crackerd wrote:[ during "distance handling" on a blind retrieve, a dog (including a spaniel that runs retriever events) starts to hunt - i.e., drops its nose down rather than continuing on its line - it gets the old heave-ho from a trial or test for lack of cooperation.
MG
Mmmmmmm ? Don't think I like that ruling ? I twice in trials had birds hit the ground that were thought to be dead but which then ran back towards me. My dog would have had to completely ignore the scent of a wounded bird as she ran towards the fall 20 -40 yards further out .
I have met judges who insist dogs should go the fall before beginning to track down runners but an experienced dog should not I.M.O., run right past wounded birds that it could have picked. If the judge thought the original bird was still out there the dog could be sent again .....after it had brought back the runner.
Wullie
If at first you don't succeed .....find out if there is a booby prize !
-----------------------------------------------------
Don't do what doesn't work - do what does.
.
I'd agree with that, Wullie, it seems nonsense that some judges are so inflexible. A bit different when working with dummies or cold game but in a live shooting situation there are so many imponderables that properly executed initiative should be factored in.
crackerd wrote:[ during "distance handling" on a blind retrieve, a dog (including a spaniel that runs retriever events) starts to hunt - i.e., drops its nose down rather than continuing on its line - it gets the old heave-ho from a trial or test for lack of cooperation.
Mmmmmmm ? Don't think I like that ruling ? I twice in trials had birds hit the ground that were thought to be dead but which then ran back towards me. My dog would have had to completely ignore the scent of a wounded bird as she ran towards the fall 20 -40 yards further out .
I have met judges who insist dogs should go the fall before beginning to track down runners but an experienced dog should not I.M.O., run right past wounded birds that it could have picked. If the judge thought the original bird was still out there the dog could be sent again .....after it had brought back the runner.
Bill, that's where the "befuddling" bidness comes in - not in trying to befuddle posters here, but as would be interpeted by those such as yourself who count on a dog "hunting" with the wind and its trailing instincts replete with nose of course on a runner. Our blinds are never runners, nor even fresh-shot birds - but always "planted" at a known location (known to the handler, whose job is to get the dog there with the straightest line and fewest whistles possible).
crackerd wrote:...to get the dog there with the straightest line and fewest whistles possible)...
Kind of a bit like like golf then MG...
I like that SP.
At the same time, I respect what Crackerd has pointed out because it is a game that has evolved to ascertain control bordering on perfection. However, I think retrieves in hunting situations can be hampered by perfection.
I remember competing against a chap who trained his dogs to as near perfection as he could get for competitions. One of the Tests was sitting the dog up on a track a short distance away from a gun who "shot" a bird over a wood, you then had to send your dog to find the "bird". The only clue, apart from where the gun pointed, was a faint splash. My old fool disappeared into the woods and came back with a dummy, the beautifully trained dogs all failed because they couldn't be handled.
Set against which she was all at sea on her first runner cos it wasn't laying where she'd marked it!
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Naj wrote:I thought they tossed a live bird & shot it at a 'station' in your trials, MG?
Naj, that's one live "flyer" out of three or four birds as multiple marks to be retrieved in a series of the trial, the other birds in that series are thrown as cold game. A blind - land blind - is another series of the trial. A second blind - water blind this time - is a third series. Another multiple mark (of three or four birds) on water constitutes the fourth series, and water is where the trials are won or lost. And just so you know , I can personally attest to the fact that dogs don't quite handle the same in the water as they do on land.
Also agree again with Newf on "hunting situations" vs. FTs - which is my dogs are "released from bondage" (of attempted perfection) when wildfowling. But still, I don't have occasion to say "Fore!" very often, SP - to take your golf analogy a little further...
Naj wrote:I thought they tossed a live bird & shot it at a 'station' in your trials, MG?
Naj, that's one live "flyer" out of three or four birds as multiple marks to be retrieved in a series of the trial, the other birds in that series are thrown as cold game. A blind - land blind - is another series of the trial. A second blind - water blind this time - is a third series. Another multiple mark (of three or four birds) on water constitutes the fourth series, and water is where the trials are won or lost. And just so you know , I can personally attest to the fact that dogs don't quite handle the same in the water as they do on land.
Also agree again with Newf on "hunting situations" vs. FTs - which is my dogs are "released from bondage" (of attempted perfection) when wildfowling. But still, I don't have occasion to say "Fore!" very often, SP - to take your golf analogy a little further...
MG
Thanks for that, MG. So what if a 'flyer' comes down as a cripple & runs, doesn't a dog get credited for tracking it down to a successful retrieve?
I think we need to bring the Americans back to proper hunting type trials, and focus again on hunting ability and not circus events for pleasure viewing.
Just kidding MG. At least you lot give us a wide selection of genetic diversity to choose from. You know, experts bringing out the best in genetics and testing to the limits and all that.
