correction when running the blind?
> 
> What if you have a nervous, up tight dog, and you say, "Good dog," to him after an early whistle. Have you run the same bind as other handlers who didn't have to relax their dog?


Great point!!

I say "Good DAWG" to relax ME!!


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

In a situation like that yes it is a correction. It is also intimidation. Like I said "clarification." That is after a bad cast.

Dog takes command so why can't you say "Good dog," if it is an early whistle they should be lowered for intial line not for early whistle or "Good dog."


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

This is just like any other sport, some people see it one way, some see it another. You just have to live with the decision that people make. Be it good or bad, that's just how this game is played. If you don't like the way a judge sees it, don't run under them again.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Scott Greenwood said:


> In a situation like that yes it is a correction. It is also intimidation. Like I said "clarification." That is after a bad cast.
> 
> Dog takes command so why can't you say "Good dog," if it is an early whistle they should be lowered for intial line not for early whistle or "Good dog."



It would be a correction. It might be intimidation depending on how the dog reacts.

/Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Based on what is written both dogs come back


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Frenchy said:


> I've said "no" many times in a test. At the line I use it to "no" my dog off a flyer station to run a blind and other situations of the same.


But your not saying "No" because the dog is doing something you don't want him to do after starting your run...


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Howard N said:


> If your dog takes a bad cast and you give an immediate whistle and say, "No." What is the judge supposed to think? Have you made a correction when running the blind?
> 
> What if you have a nervous, up tight dog, and you say, "Good dog," to him after an early whistle. Have you run the same bind as other handlers who didn't have to relax their dog?
> 
> What's the judge supposed to think? Does anything go? Or are you supposed to run a businesslike blind with the minimum of verbage.


Do a search on this.... Marv Baumer got dropped in Texas at a Field Trial for saying "Good Dog." Judge felt it was training. Our own Shayne got him a "Good Dog" hat...


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

I can't hear out of one ear and I'm deaf in the other. I'm loud at the line, so everytime I send my dog with a loud back or loud send I should be out. How is saying no any different than blowing your whistle, they are all training aides. I can't believe any good judge would fail a dog with using the word no or with a loud back. I guess we don't have a lot of good judges or we have judges that don't have a cue. I guess some judge come up with the word no being intimidating and some other judges followed their judging ways. I never say no to my dogs, but If I needed too I shouldn't be failed for saying one word. From now on I'm going to start teaching my dogs that good dog is a bad word, like to see someone fail me for saying good dog, good dog........


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

the way some dogs are trained these days... a whistle sit can also be intimidating (all one has to do is look at how some dogs respond to the sit whistle)...does that mean that every whistle sit is intimidating? no...

A dog that walks to a blind sure looks intimidated to me...why are these dogs not dropped? 

Working with a dog in the field requires both visual AND verbal communication...Yes, they should be to a minimum, but if casting or verbal commands are needed to get the job done, and done appropriately and within reasonable levels (ie, without screaming til you are crying tears or jumping up and down waving you arms like a mad gorilla)..then let the 'teamwork' commence....



Juli


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

kimsmith said:


> I can't hear out of one ear and I'm deaf in the other. I'm loud at the line, so everytime I send my dog with a loud back or loud send I should be out. How is saying no any different than blowing your whistle, they are all training aides. I can't believe any good judge would fail a dog with using the word no or with a loud back. I guess we don't have a lot of good judges or we have judges that don't have a cue. I guess some judge come up with the word no being intimidating and some other judges followed their judging ways. I never say no to my dogs, but If I needed too I shouldn't be failed for saying one word. From now on I'm going to start teaching my dogs that good dog is a bad word, like to see someone fail me for saying *good dog, good dog*........



If my pup done good he makes me happy!

I will do my best to return that feeling.

GOOD DAWG means that.
I told him GOOD DAWG when we failed a test.
Wasn't his fault we failed, was mine!


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

I would like to ask some question to some of the people who posted to this thread that would fail a dog for a handler saying no?

Do you hunt?
How many dogs have you trained?
What levels have you got your dog too?

Just curious.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

sky_view said:


> the way some dogs are trained these days... a whistle sit can also be intimidating (all one has to do is look at how some dogs respond to the sit whistle)...


There's especially a controversey surrounding the "double tap" ....... because the training sequence would be whistle - Nick - whistle..... You'll see some people go to line and double tap them, and on the second whistle, the dog's belly is hitting the ground.... 

There are some judges with enough guts to drop a dog for poor style. However, I always wonder what happens to the dog when they get home.... somehow, I'm sure it's not "happy bumpers."


----------



## Chris Meyer (Aug 10, 2008)

What about the people that have to repeat heel 800 times on the way to the line??? My feelings are those should be dropped well before a dog that responds well to a single no command. I'd much rather have to tell a dog no once on a hunt than heel a thousand times.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I've been reading threads on these topics since '03 and the things people hang their hat on never ceases to amaze me.

The phrase disallowing *intimidating gestures *has been morphed to be intimidation .The number of times one blows their whistle and how closely the toots are blown has now been called into question . 

No and good are among a ever growing list of forbidden words ....

And the fact that one is not allowed to train on the FT grounds prior to or during the trial has taken on a convoluted life of its own. 
This was not intended to mean anything other than *do not come on the grounds during that period of time and, while you are not being tested, train (run)your dog*....end of story . 
It has nothing to do with what you do as a handler.. while being tested.

The list of unwritten rules goes on and on.. what we need is AKC/RAC intervention.

Does anyone know what happened to that _Good Dog _thread;-)

john


----------



## Tville (Jun 29, 2005)

John Fallon commented--

"The list of unwritten rules goes on and on.. what we need is AKC/RAC intervention."

Is this even a possibility??


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> what we need is AKC/RAC intervention.


You want the AKC to say it's alright to blow a whistle and say, "No," after the dog disobeyed at a test or trial?


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

Howard one question? You are running a poisoning bird blind 10 feet off line. You no your dog off the bird then send him on the blind. He starts out right but then starts toward the poison bird. You stop him/her with your whistle and give the cast. The dog takes the cast but at the last moment turns again to the poison bird. You stop him/her again and say no then give the cast and from that point on the dog takes a great line to the blind. Do you drop this dog because of the word no. Now I can understand dropping them for using no over and over again, but they should be dropped because of refusals not the word no.......


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Howard N said:


> You want the AKC to say it's alright to blow a whistle and say, "No," after the dog disobeyed at a test or trial?



You mean like on a controlled break in the "Q"


I would like the RAC to address this and the other unwritten rules. 

If "NO" or any other word is forbidden in a certain context I would like them to say so.

Until they do......

Exercise the latitude allowed regards

john


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

I understand the use of the word no while running a blind to be a verbal correction and an automatic zero in akc hunt test. At least thats what they told me when I got droped.


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

How is using the word no any different than saying back or over. They are all corrections, we want the dog to go in another direction. I've heard people use the word out, is that another form of no but OK to say. I'm not saying we can repeatedly say no over and over again but 1 or 2 No's in a test is not reason for failure.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

TIM DOANE said:


> I understand the use of the word no while running a blind to be a verbal correction and an automatic zero in akc hunt test. At least thats what they told me when I got droped.


Should have asked them to show that to you in the rulebook;-)
It aint there


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I can't stand these threads... all anyone--judge and handler alike--seems to take away from them are more unwritten rules...

Grrrrrrr.

These non-rules are like gremlins--the more water you pour on them, the more they multiply...


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

Yea, but if you don't educated the uneducated then they will never learn. Not saying all judges that drop you for saying no is uneducated but some have learned this over the years from others and now they think it's written in stone.


----------



## jldillen (Apr 30, 2009)

Now, now guys and gals... do we all need to go to the time out chair. Play nice. The bottom line is just this: Do not intimidate your dog by any means. That is per the HT rule book. However, there is not anywhere in there a list of forbidden words. So for all of you hell bent folks that swear that you should get the boot for using that dirty word "NO". You may be right in some cases but not because the word was used but what reaction that the word caused. If the dogs tail tucks and they cower you are right that should be the last series that they participate in. However, if the dog corrects and picks up the mark clean and confidently then see ya in the next round Fido.
Keep in mind this is an AKC event we must follow their rules and not some head strong rogue judge's made up version. 
There it is cut and dry. Those are the rules. "It is what it is and that all that it should be"
jason


----------



## Art Martin (May 2, 2009)

TIM DOANE said:


> I understand the use of the word no while running a blind to be a verbal correction and an automatic zero in akc hunt test. At least thats what they told me when I got droped.


Really? In AKC hunt tests, when I am lining up my dog for the blind I use the queue word "no" to indicate to her she is looking down the wrong line. When she looks down the correct line I let her know with the verbal queue "set" before sending her on a “back”. Why haven't I been warned or dropped for this yet? This works well for me as every time I say "no" she immediately re-adjusts her "picture" by choosing a slightly different line to look down based on my hand placement relative to her head. I thought this was standard practice?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> You are running a poisoning bird blind 10 feet off line. You no your dog off the bird then send him on the blind. He starts out right but then starts toward the poison bird. You stop him/her with your whistle and give the cast. The dog takes the cast but at the last moment turns again to the poison bird. You stop him/her again and say no then give the cast and from that point on the dog takes a great line to the blind. Do you drop this dog because of the word no.


The dog was told twice to not go to the poison bird maybe 3 times if the handler addressed it on the line at all. Finally the handler decides enough is enough and he says, "No," to the dog. That's a correction. The dog was disobedient and the handler corrected him. Why should any dog be carried after a correction in the field? If the handler didn't want to correct the dog why did he say, "No"?

Are you trying to tell me that most handlers don't use the word no as a correction when the dog does something wrong? I don't know what a Spanish speaking handler would use for his correction word but I'd bet 99% of us say no.

Using the word no on the line to convey information isn't correcting the dog after it's done something wrong. So saying, "No bird," before the throwing or after throwing of a leave it bird is perfectly fine with me. Saying, "No," for disobedience is not.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

kimsmith said:


> How is using the word no any different than saying back or over. They are all corrections, we want the dog to go in another direction. I've heard people use the word out, is that another form of no but OK to say. I'm not saying we can repeatedly say no over and over again but 1 or 2 No's in a test is not reason for failure.


Kim, I disagree. Saying back or over are conveying information to the dog on what to do. Saying no is a correction after the dog has done something wrong.


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

I'm dumb and like to argue just ask Ted. I think he told me I made him go brain dead. 

So instead of teaching my dog no, I could teach them the word out which means get away from that poison bird, would that be OK. I think judges have gone to an extreme with the word no. I thought AKC was all about judging the dog not the handler. What difference does it matter what words we use. What if I use no for back commands or over commands do you still drop my dog even though it did the job. 

So every dog that is judged and no matter how good they are if the handler tells the dog no one time in the field they are out. That just doesn't make sense to me, so I guess they need to spell that out in the rule book because I've never seen it.

By the way were did that unwritten rule come from, just wondering. 

Like I said before I don't use the word no in a test but wouldn't drop someone for saying it once or twice.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

kimsmith said:


> Yea, but if you don't educated the uneducated then they will never learn. Not saying all judges that drop you for saying no is uneducated but some have learned this over the years from others and now they think it's written in stone.


The problem is with learning from others without knowing who the others are... which on the internet is more often than not...

Has the person with the misconception read the book? Have the "others"? 

Can't tell you how many times while running junior I took off, put on, took off again, put on again a choke chain in a holding blind because some expert trying to give me advice had read from some TYPIST on the internet that blah blah blah... all the while thinking I was going crazy from nervousness, knowing darn well what I'd read a dozen times already, and being too polite to tell them to leave me alone.

Oh, well. Whether you can say no or not, it's bedtime in Ohio--Carry on!


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Saying back or over are conveying information to the dog on what to do.
> 
> 
> Saying no is a correction after the dog has done something wrong.


That's it. Pretty simply stated.



kimsmith said:


> So instead of teaching my dog no, I could teach them the word out which means get away from that poison bird, would that be OK.


Wouldn't it be easier and more practical to just teach him to take the cast??;-)

JS


----------



## Martin (Feb 1, 2009)

I am enjoying reading this post. Just wondering if the judges that disqulify a dog for being told no put their kids in time out in stead of spanking so they would not be intimidated.....ROFL!!!!!!

I use no if my dog starts in the wrong direction followed by a whistle to get knot head to listen to me. He doesn't get intimidated unless i growl at him a in a gruff voice. Even then he is saying "get it over with so I can go dad!"

Very interesting post!

Martin


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

After reading through most but not all of the posts on this thread, there seem to be *some of you that forget judging is subjective*,there are no absolutes , very little black and white, but a ton of grey..we all ( most anyway) know what you can and cant get away with at a trial...is it always fair..of course not..its also the reason there are two judges

No doesnt always mean No ..except where my ex is concerned it means He!! NO


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Howard explained it pretty plain and simple. I don't know how it could have been said any better
Thanks Howard

I think its one of those myths of FT and HT
I have never been dropped for communicating NO. But I often take the oppertunity to correct with NO ,,then I go get my dog and go home

Pete


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I've been reading threads on these topics since '03 and the things people hang their hat on never ceases to amaze me.
> 
> The phrase disallowing *intimidating gestures *has been morphed to be intimidation .The number of times one blows their whistle and how closely the toots are blown has now been called into question .
> 
> ...


Training on the field trial grounds is misconduct and prejudicial to the sport. Anyone observing this activity should report it to the field trial chairman for proper action.
Chapter 14 Rules for Retriever Field Trials, section 6. “No competing dog shall be trained on the field trial grounds as described from 24 hours prior to the start of the first stake until the trial is concluded.” 

Anyone trained in logic will appreciate this argument: Reductio Ad Absurdum

Some training programs use the following sequence in training a dog to do blinds: Once a pile is identified, the dog is sent, stopped on the whistle, followed by a back cast and then a nick. Clearly the whistle stop and the back is a correction and is the ultimate force to intimidate a get dog to run back. Hence the logical conclusion is that any time a judge sees a contestant using a back cast they should be eliminated since this is a training cast and a correction. 

Jack


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

junbe said:


> ...any time a judge sees a contestant using a back cast they should be eliminated since this is a training cast and a correction.


Same idea as the "no" rule. Good idea,


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Those of us who use varying whistle inflection when running a blind will often correct a dog by immediately blowing a much stronger whistle when the dog takes an incorrect cast. Is that OK in a test? Or is that a correction like using the word, "no" if the dog takes an incorrect cast? Exactly where in the rulebook does it state that a "correction" while running a blind is grounds for failure?


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Kim, I disagree. Saying back or over are conveying information to the dog on what to do. Saying no is a correction after the dog has done something wrong.


 
Then isn't a sit whistle is a correction? It tells the dog: NO, stop going that way!

EDIT. Looks like Hookset beat me to it


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

TIM DOANE said:


> I understand the use of the word no while running a blind to be a verbal correction and an automatic zero in akc hunt test. At least thats what they told me when I got droped.





Art Martin said:


> Really? In AKC hunt tests, when I am lining up my dog for the blind I use the queue word "no" to indicate to her she is looking down the wrong line. When she looks down the correct line I let her know with the verbal queue "set" before sending her on a “back”. Why haven't I been warned or dropped for this yet? This works well for me as every time I say "no" she immediately re-adjusts her "picture" by choosing a slightly different line to look down based on my hand placement relative to her head. I thought this was standard practice?


Looks like my post was misunderstood. The use of the word no WHILE RUNNING A BLIND is considered a VERBAL CORRECTION and merits a zero score and automatic drop.it has been awhile but I think that the original post was speaking about running blinds. I am sure there are other words that would also be considered a verbal correction. In my case the dog took the cast (angle back out to sea into big wind) and peeled off after 5yds. He took the cast again same result, Gave a sit whistle said no, not intimidating at all but it got the right line. Last whistle I blew as a matter of fact. When I didnt get called back I was very suprised. I asked for an explanation and and you have heard that story. It was the first master test I had ever run and no I did not ask to see it in the rule book. 
I allways ask if the word no can be used in a poison bird or honor situation and have never been told I could not.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

junbe said:


> Some training programs use the following sequence in training a dog to do blinds: Once a pile is identified, the dog is sent, stopped on the whistle, followed by a back cast and then a nick. Clearly the whistle stop and the back is a correction and is the ultimate force to intimidate a get dog to run back. Hence the logical conclusion is that any time a judge sees a contestant using a back cast they should be eliminated since this is a training cast and a correction.
> 
> Jack


Yep... and how about holding your hand over a dog's head to give it a line..... intimidation for sure.


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

junbe said:


> Anyone trained in logic will appreciate this argument: Reductio Ad Absurdum
> 
> Some training programs use the following sequence in training a dog to do blinds: Once a pile is identified, the dog is sent, stopped on the whistle, followed by a back cast and then a nick. Clearly the whistle stop and the back is a correction and is the ultimate force to intimidate a get dog to run back. Hence the logical conclusion is that any time a judge sees a contestant using a back cast they should be eliminated since this is a training cast and a correction.
> 
> Jack


 Love the logic Jack!


Regardless of how the rule is written, it has been contorted by many to mean "NO" is verbal intimidation which is graded as a 0. As such handlers are scared blind to use the word for fear of wasting a $75 entry fee plus travel expenses because their would be no recourse for them to appeal such a decision by the judges. It is written so ambiguously, you could interpret it to mean telling your dog to sit is a form of intimidation.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

End it now....post the rule.....???!!!???


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> End it now....post the rule.....???!!!???



Serious Handler Faults: Serious faults listed cover all
those instances where the Standard describes conduct of
the handler which in and of itself justifies elimination from
the stake.
1. Lining a dog in marking situations –in the direction of
any fall or any gun station before all the falls are down.
2. Talking to the working dog – the handler must remain
silent from the time the handler signals for the first bird to be
thrown until the judges release the dog.
3. Talking to the honoring dog – loud enough to interfere
with other handlers, the working dog(s) or the Judges.
4. Unsportsmanlike Conduct – abusing or harassing a
Judge, official or any other person present in any capacity; or,
kicking, striking or otherwise roughly manhandling a dog while
the event is in progress; or, deliberately permitting a dog to see
the location of a fall for another dog, or to see the planting or
retrieve of a blind.
5. Willfully Interfering – with another handler or with his
or her dog.
6. Carrying exposed training equipment (except whistle) *(
Master and Senior levels).
7. Pulling out leash in front of Judges – (Master and Senior
levels).
8. Restraining a dog on line – holding or touching a dog to
keep it steady, or verbally restraining a dog (Master and Senior
levels).
9. *Threatening Gestures - or any form of intimidation
made to the dog.*


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

No training on the grounds while handling in a test huh??????

Aversives and rewards P+P-/R+R- *are not limited to corporal punishment or cookies or clickers*. 

To argue that they are not legaly used while handling in a test, in any venue, is ludacras on its face. 
Those who argue this, indicate a lack of understanding of what operant conditioning, one of the corner stones of all training programs including the "Carr" based ones, is.

Simply *stopping* a dog on the way to where it perceives the bird is as much *or more *of an aversive as/than saying any______(pick a word).
And, there can be *no *words used ,____(pick one)that is as big a "reward" than to let a high powered dog "Roll". 


john


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Simply *stopping* a dog on the way to where it perceives the bird is as much *or more *of an aversive as/than saying any______(pick a word).
> And, there can be *no *words used ,____(pick one)that is as big a "reward" than to let a high powered dog "Roll".
> 
> 
> john


Excellent point John


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

I was throwing bumpers for one of my dogs while trying to get her to use the bathroom before I ran a senior test. I was told to stop because I couldn't train on the grounds. So you can't throw bumpers, you can't say anything to your dog that is considered intimidating. Man what will judges come up with next. I'm loud so I guess everytime I give a loud back or a loud whistle sit then I should be dropped. Could we get a list of judges that feel that way so we don't have to waste our time, money and an enjoyable weekend. I can give you a list of great judges that I have run under. A lot of them post on this forum.


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

Try a different venue.
I have, and I am having fun with the set ups and most importantly the people.
There are options.
(we are running in all 3)

just sayin'


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Intimidation is like porn; you know it when you see it. Same goes for training. 

If people do not want to use their judgement, then they should not be judges. 

I have a friend who says about obedience judges: "During the week, they are clerks and janitors, salesmen and accountants. On the weekends, they become Gods. For some, it goes to their heads." I imagine the same is true no matter what the doggy sport.

For those who say it is just about AKC, I am hearing interesting scuttlebutt coming from the Grand about dogs being tossed for arbitrary reasons. People are people; they are not a different species just because it is a diferent parent organization.

Lisa


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

You are right Lisa this goes for every organization, we shouldn't just pick on one group. It seems when some people get the power of judging they forget when they were running their dogs for the first time. How nervous they were or scared of making a mistake. I also think some judges like to give back what was giving, like they were failed for saying no, or failed for sending there dog before released in the lower levels. I also know a lot of judges just love the game and love giving back to organization.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Tville said:


> Scenario: Dog running a water blind.
> 
> Dog 1 - at about 50-75 yds from line dog gives too much angle with the cast. Handler blows sit whistle and at the top of his lungs gives a verbal BACK!!
> 
> ...


I'll get flamed for this, but...

I say go home an train! At 75 yards (the maximum listed) if I had to bellow back or say no to my dog then we have training issues....we are talking HT distance blinds right? If I had to do either of the above it would be "NO HERE! Thank you judges for your time."

And you guys are making me second guess why I signed up for our club's HT......

Also as a side note I have been dropped for saying "No" in a HT, a Juniors when my dog was on the way back with the last bird and he was going to stop and poop, I said a simple "No, here." as he was less then 15 yards away - wanted him to deliver the bird and take him off line to let him air....oh well, got dropped...

FOM


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Wow... this is very enlightening....

When I train, I work on using a different "loudness" to my voice to give an indication of the distance of the mark or blind. The further away, the louder my voice. 

I have a high rolling dog, so this is more of a cue to tell him to go easy on a short mark or blind... but I do give a loud release if it is a long mark or blind or there is heavy cover to bust through.

Is a loud release intimidation, or just my way of training and good "partnership" with my dog?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Intimidation is like porn; you know it when you see it. Same goes for training.
> 
> If people do not want to use their judgement, then they should not be judges.
> 
> ...


This post is useless without pictures.

/Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Flowageboy said:


> Serious Handler Faults: Serious faults listed cover all
> those instances where the Standard describes conduct of
> the handler which in and of itself justifies elimination from
> the stake.
> ...


One more time, please post where any rule says that *no* is intimidation or threatening. Using your logic sit is equally intemidating as is heel, here, back, over......


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Main Entry: no 
Function: adverb 
Etymology: 
Middle English, from Old English nā, from ne not + ā always; akin to Old Norse & Old High German ne not, Latin ne-, Greek nē- — more at aye 
Date: before 12th century 
1 achiefly Scottish : not b—used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility <shall we go out to dinner or no>2: in no respect or degree —used in comparisons <you're no better than the rest of us>3: not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal <no, I'm not going>4—used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement <in no uncertain terms>5—used as a function word to emphasize a following negative or to introduce a more emphatic, explicit, or comprehensive statement <it's big, no, it's gigantic>6—used as an interjection to express surprise, doubt, or incredulity7—used in combination with a verb to form a compound adjective <no-bake pie>8: in negation <shook his head no>

Main Entry: in·tim·i·date
Function: transitive verb 
Inflected Form(s): in·tim·i·dat·ed; in·tim·i·dat·ing 
Etymology: 
Medieval Latin intimidatus, past participle of intimidare, from Latin in- + timidus timid 
Date: 1646 
: to make timid or fearful : frighten ; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats <tried to intimidate a witness>
— in·tim·i·dat·ing·ly \-ˌdā-tiŋ-lē\ adverb 
— in·tim·i·da·tion \-ˌti-mə-ˈdā-shən\ noun 
— in·tim·i·da·tor \-ˈti-mə-ˌdā-tər\ noun 

Main Entry: threat·en 
Function: verb 
Inflected Form(s): threat·ened; threat·en·ing \ˈthret-niŋ, ˈthre-tən-iŋ\ 
Date: 13th century 
transitive verb1: to utter threats against2 a: to give signs or warning of : portend <the clouds threatened rain> b: to hang over dangerously : menace <famine threatens the city>3: to announce as intended or possible <the workers threatened a strike>4: to cause to feel insecure or anxious <felt threatened by his brother's success>intransitive verb1: to utter threats2: to portend evil
— threat·en·er \ˈthret-nər, ˈthre-tən-ər\ noun 
— threat·en·ing·ly \ˈthret-niŋ-lē, ˈthre-tən-iŋ-\ adverb 

From all of this I cannot see how “no” in and of itself can be intimidation or threatening any more than ANY work used with a dog. The definition of no is used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility. How is that any more intimidating that a left over or back which would be the alternative choice to a dog that is going in the wrong direction? 
Intimidation, to make fearful or frighten, again does “no” in and of itself make a dog any more fearful or frightened than “sit” (think sit-nick-sit)? Not in my book.
Threaten is to give signs of warning and again you don’t think a whistle is a warning sign to a dog? I guess they never hear that whistle right before a correction right? Another definition is to cause to feel insecure or anxious. I see this in lots of dogs with a sit whistle as much or more so than I do with a ‘no”. 
Can “no” be intimidation? Sure it can, but is it across the board intimidation? Absolutely NOT! A judge that drops you for simply using the word “no” has a god complex going on and has no clue of what they are looking at in a dog. In some cases “no” is a reason to drop, but not in all cases and it certainly is not spelled out in the rulebook that it is cause for automatic elimination


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I would say the easy thing to do is just avoid saying No in a HT or FT stake, there are probably commands that get the point across to the dog better anyways. But like others have said, I could say "would you like a cookie" sound threatening or intimidating, its a tone of voice, volume thing, and it really does come down to the judges using good judgement.
John


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Intimidation is one of those "gray" areas where the judges have the right to interpret what they see as being intimidation...or not.

"No" is generally accepted throughout the field trial community as a word not spoken to the dog when it is away from the line (i.e. out in the field). It is used after the handler has been given a number to release the dog when lining up or cuing the dog off a poison bird or to prepare for the honor. All other uses of "No" are subject to the judges' interpretation & it generally results in a pick-up or being dropped.

Rather than argue the point, why would any handler want to put themselves into the position of having a judge render a decision about whether intimidation occurred or not? Remember, it doesn't mean whether your dog actually evidenced being intimidated, but whether the judges construe the word/gesture as being intimidating.

Judgement will also come into play with regard to an excessively (here again--opinion of the judges) loud back when the dog is close vs. when the dog is several hundred yards away. I must say I have never seen an occasion where a handler was warned about yelling back too loudly.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Stand. Proc . 25 is the controlling paragraph for "threatening gestures" and the use of spacific *words* for intimidating or intimidation is nowhere to be found.

john


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

What if I didn't use the same words the main stream of handlers used. What if I used no as my back command. So if I give a no command with my hand and the dog takes every cast, I should be out because I used a no cast. OK you pointed out one think Vicki, this is a FT thing. OK keep FT things in FT and keep HT things in HT. We are not running FT's or talking about FT's, this is HT and the rules say intimidation. I could think of a lot of things that could intimidate a dog but they are OK. Whistles, snapping fingers, black gloves(had to add that one.)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

kimsmith said:


> What if I didn't use the same words the main stream of handlers used. What if I used no as my back command. So if I give a no command with my hand and the dog takes every cast, I should be out because I used a no cast. OK you pointed out one think Vicki, this is a FT thing. OK keep FT things in FT and keep HT things in HT. We are not running FT's or talking about FT's, this is HT and the rules say intimidation. I could think of a lot of things that could intimidate a dog but they are OK. Whistles, snapping fingers, black gloves(had to add that one.)


I guess my point is that you may be technically and grammatically correct, but could still find yourself on the wrong end of an argument if the judges don't see it your way. It's fun to argue and debate these fine points here on this forum, but when standing on line in a HT, why take the risk when many hours of training, driving to a HT and dollars for entering and expense are at stake. As you know, they don't give you a chance to rebut the Judges, if they say no means intimidation, then right or wrong, that is the rule that day. When I run an event, either FT or HT, I try to put every factor in my favor, if due to prior experience I perceive the judges might take a dim view of using the word no or some other unwritten rule, I'll avoid it, and wait to debate it with the judges over beer at some later date. 

I guess I'm just being pragmatic.

John


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> why take the risk when many hours of training, driving to a HT and dollars for entering and expense are at stake. As you know, they don't give you a chance to rebut the Judges, if they say no means intimidation, then right or wrong, that is the rule that day.


If my dog needs a correction, she is going to get it. The judges can do whatever they want. Their "unwritten" rules do not enter the equation. 

Lisa


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> One more time, please post where any rule says that *no* is intimidation or threatening. Using your logic sit is equally intemidating as is heel, here, back, over......


I was agreeing with you...just posting what they BELIEVE is the rule that "No" is a form of intimidation...I don't buy it.


----------



## Scott Greenwood (Mar 25, 2008)

I was once told no training on grounds while throwing fun bumpers to my dog. I specifically said show me the training. I got no response and never heard another word. Many times if you question the logic judges, marshalls, or committee will not have an answer for you. They do not know the answer just trying to be the force. This is coming from someone who has served in all aqreas.

No is not a correction but translating information to a dog. i.e. No, do not go there.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Teach your dog a different word that means "no." =)


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

After reading this thread - a comment. 

If you have an understanding of FT dog work which apparently some of you do not you would recognize that too much verbalizing is not "pleasing to the eye". A dog which requires a "NO" while in the field is an untrained dog & should be in the appropriate venue, i.e. training. It is no different than telling a dog to "SIT" while in the field after blowing a whistle. It is a training command & inappropriate to a dog under judgement in the FT venue. That is a judge's prerogative, regardless of the rules that some desire being quoted.

While doing a blind a dog under judgment should make progress toward the blind regardless of the commands or signals given. When they do not & any word/gesture that can be interpreted as intimidating is probably not real smart on the handlers part. It's fairly simple. If you are going to do something different than other handlers you better have the animal to back your actions or the ride home will come quickly.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

When one accepts a judging assignment and signs the paper indicating they know and will judge *strictly* by the Rules etc.

Should "Traditional" embellishments in the form of unwritten rules then also be used ,even though historically they have been used to the extent that they have become accepted .....but,*without the benefit of a rule change*? 

The short answer is of course not!!!!!

Your word is your bond , so after having said/signed that you would do so, I think you are obligated follow the _Rules_ *as written *, no matter how steeped in the tradition of the Game you* think *you or the embellishments are .

Of course there is no way every eventual possible situation could be addressed in a single document so common sense and traditions should be part of judging.

To this end the introductory paragraph of the "Standard" states: 
"In order that trials may be conducted as uniformly as practicable, Standardization of objectives is essential, and, therefore, all Judges, Guns, Contestants and Officials, who have a part in conducting trials, should be familiar with and be governed, so far as possible, by the following Standard"

"So far as possible" grants an allowable but small margin of freedom for variation since it gives you some leeway........ if more is needed with a little effort on the part of the RAC, the desired uniformity could be markedly enhanced by clarification.

In the case of threatening gestures*, as I said previously, it is already covered in Stand, Proc , *Line Manners *-25, and we should try so far as possible to judge it within that written scope. Incidentally that is the only place that I have found anything about the subject of intimidating a dog under judgement, so to use this elsewhere it would have to be taken out of the context for which it was written.

Don't slay the messenger regards

john

*A gesture is a form of *non-verbal *communication made with a part of the body, used instead of or in combination with verbal communication. The language of gesture allows individuals to express a variety of feelings and thoughts, from contempt and hostility to approval and affection. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesture


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

john fallon said:


> When one accepts a judging assignment and signs the paper indicating they know and will judge *strictly* by the Rules etc.
> 
> Should "Traditional" embellishments in the form of unwritten rules then also be used ,even though historically they have been used to the extent that they have become accepted .....but,*without the benefit of a rule change*?
> 
> ...


Yep, what John said. and once again I expect my judges to understand what intimidation is, and be able to read dogs well enough to know that what one dog considers "intimidation" or a "threatening gesture" another will think is praise. Judging is not easy and I hate hearing judges use the "cop out" "you can't say x or y"

/Paul


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Ya, maybe so but stand up once when that same group is coming in and do a silent cast and tell me what happens.

EXACT SAME THING!!! SEE YA




labraiser said:


> I mean, if the second dog is given a back that is screamed out, then i have issues with that. Remember this is a hunting secenero. You don't scream back when handling a dog while hunting ducks. Your screaming back and a flight comes over, those ducks will say see ya.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> After reading this thread - a comment.
> 
> If you have an understanding of FT dog work which apparently some of you do not you would recognize that too much verbalizing is not "pleasing to the eye". A dog which requires a "NO" while in the field is an untrained dog & should be in the appropriate venue, i.e. training. *It is no different than telling a dog to "SIT" while in the field after blowing a whistle.*It is a training command & inappropriate to a dog under judgement in the FT venue. That is a judge's prerogative, regardless of the rules that some desire being quoted.
> 
> While doing a blind a dog under judgment should make progress toward the blind regardless of the commands or signals given. When they do not & any word/gesture that can be interpreted as intimidating is probably not real smart on the handlers part. It's fairly simple. If you are going to do something different than other handlers you better have the animal to back your actions or the ride home will come quickly.


The whistle is a training device, the only one permitted to be used while being tested, but one none the less.

To blow one during a Trial, is to use a training device while being tested. 

To use voice to get your dog to "Sit" accomplishes the same thing.....but without the aid of a training device.  

john


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

john fallon said:


> The whistle is a training device, the only one permitted to be used while being tested, but one none the less.
> 
> To blow one during a Trial, is to use a training device while being tested.


Not only that, but when taught correctly, the whistle is connected to correction through Pavlovian means, and blowing the whistle has the same effect on a properly trained dog as yelling "NO!" and hitting the electric collar.

The whistle is not just a training device. It is a correction, only topped by the word "here" (spoken when the dog is in the field) in how severely it is perceived by dogs.

Lisa


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Not only that, but when taught correctly, the whistle is connected to correction through Pavlovian means, and blowing the whistle has the same effect on a properly trained dog as yelling "NO!" and hitting the electric collar.
> 
> The whistle is not just a training device. It is a correction, only topped by the word "here" (spoken when the dog is in the field) in how severely it is perceived by dogs.
> 
> Lisa


Apparently you don't subscribe to Lardy's method of training.

/Paul


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

This venue is a test. Much like a math test the teacher (judge) may require different criteria, no calculators, no texting, etc. In our venue, no leashes, no e-collars, etc. As a judge, in an effort to test the dogs according to the guidelines set forth by the AKC. I must judge according to a whole bunch of different sources of knowledge of this game we play. When we put on the hat some go goofy and others simply do their own thing. As a handler all I want is to be treated and judged fairly without someones ego or lack of understanding of dog work dropping my dog.
Look at what is going on in the field, interpret it fairly and according to the rules, and we are all happy. Come prepared to be tested without the use of a lot of extra crutches. If you say no while your dog is running, then be prepared to possibly suffer the consequences. I don't believe it should be a hard and fast rule. Judge what you see and hear.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Apparently you don't subscribe to Lardy's method of training.
> 
> /Paul


I am talking about how the dog percieves the whistle. To a dog, the sit whistle has been chained to collar pressure so much, that it is linked to correction. That is why it works the way it does. 

Give a left cast. Dog scallops back. Sit-nick-sit. That is the chaining, association of the sit command with pressure. The sit whistle is just another way of saying "no" to a dog. When they hear it, they know they are headed the wrong way, and they had better stop. Ergo, correction, not command.

Think Like A Dog Regards;

Lisa


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> I am talking about how the dog percieves the whistle. To a dog, the sit whistle has been chained to collar pressure so much, that it is linked to correction. That is why it works the way it does.
> 
> Give a left cast. Dog scallops back. Sit-nick-sit. That is the chaining, association of the sit command with pressure. The sit whistle is just another way of saying "no" to a dog. When they hear it, they know they are headed the wrong way, and they had better stop. Ergo, correction, not command.
> 
> ...


 
I agree. I believe the SIT whistle is the ultimate NO to the dog.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

brandywinelabs said:


> If you say no while your dog is running, then be prepared to possibly suffer the consequences.


I don't believe it should be hard and fast, either. But it does beg the question "Why are you saying 'no' in the first place?" If a handler is saying "no" to their dog, chances are they are already in it up to their neck, and were probebly not going to pass before the forbidden word was ever uttered. 

I think a lot of it has to do with judges not knowing how to break bad news to handlers, and saying the wrong thing. Then it gets twisted, until "Judge X will throw you out if you say" is the rumor. I imagine there are some "Judge X's" out there who will drop you for forbidden words, but I haven't encountered any.

Lisa


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

dixidawg said:


> I agree. I believe the SIT whistle is the ultimate NO to the dog.


There is one other. The "here" command, when spoken in the field, is more chilling than the sit whistle. After a sit whistle, the dog is still able to function. Ever watch a well-trained dog being picked up after the dreaded "here" is uttered? In some cases, it takes some time. Dog has stopped functioning, and there is a reason for this.

Not only is "here" chained with sometimes some powerful correction druing training, but alwasy also chained with the ultimate correction. All retrieving is stopped, and the dog is summarily deposited back in the truck. For a high-drive dog, this is the ultimate punishment, especially if other dogs are allowed to continue playing.

Lisa


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> I am talking about how the dog percieves the whistle. To a dog, the sit whistle has been chained to collar pressure so much, that it is linked to correction. That is why it works the way it does.
> 
> Give a left cast. Dog scallops back. Sit-nick-sit. That is the chaining, association of the sit command with pressure. The sit whistle is just another way of saying "no" to a dog. When they hear it, they know they are headed the wrong way, and they had better stop. Ergo, correction, not command.
> 
> ...


And that is why I say you must not follow Lardy's program. Not every whistle is chained with a collar correction and in fact he say's multiple times during his seminar that the dog should not view a whistle as a correction. It should merely mean a change in direction from the handler. Not taking that cast is what brings on the correction not the whistle.

/Paul


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

Lisa you are right on with your post. Most of time if no is used they are already out because of cast refusals, why make it something it's not.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Simply because something is not explicitly set forth in the rule book does not mean that it is not prohibited by the rule book. Rules can be and are implied from the express language and overall intent of the rule book. This is something we do all the time. 


For example, the framers of the Constitution never had to deal with the issue of abortion. Consequently, the subject is not expressly addressed in the Constitution. Yet, the members of the Supreme Court are faced with the issue of interpreting the Constitution to address the scope of a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.


The Rule Book does not address every situation that may arise in a FT. It is up to the judges to use what is stated to determine what should be done in certain situations. They are called upon to interpret the intent of the Rule Book.


I therefore, do not find it meaningful to say that something cannot be prohibited if the Rule Book does not specifically prohibit the practice.


It is important to note that Rule Book makes a distinction between competition and training. For example, it is very specific about the use of “training aids.” In this same vein, I personally know that:


- People have been suspended from judging by the AKC for having a gunner say “hey, hey” before throwing a bird
- Judges have been informed by an AKC representative that they could not throw a large boat bumper to assist the dogs in seeing the arc of a bird


Why? Because, both were viewed as training practices.


Over the past ten years, I have run 10-16 trials per year, typically running in at least two, and sometimes three or four stakes. I have judged 14 major stakes and 6 minor stakes during that same course of time.

Over that course of time, I have only heard competitors use the word “no”, while their dogs are in the field - when they are picking up a dog. The word “no” means “I give up. Come on in.”

Maybe you live in outer Mongolia and train differently, but I am hard pressed to believe that the many people on this thread who are arguing for the use of “no” while a dog is in the field in competition are being anything but argumentative. When competitors use “no” while their dog is in the field, they are training … and they are out.


“No” in the context of a dog in the field is different than “no” on the line when used to indicate a poison mark, for example. In that context, the word is a cue.


I think the same is true for the word “sit.” I have only once – and I will return to that later – heard a competitor say “sit” when their dog is in the field for a purpose other than an admission of defeat. Competitors say sit when their dogs break or when they are engaged in a run around. When I hear a competitor say “sit” once the dog is in the field in the AA stakes (controlled breaks being permissible in the minors), I know that the dog is out. “Sit” in that context is training … and means that you are out.


I was judging the Open at the Cimarron Trial last Spring and Tim West came to the line with Jefe (I think), who was running a good trial. As I recall, the dog would not sit cleanly on the whistle, and Tim in frustration, said “Sit.” He then turned to David Buskirk and me and said “I can’t believe I did that.” Tim then picked up his dog.


I know, I know, people will argue that a whistle can be a training device. Yes, but not exclusively so. And notably, the Rule Book specifically authorizes its use.


I know, I know, people will argue, there is nothing inherently wrong with saying “sit” or “no” while my dog is in the field. No, not as a conceptual matter. But, as a practical matter, people do not say “sit,” or “no” or “here” or even “good dog” when they are competing … except as a matter of latter resort … and always in the context of training.


Competing is not training. When you use phrases like “no,” “sit,” “here,” or “good dog” while your dog is in the field, I view your dog to be training and you are out. Moreover, I believe that my views are shared by the vast majority of FT judges.


I know from past experience how these threads can drag out. I have no interest in engaging in a prolonged debate on this subject.I believe I have fully set forth my position. I will not say anything more on the subject.


If you think my positions are unacceptable and unsupported by the Rule Book, don’t:
- Have your club ask me to judge; and
- Don’t run under me. 


You are never going to convince me that when you say words like “no, sit, here, or good dog” that you have not resorted to training. 


Training is not competition.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The Toot, cast, quickToot re-cast sequence is also training (toot nick/burn toot), as are other well worn handling techniques.I would like to see your position on training while competing substantiated by the rules rather than any perceived tradition.

john


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted

Running a test is not training on the grounds!!! 

I don’t care whether you resort to some “non-standard” handling practice or not. Many times a dog is not responding well to the handler, the handlers resort to some “non-standard” practice to attempt to make the dog respond correctly. It is neither training on the grounds nor intimidation!

Over the years, I’ve seen handlers resort to the each of following:

- giving a verbal “no”
- casting with the handler’s hat
- giving a 2nd sit whistle while the dog was already sitting
- blowing a sit whistle immediately after giving a cast without giving the dog time to respond to the 1st cast and then giving another
- giving a verbal “back” after a dog has already responded to a cast
- using attrition and calling the dog in a few yards 
- giving exaggerated casts

I know judges that have looked at each of these as a form of illegal “intimidation” or “training on the grounds”. 

In Field trials you are competing against all the other dogs and handler. Everything is relative. If you have to resort to a “non-standard” practice to get the correct response from your dog, while everyone else is not. You generally have failed the test. Alternatively if you resort to a “non-standard” practice and survive the blind while everyone else is picking their dog up. You are a hero. 

Frankly, most are making much too big a deal of it. There hasn’t been many times that I have seen an out of control dog suddenly start listening because the handler gave a magical verbal “no”. If it were truly effective, it would become the standard practice.


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

Ted Brain dead regards is back, I can understand your logic when it comes to FT's. You are either running against dogs or trying to figure out what dog did the best job. I'm talking about HT's, should we use the same philosophy in HT just because FT do? Just a question not a debate.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Simply because something is not explicitly set forth in the rule book does not mean that it is not prohibited by the rule book. Rules can be and are implied from the express language and overall intent of the rule book. This is something we do all the time.
> 
> 
> For example, the framers of the Constitution never had to deal with the issue of abortion. Consequently, the subject is not expressly addressed in the Constitution. Yet, the members of the Supreme Court are faced with the issue of interpreting the Constitution to address the scope of a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.
> ...


You can get away with this stance because in the course of finding a winner in the FT game, there will always be a dog that didn't need this to complete the test. This thread though is focused on HT's, which are based on a standard. Where in the HT rules does it say these things are not allowed and where does it say to use them automatically warrants a failure of the test? I can completely understand a stance like this in a FT, although like Lisa I see you allowing your training practices to cloud your objectivity in observing the work being performed in front of you. The book allows for communication in verbal form, signal form and whistle. Training practices have dictated that verbal automatically means correction. This may be true in your training program, but not necessarily others. I am not there to judge ones training program, I'm there to judge the work being done in front of me. 

/Paul


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You can get away with this stance because in the course of finding a winner in the FT game, there will always be a dog that didn't need this to complete the test. This thread though is focused on HT's, which are based on a standard. Where in the HT rules does it say these things are not allowed and where does it say to use them automatically warrants a failure of the test? I can completely understand a stance like this in a FT, although like Lisa I see you allowing your training practices to cloud your objectivity in observing the work being performed in front of you. The book allows for communication in verbal form, signal form and whistle. Training practices have dictated that verbal automatically means correction. This may be true in your training program, but not necessarily others. I am not there to judge ones training program, I'm there to judge the work being done in front of me.
> 
> /Paul


very well said Paul...

Juli


----------

