These dogs appear to be two yellow Labs and a golden.
Note that there is less emphasis on lining and handling. Much more of it is the dog’s ability to find game. Steadiness is also important. None of these dogs barks or bounces to break the line.
That golden sent for the blind in the cover, exhibits really strong quartering behavior as I would expect from that breed.
Always interesting to see another style of test.
Though the third dog had to handle on its mark, I’m assuming it passed? (In a US test, if there’s only one bird and there’s a handle, that’s a bad thing… especially as the dog did not drive deep enough and through the cover… but then, this is sort of like the third bird of a triple, I guess…)
I’m assuming on the blind the handler directs the dog to the area and the dog hunts it up? (In US trials, you handle the dog all the way to the blind–hunting at the end is NOT a good thing here, it’s considered lack of control. A tight hunt on a mark, however, is a good thing–the next best thing to stepping right on it.)
Slightly different emphasis on natural skills, but not crazy-different. It’s still dogs getting birds.
The dog isn’t handled all the way to the mark; it’s just handled into the direction.
I guess there’s an assumption that a handler doesn’t have as good a nose as a retriever.
Notice how they handle bank running.
Nope. Handler doesn’t have as good a nose.
That’s why most folks release the dog with a “Hunt it up” when they are hunting… [or in training IF there is a blind planted in a slightly different spot than you seem to be handling the dog to… (hey, it happens–birds roll down hills; handlers have poor depth perception)].
But in a test or trial, you are to have control of your dog until the end of the blind–or, if handling on a mark (undesirable), until the dog picks up the mark.
I’m not saying it makes 100 percent sense–but it’s the way it is. The blind portion of the test is to judge control. In fact, even in the marking category, “Nose” has been taken out of the rules and regulations. (Now THAT I don’t see any sense in.)
Seems that they handle bank running by ignoring it. I can see merit in that.
It’s a game, and a fun one, and demonstrates natural traits and biddability to varying degrees, on either side of the Atlantic.
That’s one thing that bothers me about trials and tests in this country.
The golden was specifically bred for its nose. Nose may have been secondary to color and biddability, but it really had an emphasis on its nose. And they really don’t get a chance to use that nose, unless it’s pbedience, SAR, substance detection, or tracking tests.
I’m going to be biased here, but I think they have far better noses than Labs.
Hi guys, I’m the one who was filming the exercise. Well, I’m not pretty familiar with the North American Retriever scene. All I’ve seen were some videos in the web. Based on that I would say that American and European Retriever work & breeding have been developed into two different ways. The requirements on the dogs are different. We are looking for dogs with a lot of will-to-please, easy to handle, great game finding ability, easy to train, working style and of course “independence”.
The way we’re running our contest here vary alot compare to the Americans. Not more then 150m for blind and mark but dogs sometimes have to jump over fences, free search w/o handling, walk-ups with action (marks) in front and in the back. So, you need a companion you can handle and you can rely on when he is out of sight!
Major faults are:
The dog is wining, you’r out. The dog is creeping instead of sitting right beside you, you’re out! Bad heel work, you’re loosing a lot of points.
Right now , I’ve noticed some kind of tendency that Europen breeders are looking for some American Golden Retrievers for breeding. Maybe a good idea to import some “fresh blood”…we’ll see what’s happening in the future.
Take care,
Christian
American golden retrievers are generally compatible with European trials. They don’t tend to do as well at American trials for certain reason, which I think will illustrate the differences. Working strain goldens are sort of old-fashioned in that they tend to retain a lot of characteristics of the old wavy and flat-coated retriever, which was once the dominant breed in British retriever trials.
Generally, American trials place more emphasis on blinds and on what’s called “lining.” The dogs must run in a line to the mark and back, especially if that involves running uphill or crossing water. The dogs are not encouraged to find game. They are handled remotely to the marks.
To get get good blind retrieves and good lining, you generally have to use a lot of “pressure” to train. That means use of the “conditioned retrieve” or ” force-fetch method” and the “e-collar.” Generally, goldens are softer than Labradors, and they tend to lose their style and instincts if they are handled too roughly. As a result, most retriever people in the US use Labradors, as I’m sure is the case in Europe.
However, working Labradors in Europe are generally easier to handle than their American counterparts. To get a dog to the highest level of competition in the US, the dog has to have such a wired temperament that he or she can put up with all the pressure. As a result, these dogs tend to be really energetic and extremely tough, to the point that many of them become intractable, like Marley. The Labradors over here are really quite different from those in Europe.
Check out these articles by an American Labrador expert. These will illustrate the differences and talk about the need to reform American trials and tests.:
http://www.fetchpup.com/about/ukfield.php
http://www.fetchpup.com/about/usfield.php
http://www.fetchpup.com/dogs/breeding.php
Keep in mind that retrievers here are used mostly on waterfowl and never have to touch furred game, like hares and rabbits.
As for American working lines, our “native” bloodlines were all imported in the 1920’s and 1930’s from Canada, where the strain had long been established. These dogs were kept in the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest, where they became known for their working ability. (The golden replaced the American water spaniel in much of the Upper Midwest by the Second World War.) These dogs were dual purpose dogs. We didn’t have a severe divergence in show and working types back then, and the dogs tended to be generally good workers, dark-colored (even mahogany!), and long-lived. Then after the Second World War, British show lines were imported to the East Coast (not the very pale ones of today, but still different from the earlier imports), and these were interbred with the “native” strains to produce our show strain.
The working lines of golden gradually separated from the show lines here, although it happened earlier in Europe. The working lines of golden in the US began to have some issue with inbreeding, so Holway lines were imported from Europe. Most working goldens in the US have some Holway breeding. Indeed, a majority of them descend from AFC Holway Barty. And from what I’ve seen in a lot of European pedigrees, the Holways are very important to working goldens there. So it may be that they are getting new blood, but it’s really just the same blood from a different continent.
Trust me, I’ve worried about this for some time, because now, the only thing that can be done to increase the genetic diversity is to breed with the show-lines, but finding show-line dogs that are suitable breeding partners for working dogs is becoming something of a daunting task.
I’m sorry if my comment was rather long, but these questions are issues I’ve thought about for some time.
“Generally, American trials place more emphasis on blinds and on what’s called “lining.” The dogs must run in a line to the mark and back, especially if that involves running uphill or crossing water. The dogs are not encouraged to find game. They are handled remotely to the marks.”
In both hunt tests and field trials, per the regulations and in practice, “marking is of primary importance.”
In a typical Master level hunt test, a dog will see between 7 and 10 marks, and a minimum of three blinds (a fourth is rare, and usually included due to a technical or terrain problem or because the judges want to further test marking by adding a blind factor to the test scenario). Generally, in Master, a handler can handle the dog to ONE mark and still pass, IF all other marking has been good or better than good; sometimes, a second handle will pass, but generally speaking you will go home without a ribbon. Lining is only important in that judges generally use the terrain to test whether the dog can mark despite many factors–hills, swails, ditches, puddles, brush, cover, intervening water, etc.–and generally the straighter the line the dog takes, the more likely he will be persevere through the factors and find the mark without disturbing too much cover (a fault) or returning to hunt an old fall (a fault).
In all-age field trials, dogs will typically see between 6 and 8 marks, and two blinds. Dogs who handle on marks never win (because there’s always at least one dog that gets all of his marks), and rarely place; depending on the rest of the dogs’ work, one handle in the final series MAY earn a Judges Award of Merit (which gets a green ribbon, but no points toward a championship). Of dogs that do pick up all the marks without a handle, the dog with the straighter lines to marks generally places higher, but not always.
Marking is of primary importance, per the regulations and in practice.
European trials want game finding ability over marking.
Marking is of little use if you’re in very heavy cover and a dog can’t see where the bird fall. Nose is far more important in traditional retriever work, which is what goldens/flat-coats do.
This lining behavior is an “only in America” thing.
And, I’m told, Australia, of all places!
If you substitute “game-finding” for “marking” I will tentatively agree with you, pending my being able to see a British trial either here or abroad.
But what is “marking,” if not game-finding?
I do agree that “nose” should never have been taken out of the regulations as a judged category, but I wasn’t around when it happened, so I can’t say what the argument was.
You should check out the hunt test at Coshocton in September. I’ll be running the Lab in Master and, maybe, the flattie in Senior (she’s not quite ready, but I may do it anyway…).
Marking is not game finding ability.
Europeans want game finding ability in their dogs.
Not everyone lives in Central Ohio where the land is flat and open. I don’t, and I live only 2.5ish hours from Columbus.
PLEASE come see a test.
Also, I’ve run more than one series in the woods–not the norm, but not unheard-of either.
I just think the European tests are far better. To train a dog that way requires far more work. But from what I’ve read, in Labradors, the breed in Europe is very similar to what the breeds was originally intended to be.
The golden hasn’t changed that much in its working form, but the working form is approaching a severe genetic bottleneck, mainly because its ancestors were European stock.
Remember, the Labrador was still in development as late as the 1940’s, and it basically evolved for the trials in its respective countries.
I still think you should see an AKC hunt test, or HRC.
I’d like to see a British-style hunt, but they are very few and far between.
Except in Britain.
On the Positive Gundogs yahoo group, there are several British trials being organized in this country every year.
I think that as the younger generation becomes more and more indoctrinated in the behaviorist school of dog training that these types of trials will become more popular. I think there is a demographic, which is growing, that wants to work their dogs but doesn’t want to ff or e-collar.
It may very well be that the way to save these retrievers is to go back to the old system. Back to the future.