USE OF NEOPRENE VEST WHILE COMPETING

[Maureen Cooper]

Like Jack, I too put a great deal of thought into this o/night and came to the following conclusion. In an earlier post re the vests, Gareth states that the dog 'looks to put the vest on' and it keeps him 'dry and warm' therefore it obviously knows that getting into very cold water is still comfortable. I think there was also a comment re extra bouyancy too from a user.

We know via experience that some dogs are reluctant to enter the very cold water in winter and more inclined to run the bank, but a dog wearing a vest also knows he will still be warm and be much less inclined to run the bank. See Gareth's comment!

Trials are supposed to be run under an 'ambit of equality' and running a dog in a vest to keep it warm, drier, and as Jack says, constrain the dog bodily then bang goes the equality. The dog would also associate the vest with the requirment to get in the water so it becomes a cue.

Train with a vest by all means but trial, NO. Gareth states that we can all go out and buy vests, crumbs! We now appear to need automatic throwers, masses of dummies, e-collars etc etc, dont know where your pot of gold is but not every trialler has one. I think every trialler carries a chamois to dry their dogs off in winter. Cheap and cheerful! I also have a dog coat.

Technology is now giving us equipment we never had access to in the past but let us bring such technology into the rule book before we start bending them. Labs especially have that dual coat to protect them and where a neoprene vest seems an advantage for training in repetitive water work, I fail to see the necessity in a trial. I am quite sure this could be discussed at the rules meeting as urgent if not on the agenda or clubs can bring in a club rule that vests will not be allowed. Please let us stick to equality.

TTFN
Maureen

[Gareth Tawton]

Jack,

The dog learns control from having the collar physically attached to a lead and then held by the handler. There is a direct link between the collar and the handler. In the case of a vest there is never a direct link between the collar and the vest. The vest is never used to control the dog, it doesn't make him sit better, line better or handle better. So I see a huge difference between a collar and a vest. If the vest was a pair of boots to protect the dogs feet would they still help control the dog.

Gareth

[Jack Lynch]

Gareth,
You seem to have missed the point that I was endeavouring to make. The vest, being close fitting around the neck, from a dogs point of view, could be mistaken for a collar.Regarding your comment( collar physically attached to a lead) aint necessarily so. Some collars are different !
Regards, Jack.

[Gareth Tawton]

Jack,

I see your point but I can say that my dog certainly behaves differently between the pegs with a check chain on yet he doesn't with a vest on. Experiance suggests the vest makes no difference to the dogs obediance.
As you know at the end of the day the dog has to be taught not to cheat water. Cheaters do so if the weather is hot or cold, they are cheating swimming not the temperature.

Maureen,

As for the cost of a vest they are about $50 AUS. Given you probably spend a couple of hundred dollars in fuel, accommodation etc etc for a trial the you could miss one trial weekend buy a vest have some spare cash for an auto thrower both of which will probably last a life time. So the money issue is just a matter of choice.

As far as equality goes well we could argue that till the cows come home on 100's of points in trials. Realistically I think we can only look to make the test itself as equitable as possible. Prue has a short haired dog that because of its physical build will often feel the cold in the water. My dog badja has a super thick coat and never feels the cold in the water (and still runs the bank). Do we have equity if Prues dog faces a test that includes water that her dog feels is feezing while Badja because of his coat thinks it is like a warm bath? If those animals that do feel the cold more are allowed to wear a vets, do so, then aren't they then all facing the same test?

You would also think that given coats are allowed in the obediance ring then the consesus there is that theydo not give any advantage as far as obediance is concerened. At present the NSWCC rules specify that for Retrieving trials the ANKC rules will be followed. There are no state based variances. A vest is not prcluded in the ANKC rules therfore they must be legal. Unless you can find something in writing elswhere, I certainly can't.

Someone once said opinions are just like a backside we all have one!!!!!!


Gareth

[Susie Partridge]

Hey Gareth, I'm enjoying this debate.
From my fence I'm looking at Rule 1 which in part states "under conditions which emulate as closely as possible those which would be found whilst shooting" (taken out of context perhaps) ...... if you were shooting over your Alaskan Malamute you'd have a coat on him down 'ere at the moment.
And then on the other side of my fence is Rule 112 which in part states "the merits of performance in competitive work shall be the ability to mark, sagacity, use of nose, steadiness, dash, perseverance, attention, control, courage, style, retrieving and cleanness of delivery." I'm thinkin that a coat may influence a dog's sagacity, perseverance, courage and style??
I'm staying up here on the fence at the moment on this one!!
cheers
Susie

[Gareth Tawton]

Susie,

I think we would all agree that a vest fullfills Rule 1. Plenty of people use a vest on their dog while shooting. Its the most important rule of all and is fulfilled. As for rule 112 well sagacity is the apparent ability to reason and I don;'t think a vest gives a dog the ability to reason better, perserverance well to me thats his willingness to stick to his guns in a hunt and not give up a vest doesn't affect that. Style, I think a dog doesn't instantly change his style just because he pulls on his magic vest unlike Peter Parker when he puts on his spiderman outfit . Courage is the last thing that might be up for debate. But are we really here to test if a dog is tough enough break ice with or without a vest. I suspect there are far more important and realistic ways of seeing courage.

As you can imagine I too have done plenty of thinking on this and my conclusion at present is.

They are currently not banned and therefore are legal.

They do not increase the level of control one has over the dog as there is never a physical or electrical link between the vest the handler and the dog.

They help maintain a level of equality as all dogs and all breeds would have the opportunity to face a water test feeling comfortable.

They are available to everyone its just a matter of choice of you want one or not.

All states and the ANKC have rules applicable to all members which cover the requirement for us to ensure the health and well being of our dogs and to provide them with appropriate protection from inclement weather. Those who saw Dave Mills GSP at the NSW Champ last year who went into severe cramping after entering freezing water would understand this can be a real issue. We could now argue that each states regulations encourage us to use a vest if required by our particular animal.

Would they be a benefit to the trialing community as a whole? Yes, it would encourage people with minor breeds as they now would feel they don't have to compete both in the retrieve itself and against the weather when trialing against the heavy coated labs. Perhaps the long term result would be more competitors from the minor breeds.

Negatives? NONE

Susie the bulk of the competitors I spoke to in NSW were happy for vest to be allowed in competition. I hope now we can push you off the fence.

See ya at Benalla,

Gareth

[Prue Winkfield]

This will be a great topic for discussion at Benella when there will be a few more judges present - wonder what they do in the US.

[Susie Partridge]

Hi Pru,
yep it should make for an interesting debate!

Gareth,
being short, it helps to see things from up here on my fence.... I agree with you that if they aren't against current ANKC rules then triallers could use them. What grounds other than the ambit of equality which is currently under debate here, would competitors have for a protest if there is nothing in the rules??
I also think they would make life much more pleasant for the dogs in freezing water.
I don't think a vest gives a dog more ability to reason either but as I see it, sagacity is the ability to make good judgements and have keen perception. Along with perseverance and style (not the dog's overall style but in the freezing cold water etc circumstance) all I think may be affected by a dog's comfort level. Does a dog work better when he is warmer/happier/more comfortable ? Would he work for longer, make a different entry into the water, look for a bird for longer in the water rather than on a bank ? I don't know.
Have a safe trip south and see you at the weekend
Susie

[Prue Winkfield]

Sue -If segacity means making good judgement and have keen perception - the dogs would get the retrieve in the most efficient way and that would not be doing a channel swim in the middle of winter - in fact probably never! What a can of worms could be opened up here Prue

[Maureen Cooper]

Hi All

Very interesting to read the comments but re the rules, I dont think anyone had access to neoprene vests when the rules were last revised, hence no allusion to them. I also think the obedience ring is a vastly differing environment to a trial. I still feel the vest would be a cue to the dog to enter the water. If you dont think dogs can reason perhaps the number of folks out there who have dogs who can release their gates without ever having been taught to do so can beg to differ! I know of three so far and not so good with a bitch in season loose in the yard and the dog 'locked' in the pen!!!

Having owned a shorthair I know how they feel the cold or dislike water and re Butch, David Mills dog, he was suffering from cold water tail at the NSW State and I then sent David several articles on this as he had began to suspect something other than just cold water and wanted more info. on the problem as he said it had occurred when he was doing a lot of repetitive water work. Cold water tail is a very painful condition and when the dog is suffering from it then entering cold water with the condition would cause great pain and spasms and as you pointed out, the dog broke ice quite happily at Braidwood without the same reaction.

Hope you all have a great w/end,wish I was there but missing a few trials is now badly needed to pay for another ute, not an automatic thrower!!!

TTFN
Maureen

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Gareth

As you can imagine I too have done plenty of thinking on this and my conclusion at present is.

They are currently not banned and therefore are legal.

..............

They are available to everyone its just a matter of choice of you want one or not.

Gareth

Are you sure that anything not actually banned by the ANKC rules is "legal"? That is a very simplistic view of the rules.

I'll be taking my step ladder along to the next trial - always useful to keep the dog in sight.

Cheers - Alan

[Peter Doley]

I read recently " You won't win if you think you can't and you won't win if you don't want to". It wasn't that long ago it was said you have to own a lab to win retrieving trials. Now its you have to own a Golden or a lab(note golden mentioned first). There is plenty of information and advice available is for us to improve our training. We should all be looking for any technique that could give our dog an edge , but I think vests should stay in training. Many years ago I won an obedience trial on a normal wet very cold day in Ballarat. I spent the 1/2 hour before I went in the ring healing and dropping my dog in 3"inches of water. The comment from the gallery was the dirty golden over there is winning. The point I am trying to make is we shouldn't change any rules that will give us a better individual chance of winning. To me competing with a dog to the highest standard is the goal. Vests would be an excellent aid in training to give dogs confidence to enter water but should stay in training. From a trial managers view I could see the day if dogs were to wear vests in trials the dog being hooked up on something. The next thing someone would be in the water and a possibility of dog or handler drowning. Remote probability maybe. But why even have a remote chance . Leave vests out of trials.

[Prue Winkfield]

Not directly related to dogs but similar - I have a SMALL interest in a race horse - he started off well then was with a trainer that raced him with a very sore back. Since then he trials really well track times top rate but come race time he is nervous and wont put in - we believe he connects race courses with pain and of course cant use electric devices on horses. Just as dogs can connect water with unpleasantness if it cold enough - wonder what the animal libbers would say on this topic!

[Kate Eltringham]

everyone,

Let's reverse the argument. We can all understand the advantages of the dogs having a vest on for running in freezing cold water, particularly the non coated breeds, so I don't believe that there can be any dissention of the point that non coated breeds would be receiving an advantage to run with coats on in winter as would the coated breeds.

What about the autumn months of trialing? The non coated breeds have an advantage over the coated breeds when they are running in trials where the temps are higher but in this instance there is nothing that can be done to "help" the coated breeds get through the trial when it is hot. I have seen many coated breeds, particular those with heavy coats and also the black labs extemely distressed at the hotter trials but that is the choice the handlers have made when deciding to run their dogs when its hot, as it should be when dogs run in the cold trials.

So to reiterate the "ambit of equality" how can this be assessed when the same consideration can not be applied over the entire trialling season when weather conditions are hot or cold.

Have to finish packing the car so Susie and I can head off to Benalla!

Cheers

Kate

[Maureen Cooper]

Yet another bout of insomnia last night.

To all those folks vertically challenged it is now OK to take a light plastic milk crate to the firing peg to allow you the same field of vision as those handlers of around 6 ft height. ( Alan,you dont need one and a crate is smaller than a ladder, though,boy,think of the height!)There is nothing in the ANKC rules which states you cannot do this. However should you feel that the crate might be awkward to carry then a pair of binoculars would be a similar benefit and you could find your dog, especially a Springer, in tall grass or similar terrain. Once again there is nothing in the ANKC rules which precludes this.

Gareth:
The questions posed re the dog being "dry and warm", attitude and increased bouyancy (see Laraines post) have not been addressed.

As a VP of the NSW Gundog Society, and absence from the trial in question due to no wheels, phone calls to some triallers have shown them to be NOT been supportive of the vest so most triallers do NOT agree. With my youngest son being a longtime active scuba diver, the wet suits do not rip easily and should a dog get hooked up in a river such as the Murray with all those submerged logs and branches, a drowned dog could easily occur.

As Peter, Jack, Alan and myself, all judges,agree, vests should not be worn. I am certainly prepared to use binoculars to test the "not in the rule book" if that is the way the game is to be played. Or do we then use rule 58 where "All matters in connection with dogs actually under trial shall be in the hands of the judge"?

I also must remember that you consider the welfare of your dog of paramount importance.

Maureen