RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

How do you judge flyer hunts?

4K views 36 replies 15 participants last post by  MikeBoley 
#1 ·
The other AA judging thread presented an interesting aspect of judging, that being the flyer and judging relative work. It is a timely question for me as just last week I ran both of my dogs on a nice Amateur test. One of my dogs is a very-very good marker, the other has his moments and is overall very consistent, but clearly the less talented of the two. The last-bird-down flyer was about 150 yards out and shot slight angle back into 18"-24" tall, wet, spring grass. My better marking dog ran about dog 30 and his flyer landed right in the middle of where most had fallen. He ran out there on line, then hunted that tight area, putting his nose down at every spot a bird had landed. The grass was high enough that you couldn't see the bird laying in the grass. It took him a while, (seemed like forever from the line), before he found the bird. He never hunted away from the AOF, but I had comments on his big flyer hunt. My next dog came up about 20 dogs later, his was a big beautiful arcing bird about 20 yards further than all the others. He ran right out to the bird and picked it up on a line. Hard to be unimpressed by the pin job, on the other hand the other hunt was very tight, showed he knew the bird was there and he stuck with it.

Would you score the pin job higher than the tight hunt in the AOF? How do you feel in general about judging flyer hunts?

BTW both dogs were called back and I have no idea how these judges scored the two jobs.

John
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I am not a judge, but ,:):)

what defines a MARK to me is a dog going directly to the AOF and establishing a hunt there.
The dog that does this, Marked the bird.... Period...
I don't pay much attention to how long it takes them to come up with the bird, as long as the HUNT is in the AOF..
Gooser
 
#3 · (Edited)
OK, so define AOF (area of the fall) and is it the same for all marks, long, short, retired, and fliers?

And further is the AOF the same for a slow or methodical dog as it is for a fast dog? Is it different if it is the first or last bird thrown?
 
#4 · (Edited)
I think it was in a Lardy article. Something like "your dog has to find his flier out of the 50 or so that have been out there." Many times you can see dogs put their nose down at each spot one has been as if they expect it to be right there. So, if you run late and your bird lands where many have been it should be easier, if you run late and yours lands away from where many have landed it could be tougher.

If your flier lands in a "normal area" where many birds have landed I think it's easier. If your bird is short or long relative to the others it can be easier or very hard. If the flier is an angled back throw and yours is flat or slightly in it can be very difficult.

I don't know if it's good or bad but at a trial last weekend they used a winger in the Am and the Open. The fliers looked pretty and most landed in the same area.
 
#10 ·
Gooser Dr. Ed is asking you tough questions, that means he likes you.:D Another big consideration that makes flyers inherently unfair compared to hand thrown dead birds is the fact that flyers are very inconsistent, no matter how good the thrower they hook left, hook right, fly long and short. After a bunch of dogs there is literally scent over a very large area. To me that enlarges the area of fall regardless of the order it was shot.

John
 
#12 ·
Natural Abilities
(1) Accurate marking, or memory of “falls’’ is of paramount importance. However, this does not imply that dogs which excel in marking shall not be severely penalized, or even eliminated, for deficiencies in, or a lack of the other required “abilities.’’ However, in Derby stakes the ability to “mark’’ is all-important and dogs that are handled on a mark in a Derby Stake shall be eliminated. Even in our most exacting stakes, tests are usually so devised that “marked’’ birds constitute a large percentage of the retrieves by which each dog’s performance is judged.
Ability to “mark’’ does not necessarily imply “pin- pointing the fall.’’ A dog that misses the “fall’’ on the first cast, but recognizes the depth of the “area of the fall,’’ stays in it, then quickly and systematically “hunts- it-out,’’ has done both a creditable and an intelligent job of marking. Such work should not be appreciably out-scored by the dog that “finds’’ or “pinpoints’’ on his first cast. However, a dog which consistently, i.e., during an entire stake, marks his birds in a closer area, hence, more accurately than another dog, should be judged

What precisely constitutes the “area of the ‘fall’ ” defies accurate definition; yet, at the outset of every test, each Judge must arbitrarily define its hypothetical boundaries for himself, and for each bird in that test, so that he can judge whether dogs have remained within his own concept of “area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ as well as how far they have wandered away from “the area’’ and how much cover they have disturbed unnecessarily. In determining these arbitrary and hypothetical boundaries of the “area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ due considerations should be given to various factors: (1) the type, the height and the uniformity of the cover, (2) light conditions, (3) direction of the prevailing wind and its intensity, (4) length of the various falls, (5) the speed of individual dogs, (6) whether there is a change in cover (as from stubble to plowed ground, or to ripe alfalfa, or to machine-picked corn, etc.) or whether the “fall’’ is beyond a hedge, across a road, or over a ditch, etc., and, finally, and most important, (7) whether one is establishing the “area of the ‘fall’ ’’ for a single, or for the first bird a dog goes for, in multiple retrieves, or for the second or the third bird, since each of these should differ from the others.
 
#13 ·
Twice in the open my young dog marked a flier that curled back behind the guns and was shot,where received a no bird.Three dogs later he gets a good flier ,yet goes behind the gun where he marked the no bird....nothing there , goes straight to the flier and gets the retireds nicely.They dropped him on one, and called him back on the other. Just another thing that happens on fliers.
 
#14 ·
Sometimes judges forget that calling a no bird does not erase that fall from a dog's memory, a notation of such falls helps explain things. It is also important to call no bird as soon as it is obvious that something untoward has occurred rather than allowing the dog to watch the entire fall.
 
#18 ·
​If interrupted, and the bird is good, then you want the dog to focus on it, as you will need to pick it up later
 
#20 ·
each Judge must arbitrarily define its hypothetical boundaries for himself, and for each bird in that test, so that he can judge whether dogs have remained within his own concept of “area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ as well as how far they have wandered away from “the area’’ and how much cover they have disturbed unnecessarily.
Nope, its pretty much set in stone....

/Paul
 
#21 ·
Knowing how many times actual results conflict with a judges preconceived idea of how a test will work, and the rule books use of words such as arbitrary and hypothetical, I think there is latitude to change your mind on what you originally thought were the boundaries of the AOF. That said I think whatever boundary you decide on should be consistent for all dogs.

I guess the point of my OP was, should we judge a Flyer with it's attendant unfairness and widely varying AOFs differently then we would the much more consistent dead bird throws? I noted on the other thread what a mentor of mine told me a long time ago, he has run dogs since the seventies, judged a lot including at least one National, unless the dog is just flat lost on the flyer with a stupid out of the area hunt, he doesn't even draw the flyer line on his sheet. If we were judging in Canada, no flyers, it would be easier to stick to the rulebook that says the go bird's AOF should be considered to be smaller than memory birds.
 
#24 ·
Pertinent to the discussion it is important to remember that each dog's flier is his flier and not the ones before. I think the scent of a bird to a dog is different than the scent of an old fall or feathers from a previous fliers so to discount the exceptional mark is an erroneous conclusion as it is to discount a poor mark. The ability to evaluate the difference and it's importance is a learned skill.

I know the difference between an exceptional mark on a flier and a poor mark on a flier, the definition does not lend itself well to typed words on the internet. This hypothetical exercise is good to produce things for judges to consider but there is no substitute for time in the field shooting fliers and watching all levels of dogs deal with them, that is how one learns to evaluate these things. Nothing is more revealing than watching dog work in the field. Most of us have done it to a greater or lesser degree depending on our age and the length of our addiction.
 
#25 ·
Ken the one thing that might be easier for field trial judges versus HT judges is the fact that we are judging the dogs relative to each other, we are looking at ways to separate the dogs in a fair and impartial manner. I have a feeling the situation you describe would work itself out one way or another. either all dogs would do as you describe and be called back or some would do it and others not in which case we have something else to look at at the end of the day.

Just to show how actual test can surprise judges, I once judged an Amateur with Rick Vandebrake, a wonderful, super knowledgeable judge, we set up what we thought was a tough triple with an ingeniously place (we thought) check-down bird. We missed the little rabbit trail that led right to the bird from a point about sixty yards away. After about three dogs ran, hitting that little hole in the brush and popping up right at the bird, we started just drawing a line to the bird if the dog hit that rabbit hole. Our two bird with a flyer test turned into a one bird test. We still got answers on the long bird, but that short bird just became a waste of time. Oh well.

John
 
#27 · (Edited)
What precisely constitutes the "area of the ‘fall’ " defies accurate definition; yet, at the outset of every test, each Judge must arbitrarily define its hypothetical boundaries for himself, and for each bird in that test, so that he can judge whether dogs have remained within his own concept of "area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ as well as how far they have wandered away from "the area’’ and how much cover they have disturbed unnecessarily. In determining these arbitrary and hypothetical boundaries of the "area of the ‘fall,’ ’’ due considerations should be given to various factors: (1) the type, the height and the uniformity of the cover, (2) light conditions, (3) direction of the prevailing wind and its intensity, (4) length of the various falls, (5) the speed of individual dogs, (6) whether there is a change in cover (as from stubble to plowed ground, or to ripe alfalfa, or to machine-picked corn, etc.) or whether the "fall’’ is beyond a hedge, across a road, or over a ditch, etc., and, finally, and most important, (7) whether one is establishing the "area of the ‘fall’ ’’ for a single, or for the first bird a dog goes for, in multiple retrieves, or for the second or the third bird, since each of these should differ from the others. In general, the "area of the ‘fall’ ’’ for a single should be relatively small; the area for a first retrieve in a "double’’ should be smaller than for the second bird, and both of these should be larger in a "triple,’’ and larger still for the third bird in it. Also, "the area’’ for short retrieves should certainly be smaller than for longer retrieves. Since there are so many conditions and variables to be taken into consideration, it is obvious that each Judge, and for every series, must attempt to define for himself a hypothetical "area of the ‘fall’ ’’ for each bird, and then judge the dogs accordingly. However, the penalties inflicted should vary in their severity, depending on the distance which individual
dogs wander out of the area, the frequency of such wanderings, the number of birds mismarked in a given test, and by the amount of cover disturbed in these meanderings. Dogs which disturb cover unnecessarily, clearly well out of the area of the "fall,’’ either by not going directly to that area, or by leaving it, even though they eventually find the bird without being handled, should be penalized more severely than those handled quickly and obediently to it.


I am working on my assigned homework!! It has taken me a LONG time to digest the above...

I bolden in red some things Ifelt important.

What I am getting from this discusiion and the fact Ted sent me to the rule book,, it seems to me its hard to evaluate an AOF by just discussing on the internet.. You have to see the lay of the land, and whats involved to determine how large the AOF is,, and THAT can be subjective based on the opinion of said Judges that day..

Anm I close???

Gooser


 
#29 · (Edited)
Dog 2 was on, not only did he pin his flyer, he pinned his flyer, out of the intended Area and didn't fall prey to the massive scent pile where everyone else's bird had fallen. Basically saved the judges from having to think about significantly different flyer-hunt circumstances. The adage "It's not difficult when you know where they are" comes to mind" ;)

1st dog had to deal with massive scent pile factors that most of the other contenders did, if he hunted I'd assume many of the others did as well, except perhaps those running earlier. Hunting happens with flyers in cover, flyers will always have a higher degree of uncertainty. Thus we keep intelligent hunts in the AOF in for that particular mark, chalk it up to "flyers", use additional marks that have a less degree of uncertainty to separate the field.

AOF in HT-HRC is considered to increase with time, in a triple the last mark down AOF is considered slightly smaller than 2nd which is slightly smaller than 1st. At least that's what I remember from the Judging seminar. Wouldn't really matter in FT's the dog who marks better than the others overall is 1st, somebody's always seems to "know" where they are, and a smaller hunt is better than a large. Thus I don't see how AOF matters, unless it's used for determining who to keep in for the next series.

AOF, Area of Fall = an amount of space a dog is given that shows that he is intelligently hunting a mark that he knows is there, Outside AOF is just hunting giving up on a mark and having no definite idea of where exactly the mark is.
 
#32 · (Edited)
Dog 2 was on, not only did he pin his flyer, he pinned his flyer, out of the intended Area and didn't fall prey to the massive scent pile where everyone else's bird had fallen. Basically saved the judges from having to think about significantly different flyer-hunt circumstances. The adage "It's not difficult when you know where they are" comes to mind" ;)

AOF in HT-HRC is considered to increase with time, in a triple the last mark down AOF is considered slightly smaller than 2nd which is slightly smaller than 1st. At least that's what I remember from the Judging seminar. Wouldn't really matter in FT's the dog who marks better than the others overall is 1st, somebody's always seems to "know" where they are, and a smaller hunt is better than a large. Thus I don't see how AOF matters, unless it's used for determining who to keep in for the next series.

I don't think you get it... Consider trying to place 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc when one dog ran first (and only 2 flyers comprise the "popular" area below), vs the 75th dog who's flyer fell at "x" or "y". If the wind is straight from bottom to top of the page, is "y" easier or harder? Isn't the 75th bird that fell the 90-percentile area more likely to produce a disciplined hunt? Is a young dog likely to run straight through 75 falls to "x"? Do you factor all this in when placing dog #1 vs dog #75?
Text Line Font Diagram Circle

And oh hell yes, before I'm ostracized, I do understand that this one mark does not determine the winner,,, jeez
 
#30 ·
Huntemup

from above:

If both dogs 1 and 2 broke down and started their hunts in the AOF that my co judge and I predetermined, would'nt both dogs MARKED equally well?

gooser
 
#34 ·
A Tight short hunt in the center of AOF, could be graded as better than a longer wandering hunt still in AOF. If the purpose of the game was to rank one dog above another, and it had to be that mark, it could be done. However I'd think a judge who wants to make it out of town w/o being strung up, wouldn't want to use a single very interpretative hunt-mark to make his ranking. They'd probably setup something else to get a better answer. Now If the purpose was to pass a standard it doesn't matter, both dogs hunt in the AOF (0 1 2) both get a 1, both are equal.
 
#31 ·
And since we have said in this thread, that each dogs flyer is independent of the others , would judges have to generally give a predetermined size to where the bird landed?
 
#33 ·
It has always been my experience when judging you visit with your co-judge about where you would like the bird to fall and then discuss what may or may not be a no-bird. Now that being said you always have a ton of factors to consider, shooters, wind, throwers etc. that can affect your flyer. The guys judging in a couple of weeks could probably say we want the flyer thrown behind your back and we want it to land in the area of a cowboy hat 50 yards away and the folks throwing and shooting could pull it off with ease :) I tend to write a lot of notes on flyers on the judging sheet so I can recall the action in my mind later.

Rambling Regards,

Aaron
 
#35 · (Edited)
Because of the ever changing conditions, would or should the rationale that is used to design the curve be in a state of flux during the entire trial so not only would you have a curve for a hunt on a disident flier...you would customize it on a flier by flier basis.

Perhaps that perceived unfairness is what the "no bird" is supposed to be used for.

john
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top