Handling on the way back? - Page 9
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Handling on the way back?

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    I know this doesn't seem to be the way most think about this subject but I think by definition a "marked retrieve" would be the act of getting it AND bringing it back. The talk is of handling on the "return" which is actually the "retrieve" part of the marked retrieve. Just how my simple mind works. Thoughts?

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Kevil, Kentucky
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Dave, you are struggling with a wording issue and not the intent of why the rule was put in place. To eliminate a young dog from competition when it has nothing to do with the actual marking part of the test but has to do with maintaining their training is a travesty of justice. Look at the big picture, not concentrating on exact wording.
    Brooks Gibson

    Bad things happen when you ask common dogs to do uncommon things.

  4. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Yes sir I get that. Marking is of utmost importance. But it does need to get back to handler. I guess it depends on the judge and how much goes on between handler and fido on the way back that may influence callbacks.




    Quote Originally Posted by captain2560 View Post
    Dave, you are struggling with a wording issue and not the intent of why the rule was put in place. To eliminate a young dog from competition when it has nothing to do with the actual marking part of the test but has to do with maintaining their training is a travesty of justice. Look at the big picture, not concentrating on exact wording.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #84
    Senior Member rboudet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Mandeville, LA
    Posts
    1,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Burton View Post
    Yes sir I get that. Marking is of utmost importance. But it does need to get back to handler. I guess it depends on the judge and how much goes on between handler and fido on the way back that may influence callbacks.
    And that is where the common sense comes in. If its just a few cast to keep them honest, no problem. Now, if it turns into a training session I will and have said something to the handler. But i don't think it has ever been brought up while sorting placements with a co-judge.

  7. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    123

    Default

    It’s amazing to me, that people argue that the intent of a clearly written rule is different than what is actually stated. Why would anyone assume the people who drafted and adopted these written rules, were not capable of clearly and accurately documenting their intent using the written English language? In this particular case, no one is “struggling with a wording issue”, there is no doubt the rule book states a dog that is handled on a retrieve in the derby, shall be eliminated. You may personally think it’s a bad rule, and you may want to lobby for a rule book change that instead says “a dog that is handled to a mark in the derby stake shall be eliminated”. But that’s not what the rule book says today. Is it “common sense” if you feel you can ignore any rules in the rule book you don’t agree with or don’t like, or rules that you don’t think express the true intent of those who adopted those rules. If you don’t like a rule, get it changed or removed, but it’s irresponsible to ignore the rule book. Have you ever trained a dog that was hard mouthed and crushed ducks when he felt he was not under control on the return? I have. Have you ever trained a dog that would freeze on the bird when delivering the last bird of a multiple mark, but not on a blind if handled and controlled on the way back? I have. I don’t know, maybe it is using more “common sense” to have this rule in place for “young dogs” even though marking is of utmost importance.

  8. #86
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    9,569

    Default

    It is surprising that this is still under discussion. The rule book is filled with things that are subject to interpretation, “simulate conditions met in an ordinary day’s shoot” is one of the more obvious. Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures for Retrievers was written long before dogs were taught to handle before they were two years old so no one then could have envisioned Derby dogs handling on marks. The subsequent amendment was included to clarify that since marking is of primary importance and the Derby stake is all about marking dogs should not place in the Derby after handling on a mark. There were at least two instances of placements in the Derby for dogs who handled on marks (which is commonly understood to mean handling to a mark) and both times the judges (both now deceased) were highly regarded and friends of mine. At the time the rules were clarified the Subcommittee on Rules to the Retriever Advisory Committee was a lifetime appointment (which has been changed) and more than one of rhe members of that committee were no longer participating in field trials beyond a advisory capacity and they could not envision people handling their dog on a return, it simply was something they did not consider. This entire discussion is a tempest ina teapot with one passionate poster advocating strict literal interpretation to rules which are sometimes ambiguous. This is all I plan to say about this topic as I have already invested far too much time to try and convince the unconvinceable.
    Last edited by EdA; 08-29-2020 at 02:15 PM.

  9. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Kevil, Kentucky
    Posts
    527

    Default

    EdA, I agree with you.
    Last edited by captain2560; 08-29-2020 at 12:30 PM.
    Brooks Gibson

    Bad things happen when you ask common dogs to do uncommon things.

  10. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Rancho Palos Verdes
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Do not handle

Posting Permissions

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