Gun Dog Forum

First & foremost, we don't ride horses: never have, never will. It's just not part of our lives. What we do train hard with our dog & run him in as many stakes as we can. We must be doing SOMETHING right because he's won majors & is only 2 retrieving points short of his AFC.

However, we find there is a definite bias against people who do not run their dog from horseback.

We have been told on more than one occasion by judges after the fact that the only reason our dog didn't come in first was because running him from horseback "would have been better". So... let me get this straight: the dog's field work was great, he ran big, found birds galore, & got into the callbacks. But the dog who couldn't be found until time was almost up was scored HIGHER than ours? Huh???

It makes the whole FT a lot more subjective than it should be, IMHO.

Just because you can get your dog around the course on foot doesnt mean that you the dog wouldnt have handled better off of horse. It cuts down on the hacking because your vantage point while handling is better which cuts down on hacking.

IMO (from an AF perspective)...yes you can handle off foot in a horseback stake BUT...your dog better put down a horseback ground application AND THEN have all the other attributes to win. My gut is that they did not feel your dog had the horseback application first.

There is a great Q&A on Strideway from Dr. Nitchman http://www.strideaway.com/strideaway/in ... dging.html highlighting judging and he noted that a judge should judge the stake appropriately...i.e. a horseback stake should NOT use the dog which applied a walking ground race. Again, that is just ONE of the elements to winning a stake.

Seems to there are those that think a walking FC or CH is not the same quality as a HB FC or Ch.

The two times I have been braced with a handler that was walking in a stake that horse back handling was allowed, I parked my horse and walked with them. They were just 1/2 hour club stakes and one was a derby the other an AGD. I won the derby and was third in the AGD if I recall. With due respect, I believe that there are judges with bias, I have no reason to believe those in the filed trial world would be any better or worse than humans encountered in any other walk of life. That being said, as a club officer and trial committee chairman, if I believed that someone was inclined to be unfair, I would not have them judge again. I have a very...very short list of judges that I second guess or do not trust. I will tell you that in large it is not because of their dishonesty it is one of the following in this order: Poor work ethic, inability to ride and focus long enough to handle a big stake, too little experience, or low self esteem or confidence that gets masked with loud talk, opinions and or bravado.

SubMariner wrote:First & foremost, we don't ride horses: never have, never will. It's just not part of our lives. What we do train hard with our dog & run him in as many stakes as we can. We must be doing SOMETHING right because he's won majors & is only 2 retrieving points short of his AFC.

However, we find there is a definite bias against people who do not run their dog from horseback.

We have been told on more than one occasion by judges after the fact that the only reason our dog didn't come in first was because running him from horseback "would have been better". So... let me get this straight: the dog's field work was great, he ran big, found birds galore, & got into the callbacks. But the dog who couldn't be found until time was almost up was scored HIGHER than ours? Huh???

It makes the whole FT a lot more subjective than it should be, IMHO.

If you think field trials are not subjective you must be having a rude awakening ,they are purely subjective and to the contary thought of the nstra people, who believe their process is so objective ,I say thats a bunch of bunk ,anytime a judge makes a decision in either venue they are being subjective. Of course there are guidlines to be followed but in the end its a judgemental call. I find the biggest problem with competitors is soley understanding what it takes to win or place in an event and the fact that they have not seen all the dogs performances in the stake. You cant make comparisons if you haven't seen them. Give the judge credit for watching them all ! It doesn't make a difference whether your walking or riding in an AKC event the foot handler sets the pace. Can expectations be greater in horseback, may be for an all-age , but not for gundogs. Suck it and keep on trying

It's all about smiles and cries.... If I were not on horse I would be walking with a fast pace letting the dog cover as much ground as possible. Running to birds being pointed etc. Kick em up and run on lol.

I always assume the Judge is competent and will be fair.

I also know that he/she can see things from up there on the horse, that i can't see walking.

The only way you could know that your dog should have placed is to walk every single brace in that stake, and even then you may be wrong.

If I decide the Judge is less than acceptable, I just don't participate under that Judge again.

Seems to there are those that think a walking FC or CH is not the same quality as a HB FC or Ch.

It has always been clear to me from the pride taken in a big running dog.....that all things being equal....farther is considered better.....more ground covered is better... I would find it hard to believe that this would not be in the minds of some enthusiasts and judges.

There's a saying that you can't win from behind, and if you're walking and braced with a HB handled dog, once one has their first find (a reason to split up and run your own brace), it's gonna be pretty hard for the foot handled dog to be to the front and nearly impossible for him/her to TAKE the front.

Could this be the situation the judges were referring to?

Well said. That dog being run from a horse back handler will have first crack at the birds too. Makes a huge difference.

I don't think there is bias towards you for walking in a horseback stake. I don't think personally that a horseback dog can qualify on the ground with a handler being on foot. The AKC makes it really easy for all to compete. You're probably not going to an AFTCA horseback trial and handling off foot.

If I have been patterning my dog to run off my horse and a guy shows up on foot he's getting left. I'm not getting off my horse because you don't have one. I paid my entry fee to show my dog and I will do that in a way that is best for the dog. I don't worry about the other handler. I'm not there for that.

I sure hope that you misinterpreted , or the judges were not clear. I am thinking maybe what they meant was your dog had some holes and if you had handled from horseback maybe he would have had a better application and looked better thus placing higher.

Handling off horse is a huge advantage. You can see the dog better, the dog can see you better, the dog keys off the horse's direction from a distance, you can get to finds faster, you can get back to the front faster. All those things would be my guess what the judges are referring too.

SubMariner wrote:First & foremost, we don't ride horses: never have, never will.

Kind of harsh words, but I'm sure that is not as harsh as you meant it. However, if you won't ride then attend walking stakes. Like others have said, it must handle and be judged as HB dog.

bigsugar wrote:If I have been patterning my dog to run off my horse and a guy shows up on foot he's getting left. I'm not getting off my horse because you don't have one. I paid my entry fee to show my dog and I will do that in a way that is best for the dog. I don't worry about the other handler. I'm not there for that.

Again harsh words, but in reality the truth. I have to travel 6 -8 hours to a trial to run my dogs, maintain their conditioning and feed horses to compete. Unless something unfortunate happens, ie. the other handler falls off, the horse spooks, I'm taking my dog in the other direction at the first opportunity I get. That's as a handler. I've had to do that with some HB dogs as well. I've had judges tell me let's go, get your dog out of here. They were not being disrespectful towards the other handler or in front of the gallery, just lettin me know that the other dog wasn't getting it done.

On the other hand, as a judge, I would never penalize a foot handler for not being comfortable on a horse. I am there to judge the dog, not the handler. But it will be judged as a horseback dog. That being said there is also something to be said for looking for walking stakes to take away any prejudice that you may perceive or earn. If there are walking stakes available to you within a reasonable amount of distance and you continue to show up at horseback stakes, it probably won't take you too long to start burning bridges. Eventually, everyone will be looking at the brace sheets hoping that they are not braced with you.

Before you judge the judges you need to judge the stake yourself. Did you ride every brace?
Walking in a horseback stake puts you at a disadvantage as a handler. I think most judges will put up the best dogs regardless of being handled on horse or on foot.

I feel your pain here..That said, that is why I will not walk at a horse back trial...I feel like I am at a handler disadvantage, esp with a dog that is capable of competing in either trial, as your dog is. So, I either ride or stay home..I know it is suppossed to be the same for walking as riding, but it is not. There are things you can do riding that definetly can show your dog better and you just cannot keep up walking...Might not be what u want to hear, just how I feel having done both...

As a primarily walking handler, I've been through this whole thing a few times.

When I've been told as much in the past, the general intent wasn't to say, "I liked your dog, but I wasn't going to use it solely because you were on foot." It was more, "Your dog did nicely, but if you were on horseback, he might've done even better, and you might have had a piece of it."
Not really a bias - more of an acknowledgement of the fact that horseback handling can indeed help a dog put together a better race.

That said, I totally get where you're coming from. Bottom line, it's tough to compete at a horseback trial on foot, with a dog that has limited experience being handled from horseback.

The simple fact of the matter is this:

The handler who walks in a stake where horseback handling is permitted is themseves putting their own dog at a distinct disadvantage, relative to the rest of the field.

It has, I think, much less to do with bias than it has to do with not allowing the dog to utilize all of its abilities and show all that it can do, because it must maintain contact with its walking handler.

I was always told that a field trial run was a performance and you have 30 minutes to show off your dog to its best advantage. If you are walking AND EVERYONE ELSE IS RIDING, you are in effect, throwing your own dog under the bus. Everyone does as they choose, but there are consequences associated with every choice...some good, some not so good, depending on the choice.

Now, for me personally, I don't get all exercised over a 30 minute AKC stake. It is just not that important to me. I go there to win...sure...but I go there, first and foremost, to have fun with my dogs.

If I go to the line and the other handler is afoot, I might very well hop off the horse and walk, if the course is more or less flat and the ground is reasonably dry. It is more fun that way for both myself and the other handler and I get no great joy out of burying someone who might just be getting started. If my dog gets too far out, and too far off...oh well. If the dog makes the adjustment and handles well for me on foot, I am pretty happy about that, regardless of what the judges may think of the performance. If the dog does a really good job, I am ecstatic. But if the course is hilly, the footing is rocky and uneven or if the ground is real muddy, this old fart will be riding!!

RayG

bigsugar wrote:I don't think there is bias towards you for walking in a horseback stake. I don't think personally that a horseback dog can qualify on the ground with a handler being on foot. The AKC makes it really easy for all to compete. You're probably not going to an AFTCA horseback trial and handling off foot.

If I have been patterning my dog to run off my horse and a guy shows up on foot he's getting left. I'm not getting off my horse because you don't have one. I paid my entry fee to show my dog and I will do that in a way that is best for the dog. I don't worry about the other handler. I'm not there for that.

+1

Most handlers can run their dog better from a horse because of the added mobility and visibility. Most dogs will run a stronger race when their handler is mounted. Most judges know this. In making their comments they are saying that they felt your dog may have had the ability to show as strongly as the rest of the competition had it been given the opportunity. Nothing to do with bias at all - simply a bit of a reality check for the handler.

Mixed braces can be no win situations for both handlers. Since the walker sets the pace, the horseback handler can be inhibited. Sometimes after birdwork, when separation of the brace would naturally occur, the walker's dog will regain the front with no handler. That can result in a trainwreck. I think it would be beneficial to all if AKC would allow segregation in bracing rather than insisting a random bracing of walkers and riders.

shags wrote:Mixed braces can be no win situations for both handlers. Since the walker sets the pace, the horseback handler can be inhibited. Sometimes after birdwork, when separation of the brace would naturally occur, the walker's dog will regain the front with no handler. That can result in a trainwreck. I think it would be beneficial to all if AKC would allow segregation in bracing rather than insisting a random bracing of walkers and riders.

Except one problem with that is you end up locked into how you handle, and for some folks that might change unexpectedly. A lot of times I go to a trial fully expecting to walk, but if someone's there that is willing to loan me a horse, I'll ride. Other times I've arranged to borrow a horse, only to have it be in such a mood that handling off of it was a bad idea, and I ended walking.

topher40 wrote:Just because you can get your dog around the course on foot doesnt mean that you the dog wouldnt have handled better off of horse. It cuts down on the hacking because your vantage point while handling is better which cuts down on hacking.

We don't hack our dog; far from it. The only time he "hears from us" is when we whistle him to change direction when we take a different turn off the course, or to come in when time is up. That's about it.

He knows what he's doing, so we let him be.

Karen wrote:There's a saying that you can't win from behind, and if you're walking and braced with a HB handled dog, once one has their first find (a reason to split up and run your own brace), it's gonna be pretty hard for the foot handled dog to be to the front and nearly impossible for him/her to TAKE the front.

Could this be the situation the judges were referring to?

As most of us know, it's common for the brace to split up: dogs/handlers are not always running together. It happens all the time when one dog has a find way over at Location A and the other dog is far enough away at Location B that no honouring is even thought of, much less required. I have seen dogs out front totally miss finds while the other dog has no problem; or the dog out front vaccuming up all the birds and there's nothing for the dog following to "find". So while the saying may have some truth to it, I don't think it's always valid.

However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the situation the judges were referring to"?

bigsugar wrote:I don't think there is bias towards you for walking in a horseback stake. I don't think personally that a horseback dog can qualify on the ground with a handler being on foot. The AKC makes it really easy for all to compete. You're probably not going to an AFTCA horseback trial and handling off foot.

I am referring only to AKC trails. We don't participate in NAVDA or AFTCA.

If I have been patterning my dog to run off my horse and a guy shows up on foot he's getting left. I'm not getting off my horse because you don't have one. I paid my entry fee to show my dog and I will do that in a way that is best for the dog. I don't worry about the other handler. I'm not there for that.

AKC rules state: "If one handler is mounted and the other is on foot, the Judges shall set a reasonable pace to accommodate the foot handler." This is only common courtesy & sportsmanlike behaviour in an event when one person is on horseback and the other is on foot.

PntrRookie wrote:IMO (from an AF perspective)...yes you can handle off foot in a horseback stake BUT...your dog better put down a horseback ground application AND THEN have all the other attributes to win. My gut is that they did not feel your dog had the horseback application first.

I am not referring to stakes where we didn't get into the callback; I'm referring to events where in a stake of 14 dogs, ours is one of four who gets called back for retrieves. So by that reckoning, hasn't the dog put forth the necessary effort to be considered on an equal scale?

There is a great Q&A on Strideway from Dr. Nitchman http://www.strideaway.com/strideaway/in ... dging.html highlighting judging and he noted that a judge should judge the stake appropriately...i.e. a horseback stake should NOT use the dog which applied a walking ground race. Again, that is just ONE of the elements to winning a stake.

The article was an excellent read, thanks for posting the link. However, I'm not quite getting your meaning on the last statement. Can you please elaborate?

Yes, absolutely, you lost because the judges were biased. You had the best dog and they put up a lesser dog.

Is that what you want to hear?

SubMariner wrote:
I am not referring to stakes where we didn't get into the callback; I'm referring to events where in a stake of 14 dogs, ours is one of four who gets called back for retrieves. So by that reckoning, hasn't the dog put forth the necessary effort to be considered on an equal scale?

Absolutely not. To be considered for a placement you need to retrieve. So four dogs come back - there were 10 dogs that fared worse than those 4, but by no means does that mean that those 4 dogs were "equal". Far, FAR from it. One of those 4 dogs is under consideration for 1st place and one of them for 4th place based on the relative merits of their ground application.

But YEAH, you got screwed over by biased judges. Happy now?

snips wrote:I feel your pain here..That said, that is why I will not walk at a horse back trial...I feel like I am at a handler disadvantage, esp with a dog that is capable of competing in either trial, as your dog is. So, I either ride or stay home..I know it is suppossed to be the same for walking as riding, but it is not. There are things you can do riding that definetly can show your dog better and you just cannot keep up walking...Might not be what u want to hear, just how I feel having done both...

Thanks for the kind words. You've seen first hand how capable our dog is in the field.

It's really not a matter of "not wanting to hear" about handling @ HB stakes, but just how people who don't handle from HB seem to be looked down upon by some who ride. We had stopped entering HB trials at one point, but when the dog progressed so well, we thought why not give him the chance to compete in as many events as possible? He has the skill set.

That being said, we will again back off on entering him in all events and just concentrate on walking trials.

Meanwhile, some here seem to think our not riding is a conscious choice; it's not when it's a skill that you don't have and are unlikely to develop.

Winchey wrote:Yes, absolutely, you lost because the judges were biased. You had the best dog and they put up a lesser dog.

Is that what you want to hear?

Kindly re-read the thread. You might actually get the gist of what's going on...

SubMariner wrote:

Karen wrote:There's a saying that you can't win from behind, and if you're walking and braced with a HB handled dog, once one has their first find (a reason to split up and run your own brace), it's gonna be pretty hard for the foot handled dog to be to the front and nearly impossible for him/her to TAKE the front.

Could this be the situation the judges were referring to?

As most of us know, it's common for the brace to split up: dogs/handlers are not always running together. It happens all the time when one dog has a find way over at Location A and the other dog is far enough away at Location B that no honouring is even thought of, much less required. I have seen dogs out front totally miss finds while the other dog has no problem; or the dog out front vaccuming up all the birds and there's nothing for the dog following to "find". So while the saying may have some truth to it, I don't think it's always valid.

However, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the situation the judges were referring to"?

See here is the problem with most peoples mindset of field trialing. Karen is correct in "if your behind you aint winning". A field trial is a a "race" to the birds. This is where the word race comes from in discussing field trialing. If your behind your bracemate and come across "hot spots" where your bracemate had finds you'll take NP's in those situations and another side of winning from behind i've been in a few races in my life and I never won if someone else was faster than me.....

As for bias towards walking handlers.... I dont believe but if the judges were biased.... Well I guess they were not much else to do about it other than not run under them again. You'll find bias in everything you do... When you are asking someones opinion you best just take there opinion for what its worth. Right, wrong or indiffernet its there opinion and thats that!

SubM,
Every Grouse hunter in the world is reading this post and laughing like mad, they have been saying the exact same thing to me for many many years now. To them FT is a social game, and no matter how talented your dog happens to be, the social game is more important the an actual dogs talent. Its subjective for a reason, to rig the winner, judges know who owns each dog and of course certain handlers/trainers must be used, if you want to win. Wake up and understand that FT is a social game with reputation and money attached.
Yep this guys dog found 6 more birds than the dog the judges gave the win too, ya but the dog who found 6 more birds did not have a high tail, my dog ran better and found more birds than his did, but he road a horse and I didn't. The point is this, when you play a social game don't expect it to be judged on a dogs actual talent, the social game is after all more important than any individual mans dog, no matter the talent. Your post gives great credit to what Grouse hunters have known all along.
SubM I actually feel sorry for you, the FT people are going to be trying to justify what happened with your animal in every way they can. Oh and by the way you are now in the dog house with the FT judges, how many more trails do you actually think your kennel is really going to be allowed to win. Might want to consider acquiring some real fine Grouse dogs and doing a lot more hunting. Horses have absolutely nothing to due with a dogs talent, neither does a dogs tail position, and everyone knows it.
Grouse hunters believe style is a false criteria developed by FT to enable judges to award wins to which ever members of the social game, the group has picked to win. What happened to you and your dog sir should be a crime, infact it just might be, given the reputation and money that now goes along with these social games.
RGD/Dave

SubMariner wrote:

Winchey wrote:Yes, absolutely, you lost because the judges were biased. You had the best dog and they put up a lesser dog.

Is that what you want to hear?

Kindly re-read the thread. You might actually get the gist of what's going on...

I read the thread. You got a lot of good reasons other then bias for why you may not have won and you cannot accept it. You had to refute everyones position that said they probably weren't biased. I think I got it just right.

Ryman Gun Dog wrote:SubM,
Every Grouse hunter in the world is reading this post and laughing like mad, they have been saying the exact same thing to me for many many years now. To them FT is a social game, and no matter how talented your dog happens to be, the social game is more important the an actual dogs talent. Its subjective for a reason, to rig the winner, judges know who owns each dog and of course certain handlers/trainers must be used, if you want to win. Wake up and understand that FT is a social game with reputation and money attached.
Yep this guys dog found 6 more birds than the dog the judges gave the win too, ya but the dog who found 6 more birds did not have a high tail, my dog ran better and found more birds than his did, but he road a horse and I didn't. The point is this, when you play a social game don't expect it to be judged on a dogs actual talent, the social game is after all more important than any individual mans dog, no matter the talent. Your post gives great credit to what Grouse hunters have known all along.
SubM I actually feel sorry for you, the FT people are going to be trying to justify what happened with your animal in every way they can. Oh and by the way you are now in the dog house with the FT judges, how many more trails do you actually think your kennel is really going to be allowed to win. Might want to consider acquiring some real fine Grouse dogs and doing a lot more hunting. Horses have absolutely nothing to due with a dogs talent, neither does a dogs tail position, and everyone knows it.
Grouse hunters believe style is a false criteria developed by FT to enable judges to award wins to which ever members of the social game, the group has picked to win. What happened to you and your dog sir should be a crime, infact it just might be, given the reputation and money that now goes along with these social games.
RGD/Dave

+1 for "The Voice" of the grouse hunter lol.

SubMariner wrote:

topher40 wrote:Just because you can get your dog around the course on foot doesnt mean that you the dog wouldnt have handled better off of horse. It cuts down on the hacking because your vantage point while handling is better which cuts down on hacking.

We don't hack our dog; far from it. The only time he "hears from us" is when we whistle him to change direction when we take a different turn off the course, or to come in when time is up. That's about it.

He knows what he's doing, so we let him be.

Sub Mariner -

As a judge, I recognize that a gundog can operate at fifty yards from its handler and do a fine job as a gun dog. If another dog operates at 100 yards from its handler on the same course and does so with a minimum of verbal signals from its handler... to me that dog is doing a better job as a gundog. If a third dog is operating at 200 yards from its handler, but still hunting all the likely spots and hunting them hard, turning when the handler turns and keeping to the front...all without verbal direction from the handler... that third dog is doing an even better job as a gundog, because it is hunting and handling for its handler at the edge of the envelope.

Since field trialing is, or should be about rewarding the best performance within the standard for the stake, the dog that was hunting at 200 yards was, to me doing the best job of the three, not because it was out at 200 yards, but because it was HUNTING and HANDLING(not just running) at extended ranges without verbal direction. THAT(to me) is a Gundog. The third dog would be the best because it was able to do all of what we want from a Gundog AT the edge of the useful envelope.

From a judicial perspective. I would expect a horseback gundog to operate with a more expansive ground application than a walking gundog. That is because a dog CAN operate at considerably greater distances from its handler and still be hunting at a distance which will be suitable for the hunter since the hunter is now ten feet tall instead of six.

If your dog hunts and handles kindly from foot as you say, I would expect it would do the same if you were mounted, and that would most likely be an awesome performance to witness. Imagine turning your horse to the right when your dog is out there hammering it at 2-300 yards and having the dog break to the right, on cue, through the cut that you wanted to send him, without you making a sound. Might be something special to see. If I were judging and I saw a dog do that, it sure would make me sit up and pay attention.

If one of mine did that, on cue, it sure would make my day. Just a thought.

RayG

Ryman...the original post is referring to a field trial NOT hunting. Stick to the thread. We all know those are two separate discussions. They asked about a FT NOT who put more birds in a bag. You don't like trialing, so be it. MANY of us do and that is what this thread is for.

Sub...my statement above was referring to ground application. If your dog (in the judges opinion) runs a walking stake race (not as big as a horseback race), it should not be used in a placement for a horseback stake. In your case you are referring to something different than the AF, so the whole retrieving callback is greek to me, but I am referring to what "may" happen in a stake where there is a walker and a rider.

RayGubernat wrote:

SubMariner wrote:

topher40 wrote:Just because you can get your dog around the course on foot doesnt mean that you the dog wouldnt have handled better off of horse. It cuts down on the hacking because your vantage point while handling is better which cuts down on hacking.

We don't hack our dog; far from it. The only time he "hears from us" is when we whistle him to change direction when we take a different turn off the course, or to come in when time is up. That's about it.

He knows what he's doing, so we let him be.

Sub Mariner -

As a judge, I recognize that a gundog can operate at fifty yards from its handler and do a fine job as a gun dog. If another dog operates at 100 yards from its handler on the same course and does so with a minimum of verbal signals from its handler... to me that dog is dong a better job as a gundog. If a third dog is operating at 200 yards from its handler, but still hunting all the likely spots and hunting them hard, turning when the handler turns and keeping to the front...all without verbal direction from the handler... that third dog is doing an even better job as a gundog, because it is hunting and handling for its handler at the edge of the envelope.

Agreed... well stated.

Since field trialing is, or should be about rewarding the best performance within the standard for the stake, the dog that was hunting at 200 yards was, to me doing the best job of the three, not because it was out at 200 yards, but because it was HUNTING and HANDLING(not just running) at extended ranges without verbal direction. THAT(to me) is a Gundog. The third dog would be the best because it was able to do all of what we want from a Gundog AT the edge of the useful envelope.

Again, agreed.

From a judicial perspective. I would expect a horseback gundog to operate with a more expansive ground application than a walking gundog. That is because a dog CAN operate at considerably greater distances from its handler and still be hunting at a distance which will be suitable for the hunter since the handler is now ten feet tall instead of six.

If your dog hunts and handles kindly from foot as you say, I would expect it would do the same if you were mounted, and that would most likely be an awesome performance to witness. Imagine turning your horse to the right when your dog is out there hammering it at 2-300 yards and having the dog break to the right, on cue, through the cut that you wanted to send him, without you making a sound. Might be something special to see. If I were judging and I saw a dog do that, it sure would make me sit up and pay attention.

If one of mine did that, on cue, it sure would make my day. Just a thought.

RayG

All in all, a very sage & thoughtful post, RayG. Very much appreciated.

The dog has been handled from horseback/ATV during training and performed admirably. Unfortunately, neither of us rides.

I've judged some dogs that were "walked" at horseback trials and have tended to be more impressed with those dogs when they hang on the edges, have speed, stamina, and show just how broke they are when a limb find occurs and it takes the handler a long time to walk to the dog. But, from what I have seen, so many walking handlers at horseback trials are like you, they don't care to ride, which is fine. However, the main area of inconsistency is that so many dogs that are not trained from horseback, tend to be in near shock when the horses are around, and/or these dogs often tend to yo yo back to the handler not having the confidence of most horse handled/trained dogs to go find birds, hit edges and objectives, AND key off the horses direction/heads.

Further, let's face it, horse handled/trained dogs tend to be pushed by their handlers, by their scouts, have been pushed their whole lives, are hunted from trucks and 4 wheelers, and it's about all they know. They tend to be faster, more independent, run bigger, faster, etc etc. NOTHING against your dogs at all. But, if you didn't ride every brace and/or walk, see all braces, it's hard to judge if your dog was the equal of any others. Further, to be able to judge this type of event, you do really need to have the experience of seeing a ton of braces at horseback events. Where the rules clearly state that judges are looking for "effective foot hunting companions", the definition of a foot hunting companion is greatly skewed to..."an effective screaming hard charging wide ranging speed demon who happens on a few birds and points them with great style and manners then screams until the brace has ended, and then some". If the second fake quote happens in a trial I judge AND the handler is on FOOT then I'm loving the walking dog I am judging.

SubMariner wrote:
Meanwhile, some here seem to think our not riding is a conscious choice; it's not when it's a skill that you don't have and are unlikely to develop.

Submariner -

Up until I was in my late forties, the only thing I rode was made out of ceramic and went 'round in a circle while music played. I was positively petrified of putting my life in the hands of a thousand pound animal with the IQ of my shoe size. To an extent...I still am. Oh yeah...anyone who knows me, knows that my horse is a far better horse than I am a rider. He actually makes me look like I know what I am doing. I have no problem admitting that.

If you get on a good, experienced field trial horse, all you have to do is keep your feet in the stirrups so you don't fall off, hold onto the reins and sit back and enjoy the view. The horse will take care of pretty much everything else.

But I encourage you to enjoy your sport any way you choose and however you feel comfortable.

RayG

Ryman Gun Dog wrote:SubM,
Every Grouse hunter in the world is reading this post and laughing like mad, they have been saying the exact same thing to me for many many years now. To them FT is a social game, and no matter how talented your dog happens to be, the social game is more important the an actual dogs talent. Its subjective for a reason, to rig the winner, judges know who owns each dog and of course certain handlers/trainers must be used, if you want to win. Wake up and understand that FT is a social game with reputation and money attached.
Yep this guys dog found 6 more birds than the dog the judges gave the win too, ya but the dog who found 6 more birds did not have a high tail, my dog ran better and found more birds than his did, but he road a horse and I didn't. The point is this, when you play a social game don't expect it to be judged on a dogs actual talent, the social game is after all more important than any individual mans dog, no matter the talent. Your post gives great credit to what Grouse hunters have known all along.
SubM I actually feel sorry for you, the FT people are going to be trying to justify what happened with your animal in every way they can. Oh and by the way you are now in the dog house with the FT judges, how many more trails do you actually think your kennel is really going to be allowed to win. Might want to consider acquiring some real fine Grouse dogs and doing a lot more hunting. Horses have absolutely nothing to due with a dogs talent, neither does a dogs tail position, and everyone knows it.
Grouse hunters believe style is a false criteria developed by FT to enable judges to award wins to which ever members of the social game, the group has picked to win. What happened to you and your dog sir should be a crime, infact it just might be, given the reputation and money that now goes along with these social games.
RGD/Dave

Strange post coming from a man that has lived his live trying desperately to make grouse hunting the elite social game of all time. Just not sure it will work to call every judge a crook THAT HAS BEEN BOUGHT BY THE IN CROWD OF THE DAY. Who is it that promotes the PA grouse as the elite grouse of the world, who promotes the old elite shotguns as the only guns that should be used in the grouse world, and who promotes only the special genetic elite dogs that are capable of hunting grouse.

Ezzy

Gentleman, topic is being moderated, last warning Ezzy. Get it back on topic.

Cheryl we are headed to FL for a walking trial, did not see u guys names there.

Winchey wrote:Gentleman, topic is being moderated, last warning Ezzy. Get it back on topic.

Thank you, think a couple of us needed that.

Ezzy

What was the topic?:)

When I first started out in field trials, I mindlessly thought i would just walk in HB trials. This didn't last long. The HB handlers were TICKED that they had to stay back with me until the situation caused us to part. I don't blame them one bit and that is not something I would do again. Then I noticed that the walkers in a HB stake always seemed to get paired up. The rules of probability would tell me that this is highly unlikely to have happened on its' own

If you're not a regular horseback rider, being offered a horse by some well meaning member, just won't work. Your attention goes to staying on the horse and hoping you don't have to gallop. The dog , who hasn't handled from HB, is last in your thoughts.

If you walk, stick to walking trials. The experience will be less stressful and much more pleasant.

Have you ever tried to borrow or rent a horse to see how you finish up then? I guess if you ar not comfortable on horses that won't help much though. It would be hard to concentrate on the trial if you a freaked out about being on a horse. If it really is the case that you are not winning because you are walking sounds like you better get a horse or change games.
You could always try the Tournament Hunting format, such as the UFTA and BDC. The judges opinion doesn't mean didley in that game the judge is there to make sure you follow the rules, time keep and add the score. Their opinion on type of dog, color, who you are or any of the other things that one could be bias of isn't a factor. I guesss it could be considered the drag racing of birddogs. Whoever finds their birds the fastest and cleanest wins.

smoothbean wrote:Have you ever tried to borrow or rent a horse to see how you finish up then? I guess if you ar not comfortable on horses that won't help much though. It would be hard to concentrate on the trial if you a freaked out about being on a horse. If it really is the case that you are not winning because you are walking sounds like you better get a horse or change games.
You could always try the Tournament Hunting format, such as the UFTA and BDC. The judges opinion doesn't mean didley in that game the judge is there to make sure you follow the rules, time keep and add the score. Their opinion on type of dog, color, who you are or any of the other things that one could be bias of isn't a factor. I guesss it could be considered the drag racing of birddogs. Whoever finds their birds the fastest and cleanest wins.

Now now. I never said i wasn't winning walking. I'll continue to walk and participate in Walking Trials when well enough.

Subm and family,

A couple things.. As you and your dogs venture to other grounds then where you traditionally compete, you will see that horseback handling has less advantage then you think.

A couple curves... AKC rules allow judges to subjectively judge based on the stake and whether it is horseback or not. Can't tell you the rule book page number but recently the AKC has determined that in a horseback trial, dogs are judged at a horseback expectation... Now what is a horseback expectation? Common fact is that a dog handled on horseback, that is USED to being run on horseback AND wants to hunt with you, will work closer with a walking handler. It is either through natural desire of the dog, or by handling methods. Now... what makes a judge sit up in the saddle and take notice? A dog that uses the course with the best application. IF a judge believes that your dog would better use the course if the course allows that advantage (see first sentence) then he/she is projecting that he was expecting more. It doesn't mean your dog would do better on horseback.

What is "more"? More to me is different then more to others.

So now I'll bring it home. Dogs run at MTown in a horseback trial with horseback mentality bird planters will get an advantage over a closer working walked dog... BUT will also have an advantage over close horseback handled dogs.. Next, take your dog to Lake Wales.. Ever seen a big running walking handled dog blow by birds while the closer dog works birds in it's wake? Happens all the time. Now to Mascotte... Big runners fly out to the center, or under the citrus while the closer working dogs sweep up the finds.

OK.. enough yammering.. not all judges see this game the same. Horse back trials are judged at a different expectation. You should showcase your dogs talents where the judges and the courses best suit his application. Statements that you have heard about doing better off horseback are a projection of that judge's desire to have your dog range excite them. Your means of conveyance is not the issue. It is their excuse.

tenbears, however, I do want to be excited by range. Not just huge going, not running off, going with the handler,whether on foot or horseback. I've seen a lot of folks who walk their dogs, don't own horses, don't attend many trials,be very upset because, "my dog had 6 finds and the winner only had 2" or "my dog had so much style but he didn't place" or "man my dog really worked those fields, he listened, turned on the whistle, but he didn't place". Most of those folks don't have clue one what is expected in a trial and many have never hunted a day in their lives. Juddges don't count finds, judges are not impressed with a dog that hunts its rear off 50 yards away, judges aren't impressed with style if the dog yo yo'ed the entire brace, they aren't impressed with a wonderful stylish find dead broke on the horse path. Point is, it's really hard to knock the judging unless one knows what the heck they are looking for and knows dogs themselves AND rides all braces. There are a lot of experts back at camp sitting around telling how much they know!!

Have you ever stopped to think about the inconvenience you are putting the other handler through.