The Evolution of Field Trials

[kawarthalabs]

Having just finished the field trial season here in Ontario I have a few questions for the veteran campaigners as well as the new folks just starting to run trials.
This past summer I ran my 2 yr. old female in the qualifying stake here in Ont. We saw indented triples w retired guns,blinds run off the same mat outside the marks,a land blind thru the marks w a retired gun,a long water blind tight to visible gunners,retired guns on the water and some difficult angle entries on water blinds where the water was not visible to the dog from the line.All these test were great fun to run and also to watch.The gallery talk focused usually on the difficulty of these tests and perhaps theses types of concepts should be more for the all age stakes.
Now the questions.Should these concepts be seen in the qualifying stake?Is the difficulty level increasing because the dogs are better or are our training methods better? Have the pros had an impact on the quality of the tests we are seeing? Is this just the game evolving to the level of the dogs? It seems that all stakes are increasing in difficulty and do you see this as good for our game?
Lets have some good discussion here as there are many points we can talk about.
Thanks Tony.

[Anna Scott]

At one of the last quals I ran this passed season a gentleman came up to me after and said he had been in the FT games many years ago and had had FT champions. He then went on to say what a good job my dog had done on the test and that he was not sure that his past champions could have done as well . I think having talked with people who have been in the game for a long time that yes the tests are evolving and it does have to do with the number of sources of information that there are to help trainers do a better job. We were once told by a judge that if they chose to they could throw a triple in a junior. The rule book simply states multiple marks itdoes not specify a double. Not sure if they were just yanking our chain or not. If you read the Field trial rule book there is little direction for setting tests. It is left to the discretion of the judges.

[3 black dogs]

Tony we did see some pretty tough tests this year and the dogs are better trained than 10-15 years ago let alone 25-30. I train with one of the few people who ran in the first tests in Canada and on several ocassions I have heard the word crap come out of his mouth. He has talked about the need for good bird placement in tests rather than the extreme tests you see. On several occasions I have ran tests put together by him and all the dogs had a tough time with the senario and there were more than just qual dogs running. so In a way the game is headed in the wrong direction but also with the refinement of the training methods we are advancing as the judges feel they have to throw everything including the kitchen sink at todays dogs.

As for the pro's I don't think the training methods would have advanced with out them as fast as they have.

I do think that there are several people who are judging that put together these test should actually try training thier dogs themselves for a while. The only down fall I have seen is the different style of tests you see going from area to area and to who trains the judges dog generaly the style of test will be what they have seen training and running the dogs under thier chossen professional I am in no way saying there is any favertisim shown towards thier pro this I have not seen but definatly the style

Chris

[Labber]

3 black dogs wrote:

He has talked about the need for good bird placement
This is the sign of an experienced trainer and judge, and it puts us handlers in school when you get to see it. It's not always an easy thing to do in Junior & Qual. You get last pick of the grounds, sometimes with overlap from another stake.


I do think that there are several people who are judging that put together these test should actually try training thier dogs themselves for a while
Amen!

The only down fall I have seen is the different style of tests you see going from area to area and to who trains the judges dog generaly the style of test will be what they have seen training and running the dogs under thier chossen professional I am in no way saying there is any favertisim shown towards thier pro this I have not seen but definatly the style

Actually I see this as a positive.
It helps find and title dogs that are well rounded and it keeps handlers (including pro's ) challanged with new ideas.
Anna wrote:

We were once told by a judge that if they chose to they could throw a triple in a junior.

It has been done in the States from time to time.
I think it would be best to avoid it but under certain circumstances,(grounds)
it may be called for.

Kawarthalabs wrote:


Should these concepts be seen in the qualifying stake?
Qualifying is for finding dogs that are ready to move up into all-age, primarily anyways. I think there needs to be some easing into the difficulties, as the trial and the trial season progresses. I wouldn't want to set anything too technical for a first series, and lose 3/4 of the field, but you are looking for the best dog, and unlike Junior, it's not just natural talent you are seeking.


Is the difficulty level increasing because the dogs are better or are our training methods better?
both



Have the pros had an impact on the quality of the tests we are seeing?
Definately, and IMO, a good one.


Is this just the game evolving to the level of the dogs?
It always has, and I think it will continue too.
We enjoy better hunting dogs because of it.


It seems that all stakes are increasing in difficulty and do you see this as good for our game?

Whenever there is competition, this will be the case.
I don't think it hurts the game, really. Amateurs can still compete against the pro's. They just have to work every bit as hard as the pro's. And you don't have to go south every winter to be competitve, you just have to be patient and accept that your dog may not show its water talents until a little later in the season.

If I am wrong in any of my opinions, I'll just deny I said it.

[Drew Good]

We were once told by a judge that if they chose to they could throw a triple in a junior.

It has been done in the States from time to time.
I think it would be best to avoid it but under certain circumstances,(grounds)
it may be called for.



Actually there was a thread the other day on RTF about this ( that you have to be prepared for it as it is done from time to time), also mentioned distances in Derby can be up to 400 yards with 300 being common.

Drew

[Lpgar]

I tryed to reply to this yesterday to have it disappear into cyber space...but I shall try again seeing that I do feel passionate about this topic.

Having developed an All Age Dog over the past 5 trial seasons I have seen the evolution of the game first hand. The Qualifying stake has definately changed since I ran my first season. And....This a Good thing.

I had opportunity to run a Qual in the US in Western Alabama at the Prison Farm this March. Ran it....because I had to be home before the Amateur would have ended...and besides...Maggie isn't US QAA anyway. It had 62 competing Dogs in the stake....probably 55 of them run by US pros. The tests they set up had to be seen to be believed. The First was a Long Retired Triple...shot out of order... The first bird down was out of the main picture at 80yrds....the Second was the long Retired (460yrds)...the go bird the flyer at 160yrds....The line to the retired was over the Flyer crates. With land factors and wind factors leading the Dogs away from the test. The Land water-blind (by invitation after running those marks)was a 250yrd with a 150 yrd entry run into the wind. The fourth was a short retired triple with the stand out behind the retired station and a on Land go-bird causing a cheat when sent for the retired. Quite the test for sure....with a huge fail rate right from the get go. This was a Wonderful trial.....Not because I placed in it...but because the Judges did thier job and made it happen. The winner was outright the best Job of the Trial.

OK....so have things changed....Definately...The Dogs are much improved because of Breeding..and Training Methods. This is a trickle down in Qual starting at the Open Level. The Pros are keeping Dogs in Qual longer than they did 5 yrs ago. So....those dogs are much better trained and the enteries are bigger and tougher than ever. To get separation....You need tough tests. The Professional component isn't hurting the game...It improves it greatly. I know of many Amateurs that the Pros don't want to compete against as they are that good.

Is this a Good thing.....Very Much Definately. Anything that improves the game and the Dogs is a positive.

Would I like to see the above Qualifying in Canada.....probably won't ever have the opportunity to run one like that here....The quality of those 62 Dogs was incredible and they needed to be judged....and the grounds like I have never seen given to a minor stake judge.

In closing...the game has to evolve.... That way the trill of the Blue will always be there.

[captainjack]

God bless America - lets not jump on the band wagon so quickly! Our game is not the same game as the US game and I am not sure that I would like to see it go that way.

What you are talking about are US derbies and US qualifyings - (400yard marks and triples in junior and tests that only a few dogs can do and are at an all-age level ). I am not sure that many other than dogs on a Pro Truck or pro trained or with some of us that have the time and opportunity, grounds and resources to train at that level would be able to compete as they are also finding out in the US!

LOC had 30 junior dogs this summer. 30 dogs started but in the last test there were 15 dogs remaining....13 protrained dogs and only 2 amateur trained dogs. Most of the amateurs were on their way home after the first test.

I personally have no problem training and competing at that level, but do I want to see less amateurs in our game - I don't think so! We live close enough to the US and if that is what we want to do we can go there and run their trials as many of us do, but don't saddle the rest of the people. Jerry Younglove ran my derby dog Shire at North Florida last weekend. Hugh Arthur (pro) finished 6 dogs and Jerry took 3rd with Shire - no other dogs finished the trial - now doesn't that sound like fun for the other competitors.

In one breath we want to encourage new people into the game, see cross over from hunt tests to field trials and vice-versa and in the next breath we want to put out tests that are out of the reach of many amateurs.

I do not want to see our game progress to the mickey-mouse level, but a good judge especially in the minor stakes can put out challenging tests which will find the winner without murdering the field. I am sick and tired of seeing technical tests to find winners in minor stakes because the judges can not set up anything else.

Why are there more dogs and less people - god bless America! Let us remember that you are talking about what is good for the Canadian game. And as the trials are put on by the amateur - I am also concerned about what is good for the amateur trainer and handler.

Sorry but I am also passionate on this subject.

Peter

[North of 7]

Well put Peter. Just to add a pet peave of mine. If you look at trial results across Canada Ont seems to hate to give out cm's at the rate of other areas.
I think Ont has the biggest entries and the least amount of finishers at trials.
Judges have to stop setting up trials with a predetermined standard in their mind and judge the dogs to the field at hand because they will tell you if the tests are to tough or easy.
Jim

[3 black dogs]

Hey Jim You interested in Judging next year???????


Chris

[Lpgar]

That is exactly what I said....Judges need to Judge the field. If there are 62 Pro Trained High end Dogs in a field...the tests needed for separation are going to be Unfortunately Undoable to some at the trail.

If the club does it's Job and provides good Judging and good grounds for a Minor stake like Qual.... There would be opportunity for the Judges to do their Job no matter of the entry size. Unfortunately We don't see this every weekend.

Not sure what the answer is... suggested the Possiblity of our club hosting an Owner Handled Qualifying stake (like done in the US (god bless them) by some clubs at a Fall Trial) and was told the stake does not exist in Canada...and probably wouldn't be supported to a success anyway.

The Qualifying Stake I feel is the entry level for alot of beginner handlers in Field Trials.....and there should be a way of getting some level of accomplishment by these Amateurs...but tough to do when the entry's are 3/4 Pro run. Your right Jim....More Greenies would help...I know our club buys lots of them for the Judges to hand out.....but altimately they have to award them.


Gar

[North of 7]

I don't disagree with you Gar but if test were set up more with terain and bird placement in mind and not technical tests this would be more what Qual and junior are meant to be in my mind and this would more level the playing field between AM and Pro and inturn would encourage the Am to play the game and learn how to get to the next level. Minor stakes are more about natueal ability then trianability.
Just to end with saying there is nothing in rule book that says you should drop at least half the field after a test which happens way to often. With that said we all know that SH..T can happen with a test but not all the time.

Jim

[captainjack]

The reason that some US clubs went to an owner handler qualifying in the states especially the south is because in the winter, spring and late fall the club member has no chance with the influx of northern pros. And as you found out Gar in your 62 qualifying it was no longer a qualifying stake as will be the case next weekend where they have 60 qualfiying dogs and 39 derby dogs and a multiple of pros.
In Ontario, we have 7 pros running most weekends - thus the same problem. Tests are set up for the pro trained dog or the advanced amateur trainer and one can expect retired guns, blinds thru the marks, long water entries, converging and tight marks, and the list goes on. The club member who wants to work and run their dog - get the opportunity to work only.
Would a owner handler qualifying work ?- I do not see why not. Our qualifyings allow one to win 5 qualifyings. Which would mean that many master hunter dogs who have no other challenges in the hunt test could have alot of fun running field trials - fun if they were not competing against such a high all-age standard.
I would expect that if the test were more reasonable you may see a cross over of senior and master hunter dogs running. More club members would be inclined to enter their dogs if they felt that they had a chance to run a few tests and thus numbers would not suffer. Also, I would expect pros would encourage their handlers to run their dogs.
Would this hurt the pros. You would have to ask them, but most pros are not training for qualifying - they are training for the open. Their clients want open dogs. Their set ups once thru basics are open all-age set ups and that is why they can run qualifyings that have all-age concepts. So not having a qualifying stake to run should not hurt their training. Ask the pros how many would run a dog on their truck until it won 5 qualifyings - I would expect 0.
If that rule of 5 qualifyings was put in to encourage people not looking or able to run open to have a place to play then why not let them play?
I support the professionals, they allow us who want to play at the extreme level to play, they share their knowledge and help us, our clubs and the game in many ways. But, I would support a owner handler qualifying for many reasons.
The level of difficulty has progressed to such a level in the qualifying and derby stake because we the field trial community have allowed it. If the field trial community wants an owner handler qualifying stake, it is only a matter of contacting your CKC rep and asking that it be put in or call the CKC show and trials division and ask directly.
Clubs that do not want to run such a stake would have the option to run an ordinary qualifying. Handlers and trainers that are not interested in running
their dogs at this level can concentrate on open and amateur - these are suppose to be the all-age stakes!
I have been concerned for many years and that is why I ask the question - how will this sport survive with more dogs and less people???? In the US, they are trying to take some positive steps for their club members. But for some reason, we appear to be reluctant. Someone asked what we felt about a club holding a qualifying stake and a master hunter stake at the same event? I would love to see an owner handler qualifying and master hunter stake at the same event on a regular basis as was suggested by Gar.

Peter

[LeeW]

Just did a quick search on the WRC web site check out the placings for the trials they had listed and this is what I came up with.


Of the possible 28 placings in the Qualifiying stake Amatures took 17 placings and the pros took 11 .
This was the ontario circuit only



Thank you Lee Woodhouse

[ducksoup]

Great posts from everybody -- especially liked the thoughts brought up by Jim, Peter, Chris, Gar, and Lee --I'm looking at going into Qualifying next year -- and the few I watched were certainly more difficult than 20 years ago -- but then the FT game is different -- training is better -- more really good dogs -- like it or not there is an influence from the USA at least in training/handling but also in FT tests too -- and these and other factors have contributed to harder setups even in the minor stakes -- we train our dogs to do the work -- maybe like those who run HTs but are training like us Whiteshirts, the key is to train for the Open All-Age stake as our goal whether at a minor stake level still or not (and I think most successful FTers do so already) -- obviously if doing so we modify the setups somewhat -- but the concepts should be learned early on -- just my $0.02 worth (but with our Can $ doing so well, worth just a little more these days)

[blackstorm]

I have been running field trials in the States and Canada for over 20 years. I have seen the evolution of the qualifying stake in the states and they are running tests now that are harder than open tests from the 1980's. I think that the current crop of dogs are a positive step in the evolution of the bloodlines of our working dogs which I consider good.

Where I think the greatest problem is in judging these fine talented animals. The problem as I see it are judges that have not put the time in training a dog. I see too many tests where the judges have seen a concept or test done elsewhere and try to replicate it. This in itself should be encouraged and this is not bad but the problem is the concept or test may not lend themselves when set up on different grounds. What I would like to see more of is good bird placement where the dog either knows or dosen't where the bird is. And if the test is constructed well the dog has to overcome the factors in front of them. In blinds I like to see dogs handle through good varied terrain and factors and they will either do it or they won't. The dog that wins should have demonstrated that they knew where the birds were and presevered in getting them and they worked well with their handler in over coming and challenging the elements of a test.

But the most common problem(s) I have seen is poor test design and mechanics. Like land tests run into the morning sun, Blinds where the dog while on line goes out of site for extended periods of time, and the big one for me is scrapping a test and not finding suitable new grounds away from the scrapped test. In these tests I think the greatest disservice has been done to new comers who were not given a fair shake in a test. I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of people I have met who ran a test like these and were never to be heard from again.

I was lucky in that I found a mentor who had several titled dogs in Canada and finally made it to an American National. But what he and others in my original training group taught me was how to set up training concepts as well as testing concepts which has been invaluable. I have also been lucky to have judged with some of the best co judges in both countries who again have taught me so many great tips. The one area that I think is lacking is that there are so few people who are interested in learning the why. What I mean is evenybody wants to learn how to handle their dog and when but seldom are they interested in the why. A large majority of handlers now have utilized a pro for some or all of their dogs training. This is neither good or bad but a reality that is facing this sport in both countries. I think that pros have been instrumental in the development of these superior animals to such a very high caliber. I like most people who browse internet forums desire or want to get the one missing piece to advance my training program. The sad fact of the matter is that to advance the human element of our sport to be on an equal footing with our canine companions can only be accomplished via the actual training in the field. I know that there is great books and video's out there and I own my fair share of them. But the best training information I have recieved has been out in the field when my dog has done something that I can't readily understand. This I think is the value of a training group especially if they can be honest in their evaluation of what you and the dog have done. The one area where I think most pro's have been lacking is teaching their clients, especially their clients who judge the need to understand what was set up and why. They also need to explain that they train on a concept in a certain way but to test for it differently.

I like Peter's concept of an Owner handler Qual and have judged a couple over the last couple of years. The one thing that they do which is good is they get people to run their dogs. But the events I judged did not have small entries they generally were around 45-50 dogs and they had to finish in one day. The most pleasant one that I judged was run in conjunction with a hunt test and had some crossover from the HT folk. I think that running O/H quals if run in conjuction with a HT are great.
Glynn

[Labber]

Great post Glynn!
I agree that there is something to be said for Judges who, at least to a significant extent, train their own dogs.
Handling/training, and Judging are 2 very different things. While you can learn a great deal from your pro about the latter, You only judge so many times a year and your pro can't help you when you are sitting in the chair. You want to be sure you are accompanied by a good experienced judge when you are new. I have had this benefit, in recent years.
Good judging in the Q is as important as anywhere else, and there is no replacement for the "sense" of a quality test than training your own dog(s) on a regular basis.

As an aside, I know of judges who have not seen alot of FT success in recent years, and they have been some of the most knowledgable and finest judges to hold a book, in my opinion.

Again, judging and training are two different things.