Field Tests in BC versus the rest of the country...

[AlbertaVizsla]

Ok Opinions Please:

In Alberta (and the rest of the country I believe) for FD the dog must point and be steady to flush, the bird is flushed, shot by a gunner and the dog must perform the retrieve to hand.

In B.C. they are not allowed to shoot live birds so the dog does retrieves after the field portion where a dead bird (or dummy?) is launched or thrown and a gunner fires and the dog is sent for a retrieve.

Do you think one of these is easier than the other? Are they equal in difficulty?

[RyanGSP]

I feel the BC test is WAY WAY easier. I have seen and know dogs that wont bring a bird all the way back (drive is a big factor) yet when they are brought to the line, have a dead chukar thrown and a pistol shot they will bring it back because this was a big part of the training routine.

[RyanGSP]

Your not planning on testing in BC are you? I think Loki can pass an AB hunt test.

[AlbertaVizsla]

No, some people in BC have made comments about Loki not having his FD yet -and telling me its easy and I must be taking baby steps.

I don't think they realize that its harder here.

[RyanGSP]

Ya definatly a different retrieve than here. If you want we can get together and do some training. I could use another dog for some honouring and honouring through shot fall and retrieve.

[Sharon]

The ways things are generally going, the killing of birds for tests is going to come to an end in Ontario too. Probably in my life time. Somebody just has to take it up as a cause.( Nothing is killed in trials. )

[RyanGSP]

First at tests then in October and November when they are wild.

[TK'S]

Ryan why in BC wouldn't they make the the dog quarter in front of the handler then have a bird come out of one of those Ziggerwingers in the cover instead of going to line and getting a mark .Terry

[RyanGSP]

TK I am not sure why they dont do that. Thats a very good idea though I belive it would take a fresh killed bird (which defeats the purpose of not shooting one) or take 2 birds. One live one for fresh scent and one dead one to be retrieved.

[AlbertaVizsla]

Ya definatly a different retrieve than here. If you want we can get together and do some training. I could use another dog for some honouring and honouring through shot fall and retrieve.

Sure - we'll have to wait for another nice day again.

Do you go out to Wessex? We were out on Sunday and didn't have a gunner which was sad. They're out of Chukar so it's pheasants or nothing.

[RyanGSP]

I am heading out on the 26th with one of Mavericks puppies Dakota for a pheasant hunt.

Just call me if you need a gunner I got lots of guns :P

[cdnvizsla]

They cant have the dog quartering because one of the scores is for steadiness to fall.

All the BC situation tells me is that dogs in BC DON'T have to retrieve. They have to do a 1 time obedience excercise.

Dogs that actually have to retrieve downed birds have to contend with cripples, fences, long retrieves, birds that have been dispatched too close to the gun or multiple birds etc etc.

None of these retrieves are static same every time sequences.

The call back retrieve, is just a dog standing there waiting for a command like in an obedience ring. Stand there wait for a bird to be thrown and then go bring it back when you are told to. WOW maximum Difficulty there!!! (Hope I dont offend too many field trialers with their big difficult steadiness and retrieving sequence).

Having gunned and run dogs in many CKC and NAVHDA tests, the fact of the matter is the standard for retrieving in the CKC is WAY TOO LOW. I have seen CKC handlers get passing retrieves by; kneeling, begging, giving multiple multiple commands (yes I put multiple in there twice on purpose) and my personal favorite laying down and hiding from the dog.

The CKC needs to revisit the rule book without the assistance of the people currently in charge (field reps) because when its all said and done they are the worst offenders and whiners in the field.

If a dog is going to recieve a set of letters then the dog should earn those letters, not do just enough to get that 50% mark. If you are a pro trainer/ handler then have the dog ready before you charge someone money to run their dog. (yes I back up these statements, I had a dog that was going to finish his FD title but he did a poor retrieve on the last bird of what would have been his last leg, drop the bird and returned to me with out it. After which it took a few commands to get the bird, so I pulled the dog before the test was over even after the judge said he was going to pass if I continued).

[Vindalbakken]

(Hope I dont offend too many field trialers with their big difficult steadiness and retrieving sequence).

I am a hunter who happens to run some field trials with my hunting dogs. I was not the least offended by anything in your post till I read this little bit of asinine drivel.

[Vindalbakken]

If a dog is going to recieve a set of letters then the dog should earn those letters, not do just enough to get that 50% mark. If you are a pro trainer/ handler then have the dog ready before you charge someone money to run their dog. (yes I back up these statements, I had a dog that was going to finish his FD title but he did a poor retrieve on the last bird of what would have been his last leg, drop the bird and returned to me with out it. After which it took a few commands to get the bird, so I pulled the dog before the test was over even after the judge said he was going to pass if I continued).

Wow, a lot of issues here. First, the dog needs a 75% to pass the test. If he achieves that he has in fact "earned" the letters.

As to the individual scores on any one aspect of the test, those are not public information and are only returned to the handler as a courtesy. So whatever they may be, they are of no consequence to any outside observer of the test results as evidenced by the "letters".

Are you a pro handler? What relevance does the ethical conduct of a pro have on anything to do with the standard of the test?

What did you prove by pulling the dog? If you run in the test you get a score. If you pull your dog before completing all elements of the test you will have a failing score recorded. What benefit is it to your dog and his record by having it show pass/pass/fail/pass rather than pass/pass/pass?

[RyanGSP]

I am in the same belief as cdnviszla. I would have and said I was going to pull my dog as well if he didnt make the retrieve, or do whatever else that in the judges eye was still a pass but not perfect.. because in my eyes a dropped bird or mouthing a bird, putting a foot down on point, or breaking on flush or shot isnt an acceptable move by the dog. Straight to the bird, pick up bird, hold bird, and deliver to hand. To hand means I put my hand out and dog comes to my hand not 2 feet away and drops or stretch to 6 feet and try to get the bird closer.

What did he prove by pulling his dog? He proved that he seen that retrieve as an unacceptable retrieve and was happy with the dog performance. He felt the dog didnt deserve the pass.

[cdnvizsla]

That little piece of drivel is a true statement.

The judging of steadiness and retrieve in a trial is misleading.
The dog only has to be steady to flush wing and shot as birds are not taken in the majority of trials. Therefore the dog really only has to be steady through 3/4 of an actual steadiness sequence and if birds are not shot there is really no major enticement for the dog to break. When birds are falling in the field the pressure goes way up and this is when the majority of dogs begin to fall apart. Standing still as a bird flies away untouched and out of reach is not a real test of steadiness.

The call back retrieve is just an obedience drill, the dead bird will never run away, flap its wings land in a hedge row, etc etc it is a dead bird thrown for the dog just like every other training day so why would the dog fail???

FD is testing Gun dogs, as such there role is the location and retrieval of game. Therefore the dog must retrieve, and it should be done quickly and cleanly NOT in any manner at all. If the pointing and retrieving arent clean then the dog should not pass simple as that. 50% in not acceptable work in either of these 2 areas they are the core reasons we are working with these breeds.

The minimum standard for a passing retrieve in FD is:

Dog retrieves to within hand range in any manner. Requires verbal encouragement.

These are the minimum criteria for a passing retrieve score. In any manner is not an acceptable standard to title a dog. This minimum standard allows for the multiple commands, multiple drops, parading with the bird, the laying down and hiding by handlers etc etc etc.
This is not an acceptable standard for a gun dog.

75% to pass is a misleading number. As you have mentioned the only published score is the dog's final score without the breakdown there is no way to tell the strengths and weaknesses of a dog and to simply give a dog a FD title because it did just enough to squeak out that 50% is a disservice to the dog the owner and its breed. Not to mention those people in the future who would be puppy purchasers based on a title that was barely achieved.

What do the ethics of pro handlers have to do with the standard of the test?

The CKC field reps are the people with the influence and the responsibility when it comes to changing rules and standards etc. Many of these reps are pros and as such it is apparant that unscrupulious behaviour of some Pros in relation to the field events is allowed for by the very rules over which they hold authority. You can't have the fox in charge of the hen house or very soon there will be no hen house.

I am BY NO MEANS saying that the field reps are bad. However there has to be some sort of seperation between those playing the games and those making the rules or there will be no advancement of the game, rather it will be tailored to their abilities.

What did I prove by pulling a dog from a test he would have passed?
I proved that I will not accept a poor performance and that I will not allow my dog to perform at that level.

I went home from that test and rebuilt the retrieve of that dog from the ground up, so that he will breeze through his final leg, and when he does he hill do more then Just enough.

Just enough dogs are NOT enough for me, because when the games are all done for the year and the dog is cut loose in the woodcock and grouse bush, or sitting patiently in the duck blind I need to know that when a bird is down that bird is coming back. No wasted game allowed.

[Vindalbakken]

That little piece of drivel is a true statement.


That little piece of drivel was antagonistic and inane.

[cdnvizsla]

chacun a son gout

[Vindalbakken]

The CKC field reps are the people with the influence and the responsibility when it comes to changing rules and standards etc. Many of these reps are pros and as such it is apparant that unscrupulious behaviour of some Pros in relation to the field events is allowed for by the very rules over which they hold authority. You can't have the fox in charge of the hen house or very soon there will be no hen house.

Are you just mad about something and therefore your judgement is clouded? Is it your perception that the CKC field reps are pros and are colluding to water down the rules so that they can run improperly trained dogs and still attain passing scores? Do you know what the rules were and are? You really should have thought that one through. There are 8 reps on the pointing breed council. There are five of them that I know are NOT pros. One of them I know is. That leaves two unknowns so it is possible, but not likely, that 3 of the 8 are pros. Hardly leaves them in a position of authority as you state. Perhaps it was the original reps who instigated the Field Dog Test who wanted to facilitate unscrupulous practice then? Well, I knew personally the fellow who wrote most of the book and he was not a pro, nor did he have anything but the best interest of the dogs and the sport at heart. He certainly did not speak ill of his compatriots or the process.

Your whole assumption is so full of false innuendo that it could not be left unaddressed - it is a gross indecency to the sport and the dedicated people who are looking after it.

As to the rest of your post, the logic displayed throughout is as poorly thought out as this part, but to that I will say "chacun a son gout".

[cdnvizsla]

Am I mad about something??
Yes: the LOW standards of retrieve which are permitted to pass!

If you are speaking of the original authors one of them (or a person who claims to be one of them) is in my area and that person is about as straight as the Missisippi. He claims to be the original author of the rules, and he is often overheard stating thats not what I meant when I wrote the book in attempting to influence judges.

Do I think the original rules were written with nefarious intent? NO!

The rules in CKC need a hard and fast rewrite and they need a more concrete framework in which the dogs are to be evaluated. There is far too much individual preference allowed by judges.

I have handled a dog that received a score of 100 that should have passed with about a 78. Why was the score so high for an out of range, self hunting dog? The judge wanted to breed to the dog I was running, and he elected to employ his own standards of how a dog should run. Utter BS the rules are written in the book, but then he says he wrote the book.

I will conceed that maybe this is a localized problem in Ontario, but make no mistake the Pros are running the game here.


If you examine group dynamics and the interactions between parties in a group, you quickly realize the will of 1 person can easily control the actions of many more then 8, whether the many are conscious of it or not. If one can do it 2 like minded people can have an even greater influence.

Perhaps we have 2 different definitions of pro... Anyone who takes dogs in to train or handle for any form of compensation, is a pro. By that definition yes, I am a pro.

The rules need a clear and concise rewrite, as well as some additional rules to promote safer tests. I am not just talking about the toughening of the tests either.

A Hinge action guns only rule needs to be implemented immediately for the safety of all participants.

[Vindalbakken]

A Hinge action guns only rule needs to be implemented immediately for the safety of all participants.

Is there a documented record of problems with non-hinge guns in field tests?

Don't try to fix things that aren't broke. When fixing things that are broken, fix what is broken and don't patch around it.

[cdnvizsla]

Is there a documented record of problems with non-hinge guns in field tests?

Don't try to fix things that aren't broke. When fixing things that are broken, fix what is broken and don't patch around it.


DOCCUMENTED RECORD? I certainly hope there isn't, and I hope there never is. We can't just exist on hope, and it hasn't happened before.

The day that there is a doccumented record is the day we are all done playing in the field. There won't be an insurance company around that will touch a test with live ammunition after a doccumented record.

If it ain't broke don't fix it is a COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE attitude when dealing with firearms.

It seems as though you all you really want is an arguement!!
If you have to bury your head in the sand and you can not accept that SAFETY the MOST IMPORTANT THING when dealing with firearms.

I have been in the field gunning with numerous people shooting autos or pumps at tests, and every one I have gunned with becomes lazy and they stop unloading thier firearms between dogs, or they accidentaly leave a round in the firearm.

When it comes to the law there are no accidental shootings only negligent ones and there is no excuse for that!!! So take steps to minimalize the possibility and have a hinge gun only rule, so that it is clear to everyone that the firearm is unloaded and open.

[Vindalbakken]

It is the same attitude and logic you have displayed here that brought us the gun registry.

Safety is paramount. People are safe - or not. The gun they carry does not make them different. Fix what is broken, don't patch around it.

As to your problem with the retrieve - run your dogs in FDX. That is why it exists - to hold a higher standard than FD.

[RyanGSP]

I still agree with CDNVizsla eithert perform the perfect retrieve againt a standard or none at all. The CKC testing system is too easily corrupted without a standard to judge against.

[Vindalbakken]

Asking to see a higher standard for the retrieve is different than calling the participants of the test charlatans whilst thumping your chest with a "holier than thou" attitude.

[BdBHunts]

I just want to add a comment here, in this lively discussion, that I agree with what Ryan and cdnvizla were saying about judging against a standard. I can't comment on FD tests as I haven't yet run a dog in one but I will on NAVHDA tests.

All the dogs are held against a standard, regardless of age and their are 3 judges evaluating the dog. Case in point was the Natural Ability test that my female pup ran in September at 5 months old. She received maximum scores in all aspects except search and desire to work, where she got a 3's and not 4's. After the scores were read, 103 Prize 2, I wondered why it wasn't a 112 Prize 1. It was a 5 month old pup handled by a 7 year old and I felt that they both did a very good job, I tried to keep the proud dad part out of my view on it. I approached a judge and asked why she got 3's and what could have been done differently. His response was that her range wasn't large enough and that it was due to age alone, and if search is knocked down so desire to work must be as well. She was judged by what older dogs must do, not by what was thought to be apprpriate for her age. The standard for search is the same for a 5 month old dog as it is for a 16 month old dog, that way everyone is on the same footing when the scores are tallied and read.

[cdnvizsla]

There is an FDX test? WOW what a concept I never even considered that. Except when I see dogs that are permitted to get to that level and they still can not complete a retrieve properly. Why? Simple becasue they have never been made do it correctly at the FD level.

But your right there is a higher level so I should just defer to that.
Oh wait let's take a minute and look at the minimum to passs in FDX shall we.... Dog retrieves to within hand range in any manner. Requires verbal encouragement.... WOW much tougher standards... Oh wait there is NO difference.. between FD and FDX
"Me thinks he doth protest too much".

Perhaps its time someone reviews the standards for themself!

Safety at a field test had NOTHING to do with the gun registry talk about half truths and ill logic!!!!

[Vindalbakken]

How old is your copy of the hunt test regulations? Do you even have a copy of the regulations?

For anyone who cares to check the veracity of cdnvizsla's quotations the rules are available online to any CKC member. The pertinent paragraphs will be found on pages 23 and 25. If you have a copy of the 2005 rules you can find the items on pages 22 and 24.

[Vindalbakken]

BdB there is a standard of performance for the Hunt Tests. I don't quite understand Ryan's post where he states "without a standard to judge against", but whatever. There is a clearly written standard of performance which all dogs are held accountable to in the judgement.

[Vindalbakken]

Safety at a field test had NOTHING to do with the gun registry talk about half truths and ill logic!!!!

Sorry cdnvizsla for thinking that parallel logic was within the realm of possibilities for you.

[cdnvizsla]

Ahh yes there it is... the personal attack, last resort of the person without a point

[Vindalbakken]

I don't know how I can explain it more simply to you. Restricting the choice of firearms does not make the people using them safer.

Did you read your hunt test rules?

[BdBHunts]

Restricting the choice of firearms does not make the people using them safer.

I don't totally agree with that. If the gun is loaded, closed and they do not control the muzzle then no, they are not safer. But if the gun is broken all who are around or approach can see that it is safe.

[Vindalbakken]

Personally I have little concern whether the gun is loaded or not if the muzzle is not being properly controlled. Muzzle control is the number one aspect of firearm safety.

Does the rule have anything to do with the safe use of a gun by the operator, or is it simply to appease the angst of those around them. There is enough visual difference between an open and closed pump action gun to assure anyone IMO.

The concern is that some gunners may not be attentive enough to ensure their gun is unloaded and action is open between pieces of birdwork. Then put in a rule requiring all gunners to make a "declaration" - Unloaded and open -after each piece of birdwork before anyone proceeds on.

[RyanGSP]

Ok scott so lets go out and see what happens when my dog drops a bird in the retrieve, I will hack, call and plead with him to get him to bring the bird. we will run it over say 3 or 4 different judges and if there is a standard all 3 score will be the same right?

If there was a standard one would have to even perform this test because the score would be the same no matter the judge.

[Vindalbakken]

Well Ryan, it seems from your post that you feel not all judges are interpreting the written standard in the same manner and the conversion to numerical scores is not consistent. All I can say is that I have judged with quite a number of different folks at hunt tests over the years and in ALL cases we were easily able to reach consensus on scores and I cannot recall ever having scores differ by more than a point in any particular scenario.

[RyanGSP]

Really? Thats really really funny because in a field test 1 dog and 1 judge even in a FDX test 2 dogs 2 judges 1 judger for each dog.

Unless maybe your a NAVHDA judge but I dont think you are.

[Vindalbakken]

Every time I have judged FD we judge the first couple of dogs together to make sure we are on the same page as far as judging standards and the course go and then anything that is out of the ordinary is consulted with the other judge to make sure no interpretation is being missed before final scoring is tallied. In the FDX each judge has a primary responsibility for a particular dog but each judge also observes what the other dog is doing and consultations are made.

At least when I have been involved that is how it works. Perhaps when you judged it was different??

[cdnvizsla]

I was going to abandon this thread, as someone took it from a discussion to a personal attack and I will do so after this post.

Ryan is correct, in FDJ and FD it is one dog one judge, FDX 2 dogs 2 judges and there is NO consensus. CONSENSUS is a NAVHDA word, one which is readily arrived at as all judges are trained under the same system and they are required to attend clinics and run dogs at least every 3rd year to maintain that certification.

Ryan I would have to agree with you as there are NO NAVHDA judges in Alberta or BC, and the judge in Saskatchewan has Small Munsterlanders.


The concern is that some gunners may not be attentive enough to ensure their gun is unloaded and action is open between pieces of birdwork. Then put in a rule requiring all gunners to make a "declaration" - Unloaded and open -after each piece of birdwork before anyone proceeds on.

Now that is a patch if ever there was one, the gallery doesnt know if the gunners said it or not. Just face facts, for the purposes of testing break action guns are a safer alternative.
.
Does the rule have anything to do with the safe use of a gun by the operator, or is it simply to appease the angst of those around them. There is enough visual difference between an open and closed pump action gun to assure anyone IMO.


The specatators can not tell from a safe distance wether a pump or autoloader is open but they can absolutely tell if a break action gun is open or not from a very long way away.

[Vindalbakken]

You waded into this discussion with both guns blazing, making intentionally flagrant and disparaging remarks about an entire group of dogmen and you took particular aim at a small group of dedicated people, denigrating their character and calling out a select group as unscrupulous people who used their influence to further their evil gains. All the while thumping your chest on your good and noble character. I took umbrage with such duplicitous behavior. It was then you went into autoloader mode, spraying fire at any target to look for a hit. Your arguments were inconsistent and full of contradictions of logic and intentional false statements (have you read your rule book yet?), leading me to make the simple observation that it is small wonder that a parallel comparison of two events would be beyond your ability to comprehend. This simple observation led you to claim a "personal attack" and duck out - after all the vitriol you spewed on these pages.

It is one thing to ask that measures are in place to insure that all participants in the test are safe at all times, it is quite another to try and insure that all participants in the test feel safe at all times. The first is quickly and easily done with 100% assurance, the second is absolutely impossible to achieve.

The gun control legislation was put in under that false guise of logic that says that by restricting the type of firearms people can use that all citizens will be safer.

[RyanGSP]

Last tiem you judged when was that 5 years ago? I remeber your name being in as a trial judge I beleive but I have never seen you as a Field Test judge.

As far as 2 judges judging dogs in FD or FDJ I have never seen that. I have seen them switch off but never have 2 judges go out and evaluate a dog.

[Vindalbakken]

I'm sorry Ryan, I don't see anything in there about how the judging assignments were performed when you judged an event.

I believe I have attended as many Field Tests in the capacity of judge as you have attended in any capacity at all. And you are right, to my knowledge I have not judged nor attended an event of any kind where you have attended.

I cannot speak to the practice of any other judging parties, but I have relayed my experience with the judging of the Field Dog and Field Dog Excellent tests. I take those assignments very seriously and would not take lightly to aspersions being blithely cast.