[labhauler]

Perhaps it might have been worth the delay in starting the test to ask the AKC rep where in the rule books it says you can't use a call. The HT committee are the ones who can ask a judge to change a test if they consider it unsafe. Judges have the last word. Where in the rule book does it say the AKC rep has the last word?
Looking at the posts from judges who use calls in their tests, it strikes me you were overkeen to agree with the AKC's possibly faulty logic. They are human and some of them were judges; not all AKC reps were good judges.

 

[brlcon1]

Can someone correct me if I'm offbasa here , but aren't the AKCreps supposed to be silent observers ?


BRL

 

[K G]

Where is that popcorn-eating icon when you need it......;-)

kg

 

[DarrinGreene]

right next to the Jack Daniels Icon?

 

[Howard N]

Perhaps it might have been worth the delay in starting the test to ask the AKC rep where in the rule books it says you can't use a call. The HT committee are the ones who can ask a judge to change a test if they consider it unsafe. Judges have the last word. Where in the rule book does it say the AKC rep has the last word?
Looking at the posts from judges who use calls in their tests, it strikes me you were overkeen to agree with the AKC's possibly faulty logic. They are human and some of them were judges; not all AKC reps were good judges.

I was thinking the same thing.

Why would an AKC rep say anything if the test is legal?

Seems to me they should be prepared to show the rule for something they say. I really think, in this case, the AKC rep made up his own rules just like judges sometimes do.

 

[Thomas D]

At the same test, I judged the other MH flight. On our walk up we called from the line during the walk up signaling the throw and shot from the field. No sitting until the bird was in the air. Several dogs did stop on the call, but we did not ding them for that. AKC rep was happy.

He did tell us that our instructions were correct ( no stopping on the call, but on the bird in the air).

 

[badbullgator]

I was thinking the same thing.

Why would an AKC rep say anything if the test is legal?

Seems to me they should be prepared to show the rule for something they say. I really think, in this case, the AKC rep made up his own rules just like judges sometimes do.

Who said the rep said it was a rule??? John has yet to show me where it says a call Shall or MUST be used on a walk up

 

[david gibson]

Gee Corey you have been on here long enough to know that everyone knows more than you and knows more about the tests you sat up and judged even though they were many states away. Wow the value of rtf!! Always get more than you want or ask for!

 

[badbullgator]

Gee Corey you have been on here long enough to know that everyone knows more than you and knows more about the tests you sat up and judged even though they were many states away. Wow the value of rtf!! Always get more than you want or ask for!

Sage advice David

PS- I have my big boy pants on so it is all good

 

[Miriam Wade]

Gee Corey you have been on here long enough to know that everyone knows more than you and knows more about the tests you sat up and judged even though they were many states away. Wow the value of rtf!! Always get more than you want or ask for!

Alex-I'd like testosterone for $500 please! (or is that buying a clue?!?)

Double Jeopardy Regards-

M

 

[john fallon]

John has yet to show me where it says a call Shall or MUST be used on a walk up

What the rules do say is that.. In order to evaluate a dog's marking ability, dogs must (MUST) be able to see the bird as it goes up into the air and as it falls.....................

I'll leave it to you when judging how you accomplish this "mandate". For me, I'll make it simple ........I'll call their attention to the mark;-)

john

 

[Guest]

What the rules do say is that.. In order to evaluate a dog's marking ability, dogs must (MUST) be able to see the bird as it goes up into the air and as it falls.....................

I'll leave it to you when judging how you accomplish this "mandate". For me, I'll make it simple ........I'll call their attention to the mark;-)

john

Must be able to SEE it... Not must WATCH it...

There are plenty of times, even with attention-getters, that dogs don't WATCH a mark even though they CAN see it (if they looked that way and were paying attention like they should be).

-K

 

[labhauler]

At the same test, I judged the other MH flight. On our walk up we called from the line during the walk up signaling the throw and shot from the field. No sitting until the bird was in the air. Several dogs did stop on the call, but we did not ding them for that. AKC rep was happy.

He did tell us that our instructions were correct ( no stopping on the call, but on the bird in the air).

It almost seems the AkC rep interfered with the other stake to see what would happen without the call. In that case he is beyond his area of authorization.

Who said the rep said it was a rule??? John has yet to show me where it says a call Shall or MUST be used on a walk up

BBGator- if the rule book makes no mention of using calls, that is not the reason not to use one - the reverse-if there is no rule against, then there is no reason why not. Maybe a gray area - and there are many of those which BTW did he ask you to take it out or tell you?
is why FT judges voted against changes in rules going from should to shall. That would have removed many gray areas that judges need so that on the spot decisions can be made without being over-regulated by the AKC . BTW AKC reps would get thrown out on their ear if they tried anything like that at a field trial.
The only reason they get away with this type of bullying at HTs is that many of the participants havent been around as long as the FTers and dont realize they can say Boo to the AKC.
In which case BBGator- you could have and probably should have. Blustering about stay away from your jduging assignments is merely that - I think Monday a.m. QBing has made you realize you fell into a trap.

 

[fishduck]

The pop of the gun should cause a well trained dog to look at the mark. The normal sequence is "Boom" then throw. A friend ran that test and remarked that he was suprised at the number of dogs that didn't see the mark. Running to the line ahead of the handler can and should cause problems. He said the dogs that were at heel nailed the test. The dogs running ahead looking for the line dropped themselves. The walkup is a control test.

Mark L.

 

[john fallon]

Must be able to SEE it... Not must WATCH it...

There are plenty of times, even with attention-getters, that dogs don't WATCH a mark even though they CAN see it (if they looked that way and were paying attention like they should be).

-K

Does a pop at the top of the arc allow enougn time for a dog to see the mark as it goes up into the air and as it falls


john

 

[Guest]

Does a pop at the top of the arc allow enougn time for a dog to see the mark as it goes up into the air and as it falls


john

The dog should be watching for the birds, period. When you hunt, you don't shoot the moment you see the bird... Dogs should be able to recognize that bird. Personally, I PREFER attention getters, but I feel the dogs should be able to see the bird in the scenario as prevented.

Yes, the dogs can SEE the bird it's entire path. Whether the dog actually WATCHES it is another thing... The point of the word "SEE" is to prevent judges from obstructing the fall of the bird.

-K

 

[labhauler]

Gee Corey you have been on here long enough to know that everyone knows more than you and knows more about the tests you sat up and judged even though they were many states away. Wow the value of rtf!! Always get more than you want or ask for!

What you dont get is that people are concerned that this judge allowed the AKC rep to interfere with a test- did not interfere with the other stake - and that affected a high percentage of the running dogs- that if the test had been run as originally set up may have done a good job and gone home with another ribbon- and more importantly - another leg .
The forum is not criticising the test - you're right we weren't there- I for one am concerned the dogs were unjustly penalized because of the AKC rep's interference.

 

[Doug Main]

I was thinking the same thing.

Why would an AKC rep say anything if the test is legal?

Seems to me they should be prepared to show the rule for something they say. I really think, in this case, the AKC rep made up his own rules just like judges sometimes do.

Normally they wouldn't.

However, as Master requires a walk-up and as Corey pointed out:

Give Jerry Mann a call and see what the AKC's take is on attention getters PRIOR to the bird being thrown in a walk up. There was a porrpe fired as the bird was thrown. With attention getters the handlers will sit the dog at the first hint of a sound and then it is no longer a wlak up and no different form walking to the line and sitting your dog.

I'm guessing maybe the judges told the handlers they could sit the dogs on 1st sound instead of when the bird is in the air. Jerry suggested taking the call out as a way to make the test legal. It certainly is not the only way, as pointed out by one of the judges in the other flight. Just don't have the handlers sit until bird is in the air. ;-)

At the same test, I judged the other MH flight. On our walk up we called from the line during the walk up signaling the throw and shot from the field. No sitting until the bird was in the air. Several dogs did stop on the call, but we did not ding them for that. AKC rep was happy.

He did tell us that our instructions were correct ( no stopping on the call, but on the bird in the air).

Just maybe it wasn't the "attention getter" that was the problem. ;-)

Now, I wasn't there and don't have any idea what was going on with the dogs. However, when 50% of the master dogs aren't seeing the bird, there is usually an issue. There could be a whole slew of reasons. JMHO

 

[badbullgator]

What you dont get is that people are concerned that this judge allowed the AKC rep to interfere with a test- did not interfere with the other stake - and that affected a high percentage of the running dogs- that if the test had been run as originally set up may have done a good job and gone home with another ribbon- and more importantly - another leg .
The forum is not criticising the test - you're right we weren't there- I for one am concerned the dogs were unjustly penalized because of the AKC rep's interference.

You know now you are starting to PISS me off. You did not see the test, you were not at the test, you do not know me or how I judge. You do not know what went on between my cojudeg and myself or between us and the rep.THE REP DID NOT MAKE MYSELF OR THE OTHER JUDGE TAKE OUT THE CALL BUT RATHER SUGGESTED WE DON’T USE ONE. You do not even know how many dogs passed the test and I ASSURE YOU NONE WERE DROPPED FOR NOT MARKING THIS PARTICULAR MARK WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH MY TEST OR HOW IT WAS RUN PLEASE PM ME AND I WILL GIVE YOU MY NUMBER AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. IF YOU CONTINUE TO CALL ME OUT AND ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY YOUR POSITION AT MY EXPENCE IT WILL GET UGLY.
AS I SAID SEVERAL TIMES NOW MARK DOWN MY NAME AND PUT ME ON YOUR DO NOT RUN UNDER LIST IF YOU DON”T LIKE IT

 

[john fallon]

g... The point of the word "SEE" is to prevent judges from obstructing the fall of the bird.

-K

That the dog could see the bird if Dame Fortune was smiling in its direction is not the point of contention here

It is the seting up a test configured or exicuted in such a manner that there is the likelyhood of a high percentage not doing so that is.

"Never set up a test designed to trick a dog......."

john