SETTING A DOG UP TO FAIL

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:46 pm

In reading some recent threads I have seen way too much of setting a dog up to fail so they can be corrected with the e-collar, I fell in the trap advising that someone "proof" their dogs.

There are few things I feel as strongly against. It is a short cut for lazy trainers that will not take the time and effort to build trust and cooperation.

In addition to being a trainer, I am coach. I try to never ask a dog to do something he does not understand or is not capable of doing.

Since Delmar Smith has been preaching this for 50 years you would think more would understand about trust gained by "Catching them doing something right".

You will notice I didn't once say in my humble opinion.

Neil

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:24 pm

Neil -

I agree that setting a dog up for failure is counterproductive...but...I also believe that testing and proofing a dog's training is an extension of that training... under varying and increasingly stressful conditions. To me it is something you build to, just like any other training.

Running a dog in a field trial or hunt test is a kind of testing and bombproofing also. Stuff happens at a trial that NEVER happens in training and yet we all want the dog to succeed. I don't know too many trailers who run a dog, hoping it will screw up so they can put the dog on a rope at teach it a lesson. I do that in training... all the time..for a whole lot less money.

I firmly believe, for example, that training a dog to be steady to wing, shot AND fall will pay dividends even if the dog is not required to retrieve. Throwing birds down after the scent bird has flown is another way to "test" the dog and its steadiness. Throwing one bird and letting it fly off is not setting the dog up to fail, if the dog has previously shown that it will stand for a good length of time and will consistently stand for flush and shot.

Throwing five or six past the dog's nose or throwing it at the dog's face certainly could be though.

Testing a dog is, to me...just that...testing. I want the dog to succeed so I do not keep it up until the dog screws up.

RayG

Chukar12 · Post by **Chukar12** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:29 pm

I am interested in seeing where this thread goes... I believe every dog has a threshold and a time that it will show its independence. That will be determined first by the dog, then its environment and specifically the relationship with the trainer/handler. I have had to create situations to make corrections because of earlier training mistakes I made, and I believe at the time I probably would have referred to them as "proofing." In hindsight, it was impatience and inability to read the dog.

I now believe the more coaching for behaviors I do the less severe the correction is when we reach the threshold. In the belly collar thread, I had a dog that was very easy to break finally make a mistake, my correction of the dog was very light and effective and I believe it is because the dog knew cold several signals and cues to stop. I think a dog really needs to understand success before it can comprehend the ramifications of failure.

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:41 pm

I have seen guy's set dogs up to fail a lot. years ago I was out with a guy that had a nice pointer he was working with. Dog was broke solid but the guy wanted to proof him. So he put it on a bird and walked by it several times. Cut across the front, kicked at the cover, the dog never flinched. Finally to be able to get a correction he walked by the dog again and bumped it with his knee. Dog moved and he got what he wanted, chance to discipline the dog. Stupid stupid stupid.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:46 pm

Ray,

I load up and travel to work my dogs with others to closely emulate field trials being careful the dog is likely put in position to succeed. You train enough, all situations will naturally happen that would occure in a trial.

The closest I come to knowing tempting a dog is when they have proven they are staunch and steady, I put down an unbroke pup that I know will take their birds out.

But I am cheering they will get it right.

And that is the point I want to make, it is not just the act, but the attitude of the trainer, the deceit and trickery that disturbs me, and I think the dog knows that they have been set up, and either resent it, or lose confidence.

polmaise · Post by **polmaise** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:49 pm

DonF wrote:I have seen guy's set dogs up to fail a lot. years ago I was out with a guy that had a nice pointer he was working with. Dog was broke solid but the guy wanted to proof him. So he put it on a bird and walked by it several times. Cut across the front, kicked at the cover, the dog never flinched. Finally to be able to get a correction he walked by the dog again and bumped it with his knee. Dog moved and he got what he wanted, chance to discipline the dog. Stupid stupid stupid.

I have never heard of anything so ridiculous in all my years! (not your post,the action)

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:36 pm

I have got others nearly as bad.

Guy admits to spying on his dog while on point for 30 minutes before he moved enough to be corrected.

Lots of guys riding by a dog on point yelling to then sneak back to zap them.

Delibertly flushing birds into the dog's face. Wing clipping a bird to flap arround.

Anytime I hear; proof, test, tempt, entice, getting them honest, keeping them honest, taking them to school, and the like from a trainer, I always suspect trickery is going on.

How can you expect trust and respect if you don't give it?

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:15 pm

How do you differentiate between proofing a dog and setting a dog up to fail? To me, they can be one in the same.

birddog1968 · Post by **birddog1968** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:27 pm

Neil wrote:
Since Delmar Smith has been preaching this for 50 years you would think more would understand about trust gained by "Catching them doing something right".

That's dog training gospel right there ! Catching them doing something right......Taking that one step further by not putting them in situations that let them make wrong or bad associations or actions.

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:41 pm

Got to ask:
What do you do when another dog goes into steel your dogs point or your dog does to another?
What do you do when your dog is at waters edge and is to be steady, but your buddies dog bust for the retrieve that is not his and when ducks are still coming in the set?
Or at a NAVHDA test your dog breaks at the shot or the mark retrieve, multiple shots. Just like duck hunting.
What do you do when your dog slams a point and it flushes right up under its nose and your dog breaks and chases, (had all these happen at one time or another)
How do you know your dog is honest when out of site?

Putting loose birds out with the dog not on a check cord is a set up for possible failure, and you will correct that mistake if it is done.
Training is setting up situations that the dog has not been in and you are training it to succeed in those instances but until the dog is finished and sometimes after your dog wiill fail and you will correct it.

I understand we train for it but if you are going to work into the higher levels of trials and tests etc. Don't you have to proof your dog. I am not advocating forcing the dog to make a mistake but like with your unbroke puppy scenario, you set up situations that the dog most definately can succeed but you know there is a likely hood they may have a notion to do the wrong thing so you need to correct it. Don't you.

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:36 pm

I think it can be fairly said that any dog trained to upper levels has been finished by being set up to fail. If you don't set a dog up to see IF he will fail, you neither know if he will fail or if he is trained. If you set an untrained dog up to fail, you're a poor trainer. If you set a dog you feel is trained up to fail and he is allowed to decide the outcome, you're simply training an advanced level dog.

No dog can be said to be finished unless it can also be said that he has been set up for possible failure. Each and every time in life that we are given a test, we have been set up to fail. It is up to each of us to perform and pass or to disappoint and fail.

I don't believe that people that use the phrase "set up to fail" understand the meaning of the phrase.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:55 pm

I have ran dogs that I trained at the highest level, and I try to be sure we spent enough time for them to succeed. They often fail and I correct them, sometimes quite harshly. But I always want them to succeed, and I do all I can do help them. We are a team, and the dog must trust me.

You train enough and you do not have to set up artificial situation just to correct them, they will experience it all naturally.

Some are missing my point, I corect my dogs!

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:58 pm

gonehuntin' wrote:I think it can be fairly said that any dog trained to upper levels has been finished by being set up to fail. If you don't set a dog up to see IF he will fail, you neither know if he will fail or if he is trained. If you set an untrained dog up to fail, you're a poor trainer. If you set a dog you feel is trained up to fail and he is allowed to decide the outcome, you're simply training an advanced level dog.

No dog can be said to be finished unless it can also be said that he has been set up for possible failure. Each and every time in life that we are given a test, we have been set up to fail. It is up to each of us to perform and pass or to disappoint and fail.

I don't believe that people that use the phrase "set up to fail" understand the meaning of the phrase.

Amen

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:12 pm

gonehuntin' wrote:I think it can be fairly said that any dog trained to upper levels has been finished by being set up to fail. If you don't set a dog up to see IF he will fail, you neither know if he will fail or if he is trained. If you set an untrained dog up to fail, you're a poor trainer. If you set a dog you feel is trained up to fail and he is allowed to decide the outcome, you're simply training an advanced level dog.

No dog can be said to be finished unless it can also be said that he has been set up for possible failure. Each and every time in life that we are given a test, we have been set up to fail. It is up to each of us to perform and pass or to disappoint and fail.

I don't believe that people that use the phrase "set up to fail" understand the meaning of the phrase.

Whereas failure is a part of succeeding, of learning, of maturing, a good teacher gives the pupil all the lessons and tools to pass ever test. Not test them above their ability. Giving a 5th grader a college level test will not help them gain success.

Dogs that have been overly proofed, set up to fail (I know exactly what it means), are often more likely to lack confidence, tend to flag, be uncertain, untrusting, less likely to finish the cast that takes them out of sight for 5 minutes.

And I am talking at the highest levels, trust means everything.

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:04 am

Neil wrote:
Whereas failure is a part of succeeding, of learning, of maturing, a good teacher gives the pupil all the lessons and tools to pass ever test. Not test them above their ability. Giving a 5th grader a college level test will not help them gain success.

Nobody ever said that a dog should be tested above it's training or above it's ability. That would be very poor training. Every dog should be proofed, or set up to fail as it achieves successfully each level of training. The only way a dog can be "set up to fail" is if the dog hasn't been tested on the concept in the first place. That would also be known as stupidity oe incompetence.

Neil wrote:Dogs that have been overly proofed, set up to fail (I know exactly what it means), are often more likely to lack confidence, tend to flag, be uncertain, untrusting, less likely to finish the cast that takes them out of sight for 5 minutes.

And I am talking at the highest levels, trust means everything.

That is only true if the dog is not thoroughly trained. Every trained dog in every single situation and every time he is hunted, is "proofed". Whenever a dog is under your control, it is being "proofed". When ever you take a dog to hunt or to train, you are taking the dog out to "proof" it. You cannot over proof a dog if that dog has had consistent and competent training. Fact is, many times proofing a dog will actually excite the dog if the dog is well trained.

The only dog's I have ever seen that showed lack of confidence also showed lack of training or an excesss of the wrong training.

shags · Post by **shags** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:38 am

gonehuntin' wrote:How do you differentiate between proofing a dog and setting a dog up to fail? To me, they can be one in the same.

Setting them up to fail means putting them in a situation that requires a behavior which hasn't been taught. Proofing means testing a behavior which the dog has been taught. For example, STF. Setting up for failure is taking a young dog which hasn't been drilled and popping birds, then punishing him when he doesn't stop. Proofing is popping birds after the dog has been through drills and is reliable in a more controlled environment.

Or honoring...zapping the dog when he hasn't ever been taught to stop when he sees another dog pointed, as opposed to knicking him when he refuses after he's been through the routine in training.

Huge difference.

Tooling · Post by **Tooling** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:44 am

shags wrote:
gonehuntin' wrote:How do you differentiate between proofing a dog and setting a dog up to fail? To me, they can be one in the same.

Setting them up to fail means putting them in a situation that requires a behavior which hasn't been taught. Proofing means testing a behavior which the dog has been taught. For example, STF. Setting up for failure is taking a young dog which hasn't been drilled and popping birds, then punishing him when he doesn't stop. Proofing is popping birds after the dog has been through drills and is reliable in a more controlled environment.

Or honoring...zapping the dog when he hasn't ever been taught to stop when he sees another dog pointed, as opposed to knicking him when he refuses after he's been through the routine in training.

Huge difference.

Yep

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:14 am

shags wrote:
gonehuntin' wrote:How do you differentiate between proofing a dog and setting a dog up to fail? To me, they can be one in the same.

Setting them up to fail means putting them in a situation that requires a behavior which hasn't been taught. Proofing means testing a behavior which the dog has been taught. For example, STF. Setting up for failure is taking a young dog which hasn't been drilled and popping birds, then punishing him when he doesn't stop. Proofing is popping birds after the dog has been through drills and is reliable in a more controlled environment.

Or honoring...zapping the dog when he hasn't ever been taught to stop when he sees another dog pointed, as opposed to knicking him when he refuses after he's been through the routine in training.

Huge difference.

Exactly the way I look at it Shags.

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:05 am

Setting a dog up to fail is putting the dog in a situation where you know he will fail so the dog can be corrected for doing it wrong.
Proofing a dog is putting the dog in a situation where there is a reasonable expectation that the dog will succeed but control can be gained in the event of failure.

One is good training, the other is not.

Chukar12 · Post by **Chukar12** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:08 am

Plus one for Slistoe...

One is a natural progression in the right order at the right time...the other is the aforementioned short cut.

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:59 am

slistoe wrote:Setting a dog up to fail is putting the dog in a situation where you know he will fail so the dog can be corrected for doing it wrong.
Proofing a dog is putting the dog in a situation where there is a reasonable expectation that the dog will succeed but control can be gained in the event of failure.

One is good training, the other is not.

Seems we are all in agreement.

That does not happen often.

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:10 am

+2 for Slistoe.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:57 am

Once again Slistoe said in a few words what took me several paragraphs to confuse most.

Thank you Sir,

Neil

whoadog · Post by **whoadog** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:25 am

One of the better threads lately! Thanks to all who contributed.

bb560m · Post by **bb560m** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:15 pm

If you don't get corrections your dog won't learn what is acceptable. Any driven dog is going to want to chase & catch the birds, even a dead broke one 99% of the time.

Chukar12 · Post by **Chukar12** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:42 pm

bb560m wrote:If you don't get corrections your dog won't learn what is acceptable. Any driven dog is going to want to chase & catch the birds, even a dead broke one 99% of the time

Breaking a dog from chasing and catching birds is not difficult. The world is full of also-rans that do just that. How to leave something in the dog is the conversation here, not what you take out.

bb560m · Post by **bb560m** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:46 pm

Chukar12 wrote:Breaking a dog from chasing and catching birds is not difficult. The world is full of also-rans that do just that. How to leave something in the dog is the conversation here, not what you take out.

I'm not saying beat the crap out of the dog, but if all you do is run it on easy birds and no type of other situations, something will come up in a trial like a dog stealing point, bird flushing way before you get there, etc. Better to proof those things. Make the dog make the decision in training and teach it. Mine had a heck of a problem with birds flying over his head and behind him without moving to mark. Worked on it a lot and much better now. Has happened a lot at trials where that will happen and thankful we trained for it.

polmaise · Post by **polmaise** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:47 pm

Neil wrote:In reading some recent threads I have seen way too much of setting a dog up to fail so they can be corrected with the e-collar, I fell in the trap advising that someone "proof" their dogs.

There are few things I feel as strongly against. It is a short cut for lazy trainers that will not take the time and effort to build trust and cooperation.

In addition to being a trainer, I am coach. I try to never ask a dog to do something he does not understand or is not capable of doing.

You will notice I didn't once say in my humble opinion.

Neil

Biggest flaw ''In my humble opinion''!

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:41 pm

bb560m wrote:but if all you do is run it on easy birds and no type of other situations,

You totally misunderstand.

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:05 am

bb560m wrote:If you don't get corrections your dog won't learn what is acceptable. Any driven dog is going to want to chase & catch the birds, even a dead broke one 99% of the time.

How about if the dog does it right, and continues to do it right...as you gradually vary the scenarios and gradually make the situations more complex and challenging?

Do you still need corrections? I think not. Will the dog come through the process with more style and confidence? I think so.

THAT, to me, is the crux of this thread...doing it right in training, so there is NO NEED for corrections. Positive reinforcement. Setting the dog up to succeed in incremental stages, so that a positive picture is in the dog's mind and it WANTS to do, what you want it to do...not because it HAS or will be forced to or corrected, but because doing it the way the trainer wants, has become a habit.

Dogs do what is in their best interest. If you make doing the right thing a pleasant experience for the dog and keep the corrections to an absolute minimum, you will invariably end up with a bolder, happier, more confident dog...and that shows.

It is a frame of mind thing, on the part of the dog and especially on the part of the trainer and it takes more time, more thought and more work on the part of the trainer to get there.

RayG

Tooling · Post by **Tooling** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:44 am

RayGubernat wrote:
bb560m wrote:If you don't get corrections your dog won't learn what is acceptable. Any driven dog is going to want to chase & catch the birds, even a dead broke one 99% of the time.

How about if the dog does it right, and continues to do it right...as you gradually vary the scenarios and gradually make the situations more complex and challenging?

Do you still need corrections? I think not. Will the dog come through the process with more style and confidence? I think so.

THAT, to me, is the crux of this thread...doing it right in training, so there is NO NEED for corrections. Positive reinforcement. Setting the dog up to succeed in incremental stages, so that a positive picture is in the dog's mind and it WANTS to do, what you want it to do...not because it HAS or will be forced to or corrected, but because doing it the way the trainer wants, has become a habit.

Dogs do what is in their best interest. If you make doing the right thing a pleasant experience for the dog and keep the corrections to an absolute minimum, you will invariably end up with a bolder, happier, more confident dog...and that shows.

It is a frame of mind thing, on the part of the dog and especially on the part of the trainer and it takes more time, more thought and more work on the part of the trainer to get there.

RayG

Agreed...and as he continues to succeed let him know he is doing so and gradually move him forward by upping the ante' within reasonable limits. Mildly correct him/her when he/she strays from the objective if he/she has an understanding of that to keep him/her on track , find the hole or the bobble and return to the beginning stage of that process and teach the dog bringing him back to the desired behavior and walk away satisfied that you have genuinely taught your dog how to succeed. If you do not find a hole or a bobble...grin quietly and move on. Once this is complete merge it with the fun of the field and the pup has a positive experience doing what he was born to do...the whole package.

I personally think it would be stupid to get your dog on point and to drive a 4-wheeler right past him, however acclimating him to the arrival of a 4 wheeler if that is your chosen method from behind as his staunchness is being developed makes perfect sense.

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:03 pm

Tooling wrote:I personally think it would be stupid to get your dog on point and to drive a 4-wheeler right past him, however acclimating him to the arrival of a 4 wheeler if that is your chosen method from behind as his staunchness is being developed makes perfect sense.

That's where we differ. Once the dog was accustomed to the sound of a four wheeler, I might drive a circle around him just to "proof" him. There is an OLD field trial saying: "Train for the ridiculous and the trials come easy". True then, true today.

As long as a dog has been THOROUGHLY schooled on a concept, take it to the extreme to challenge him and your training. That's how super dog's are made.

In your scenario of the four wheeler, let's say you're hunting overgrown ditches in SD off your four wheeler. Dog slams on point. You rocket past him, turn and walk back to him pinning the bird between you and fido. Makes sense to me. If I could afford a four wheeler.

Tooling · Post by **Tooling** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:22 pm

gonehuntin' wrote:
Tooling wrote:I personally think it would be stupid to get your dog on point and to drive a 4-wheeler right past him, however acclimating him to the arrival of a 4 wheeler if that is your chosen method from behind as his staunchness is being developed makes perfect sense.
That's where we differ. Once the dog was accustomed to the sound of a four wheeler, I might drive a circle around him just to "proof" him. There is an OLD field trial saying: "Train for the ridiculous and the trials come easy". True then, true today.

As long as a dog has been THOROUGHLY schooled on a concept, take it to the extreme to challenge him and your training. That's how super dog's are made.

In your scenario of the four wheeler, let's say you're hunting overgrown ditches in SD off your four wheeler. Dog slams on point. You rocket past him, turn and walk back to him pinning the bird between you and fido. Makes sense to me. If I could afford a four wheeler.

And there you go...even somebody that makes perfect sense to me has a differing opinion....at this point. I approach this as an amateur but not a newbie and am certain my opinion will evolve as time progresses. I have been exposed to top notch dogs but not that many TOP NOTCH dogs...perhaps I can't fathom just what these dogs can take at that level of training. I can say this, those that will catch my ear are the ones that will tell me I'm a f-tard which will only make me laugh and ask for an explanation of my f-tardery. Unfortunately some opinions/experience that's valid and worth lending an ear to even if it's not an opinion you share becomes hidden in the delivery of the message...anyhow..enough of that..thanks gh.

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:27 pm

Us old guys think of such scenarios. When I become too old to walk after a dog, there's always ditches.

polmaise · Post by **polmaise** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:34 pm

gonehuntin' wrote:
Once the dog was accustomed to the sound of a four wheeler, I might drive a circle around him just to "proof" him. There is an OLD field trial saying: "Train for the ridiculous and the trials come easy". True then, true today.

Do you guy's get a lot of field trials with four wheeler's ?

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:54 pm

I set my dogs up to fail all the time or proof them. It is just a figure of speech. Once I believe they know what they are supposed to do in a situation, I will tempt them and/or present distractions. The dog needs to know exactly what is expected before I proceed to this step. If he does wrong, a mild correction is usually all that is needed. I don't believe in using a method where you go out of your way to get a dog to screw up so you can give him a correction, as was mentioned in a story in I believe Ray's post. I guess my point is that I agree with gonehunt'n that the term "set up to fail" is being misunderstood by a lot of people. I also had no problem understanding the point Neil was trying to make. I very well know what it is to be misunderstood.

Charlie

gonehuntin' · Post by **gonehuntin'** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:20 pm

birddogger wrote:I very well know what it is to be misunderstood.

Charlie

Geeze Charlie, ALL of us do that post on here. Ya gotta have skin like a wart hog!!!

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:37 pm

gonehuntin' wrote:
birddogger wrote:I very well know what it is to be misunderstood.

Charlie
Geeze Charlie, ALL of us do that post on here. Ya gotta have skin like a wart hog!!!

You got that right!

Charlie

birddog1968 · Post by **birddog1968** » Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:50 pm

polmaise wrote:
gonehuntin' wrote:
Once the dog was accustomed to the sound of a four wheeler, I might drive a circle around him just to "proof" him. There is an OLD field trial saying: "Train for the ridiculous and the trials come easy". True then, true today.

Do you guy's get a lot of field trials with four wheeler's ?

4 wheelers or horses are used by judges in most venues.....I don't know any judges willing to walk 20 or more braces a day. They'd have to be 15 years old and I don't think a 15 year old would make much of a judge

polmaise · Post by **polmaise** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:56 am

birddog1968 wrote:
polmaise wrote:
gonehuntin' wrote:
Once the dog was accustomed to the sound of a four wheeler, I might drive a circle around him just to "proof" him. There is an OLD field trial saying: "Train for the ridiculous and the trials come easy". True then, true today.

Do you guy's get a lot of field trials with four wheeler's ?
4 wheelers or horses are used by judges in most venues.....I don't know any judges willing to walk 20 or more braces a day. They'd have to be 15 years old and I don't think a 15 year old would make much of a judge

That's another Big difference to our side ! There a few judges I would love to see perched on their 'Trusty Steed'

It may even give hope to a few old timers that are now retired from the game physically but not without enthusiasm or knowledge

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:54 am

polmaise wrote:
gonehuntin' wrote:
Once the dog was accustomed to the sound of a four wheeler, I might drive a circle around him just to "proof" him. There is an OLD field trial saying: "Train for the ridiculous and the trials come easy". True then, true today.

Do you guy's get a lot of field trials with four wheeler's ?

In AFTCA sanctioned stakes, judges are not permitted to ride 4 wheelers(except in region 15). There was a resolution to that end about three years ago. They either walk or ride horses.

However, in most planted bird trials, the planting is done off a 4 wheeler. On private lands there is often a gallery following the brace and some of it may well be four and five passenger UTV's. with a dog box on the back for premature pickups.

ATV's and UTV's are a fact of life at most trials, so the dogs, and horses need to get used to them. I do not like them, but in truth, they can be very useful. Nothing will get an injured person or dog back from the woolly outback to where they can get proper care, faster and safer than a UTV. That feature alone makes them worth having around, much as I dislike them and their noise.

RayG

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:52 am

EVs, Electric Vehicle overcomes most of the objections.

Still don't like them for judges/handlers, but for use as dog wagon at least the noise and stink are gone.

Battery range is not there yet, but close at 25 miles for some.

Brazosvalleyvizslas · Post by **Brazosvalleyvizslas** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:13 pm

Neil wrote:EVs, Electric Vehicle overcomes most of the objections.

Still don't like them for judges/handlers, but for use as dog wagon at least the noise and stink are gone.

Battery range is not there yet, but close at 25 miles for some.

Electric ATV's wont cure many of my complaints. As they are more abusive to those who own the properties holding the trials or tests. Run a full weekend of braces on wet ground using multiple ATV's and the landscape either looks like crap or the dogs just run the trails. Happens even on dry ground. Noise is my last concern.