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.