The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media

View Poll Results: GENERALLY SPEAKING, when handling a retriever, does "out of sight equal out of control?"

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    10 41.67%
  • No.

    14 58.33%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: POLL: Out of Sight = Out of Control?

  1. #1
    Senior Member AmiableLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    3,213

    Default POLL: Out of Sight = Out of Control?

    I am a HUGE fan of field trials. I have been for over twenty-years, even though I have NEVER ran one. I share the same appetite for the history of the sport as Junbe, so we have become fast friends. And he often helps me feed my appetite by supplying me with names of books I should read.

    For this weekend's FT he brough down MAKE IT HAPPEN, CAPTAIN by Gene Starkloff for me to read. While I found much of Starkloff to be dated, one of his axioms I found curiously convincing --

    "When a dog is out of sight, he is out of control."

    With my background in hunt tests, I find that to be at least contemporarily and generally speaking more true with HTers, than with the field trialers I hang with. IMO, FTers are much more willing to let their dogs hunt out of sight for marks than HTers who want to keep tighter control.

    Why do I say "generally speaking?" Because I can envision tests, such as blinds, where I give a dog a line where it temporarily enters and exits heavy cover. It is not in there long enought to be "out of control." I am thinking more of when a dog, on marks, crosses a burm, and the handler doesn't have a clue what the dog is up to, or even if it will return! Or if the mark falls just inside one or two rows of corn, and the dog overshoots it, so deep you can't track the movement of the dog. Or the dog disappears behing a hill/mound/island such that the handler sufficiently loses sight and therefore the ability to fully handle. Does that handler still have "control" of such dogs? Does he have more choices than a "come-in whistle?"

    Has the handler transfered the job of recovering the mark overly-so to the dog, instead of keeping it a team job?

    What I am wondering is if, in your opinion, does "generally speaking, out of sight = out of control?"

    When you reply, please indicate if you are a HTer of a FTer.

    Thanks.
    Kevin Walker

    Drive is the manifestation of Desire, and measured in Style.
    Thank you judges who score Style, you are preserving Desire!

  2. #2
    Senior Member Polock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Since I mostly play in the HT end of trialing, other than the NFRA Open, I feel that more emphasis of OOS=OOC is placed there, versus FT due the increased distances in marks and blinds.

    Because of the distance differences in FT's the dawg can be out of site for certain lengths of time due to terrain changes such as levies, ditches, gullies, etc. But if the dawg is truely advancing toward the bird with a purpose, and co-operating as a team member, the team should not suffer for the momentary visual loses. Though when the dawg fails to respond as a team member and becomes unruly and uncooperative resulting in visual contact being lossed, then IMO OOS=OOC becomes a factor.

    The HT games seems to put more weight in the OOS=OOC factor due to set-ups and distances, and the very nature of the test set-ups. Again, it is usually the dawg that has become un-cooperative as a team member, that works themselves into a OOS=OOC condition, there by putting the team in jeopardy of a DQ.

    Nazdrowie.................. :drinking:
    See Yunz later,
    Dan Kotarski
    Cut-N-Shoot Retrievers

    BABY STEPS, Baby Steps, baby steps.........Repetition..Consistency..Focus
    TEACH and BUILD! Then BUILD on what ya TEACH!

    "Where The Hell Is Bedias, TX?"

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    TOMS RIVER NJ
    Posts
    52

    Default oos-ooc

    well is the dog ooc if oos ? maybe not on the hunt for a mark and not
    for a long time but surly when handling on a mark or a blind
    as the father of handling ( Dave Elliot for those who may not know who he was)
    told me oos=ooc as you no longer have contact with the dog and
    he-she is hunting on their own at that point and could be disturbing
    to much of an unhunted area there for should be judged ooc and
    dropped
    oc
    retired -less money - more wife

  4. #4
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    7,029

    Default Re: POLL: Out of Sight = Out of Control?

    Quote Originally Posted by AmiableLabs
    ]What I am wondering is if, in your opinion, does "generally speaking, out of sight = out of control?"

    When you reply, please indicate if you are a HTer of a FTer.

    Thanks.
    The rule which mentions being out of sight is for blind retrieves, not marks.....dogs don't know when they're out of sight hunting for a mark.....now if out of sight is 100 yards from the AOF, then one could say that the dog had "failed the mark", but if the crest of a hill is 20 yards deep of a 300 yard mark, being out of sight is well within the boundaries of the AOF

    Out of sight on a blind retrieve means for a considerable period of time....if the blind is set up in a manner that there are portions of the blind when the dog is out of sight when online, then one could hardly assume that constitutes being out of control since the dog is where it's supposed to be

    As with many rules, pulling a few words out of context and them trying to make those words the essence of the rule is incorrect

    Good judges set up blinds where dogs that are not under good control will go out of sight OFF LINE to the the blind, and that is what the rule is for.

    Out of sight on a mark is irrelevant unless out of sight is well out of the bounds of where a dog should be hunting, then the issue is not whether the dog is in or out of sight but that is does not know where the mark is

    P.S. I did not vote 8)

  5. #5
    Senior Member Lisa Van Loo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Not far from Hog Hollow
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    Can anyone name the event where "out of sight=out of control" and the resultant unorthodox placement of the dogs as a result of incorrect use of the dogma, resulted in a significant change in AKC FT regulations?

    Lisa
    "Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here." - Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets

    http://www.chessieinfo.net

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NW Panhandle of Florida, The Redneck Riviera
    Posts
    322

    Default

    I don't think that OOS=OOC in all situations (some yes) for the reasons that Ed stated. But I will say that you can't judge a dog that you can't see.

  7. #7
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    7,029

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cray
    I don't think that OOS=OOC in all situations (some yes) for the reasons that Ed stated. But I will say that you can't judge a dog that you can't see.
    then judges who object to dogs "being out of sight" shouldn't set up tests where they are out of sight when they are in a reasonable place to be on the test.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    League City, Texas
    Posts
    563

    Default

    Ed,

    I have had that famous statement said to me just one time - "You can't judge what you can't see".

    My response - "I can see the area of the fall just fine - thank you."
    "You can train your dog any way ya want. It ain't my dog. "

  9. #9
    Senior Member AmiableLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    3,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cray
    I don't think that OOS=OOC in all situations (some yes) for the reasons that Ed stated. But I will say that you can't judge a dog that you can't see.
    Nor can the handler handle a dog s/he cannot see. Which provoked the question in the first place. If I cannot give more than a comeback whistle, just how much control do I have over it?!?!

    Looking at the answers here, and given that they are in exact accord with the answers I got this weekend, it seems to me that on marks HTers tend to think of themselves and their dogs as more of a team than FTers. Like one FTer friend said to me this weekend, "Getting the mark is entirely the dog's responsibility." I have never had nor heard that mentality at HTs.

    It seems to me there is nothing wrong with different answers, as they are currently different games.

    But at the same time, the devil's advocate in me asks, then why do sometimes I work so hard to give it a line?
    Kevin Walker

    Drive is the manifestation of Desire, and measured in Style.
    Thank you judges who score Style, you are preserving Desire!

  10. #10
    Senior Member Lisa Van Loo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Not far from Hog Hollow
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    then judges who object to dogs "being out of sight" shouldn't set up tests where they are out of sight when they are in a reasonable place to be on the test.
    Ed, you have just described the situation behind the trial I described. It was the American Chesapeake Club's 1990 specialty trial, Qualifying stake. The water blind was tough enough, but the judges set it up so the blind was planted five yards in front of a beaver dam. Any dog going past the dam would be "momentarily" out of sight. They dropped every dog that went over the dam. Folks, we are talking mere feet here.

    A couple of experienced (and thus, wise) handlers held their dogs tight to the line and boxed them at the end, but at least they didn't get past the blind and over the dam. The judges decided none of the dogs that finished had done AA work, so handed out 3rd, 4th, no RJ and one or two JAMs. The situation was written up in RFTN "Judges' Corner" and was talked up quite a bit on the circuits. The upshot was that the RAC recommended that the rules be changed to read that there should be no gaps between placements, and placements should not have gaps in front of them (i.e., if you withhold 1st, you should withhold everything).

    Chapter 5, Section 4, Paragraph 2:

    As a matter of general policy, this Section means that Judges may withhold all placements, or any placements following placed dogs, provided vacant placements do not occur between placed dogs, or between placed dogs and Judges Awards of Merit. Whenever a placement is withheld, no additional placements or Judges Awards of Merit (including Reserve) can be awarded after the withheld placement.
    I was there, and thought it was the most bizarre thing I had ever seen. I had never heard of judges withholding placements in retriever trials before, in such a checkerboard fashion. Pointer trials, sure, but not retrievers.

    Lisa
    "Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here." - Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets

    http://www.chessieinfo.net

Similar Threads

  1. Sight Un-Seen
    By Sankers in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 10:44 AM
  2. Benelli sight and barrel length
    By TANK in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 12:12 PM
  3. Obama in Italy sight seeing
    By Roger Perry in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 03:30 AM
  4. Poll - The Dow on E-Day - 2008-2012 - Poll
    By Marvin S in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 08:58 PM
  5. Taking Control
    By kip in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 03-08-2007, 07:00 AM

Posting Permissions

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