Just passin' through

For discussion on anything retrieving related - trialing, training equipment, news, etc.

Moderator: Peter Butterfield

Just passin' through

Postby K Normanl » Thu 20 Mar 2003 5:13 am

Hey from the U.S.

Just passin' through and thought I'd say hello.....kinda quiet around here...
K Normanl
 

Postby Teresa Parkinson » Wed 26 Mar 2003 12:16 pm

Hey back, CS! :lol:

Good to hear from the other side of the world! Kinda quiet around here too.:cry:

Any news from anybody????? Who's planning to make the trip down to Victoria for the 3-Day Easter Trial? Wayne & I will be there for a bit of a break and a chance to run the dogs again.

Teresap
Teresa Parkinson
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu 27 Feb 2003 11:40 am
Location: Teal Point, Victoria, Australia

easter trials

Postby Peter Betteridge » Wed 26 Mar 2003 1:59 pm

teresa
things are about to get more rowdy
NSW results thus far wil be up on the NSW page by tommorrow also the schedules for SA are going up
the details for the ACT gundog soc trial in early may will be posted on the ACT page
results from all the states should start pouring in shortly so keep checking in. Good luck at easter I know alot of NSW triallers are planning on going
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Postby K Normanl » Sun 30 Mar 2003 5:09 am

Hey again.

I'm curious about trialing down there. It seems that I've read on this board that the sport is having a hard time getting new youngsters involved.

Why hasn't someone down there investigated hunt tests?

We here in the States have them almost every weekend, and they are getting more and more popular every year. Our test this past weekend had over 200 dogs and was only one of probably 15 to 20 events across the country.

There is a fair amount of crossover between the field trials and hunt tests and alot of folks get interested in FT's by playing the hunt test game.

Here's a link to the Hunting Retriever Club....

http://www.hrc-ukc.com
K Normanl
 

Passing through

Postby Prue Winkfield » Sun 30 Mar 2003 9:25 am

According to Bill Eckett who ran a seminar over here in January - our Retrieving Trials are like your hunt tests with our All Age similar to Master Hunter and Restricted to Senior Hunter. As I understand it - our marks and cover are difficult and the standard high but our blind retrieves leave a lot to be desired from a US Field Trial point of view. Others on this forum can probably elaborate. We certainly are having problems attracting people - a lot of reasons probably. One is that anything to do with shooting and guns is definitley 'on the nose' with the majority of the population. It is getting difficult to obtain a gun licence and even more difficult for city based folks to find somewhere where they can even use a starting pistol or immitation gun for training and heaven help you if someone sees you with dead pigeons in a park!

Could go on for ever about what we need to do - have done so already in other posts!
Prue Winkfield
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri 14 Feb 2003 9:17 am
Location: victoria

CS info for you

Postby retriever staff » Sun 30 Mar 2003 6:39 pm

[quote="Cat Squirrel"]Hey again.

I'm curious about trialing down there. It seems that I've read on this board that the sport is having a hard time getting new youngsters involved.
Bob Tawton, one of australia's most prominent trialers has written an explanation of how our trials work, look on the articles page
retriever staff
 

Re: Passing through

Postby Pat Thorn » Mon 31 Mar 2003 2:47 pm

pruew wrote:As I understand it - our marks and cover are difficult and the standard high but our blind retrieves leave a lot to be desired from a US Field Trial point of view.

Tell me Prue, what are the main differences between our blinds and theirs?
Is it the length of runs or the decoys?
Pat
Pat Thorn
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed 12 Feb 2003 2:58 pm
Location: Victoria

Field trials in the USA

Postby Kerry Webster » Mon 31 Mar 2003 8:05 pm

In conversations with some other retrieving people here in Oz, we consider, if our dogs had the opportunity to have people dressed in white out in the field, as is the case in the USA, then distance would certainly not be a problem. As our dogs do NOT have this assistance, then I think the difficulty factor is fairly equal. Also, from what I have seen, the USA handlers are not required to hold the shotgun at all times when at the firing point, as we are. The other factor I have noticed is the terrain. We usually have very difficult terrain for the dogs to negotiate, including steep cliffs, fast flowing rivers, and dense bush. The photographs and videos I have observed from the US have trials conducted in fairly flat open terrain, with the handler able to observe and direct his/her dog.

Kerry
Kerry Webster
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat 16 Nov 2002 1:23 pm
Location: Boddington, Western Australia

Postby Prue Winkfield » Mon 31 Mar 2003 10:11 pm

Pat - as I understand the situation, the US Field Trials require dogs to run straight lines for 250plus meteres without deviating a metre and that includes crossing small inlets of water, etc. without more than one command to win. They are not allowed to talk to their dogs - just whistles and hand signals plus verbal commands. Not the sort of thing you hear at our trials. The dogs have to be totally obedient and if they slip a caste or misline they are out of competition - hence the electric collars and all the drills they have to do. Bob Tawton can probably explain better or someone else who has been over there. They certainly do not have to contend with the sort of cover we have - our trials are like their Hunt Tests. Prue
Prue Winkfield
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri 14 Feb 2003 9:17 am
Location: victoria

Postby Pat Thorn » Wed 02 Apr 2003 11:51 am

pruew wrote:Pat - as I understand the situation, the US Field Trials require dogs to run straight lines for 250plus meteres without deviating a metre and that includes crossing small inlets of water, etc. without more than one command to win

What do you think they are trying to prove when a dog has to go 250+ metres without deviating a metre. I can understand the minimum number of commands, but when all they are doing with the 250+ meterage is proving that electric collars work. Where is the expertise in training that is required to train dogs, that seems to be forgotten with the use of electric collars.
Pat
Pat Thorn
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed 12 Feb 2003 2:58 pm
Location: Victoria

Postby Guest » Thu 03 Apr 2003 2:37 am

What do you think they are trying to prove when a dog has to go 250+ metres without deviating a metre. I can understand the minimum number of commands, but when all they are doing with the 250+ meterage is proving that electric collars work. Where is the expertise in training that is required to train dogs, that seems to be forgotten with the use of electric collars.


Pat,

I don't mean to offend you, but your viewpoint is erroneously shared by MANY non-collar trainers.

E-collars are NOW used here in the States by trainers to reinforce KNOWN commands, not to TEACH commands. I can understand your statement 15 or 20 years ago...it probably would have been true, but now methods have changed where the e-collar is used to reinforce known commands AFTER they have been taught.

Think of it as a swat on the butt of a child who has been taught not to touch a hot stove...at first you tell him "no", maybe tell him "no" twice....if he goes for it again, he gets a swat (not a beating!).....with today's variable intensity collars it is very easy to adjust the level of correction to each individual dog.

BTW, no one is trying to "prove" anything by running 250+ metere blinds...the competition is THAT GOOD, and our field trials are dog against dog...how could you pick a winner if you don't try to make the task challenging (distance is but one way to do this).

Our FT's are routinely won by dogs that complete 300 yard quad marks (hidden/retired guns) with a 400 or even 500 yard blind. (Sorry, I can't convert that to meteres off the top of my head).

You are confused...an e-collar is a method to enforce training methodology...not the methodology itself.

Kevin
aka Cat Squirrel
Guest
 

go easy on Pat

Postby retriever staff » Thu 03 Apr 2003 12:01 pm

dear kevin
it is important to remember that we are an entirely amateur sport. think of us as about 25 years behind the US.Most australians have never been exposed to professional training techniques. Many of us however have watched videos of US training methods and understand that any tool can be used humanely or subsequently abused. I would also like to point out that in some states electric collars are illegal. We do have several triallers who could compete successfully in US field trials however they are people who have spent extensive time in the states and have brought home many american ideas. The vast majority of people are like Pat, amateur enthusiasts who run their pet gundogs in retrieving trials at the weekend. Alot of australians have begun to watch Lardy , Carr-Rorem videos and are very impressed with the amount of control exhibited on blind work. We recquire our dogs to display great sagacity as one of the principle differences between our trials and yours is that our dogs are expected to work out of sight with only limited opportunities for handling.From my limited experience it seems to me that we also trial in much heavier cover than you do. Our distances are much shorter and we only have triples (no Quads) Perhaps you could tell us something about yourself, your dogs and how you train them, as you can see already there is alot of interest in your topic.Most australians are open minded and keen to explore new ideas
retriever staff
 

Postby K Normanl » Fri 04 Apr 2003 5:24 am

Dear R.S.

Yes, you are so right about the potential misuse of any training tool, e-collars included. Therein lies the problem with e-collars...for the lazy type of trainer, it's almost TOO easy to press a button. The problem is that dogs aren't robots. At least if you use a whip or a club you have to put some muscle behind it (sarcasm intended) :lol:

For what it's worth, I am also an amateur...and not a field trialer either. I have enjoyed the odd trials that I've been to over the years, but frankly, I'm a duck hunter first. I guess this makes me a hunt test enthusiast.

Here in the States, the difference between the two is pretty clear.

FT's (field trials) are a dog against dog competition. Handlers wear white so that dogs can see the handler at great distances. The handler does not shoot a gun. There are many pro trainers that compete and quite a few amatuers also (who are often as good as the pros, they just don't make their living training dogs). This is the "big leagues". The dogwork has to be seen to be believed.

HT's (hunt tests) are dog against a prescribed standard. The dog must pass a test, not beat the other dogs in head to head competition. Depending on the organization sponsoring the test, handlers must use either a real shotgun loaded with blanks or a mock (plywood cutout) gun. The distances are generally much shorter (out to 150 yards; is that about 130 meters?) but the cover is often heavier and there are no white coats allowed. The handler usually must dress in camoflage or tan (try to handle a dog at 150 yards when you blend into the background...it can be tough :D ) The idea is to simulate a duck or other type of bird hunt as realistically as possible. Steadiness is very important for the obvious reason that an unsteady dog might get in the shot string and be inadvertently killed during a "real" hunt. Many professionals run the hunt tests also, but it is dominated by average working folks, who like to bird hunt.

There are alot of training systems in use here. Most of the "modern" e-collar systems are based on the work of Rex Carr, who was a pioneer in the HUMANE and FAIR use of the e-collar to reinforce known commands. This includes the Lardy, Rorem and now the Dobbs' (to some extent) programs. Personally, I have used the Lardy program, with some minor modifications, to train my most recent pup and I am thrilled with her progress.

Although I am simplifying alot, the basic idea behind these programs is to TEACH the skill, then reinforce the skill with stick pressure, then reinforce with the collar...for example: teach the puppy "sit"....when the dog KNOWS the command, reinforce with a heeling stick, thus "sit" then LIGHT swat on the rump, then "sit" (spoken again)..."sit" swat "sit"....the dog will respond much more promptly...when the dog is of the appropriate age (usually about 8 months or so) you can introduce the collar...the dog knows sit already so the process would be "sit", nick with collar, "sit"....you do not nick every time, but every 3rd or 4th sit command. A nick is a SHORT, BRIEF pulse from the collar (about 1/8th of a second)....you do not fry the dog, that is brutality and not training (there are situations that you must "burn" the dog, such as to break a dog from chasing cars, etc. but that is mostly confined to life threatening situations where you simply must have obedience).

If anything, PROPER training with an e-collar is MORE demanding than without one. The trainer must not only train the desired skill, but also reinforce that skill with the pressure of the collar all the while reading the dog to make sure that the pressure is being applied in a systematic and fair way!!!
K Normanl
 

Postby Julie C » Fri 04 Apr 2003 4:29 pm

Last year, with my "darling" husband's blessing I travelled to the American Amateur Field Trial National Championship alone.

The week before the start of the WEEK LONG national I was lucky enough to observe prenational training which was also for a week long period.

The trial itself was excellent BUT the prenational training I could have watched for the rest of my life. It was like being at the Russian ballet all day long (and believe me it went all day- BOY DO THEY TRAIN!!!!!!

I cannot believe that there is an undercurrent of competition between us Australian's and our US visitors. The bottom line is that every country tests their dogs in different ways, and have to train accordingly.

I found my trip "absolutely beyond my wildest dreams" - even if I had to drive on the other side of the road, and Bill and Becky Ecketts January seminar held in Victoria was better than chocolate!!!! (or in my case a glass of red wine at home on a Sunday night after a trialling weekend).

We in Australia was so lucky. We can steal many US training drills, concepts and exercises and thus cannot help but train/teach our dogs better.

If you are interested I will give you a low down on my views of my experience in the States. Even being a game steward was fun, as I could video behind the handler.

Julie Cramond
Julie C
 

Postby Guest » Sat 05 Apr 2003 6:39 am

I cannot believe that there is an undercurrent of competition between us Australian's and our US visitors.


Not competition, but rather an attempt to understand each other's training philosophy.

There are many things I don't understand about Australian training/culture...I can't believe you have to get a gun license for a trial (or to own a gun)...Is it really that hard to find training areas???? And what the heck is vegamite, anyway??? Heh he heh.....


It is getting difficult to obtain a gun licence and even more difficult for city based folks to find somewhere where they can even use a starting pistol or immitation gun for training and heaven help you if someone sees you with dead pigeons in a park


I've always had the image in my head that Australians are a rugged, earthy type, thanks to a couple of popular TV characters...please don't tell me the eco-weenies have taken over down under... :lol: :lol: :lol: Say it isn't so!!!!!

The two places I've always wanted to visit are Australia and New Zealand....
Guest
 

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

cron