Having just returned from competing in several State
Championships as well as the National Retrieving Championship in
Tasmania, I, like many other competitors, will take stock and
consider the future. The following are just some of my thoughts
and observations.
To start with, it has always been my belief that Retrieving
Trials should be about testing:
(a) Marking
(b) Control
(c) Game-finding ability.
MARKING : The dog should mark the area of the
fall, meaning that once the dog understands the destination to
which it is being sent to retrieve, it should demonstrate such
qualities as memory, style, courage, sagacity, perseverance and
scenting ability in order to proceed quickly and directly to the
area of the fall and complete the retrieve. Now, surely this
seems obvious and should be easy enough to test and assess
provided the dog can see the bird in the air long enough for it
to be able to identify the area of the fall__ but then again,
what defines an "area of fall"? Clearly, if birds are
cast and fall beyond the dog's horizon, the area of fall will be
less clearly defined and must be considered larger than if the
dog was able to see the bird all the way to the ground or water.
Relocating the dog to another area before sending it for a mark
also introduces a further degree of difficulty and if the
relocation is such that the dog is sent away from the line of the
original mark, the dog could be forgiven for not even recognising
that it is being sent for that particular mark. Deductive skills
are more the domain of human intelligence than of canine
intelligence, and a knowledge of trigonometry is hardly a
prerequisite for a dog to be a retriever. Marks which are not
clearly defined will have large "areas of fall"
associated with the task of retrieving and unfortunately this
introduces a much larger element of luck besides the skills being
tested. How does a judge evaluate the luck versus the skill
factor and translate the result into a score? While luck will
always be a factor in retrieving trials, good judges aim to
minimise luck and maximise the skill factor in selecting their
tests.
CONTROL: Control is surely the element where
advanced training comes into play. In Restricted Trials most
judges show moderation in the demands they make on the dog and
handler when testing control. In All Age and Championship events,
however, it should be a very significant factor in the testing.
When a "man and his dog" demonstrate a great working
relationship it is wonderful to behold. When the team-work is of
a high standard, a good handler will know exactly when to give
over to the dog and when to take control. In general terms,
marking is about the dog being given and accepting responsibility
for the retrieve while blinds are about the handler taking
control and the dog responding accordingly. At all times it seems
to me that trialling is about handler and dog working together.
The handler is the team leader who has enough confidence in his
dog to strut his stuff whenever the leader calls on him to do so.
GAME-FINDING ABILITY: There is a wiliness and
shrewdness about some dogs that, when added to those skills
needed for marking and control, make them a formidable force in
competition. To some extent, this seems to be a natural quality
that is honed through experience in the field and competition in
trials.
A DISTURBING TREND: In recent times, there seems
to be a disturbing trend for judges to want to separate a dog
from its handler and virtually take the handler out of the
equation with such things as relocations, the placing of handlers
behind trees and down ditches where they are unable to monitor
the situation. Combine these procedures with marks which are of
poor visible quality and the result is a situation where dogs
flounder. Effective control requiring advanced training is being
discounted and even eliminated in many situations. Dogs are being
eliminated from trials without either the dog or the handler
being responsible for their failure and it is being passed off as
"bad luck, mate!"
How can this situation be arrested or remedied? Maybe some rule
changes that prescribe boundaries and demand a balance might
regulate the situation but too many restrictions can also create
limitations that only prove to be a frustration in the various
situations we encounter in trials. In the end, it is up to judges
(and I include myself in this) to search for balance in selecting
their tests and to realise that it is part of their charter to
provide an opportunity for handlers to exhibit their own
capabilities as well as the capabilities of their dogs. The
wonderful synergy that exists between good dogs and handlers is
very much part of what is being evaluated and exhibited and
appreciated by all who are able to witness the event. While on
this point, judges would also do well to remember that galleries
are an important consideration and that a gallery where there is
nothing to see does not fulfil the definition of a gallery.
SOME STATISTICS FROM THE 2003 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP:
Two judges each devised 4 runs requiring triple retrieves, 24
articles of game to be retrieved.
| The 24 retrieves consisted of | 16 | marks |
| 5 | blinds | |
| 2 | drags | |
| 1 . | double-rise bird |
Of the 16 marks, 9 fell beyond the horizon for
the dog and the handler and
3 other marks were beyond the horizon for dogs and some short
handlers.
5 blinds tested control and 2 of these blinds required control in
water.
45 dogs entered the Championship __ 4 completed the Championship.