[T. Mac]

And that's all well and good, I can still pick a winner out of the three as I'm sure you could. And it's no different than the one I had before. Sure it would be nice to have more to go on, but there isn't more. Based on the marks themselves the dogs still had to get there and come up with the bird. They still are judged on marking alone. I still come up with a winner with the rule book thrown out the window. Why can't Ted?

I think it's because marking to him has to many variables.Depth of fall, hunting short, pinpoint marking vs small hunt in the area which is all well and good. Make a decision. To me that all means Close, but no cigar. Who got the bird with less effort. Judge what you see.

I think what Ted is saying is that after 3 previous series of identical work, and with the results of this series as all that you have to differentiate between the 3 dogs, you do not have enough information to make that decision. And certainly not without making assumptions about each of the dog's work, especially dogs 1 and 3. While you and others seem to be partial to dog 3 based upon its straight lines, you assume that it was marking the fall and might not actually be marking the birdboy sitting up on the levee. And if it did mark the lateral position, it did not mark the depth that accurately. You assume that dog 1 winded the bird when this might not be the case and the dog just took what it thought was the fastest and most expedient route to the bird. Not to knock Jim's drawings as they are much better than the drawings I make judging hunt tests, but they are very short on notations as to what the judges "saw" that might make the selection easier. And there is always something that the judges sees with respect to each dogs work, other than just the lines to the bird, that they use in their decisions.

It is easy to say that training shouldn't play a role, but it is hard to imagine a dog competing at any level of HT or FT work who hasn't had a little training. And to have 2-3 dogs competing for the blue ribbon in a ft one must believe that they have had several months of training; having completed their yard work and transition training; and have had hundreds of marks thrown for them. Many are probably working on the de-cheating stuff and angle entries depending on age.

Based on this dogs quickly begin to associate gunners with the presence of birds in the field, learning to hunt off the guns. Any or all of the dogs in our scenario may have been hunting off the gun and not actually marking the fall of the memory bird. But then we could also assume that both dog 1 and 2 used the wind to find the bird, which is a positive trait and is to be rewarded. True, if dog 3 had front footed the memory bird, things could be seen differently, but it didn't. And if dog 2 didn't fishhook both birds,..., but it didn't. Again, there is no notations or implications presented to give us any idea of dogs focus, style, speed, attitude on the line, or any other indicator that they knew where the birds were other than their paths. And a straight line on a piece of paper does not necessarily indicate a mark and as much as a banana path does not indicate a lack of a mark.

 

[T. Mac]

I don't think it's me that is partial to dog 3 if you read my post I liked dog 2.
...

Don't have to assume, it was obvious from being down wind.
..
Look at the drawing's, that's exactly what happened.
...

Barry,

Sorry for the miss statement on your preference, as this topic has spread over several threads and hundreds of posts. Please remember that I said that if I had to pick a dog from these three I'd also pick dog 2. I was only saying in the immediate post above that Ted was differing as he did not think he has enough information to make a selection, and that I agreed that he had that right as the differences between the 3 dogs were scant. I believe if he and I were judging, we'd probably be running another series. But then I don't think he or I would have set a test like that one knowing that we had (at least) 3 dogs in such tight contention after 3 series, and hence knowing their capabilities.

I said at least three dogs as another item that may have been missed is that other dogs were involved in this other than the three presented. I believe in one of the threads Jim posts the names of the dogs in the ribbons and mentions that it was his dog that was dog #3 in this hypothetical and that it got RJ for the test; http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34814 post #127. I do not remember if he identified the other 2 dogs or their placements. So are we looking at just the dogs competing for third place? And if so, is there some history as to what happened in the previous series that dropped them to third? Or were there 2 other dogs that smacked this test? If so, how were they seperated? Or were there really 5 dogs bunched and this test used to seperate all 5, but only 3 examples posted?

Believe me I have studied the drawing many times. As my new pup is just about to start her derby career, this thread is of great interest. If you say you are sure that dog 1 winded the bird, I will ask you how high was the levee? If the levee was 3+ feet tall, then I doubt that the dog winded bird 2 as it would be in a scent shadow on the backside of the levee. Of course if judging or actually watching this test, we'd both have benefit on how other dogs did and where exactly the scent cone is located. But again the drawing doesn't show us. Or if it does for bird 2, then dog 1 hadn't made it to the scent cone before it made its turn for the bird. Look where dog 2 was when it entered the scent cone and draw that line on out and across the road. Looks to be the same path as dog 3 doesn't it? If we assume that dog 2 winded the bird, and dog 3 followed thae same line, did dog 3 wind the bird also? And if dog 1 doesn't come close to this line and we are saying that is the scent cone, how do we say that it winded the bird? And wouldn't it have been drawn into the gun station from the scent coming off their birds?

Just some points to consider.

T. Mac