How would you score this?

ChrisRobt · Feb 4, 2008

This weekend I attended an AKC Judges’ Seminar in Oregon; the AKC representative had us score one scenario which he said demonstrated that a quick handle is not better than a long hunt.

He drew a triple with the long middle bird (FBD) at about 120 yards, the right hand bird at 75 yards and the flyer to the left at about 75 yards. He added cornrows in front of the line, a ditch just beyond the cornrows, a pond and then a V shaped valley starting just beyond the small pond with the middle bird thrown halfway up the hill on the right side of the valley. He described how each of the above factors influences the area of the fall (AOF). He then described three dogs running this scenario and asked us to score each dog.

The first dog had small hunts on the first two marks and a larger hunt well within the described AOF on the middle mark. We all agreed this was a “7”.

The second had similar hunts on the first two marks but a large hunt on the middle bird leaving the AOF a couple times and finally as he drifted towards the righthand mark being stopped and handled to the mark. We scored this a “5”

The third dog picked up the first two marks similarly to the first two dogs but on the third mark ran up wind of the mark (between gunner and bird) and was stopped by the handler maybe 10-15 yards beyond the mark and two whistled to the bird. The group was split with many scoring this a “6” and others a “3”. Jerry felt this had to be scored lower than the second dog as the handler stopped the dog before it could demonstrate that it knew where the AOF was so you as a judge could not score this dog as marking this fall. Jerry gave this dog a “3”.

I described this scenario to some of my training buddies (field trailers) who strongly disagreed with this opinion and felt very strongly that the third dog should be scored higher than the second dog. What do the members of RTF think?

Kenneth Niles Bora · Feb 4, 2008

I think handling before the dog was in the area of the fall eliminated the dogs ability to show that it knew the area of the fall and marked the bird. If the dog was already in the area of the fall and was hunting hard but could not come up with the bird. In a hole or something, but handler knew exactly the location. Then the crisp handle would be a horse of another color. But before the area of the fall, what did the team show the judges? They can show control on the blind.

ChrisRobt · Feb 4, 2008

Ken Bora said:
I think handling before the dog was in the area of the fall eliminated the dogs ability to show that it knew the area of the fall and marked the bird. If the dog was already in the area of the fall and was hunting hard but could not come up with the bird. In a hole or something, but handler knew exactly the location. Then the crisp handle would be a horse of another color. But before the area of the fall, what did the team show the judges? They can show control on the blind.

The dog ran through the AOF (between gunner and bird) and was maybe 10-15 yards beyond the mark when the handler stopped it and handled it to the bird.

JeffLusk · Feb 4, 2008

you must've been out at butch's? i think another member from here was out there.

ChrisRobt · Feb 4, 2008

I found the seminar to be very interesting and asked alot of questions; this particular scenario was a bit controversial though...

Howard N · Feb 4, 2008

My opinion is about the same as the field trialers you mentioned.

IMO, the handler handled the dog from the area of the fall right to the fall. It's a slightly better job than the handler who waited for the dog to screw up before he handled.

SueLab · Feb 4, 2008

Since you apparently were scoring Marking. I would agree that the third dog did not demonstrate that it knew where the bird fell (AOF)...the dog ran toward and past the gunner. If it did know where the bird fell, the handler took away the dog's ability to establish a hunt in the area - perhaps because he/she was afraid that the dog would run completely through the area. The dog did not establish a hunt on the 3rd bird anywhere.

It seems also that dog two, would be scored lower than either 1 or 3 in Perserverence. That dog did demonstrate that it knew where the third bird fell since it stopped in the AOF to hunt but did not stay in the area to finally get it without the handle.

greyghost · Feb 4, 2008

Saw the same presentation by Jerry last month at a judges seminar. The reasoning presented was that the judge was not given an an opportunity to score the mark because you handled quickly. So hence the low score for marking. One person's viewpoint.
I don't think that this is a black and white case....which is not unusual when judging. I would score this as a 6. My reasoning is that the dog picked up the first two marks without a problem, the dog preceded to the third mark, reached the area of the fall and ended up upwind of the bird. The handler realizing that his dog is upwind, quickly assists his dog and handles to the mark....TEAMWORK. I would give this handler/dog the benefit of doubt and want to see them at the next series. Would I want to spend a day in the field with this dog/handler...YES....they worked as a team, did not disturb too much ground, made an intelligent decision to aid his dog in getting to the mark. All good. AS CLEARLY STATED IN THE JUDGES GUIDELINES....GIVE THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO THE DOG/HANDLER. This dog clearly made progress to the AOF, ended up upwind, and you assisted your buddy. I believe that this dog marked the bird, progressed to the AOF and unfortunately ended up upwind and was handled to the mark. My viewpoint.

Ed Hogan · Feb 4, 2008

SueLab said:
Since you apparently were scoring Marking. I would agree that the third dog did not demonstrate that it knew where the bird fell (AOF)...the dog ran toward and past the gunner. If it did know where the bird fell, the handler took away the dog's ability to establish a hunt in the area - perhaps because he/she was afraid that the dog would run completely through the area. The dog did not establish a hunt on the 3rd bird anywhere.

It seems also that dog two, would be scored lower than either 1 or 3 in Perserverence. That dog did demonstrate that it knew where the third bird fell since it stopped in the AOF to hunt but did not stay in the area to finally get it without the handle.

I agree with Sue. This is a test in marking. The dog blew through the AOF so he did not mark it well, if a handler jumped in to handle that quick he knew the dog missed the mark. Had he established a hunt then that would be a different story.

FOM · Feb 4, 2008

greyghost said:
Saw the same presentation by Jerry last month at a judges seminar. The reasoning presented was that the judge was not given an an opportunity to score the mark because you handled quickly. So hence the low score for marking. One person's viewpoint.
I don't think that this is a black and white case....which is not unusual when judging. I would score this as a 6. My reasoning is that the dog picked up the first two marks without a problem, the dog preceded to the third mark, reached the area of the fall and ended up upwind of the bird. The handler realizing that his dog is upwind, quickly assists his dog and handles to the mark....TEAMWORK. I would give this handler/dog the benefit of doubt and want to see them at the next series. Would I want to spend a day in the field with this dog/handler...YES....they worked as a team, did not disturb too much ground, made an intelligent decision to aid his dog in getting to the mark. All good. AS CLEARLY STATED IN THE JUDGES GUIDELINES....GIVE THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO THE DOG/HANDLER. This dog clearly made progress to the AOF, ended up upwind, and you assisted your buddy. I believe that this dog marked the bird, progressed to the AOF and unfortunately ended up upwind and was handled to the mark. My viewpoint.

A agree with greyghost.....also I think a lot is left out when you are "talking" about a setup and results - I'd like to see the dog's reaction at the line, 120 yards is a short mark and you can tell whether or not the dog has a warm and fuzzy about it's location - if the handler fussed with the dog too mauch at the line and was trying to line the dog then I'd wonder (I would still carry the dog - a single handle in a triple doesn't warrent elimination in my book)....also was the dog going out with the attitude it knew there was a bird and it's general location? Or was it plodding along blindly?? It is easy to "say" and "talk" about what a score should be, but I'd rather see the work first hand.......

FOM

SueLab · Feb 4, 2008

FOM said:
A agree with greyghost.....also I think a lot is left out when you are "talking" about a setup and results - I'd like to see the dog's reaction at the line, 120 yards is a short mark and you can tell whether or not the dog has a warm and fuzzy about it's location - if the handler fussed with the dog too mauch at the line and was trying to line the dog then I'd wonder (I would still carry the dog - a single handle in a triple doesn't warrent elimination in my book)....also was the dog going out with the attitude it knew there was a bird and it's general location? Or was it plodding along blindly?? It is easy to "say" and "talk" about what a score should be, but I'd rather see the work first hand.......

FOM

Marking is not attitude, line manners, lining (which by the way, I got disqualified for doing so at a hunt test - the judge thought that the dog did not remember the mark. In realty, the judge did not remember the dog or the handler - he had the wrong sheet and the wrong dog). Each of the above can affect the performance of any particular dog but what determines the marking performance is what happens on the way to and in/near the AOF.

Marking is the skill being tested and although a quick handle in a hunting situation is preferable to letting the dog have a big hunt or run through the area, how can the dog's skill of marking be tested when a dog is handled to a mark? How should that handle compare to the dog that picked up three birds clean with no help? I am not saying that one handle is a failure and I don't think that the seminar presented that either.

Hunting tests and hunting are not the same. Even tho the idea of the hunting tests is to determine those traits that make a nice hunting dog, the standards set by the AKC rulebook to quantify performance, the event situation with a crated dog for most of the day, several holding blinds to the line, and one 5 minute look at performance of the "team" will never replicate a day in the duck blind or a day in the field.

kjrice · Feb 4, 2008

Shouldn't the AOF be the dogs responsibility? IMO, the handle removed that responsibility.

Golddogs · Feb 4, 2008

greyghost said:
Saw the same presentation by Jerry last month at a judges seminar. The reasoning presented was that the judge was not given an an opportunity to score the mark because you handled quickly. So hence the low score for marking. One person's viewpoint.
I don't think that this is a black and white case....which is not unusual when judging. I would score this as a 6. My reasoning is that the dog picked up the first two marks without a problem, the dog preceded to the third mark, reached the area of the fall and ended up upwind of the bird. The handler realizing that his dog is upwind, quickly assists his dog and handles to the mark....TEAMWORK. I would give this handler/dog the benefit of doubt and want to see them at the next series. Would I want to spend a day in the field with this dog/handler...YES....they worked as a team, did not disturb too much ground, made an intelligent decision to aid his dog in getting to the mark. All good. AS CLEARLY STATED IN THE JUDGES GUIDELINES....GIVE THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO THE DOG/HANDLER. This dog clearly made progress to the AOF, ended up upwind, and you assisted your buddy. I believe that this dog marked the bird, progressed to the AOF and unfortunately ended up upwind and was handled to the mark. My viewpoint.

No offense Pete but you are a bit off on this one. We are talking about a Master dog blowing thru the AOF, not reached it. He ws never in the AOF. I have heard the presentation several times and judged the scenario twice, most recently last June. While I bend over backwards to be fair, in a case like this, the handler is doing my job for me. In a marking test, and remember this is a test not real hunting, he has prevented the dog from recovering and finding the mark.It matters when you are scoring the mark. Benefit of the doubt goes only so far. I would give the dog a total 5 for the series and see how he does the rest of the day.
7 is average remember. And we are talking about a Master level dog.

Barry · Feb 4, 2008

SueLab said:
Since you apparently were scoring Marking. I would agree that the third dog did not demonstrate that it knew where the bird fell (AOF)...the dog ran toward and past the gunner. If it did know where the bird fell, the handler took away the dog's ability to establish a hunt in the area - perhaps because he/she was afraid that the dog would run completely through the area. The dog did not establish a hunt on the 3rd bird anywhere.

It seems also that dog two, would be scored lower than either 1 or 3 in Perserverence. That dog did demonstrate that it knew where the third bird fell since it stopped in the AOF to hunt but did not stay in the area to finally get it without the handle.

I agree with Sue except for the fact dog two should not be allowed to play any longer, went to the area gave up the hunt, and was handled back to the area and to the bird that's a flat out failure in my humble FT mind.
While dog three demonstrated he marked something in that general vicinity, got a little deep between the gun and the bird while upwind of the mark, and the handler handled and brought him back to the bird is a much better job then dog two. Also a smart job of handling, knowing that his dog was upwind, and also knowing what's the chances that he can even handle his dog back if he's way out of the area is a good decision.
Switching or Leaving the area of the fall for another bird is a total no no! The handler should have not let him out of the area of the mark, a total no no. That's Two no no's your history.
Not being precise on a mark, and handling is not a big no no.
Rember now i'm just an ordinary FT person.

greyghost · Feb 4, 2008

Chuck....Think about this.
I wouldn't say 10-15 yards beyond the mark is out of the AOF. We train very hard to get our dogs comfortable running past the guns. Not once in the presentation did "blow thru the mark" come into the discussion. I would say that it is perfectly respectable on the last mark to begin the hunt that close to the downed bird. Remember this is the memory bird. You also have the wind factor. Distance was approximately 125 yards if I remember correctly with other terrain factors thrown in that may affect the dog's hearing, and a downside of a hill on the other side of the downed bird.
I will agree that you are taking part of the criteria for judging a mark away from the judges on the memory bird....but as the dog did go to the AOF, was 10-15 yards away from the mark and upwind and was handled too quickly. I would be inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the dog/handler and progress them to the next series. Why wouldn't I do that? The dog has exhibited it knows there are 3 birds down, has picked up 2 cleanly and the handler has a "hiccup" on the memory bird by not giving the dog a chance to work it out.
These are Master Dogs like you said Chuck.

FOM · Feb 4, 2008

SueLab said:
Marking is not attitude, line manners, lining (which by the way, I got disqualified for doing so at a hunt test - the judge thought that the dog did not remember the mark. In realty, the judge did not remember the dog or the handler - he had the wrong sheet and the wrong dog). Each of the above can affect the performance of any particular dog but what determines the marking performance is what happens on the way to and in/near the AOF.

Marking is the skill being tested and although a quick handle in a hunting situation is preferable to letting the dog have a big hunt or run through the area, how can the dog's skill of marking be tested when a dog is handled to a mark? How should that handle compare to the dog that picked up three birds clean with no help? I am not saying that one handle is a failure and I don't think that the seminar presented that either.

Hunting tests and hunting are not the same. Even tho the idea of the hunting tests is to determine those traits that make a nice hunting dog, the standards set by the AKC rulebook to quantify performance, the event situation with a crated dog for most of the day, several holding blinds to the line, and one 5 minute look at performance of the "team" will never replicate a day in the duck blind or a day in the field.

Guess we will disagree, I think attitude has a lot to do with marking.....but that's me......getting to the AOF is only part of the big picture.....

All handles are not created equal, just as not all marking is created equal.....regardless, you have to judge what you see not what it written - that's the bad thing about these online scenarios, you just can't see the whole picture......you know when a dog has marked a bird, you know when a dog hasn't marked the bird, watch enough dogs and you will know which ones run to the guns, which ones flare them....

For example - my dog in a Senior test was taking a wiz on the line as the guns were going off during a walk up.....I knew, the judge knew that he was looking at the gallery, not out in the field, no chance on God's green earth that he "marked" the birds.....yet I line him up, send him off and he front toes the marks.....did he "mark" the birds, we know he didn't, but he sure the hack performed like he did.

Another example, at Waterloo this Fall I watched a AA dog never pull off the short retired gun to look at the flier, even when the guns went off, but the handler picked up the other 2 birds, came back, sent the dog to the flier and he front toes the flier.....was that really a mark??

In the case of the scenario, the dog ran under the arc of the mark - to me he made it to the AOF, showed to me it marked the bird based on where it went - the handler decided to handle.....maybe what we don't know was the wind was in the judge's favor and dogs who had done that previously ended up in no man's land, so the handler played it smart, quick handle, good handler......who knows.....the dog made it to the AOF, showed me as a judge he had an idea where the bird was.....

FOM

Eric Johnson · Feb 4, 2008

"No credit in Marking shall be given if the dog fails to go to the area, establish a hunt and find the bird;..."

We are talking about the marking component of the score for that one series ...correct? We are not talking about the overall score in the series.

In the case in question, the dog never established a hunt which is a requirement for being given credit. I don't judge the handler. I judge the dog. The handler is the one that sold his dog short. He stopped the dog and changed the exercise from a mark into a blind. Sometimes ya' just do what ya' have to do. However, it still took away that mark as a scorable event.

That said....I would score the other two marks and divide by three. Then I would score the dog on Perseverence, Trainabilty, and Style. Chances are, the dog is carried.

Eric

Juli H · Feb 4, 2008

if this was the first dog to run would you have scored differently than if he was run near the end of the series? (ie, bird scent in the AOF)

and as the handler, would you handle the situation differently (handle if the dog was the first dog to run vs. let the dog hunt the aof, knowing there was probably a lot of bird scent on the ground....

Juli

ChrisRobt · Feb 4, 2008

Eric Johnson said:
"No credit in Marking shall be given if the dog fails to go to the area, establish a hunt and find the bird;..."

We are talking about the marking component of the score for that one series ...correct? We are not talking about the overall score in the series.

In the case in question, the dog never established a hunt which is a requirement for being given credit. I don't judge the handler. I judge the dog. The handler is the one that sold his dog short. He stopped the dog and changed the exercise from a mark into a blind. Sometimes ya' just do what ya' have to do. However, it still took away that mark as a scorable event.

That said....I would score the other two marks and divide by three. Then I would score the dog on Perseverence, Trainabilty, and Style. Chances are, the dog is carried.

Eric

The scores the rep used were for the entire series; 7 for the first dog, five for the second dog and a total of three for the dog which was handled on that middle bird. The dog would not be dropped but marking score very weak.

I agree it is difficult to score a scenario by description alone, but this is what we were given at the seminar. The rep was quite adamant that the dog get a low marking score for the series due to being unable to judge that last mark.

Dave Burton · Feb 4, 2008

Had the dog been downwind the same 10 to 15 yrds and was going to blow thru but winded the bird and picked it up with no help got a better score? That dog used his nose not marking and the handler who handled used his brain. Both dogs would have clearly missed the mark. If you don't pick it up your out,if you handle you still might get to play. Thats the way I see it.

How would you score this?

ChrisRobt

Kenneth Niles Bora

ChrisRobt

JeffLusk

ChrisRobt

Howard N

SueLab

greyghost

Ed Hogan

FOM

SueLab

kjrice

Golddogs

Barry

greyghost

FOM

Eric Johnson

Juli H

ChrisRobt

Dave Burton

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities