RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

GENERALLY SPEAKING, when handling a retriever, does "out of sight equal out of control?"

  • Yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am a HUGE fan of field trials. I have been for over twenty-years, even though I have NEVER ran one. I share the same appetite for the history of the sport as Junbe, so we have become fast friends. And he often helps me feed my appetite by supplying me with names of books I should read.

For this weekend's FT he brough down MAKE IT HAPPEN, CAPTAIN by Gene Starkloff for me to read. While I found much of Starkloff to be dated, one of his axioms I found curiously convincing --

"When a dog is out of sight, he is out of control."

With my background in hunt tests, I find that to be at least contemporarily and generally speaking more true with HTers, than with the field trialers I hang with. IMO, FTers are much more willing to let their dogs hunt out of sight for marks than HTers who want to keep tighter control.

Why do I say "generally speaking?" Because I can envision tests, such as blinds, where I give a dog a line where it temporarily enters and exits heavy cover. It is not in there long enought to be "out of control." I am thinking more of when a dog, on marks, crosses a burm, and the handler doesn't have a clue what the dog is up to, or even if it will return! Or if the mark falls just inside one or two rows of corn, and the dog overshoots it, so deep you can't track the movement of the dog. Or the dog disappears behing a hill/mound/island such that the handler sufficiently loses sight and therefore the ability to fully handle. Does that handler still have "control" of such dogs? Does he have more choices than a "come-in whistle?"

Has the handler transfered the job of recovering the mark overly-so to the dog, instead of keeping it a team job?

What I am wondering is if, in your opinion, does "generally speaking, out of sight = out of control?"

When you reply, please indicate if you are a HTer of a FTer.

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Since I mostly play in the HT end of trialing, other than the NFRA Open, I feel that more emphasis of OOS=OOC is placed there, versus FT due the increased distances in marks and blinds.

Because of the distance differences in FT's the dawg can be out of site for certain lengths of time due to terrain changes such as levies, ditches, gullies, etc. But if the dawg is truely advancing toward the bird with a purpose, and co-operating as a team member, the team should not suffer for the momentary visual loses. Though when the dawg fails to respond as a team member and becomes unruly and uncooperative resulting in visual contact being lossed, then IMO OOS=OOC becomes a factor.

The HT games seems to put more weight in the OOS=OOC factor due to set-ups and distances, and the very nature of the test set-ups. Again, it is usually the dawg that has become un-cooperative as a team member, that works themselves into a OOS=OOC condition, there by putting the team in jeopardy of a DQ.

Nazdrowie.................. :drinking:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
oos-ooc

well is the dog ooc if oos ? maybe not on the hunt for a mark and not
for a long time but surly when handling on a mark or a blind
as the father of handling ( Dave Elliot for those who may not know who he was)
told me oos=ooc as you no longer have contact with the dog and
he-she is hunting on their own at that point and could be disturbing
to much of an unhunted area there for should be judged ooc and
dropped
oc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,620 Posts
AmiableLabs said:
]What I am wondering is if, in your opinion, does "generally speaking, out of sight = out of control?"

When you reply, please indicate if you are a HTer of a FTer.

Thanks.
The rule which mentions being out of sight is for blind retrieves, not marks.....dogs don't know when they're out of sight hunting for a mark.....now if out of sight is 100 yards from the AOF, then one could say that the dog had "failed the mark", but if the crest of a hill is 20 yards deep of a 300 yard mark, being out of sight is well within the boundaries of the AOF

Out of sight on a blind retrieve means for a considerable period of time....if the blind is set up in a manner that there are portions of the blind when the dog is out of sight when online, then one could hardly assume that constitutes being out of control since the dog is where it's supposed to be

As with many rules, pulling a few words out of context and them trying to make those words the essence of the rule is incorrect

Good judges set up blinds where dogs that are not under good control will go out of sight OFF LINE to the the blind, and that is what the rule is for.

Out of sight on a mark is irrelevant unless out of sight is well out of the bounds of where a dog should be hunting, then the issue is not whether the dog is in or out of sight but that is does not know where the mark is

P.S. I did not vote 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
Can anyone name the event where "out of sight=out of control" and the resultant unorthodox placement of the dogs as a result of incorrect use of the dogma, resulted in a significant change in AKC FT regulations?

Lisa
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
I don't think that OOS=OOC in all situations (some yes) for the reasons that Ed stated. But I will say that you can't judge a dog that you can't see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,620 Posts
Cray said:
I don't think that OOS=OOC in all situations (some yes) for the reasons that Ed stated. But I will say that you can't judge a dog that you can't see.
then judges who object to dogs "being out of sight" shouldn't set up tests where they are out of sight when they are in a reasonable place to be on the test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
Ed,

I have had that famous statement said to me just one time - "You can't judge what you can't see".

My response - "I can see the area of the fall just fine - thank you."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Cray said:
I don't think that OOS=OOC in all situations (some yes) for the reasons that Ed stated. But I will say that you can't judge a dog that you can't see.
Nor can the handler handle a dog s/he cannot see. Which provoked the question in the first place. If I cannot give more than a comeback whistle, just how much control do I have over it?!?! :shock:

Looking at the answers here, and given that they are in exact accord with the answers I got this weekend, it seems to me that on marks HTers tend to think of themselves and their dogs as more of a team than FTers. Like one FTer friend said to me this weekend, "Getting the mark is entirely the dog's responsibility." I have never had nor heard that mentality at HTs.

It seems to me there is nothing wrong with different answers, as they are currently different games.

But at the same time, the devil's advocate in me asks, then why do sometimes I work so hard to give it a line? :lol::wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
then judges who object to dogs "being out of sight" shouldn't set up tests where they are out of sight when they are in a reasonable place to be on the test.
Ed, you have just described the situation behind the trial I described. It was the American Chesapeake Club's 1990 specialty trial, Qualifying stake. The water blind was tough enough, but the judges set it up so the blind was planted five yards in front of a beaver dam. Any dog going past the dam would be "momentarily" out of sight. They dropped every dog that went over the dam. Folks, we are talking mere feet here.

A couple of experienced (and thus, wise) handlers held their dogs tight to the line and boxed them at the end, but at least they didn't get past the blind and over the dam. The judges decided none of the dogs that finished had done AA work, so handed out 3rd, 4th, no RJ and one or two JAMs. The situation was written up in RFTN "Judges' Corner" and was talked up quite a bit on the circuits. The upshot was that the RAC recommended that the rules be changed to read that there should be no gaps between placements, and placements should not have gaps in front of them (i.e., if you withhold 1st, you should withhold everything).

Chapter 5, Section 4, Paragraph 2:

As a matter of general policy, this Section means that Judges may withhold all placements, or any placements following placed dogs, provided vacant placements do not occur between placed dogs, or between placed dogs and Judges Awards of Merit. Whenever a placement is withheld, no additional placements or Judges Awards of Merit (including Reserve) can be awarded after the withheld placement.
I was there, and thought it was the most bizarre thing I had ever seen. I had never heard of judges withholding placements in retriever trials before, in such a checkerboard fashion. Pointer trials, sure, but not retrievers.

Lisa
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Ed Aycock said:
Cray said:
I don't think that OOS=OOC in all situations (some yes) for the reasons that Ed stated. But I will say that you can't judge a dog that you can't see.
then judges who object to dogs "being out of sight" shouldn't set up tests where they are out of sight when they are in a reasonable place to be on the test.

I'll agree with that Ed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,856 Posts
OSS=OC

Being predominately a hunt tester, then field trialer, I have to say, NO out of sight does not necessarily mean out of control, on marks. A particular test may change during the course of the day, and how the dogs perceives that test has to be considered and judged accordingly. If a dog drives deep of a memory mark over a crest of a hill, breaks down, comes in to hunt out the mark, but was out of sight for a short period of time. Will I drop him if he was out of sight but working out this mark in a reasonable period of time, HECK NO!.... Common sense. There are lots of times during hunt testing this does occure. A judge has to judge accordingly, and also judge what they set up. Now blinds are another story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
AmiableLabs said:
Looking at the answers here, and given that they are in exact accord with the answers I got this weekend, it seems to me that on marks HTers tend to think of themselves and their dogs as more of a team than FTers. Like one FTer friend said to me this weekend, "Getting the mark is entirely the dog's responsibility." I have never had nor heard that mentality at HTs.
Think about it. If you handle in a trial, you are normally dropped in the first series and JAM or get nothing if it is in the last series. If you let the dog hunt, the judge has to make the decision.

Even in hunt tests, there is a rule "A dog that goes to the area of the fall and finds the bird unaided shall be scored appreciably higher than a dog that must be handled to a bird"
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top