The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72

Thread: A great debate question - remote sit

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Pa.
    Posts
    5,317

    Default

    If used in the rules, the term "training aid" would be discribing an object not an action...
    A moot point since it is not
    john

    BTW the whistle is the ONLY training equiment that may be used while under judgement
    Last edited by john fallon; 03-04-2014 at 04:05 PM. Reason: Clarification of my post
    "i guess the old saying 'those of us that think we know everything annoy those of you that does' " --bobbyb 9/13/06

    "A Good Dog is a Good Dog"

  2. #42
    Senior Member John Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bigfork, Montana
    Posts
    3,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Kress View Post
    The question: the judges do a remote sit/ send on a land blind
    By remote i mean the dog is put facing you some reasonable yards away- the handler walks back to a point and starts the blind.

    On the initial instruction to the dog be it silent, verbal or whatever the dog doesn't go. Say it doesn't go after several attempts and then goes thus making progress toward the blind.

    Is it cast refusals or a no-go
    Thanks in advance
    Dk
    OK, devils advocate here, understanding the way the rule is written in field trials, lets change the OP scenario slightly. Lets say the handler sat his or her dog in a front facing position, walked back that reasonable distance, stood there looking at the dog and gave a silent back arm cast. The dog sat still without moving, the handler then quickly repeated the cast with a verbal "back" and the dog took off, completing the blind in good fashion. How would other FT judges interpret that relative to the way the rule is written?

  3. #43
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john fallon View Post
    My point is not that a judge may make an exception, it is that the rule itself is not based on the realities of dog training .
    Don't tell me that a dog can not be confused, just say that the're in no allowance for an exception for the confusion under the rule as written.
    I agree with you. I have seen many times when the dog was confused when sent on a blind. Happens all the time with a different handler with a different cadence, for example. It is a very harsh rule and it is one of two that I always wonder the history behind (the other being throwing objects to encourage water entry--I suspect that this was once done so a rule against it was made).

  4. #44
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Robinson View Post
    OK, devils advocate here, understanding the way the rule is written in field trials, lets change the OP scenario slightly. Lets say the handler sat his or her dog in a front facing position, walked back that reasonable distance, stood there looking at the dog and gave a silent back arm cast. The dog sat still without moving, the handler then quickly repeated the cast with a verbal "back" and the dog took off, completing the blind in good fashion. How would other FT judges interpret that relative to the way the rule is written?
    I would still call it failure to go when sent.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Mark Littlejohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Conroe, Tx
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    I think a lot of people here are splitting hairs. I've seen a remote send in an AA stake and IMHO the intent is the same as a no-seeum blind; the judges want the dog handled from start to finish in an eye-pleasing manner. Odds are, no one will line such a blind without nose to the ground (which wouldn't be eye-pleasing).
    Its not to test whether the dog will go or no-go from not being sent as "normal".

  6. #46
    Senior Member John Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bigfork, Montana
    Posts
    3,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleHaul View Post
    I would still call it failure to go when sent.
    Ok since it's winter and I'm home stuck in the snow instead of down south training my dog, I'll take part in one of these, esoteric-fine-point-hypotheticals. If a judge was inclined because this dog's overall blind was spectacular, and from the obvious fact the dog wasn't afraid to go, could you interpret the situation as being the dog wasn't "sent" until the handler raised his hand and voiced the back command? I know that would be my argument to you if you were my co-judge in this situation.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Pa.
    Posts
    5,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Robinson View Post
    OK, devils advocate here, understanding the way the rule is written in field trials, lets change the OP scenario slightly. Lets say the handler sat his or her dog in a front facing position, walked back that reasonable distance, stood there looking at the dog and gave a silent back arm cast. The dog sat still without moving, the handler then quickly repeated the cast with a verbal "back" and the dog took off, completing the blind in good fashion. How would other FT judges interpret that relative to the way the rule is written?

    Perhaps. But only if the handler did nothing additional.... but immediately complete the delayed virbal back cast with no recast(?)

    john
    Last edited by john fallon; 03-04-2014 at 04:48 PM.
    "i guess the old saying 'those of us that think we know everything annoy those of you that does' " --bobbyb 9/13/06

    "A Good Dog is a Good Dog"

  8. #48
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Robinson View Post
    Ok since it's winter and I'm home stuck in the snow instead of down south training my dog, I'll take part in one of these, esoteric-fine-point-hypotheticals. If a judge was inclined because this dog's overall blind was spectacular, and from the obvious fact the dog wasn't afraid to go, could you interpret the situation as being the dog wasn't "sent" until the handler raised his hand and voiced the back command? I know that would be my argument to you if you were my co-judge in this situation.
    We could discuss it. Maybe it would come down to how it worked. If it was an arm up, immediately followed by the cast and the arm up, you might convince me (especially as I am not looking to drop dogs, especially if they do a good job) But if it was arm up, crickets, then after nothing happened arm up with voice, it would be tougher. These hypos are sort of fun but my guess is if we saw the same thing we would not have a debate when doing callbacks.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Hunt'EmUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,873

    Default

    No-GO's are a spirit of the rules decision, The rule was designed for those dogs that have no interest in going, or those with their tails so far under their bums that they have to be conned into it by sending them multiple times. It was not designed as a trick to catch good dogs who want to go and go hard, but who might not hear a command, or the handler says the command in the wrong way, or a dog momentarily doesn't understand what a handler would like them to do, nor understand why a handler would send them on a blind and not tell them where they should be going. This is why we have judges to interpret these rules, use them in their proper place, not as a catch all to drop dogs. If everything was black and white, we wouldn't need judges.
    Last edited by Hunt'EmUp; 03-04-2014 at 05:12 PM.
    "They's Just DAWGS"
    "Hunting is a skill to be learned whether you do it early or late it still needs to be learned"
    "I train dogs, Not papers"

    GMRH HRCH Quick MH (most importantly Duck/Upland Enthusiast)
    MHR HRCH Lakota MH (most importantly Upland/Duck Enthusiast)
    SHR Storm.. the Pup (Beginning Upland & Waterfowl Enthusiast)

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    530

    Default

    It appears some of you are beating the rules to death. How many of you have trained your dogs to do this. How many of you have been faced with running this in a field trial. I have which is why I offered the previous advice. Further when you get the initial instructions from the judges after the test dog(s) I suggest you ask some of these questions. I for instance stand @ the handler station blow my whistle w/a chirp , extend my arm in an over position and send the dog w/a verbal over. My two best dogs did this in all situations unless they were a having a bad day. They had no confusion because they were trained. Further , you might ask the judges after the test dog is a single whistle blast allowable w/o penalties ? If they say yes than you go w/a verbal (in my case) over and they go. This response is not to be rude but I almost want to take all of you out to a field and show you. Surely there are others who train their dogs this way and have run this in FT?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •