[BMay]

Out of curiosity, do rules prohibit fastening the birds legs together to prevent this, fastened legs won't prevent flapping, but will prevent running.....

Fritz....YES!!!

 

[Vicky Trainor]

What John said. If dog goes back to old fall it is switching. They are out.

If the dog goes back to old fall, it is NOT switching. How can it be a switch if there is no bird to "switch". The dog going back to an old fall is just that.....returning to the area of an old fall.

A switch is when a dog that goes to the area of a fall, hunts, fails to find, and then leaves the area to hunt for another fall, or that

drops a bird it is retrieving and goes for another, according to the Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunt Tests. I don't have the rule book for FTs, but I would think it would be the same.​

 

[Eric Johnson]

To begin with from the section on setting up a test....

(6) Running crippled birds, or “runners.” Dogs should be able to follow and find a runner. Since dogs are being evaluated based upon their abilities as hunting companions, the Judges shall evaluate a dog’s abilities when confronted with a runner since the dog
should find the birds shot for it. Based on the circumstances and set-up of the situation the Judges may elect not to score a dog on a “runner,” but, in any case, the Judges shall discuss in advance how they might deal with the possibility.

However, I have seen this done twice and when I asked at a seminar, was told (can't remember whether it was Jerry Mann or Bill Speck) that it was the correct solution if the dog had not been failed yet.

Sit the dog in the field. Handler and both judges walk out and confirm whether the bird is there or not. If the bird is there, the dog fails. If the bird is not there, throw one on the ground and walk back to the line. Handler commands the dog to pick-up the bird and deliver it.

No re-run is needed. The dog hunted the AOF thus proved marking ability.

Eric

 

[Guest]

If the dog goes back to old fall, it is NOT switching. How can it be a switch if there is no bird to "switch". The dog going back to an old fall is just that.....returning to the area of an old fall.

A switch is when a dog that goes to the area of a fall, hunts, fails to find, and then leaves the area to hunt for another fall, or that

drops a bird it is retrieving and goes for another, according to the Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunt Tests. I don't have the rule book for FTs, but I would think it would be the same.​

It says "another fall." Does is state that bird has already been picked up or not? It could be hunting for "another fall" that has been retrieved, no?

I don't mind being corrected. I don't have a set of the rules in front of me. Just asking.

And point taken, in real life (whatever that means) I woulda/shoulda have called it returning to the old fall, but now after looking at what you quoted, I wonder.

 

[Vicky Trainor]

It says "another fall." Does is state that bird has already been picked up or not? It could be hunting for "another fall" that has been retrieved, no?

I don't mind being corrected. I don't have a set of the rules in front of me. Just asking.

And point taken, in real life (whatever that means) I woulda/shoulda have called it returning to the old fall, but now after looking at what you quoted, I wonder.

Section 12.

In Senior and Master Hunting Tests a

dog that goes to the area of a fall, hunts, fails to find, and
then leaves the area to hunt for another fall, or that
drops a bird it is retrieving and goes for another, shall
be considered to have switched. Unless in the opinion
of the Judges there exist valid mitigating circumstances,
a dog that switches shall be scored “0” in
Perseverance in Senior and Master Hunting Tests.​

A dog that returns to the area of a fall or a blind that
it has previously retrieved and establishes another hunt
shall be considered to have returned to an old fall.
Unless in the opinion of the Judges there exist valid mitigating
circumstances, a dog that returns to an old fall
shall be scored low in Perseverance and/or Marking,
even to the extent of awarding a grade of “zero.”​

*******
Switch vs ROAF was an area of contention several years ago. The above verbage was placed in the Regulations and Guidelines to try to clarify the difference. ROAF specifically states that the fall or blind had previously been retrieved.

A Switch would only occur when there is another bird in the area the dog went to (after leaving the area of the fall he had been hunting) to "switch".​

​

 

[22899]

It does state wether or not the bird was picked up.

It states goes to AOF and fails to find,, then procceeds to hunt another
AOF for another bird.

There are at least 2 birds on the ground, with 2 distinct AOF.

The dog hunts one,, fails to find,, then SWITCHES to another AOF to find a different bird.

Gooser

 

[Granddaddy]

To begin with from the section on setting up a test....

(6) Running crippled birds, or “runners.” Dogs should be able to follow and find a runner. Since dogs are being evaluated based upon their abilities as hunting companions, the Judges shall evaluate a dog’s abilities when confronted with a runner since the dog
should find the birds shot for it. Based on the circumstances and set-up of the situation the Judges may elect not to score a dog on a “runner,” but, in any case, the Judges shall discuss in advance how they might deal with the possibility.

However, I have seen this done twice and when I asked at a seminar, was told (can't remember whether it was Jerry Mann or Bill Speck) that it was the correct solution if the dog had not been failed yet.

Sit the dog in the field. Handler and both judges walk out and confirm whether the bird is there or not. If the bird is there, the dog fails. If the bird is not there, throw one on the ground and walk back to the line. Handler commands the dog to pick-up the bird and deliver it.

No re-run is needed. The dog hunted the AOF thus proved marking ability.

Eric

Regarding the runner, if the dog successfully follows & finds a runner in a direct manner, great, score the dog & move on (even give the dog extra credit). If not, a re-run is the reasonable response. Notwithstanding the senario noted above from the rules, the judges should attempt to give each dog the same test & therefore the re-run seems the best response.

As regards your suggestion to throw the dog a dead bird idea, this would defeat the very pupose of the test - marking. The best alternative is the re-run, assuming in both cases that the bird was a runner & no longer in the AOF.

 

[Eric Johnson]

David-

I was citing the rules on the "runner" as one alternative scenario. There's nothing in the rules that requires each dog to have the same identical test. Given unlimited grounds and time, a judge could set up a completely different test for every dog so long as each test had the required elements.

As for throwing the bird on the ground.....this has been witnessed by me twice and when I asked a AKC Field Rep I was told this was the correct way to handle an unretrieveable bird once the test has started. You can't call "no-bird" part way through a test and where on earth is the rules is a provision for a "re-run" in these circumstances? A re-run is called for only if a no bird is called or if say the honor dog breaks. You can't send a dog into the field to retrieve and then part way through the test, call for a "re-run."

That's for hunt tests. Don't know about field trials.

Eric

 

[Granddaddy]

David-

I was citing the rules on the "runner" as one alternative scenario. There's nothing in the rules that requires each dog to have the same identical test. Given unlimited grounds and time, a jusge could set up a completely different test for every dog so long as each test had the required elements.

As for throwing the bird on the ground.....this has been witnessed by me twice and when I asked a AKC Field Rep I was told this was the correct way to handle an unretrieveable bird once the test has started. You can't call "no-bird" part way through a test and where on earth is the rules is a provision for a "re-run" in these circumstances? A re-run is called for only if a no bird is called or if say the honor dog breaks. You can't send a dog into the field to retrieve and then part way through the test, call for a "re-run."

That's for hunt tests. Don't know about field trials.

Eric

I said same, you said "same, identical". Common sense says no two dogs will see an identical test but they should be the same as best the dynamics can be controlled. To your first statement, it's hard enough to judge dogs running the same test, judging dogs on different tests would be near impossible & completely unfair. And to the bolded statement, yes FT rules do make provisions for re-runs after the dog has been released and sent to retrieve/retrieved part of the test. I think HT rules also have similar provisions. I don't doubt that the senario you describe (throwing a bird on the ground) has taken place but ask yourself if it is as objective in judging that dog as compared to that dog actually being sent for & retrieving the bird as part of a test, as would happen in a re-run?

 

[Eric Johnson]

David-

I didn't say that multiple tests, one per dog, was feasible. The hunt test concept says that all dogs are judged against the test, not each other. Therefore, this is theoretically, if not practically, a possibility. As long as each test meets the standards for the level of testing, there's nothing in the book that says that this couldn't be done.

Variations in the test happen all the time. So long as the variation doesn't alter the standards for the test, the judge can let it go. A judge will perhaps make a note of an unusual circumstance for any one dog but call a "re-run"? Nah.

Throwing of the bird on the ground has taken place. It is deemed to be the correct solution by the AKC Field Reps. What more authority is needed?

Eric

 

[Granddaddy]

David-

I didn't say that multiple tests, one per dog, was feasible. The hunt test concept says that all dogs are judged against the test, not each other. Therefore, this is theoretically, if not practically, a possibility. As long as each test meets the standards for the level of testing, there's nothing in the book that says that this couldn't be done.

Variations in the test happen all the time. So long as the variation doesn't alter the standards for the test, the judge can let it go. A judge will perhaps make a note of an unusual circumstance for any one dog but call a "re-run"? Nah.

Throwing of the bird on the ground has taken place. It is deemed to be the correct solution by the AKC Field Reps. What more authority is needed?

Eric

I don't find the bolded statement in the AKC HT rules & not the FT rules. Further to my understanding, unless something has changed without clubs knowing about, the RAC recommends the rules, regulations & guidelines for FTs & HTs, the delegate body votes yes or no. The AKC field reps are to enforce the rules as adopted by the delegate body, not set them or interpret them. Therefore, if I'm judging, the dog gets a re-run if that dog's test is substantially different for the other running dogs as a result of a flyer that works clearly against that dog having reasonably equal opportunity for success. I also think that is the majority opinion whether it's FTs or HTs among judges. You may be an exception. To just throw a bird down ignores rules clearly stating that a good dog will have a good nose & use it, that a good dog will go directly to the AOF & make an intelligent hunt (these are my words not quoting from the rules) but this is the intent. As a judge, there has to be some use of common sense when reading & interpreting the rules. And rules are not to be parsed, they are to be read and understood as a body of rules. And while I am no expert on HTs or their rules, I have run enough to have MH titles on two of my FT dogs. And in my limited exposure to HTs, I have seen reasonable judges routinely call for re-runs when a "test" is inadvertantly changed for a particular dog even after the dog has been released by the judges to retrieve. There are a number of valid, within the rules, reasons why a re-run would be called.

As to idea that different tests would be OK, even your quotation of the rules supports the same "test" idea, note the singular usage of the word "test". And yes, a flyer that runs out of the AOF could very well alter the std, relative to HTs or FTs, establishing the need for a re-run, it's the judges' decision who are judging the test, within the judges' perview. It is clearly not a matter of AKC rep interpretation.

 

[Howard N]

a flyer that runs out of the AOF could very well alter the std, relative to HTs or FTs, establishing the need for a re-run, it's the judges' decision who are judging the test, within the judges' perview. It is clearly not a matter of AKC rep interpretation.

The judges word is final.

What can and should an AKC rep decide on about a test?

They know the rule books for the various venues and misconduct. We know our retrievers and what they do.

 

[Eric Johnson]

I didn't know that you had judged.

We aren't talking about rules. We're talking about solving a problem within the rules. For that matter, a "re-run" isn't in the rules either in these circumstances. There's a whole lot that isn't in the rules that represent situations that require interpretation. That's why we're called judges....not scorekeepers.

Once the birds are down and the judges release the dog, there's very little they can do except score the dog. In this instance, the judges score the dog to the AOF and then on the delivery. This means the dog completed a retrieve and can be carried if the scores warrant it. If the dog were to return without the bird, there's nothing to be done except "0" the dog. They can't call "no bird" after the dog is released. So, the dog must have a bird in the mouth when he returns and we're saying that there's no bird out there for him to get. All you can do is provide it.

On page 34 there is a section called "Unusual Circumstances". The first paragraph in the section reads...

"If unusual and unplanned circumstances occur during the course of a marking test, the Judges can ask the handler to handle the dog, or otherwise compensate for the unanticipated occurrence."

It then covers generally much of what we've been talking about and ends with...

"Many situations will occur that cannot be specifically addressed in the Regulations or Guidelines. In these instances, Judges must draw on their experience to arrive at fair decisions."

By the way, this isn't in the "Regulations" per se. It's in chapter title "Guidelines...."

Years ago, no ... many years ago, I officiated basketball at the high school and college level. Each year we studied the rulebook very carefully. The book was only about 50 pages and 1/2 of that was advertising. What we studied even more carefully was called the "Case Book". It read something like "Team A is assessed a technical foul. Right after the official hands the ball to B1 at the free-throw line, B2 flagrantly pushes A2. The referee ejects B2." The Case Book was about 120 pages long.

I've long felt that what the hunt test community needs is a Case Book. The rule book is only about 40 pages and a significant part of that has nothing to do with judging dogs. This is a good example. There's nothing in the rule book about this situation as a rule. This a rare circumstance and we ought to have something in writing that provides more detailed guidance than what we have.

Eric

PS: It's called a "false double foul." Since the last foul of the false double foul was flagrant, the ball is put in play as though it were the only foul committed. No players are in the lane lines for B1's shot and none in the lane for A2's two shots. Ball is awarded to Team A out of bounds at a designated spot close to where the flagrant personal foul occurred.

 

[Granddaddy]

I didn't know that you had judged.

We aren't talking about rules. We're talking about solving a problem within the rules. For that matter, a "re-run" isn't in the rules either in these circumstances. There's a whole lot that isn't in the rules that represent situations that require interpretation. That's why we're called judges....not scorekeepers.

Once the birds are down and the judges release the dog, there's very little they can do except score the dog. In this instance, the judges score the dog to the AOF and then on the delivery. This means the dog completed a retrieve and can be carried if the scores warrant it. If the dog were to return without the bird, there's nothing to be done except "0" the dog. They can't call "no bird" after the dog is released. So, the dog must have a bird in the mouth when he returns and we're saying that there's no bird out there for him to get. All you can do is provide it.

On page 34 there is a section called "Unusual Circumstances". The first paragraph in the section reads...

"If unusual and unplanned circumstances occur during the course of a marking test, the Judges can ask the handler to handle the dog, or otherwise compensate for the unanticipated occurrence."

It then covers generally much of what we've been talking about and ends with...

"Many situations will occur that cannot be specifically addressed in the Regulations or Guidelines. In these instances, Judges must draw on their experience to arrive at fair decisions."......

You keep repeating the idea that a judge cannot call for a no-bird or a re-run after the dog has been released. This is not true. I have bolded both the erroneous statement & also a rules reference you added that clearly supports the ability for judges to call for a re-run. I have challenged some of your statement/posts already on this topic but you have ignored them. I again have to question this statement where you at length say judges have no ability to call for a re-run once a dog has been released to retrieve because judges clearly have that option in order to "otherwise compensate for the unanticipated occurrence". Examples might be a flyer runner that causes an unfair or unsafe condition that was not determined prior to releasing the running dog, a BB moving so as to interfere with a running dog, an honor dog interfering with the running dog, a dog from behind the line out of control and interfering with a running dog, gallery members disturbing the running dog, someone other than the handler blowing a whistle to interfere with the running dog, etc, etc - I could go on.....

But there are judges who seem to be more interested in following the letter of the rules rather than the intent & such judges frequently come up with biased or extreme interpretations of the rules. Such judges many times also are more intent in failing dogs than judging the work of dogs against fair tests.

I eliminated the portion of your quote dealing with another sport as not germain to the discussion. I just think judges should be dog people who know the rules, use common sense when judging, treat each dog/handler team fairly & set-up tests not looking to fail dogs but judge good work.

Like many such threads, the OP's topic senario was s simple question & the answer IMO is that if the judges decide the running flyer presented an unfairly changed test, they have every right under the rules to call for a re-run. In the re-run, according to FT rules, the dog is judges only on that portion of the test not completed in the first run. Further it is encumbant upon the handler to attempt to pick up the birds in the same order attempted in the first run. End of story, next dog.

 

[jeff evans]

If the dog goes back to old fall, it is NOT switching. How can it be a switch if there is no bird to "switch". The dog going back to an old fall is just that.....returning to the area of an old fall.

A switch is when a dog that goes to the area of a fall, hunts, fails to find, and then leaves the area to hunt for another fall, or that

drops a bird it is retrieving and goes for another, according to the Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunt Tests. I don't have the rule book for FTs, but I would think it would be the same.​

Thank you for the clairificaton on switching and returning to an old fall as their seemed to be some confusion by the poster and its important to make the destinction between the two faults.

 

[Eric Johnson]

David-

Would you call a "no-bird" after you had released the dog? I wouldn't. If the bird is retrievable, the dog's job is to get it and that doesn't provide for a no-bird. If the bird is not retrievable, I'll call a no bird before the dog is released and the dog will be set back in line.

A no-bird and a re-run are different animals. The idea of a stopping a test and then re-running and judging from that point is much less prevelent in HT than in FT.

I'll match my willingness to accommodate a dog and strange or unusual circumstances with anyones.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Eric

 

[Granddaddy]

A no-bird can be called for several reasons. A re-run can be granted for several reasons. I don't think I said a no-bird was a re-run anywhere. But in the case of a FT set-up of interrupted marks a no-bird could lead to a re-run (probably other situations too) after the dog was initially released to retrieve. But don't confuse the issue. The issue in question is whether a flyer runner could lead to a dog being given a re-run after the dog is released to retrieve. I say yes, it's a common occurrence & probably happens every week at some trial or HT across the country. It happens particularly in a FT because the distance to the flyer might prevent the judges from determining if the bird was a clean kill. Judges release the dog, dog can't find bird in fall area. Dog is recalled at the direction of the judges, BBs or judges hunt AOf for the bird & not finding it, declare a re-run for that dog either after 3 dogs or at the end of the series. If the judges feel a bird shot might be different to an extreme might call for a no-bird & then grant a re-run. I just don't get the confusion, it's a clear-cut response common to HTs & FTS.