April_May

Thank you for your continued support of this column. The call went out for judging questions and you responded. Questions were submitted by both handlers and licensed judges. I've tried to choose several scenarios that will be of interest to you for this issue. The answers to the questions were obtained by consulting the HRC Rulebook, judges/Handlers Seminar Manual, and talking with licensed judges and your UKC/HRC Field Reps. I’d like to particularly thank our fine field representative here in Region 2, Shane Fooks, for his help, time, and valued counsel on some of the scenarios submitted. I've sent several questions to field reps in other regions to ask for their consensus opinion on your questions.

Some of the scenarios you'll see reflect events that actually happened at our licensed hunts. While we appreciate all of you who take the time to send your questions in, the scenarios used in the judge's Corner are meant to be used to educate and inform our membership, not prove that a particular dog or handier were judged improperly. Keep in mind a couple of things. Our rulebook correctly states that the simplest and best way to deal with a problem is at the time of the event, at the club level. Mistakes are some times made by even the very best judges, but regarding retriever and test knowledge, and the ability to make the correct call 99.9 percent of the time, I'd stack our HRC judges up against any other judges in the retriever testing world. Although we may disagree at times, we should continue to stand behind our judges when they make those tough judgmental decisions on the performance of our retrievers. Let's took at our first scenario.

Situation:

At the Finished Land Test, the working dog did a good job on the triple marks and blind retrieve, and moves to the honor stool. The next dog comes to the line. Both handlers’ signal ready and the marks are thrown. As the third mark bits the ground, the honor dog leaves the line on his own and goes 10-15 feet before being stopped by the handler with a "No, heel," and immediately comes back to heel. The working dog is then released to pick up the marks.

(Note: the honor dog did not interfere with the working dog). The Judges failed the honor dog. "When asked why at the conclusion of the bunt, the lead judge stated, "There is no such thing as a controlled break on the honor.

Question:

Were the judges correct in failing the dog for the reason stated?

Answer:

When we talk about "honoring" (requiring a dog to sit quietly and watch while another dog retrieves), we are speaking about the broader category of control, which includes such things as manners and obedience, and steadiness. We first see the requirements to "honor" in the Finished Test description, and again in the Grand Test description in our HRC Rulebook. The only mention in the test rules about the honor for both Finished and Grand both state that during the tests, a retriever must honor at or near the retrieving line, and its view of the hunting test cannot be obstructed. There is no specific mention in the rulebook guidelines for Finished or Grand Tests about judging the honor dog.

We can correctly assume that those rules and guidelines about obedience and steadiness (including creeping, breaking, and a controlled break) that apply to the working dog on the line also apply to the honor dog. Whether a retriever is working or honoring, it may indeed be failed for a controlled break. This is a judgement call based on the circumstances involved. However, it is a stretch of the rulebook, and also wrong to state that "There is no such thing as a controlled break on the honor." Our judges were incorrect for failing the dog for that specific reason. In the judges/Handlers Seminar, we discuss evaluating the honor dog, and some important do's and don'ts to consider when setting up the honor situation.

Situation:

The club was running an AA hunt with two flights of dogs in both Seasoned and Finished. On set-up day, the Seasoned judges decided to include the diversion bird on the Land Test. The next morning, in the confusion of getting the test started, the Seasoned Land judges inadvertently left out the diversion bird. When both sets of judges conversed before switching testing sites, the error was discovered. .After discussion with the bunt committee, it was decided to have a diversion on both land and water in the afternoon.

Question:

Was this a correct decision? (Don't all dogs have to run the same test?)

Answer:

This group of judges is to be commended for recognizing a mistake, and taking action to properly correct it. The judges have an obligation to set up a legal test, including marks, honor, diversion, and blind retrieves appropriate to the level of retriever being tested. In the Judges/Handlers Seminar, a great amount of emphasis is placed on setting up legal, fair and consistent tests, and judging each dog to the same standards. Although test conditions can and will vary throughout the day, this is not sufficient enough reason to make a change.

The decision to change a test should not be made lightly. However, there are times when a test should and must be changed: to make it a legal test, for safety reasons, weather, or other unforeseeable conditions. Except in rare circumstances, judges should not change anything in the middle of a test. In the Judges/Handlers Seminar, we discuss appropriate situations and times to make test changes and how to do it. When the judges feel strongly that a change should be made, they should consult the hunt committee and state their reasons for changing the test. The hunt committee will need to approve the changes. In the above situation, the judges were forced to make a change at midday, but they handled it well.

Situation:

At the afternoon Finished Land Test, the Retriever was about to run the blind retrieve. The blind was about 90 yards out across a flat corn stubble field, with the wind blowing at a brisk 20-mph. right to left. The dog had done a good job on the morning water test and picked the land marks up without a whistle. The dog takes a bad line to the blind (bending with the wind almost immediately after leaving the line). The handler quickly attempts to correct the dog by blowing a sit whistle, which is refused.

Multiple whistles are blown (four or five) and all blatantly refused The dog is going to pass well left of the blind, but manages to wind the bird, and turn and pick it up on its own. The handler turns to the judges and says, "The dogs never refuses whistles, and only did today because it has an ear infection. “

Question:

How should this be judged? Also, can a retriever be failed for poor performance on one bird in a test?

Answer:

The finished test description on page 20 in the HRC Rulebook states that the hunt will have at least four tests, one of which is a land blind retrieve. Although many times, the Finished blind is run in conjunction with the marking test, it is a separate test as defined in the rulebook, and as shown on our Finished Judge's sheets. In this scenario, the retriever took a poor line to the blind, showed no response to the whistle, and found the bird on its own. Clearly, it did not "pass" the land blind test, and should fail the hunt.

Was the ear infection justification for passing the dog on the blind? No. In the Judges/Handlers Seminar, we talk about judging all dogs on the performance we see in the field that day, not on past performances or titles the dog may have. Sometimes the best of dogs have a problem on a particular portion of a test. In our scenario, it was not the responsibility or job of the judges to verify a medical problem, only to evaluate the retriever on each portion of the test. Perhaps the handier was being unfair to the retriever to expect it to perform well with an ear infection. Unfortunately, many times, a retriever will perform admirably on every portion of the test, but come up short on one bird. How many times has this happened to you?

Our final question was sent as a letter to U.K.C. and forwarded to me by Michelle with a note saying, "I'm not sure if you would like to use this question or not." I am not making this up. After reading it, I had to use it. Rather than use the familiar scenario/question/answer format, I'd like to simply quote from the handler's letter. He writes: "I have a Finished dog who is very high strung and sometimes very vocal on the line (mostly when honoring). So far, when he has been marked down for it, he's never failed for it. There's no way he could ever pass a Grand Test if he started barking. My question is: “If I had the dog operated on to remove his ability to bark, would I have broken a U.K.C. Rule?"

The handler goes on to say, “A veterinarian told me a dog thus remodeled would still be capable of making a sound. The dog would still be vocalizing but at a much reduced level, certainly less than would constitute excessive noise." The handler also asked, "Does UKC/HRC have any guide- lines to deal with the surgical enhancement of dogs?"

In the Judges/Handlers Seminar, we discuss excessive noise (by both the handler and retriever), what to do when it occurs, and how to evaluate it. This subject might give us some interesting questions for future issues of the Judge's Corner. For the purposes of answering this handler's particular questions, there are no "rules" about this, and Michelle advises me that UKC does not have a policy on a surgical procedure such as this one. This letter reminded me of a visit Kathy and I made to my brother's house in central Illinois shortly after his family moved into a new neighborhood. We looked across the street, and in a neighbor's dog pen attached to the garage was a rather large, mixed- breed dog making all sorts of head movements with its mouth opening and closing. Oddly, the dog was making no noise that we could hear from where we were. I said to by brother, 'What's that dog doing?" He told me the dog made such a nuisance barking all night that the owner finally resorted to having the dog's vocal cords cut. Kathy said that was just awful. My brother said, "No really, he's still having a good time. He doesn't know he's not making any noise!"

I have to tell you that in his letter, this handler went on to say that he wouldn't think of doing such a thing to his Lab. He also said, "There are times when it's all I can do to keep from barking at the line myself" I'd like to think that was a testament to the great tests this handler has been seeing. I can't help saying that as a judge, I've had some dog/hanlder teams on the line where it wasn't the dog that needed the vocal cord surgery!

I'd like to thank this handler for a great letter, and a fun way to end this month’s Judges Corner. Thanks again and please send you questions to:

back to home page

back to articles index

Last modified: February 18, 2008