 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - December 1996 / January 1997 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
The weekend before the 1996 Fall Grand held this October at
Rend Lake here in Southern Illinois, my wife Kathy and I had the pleasure of
training with a small group of HRC
members who had come from Texas and Louisiana to run the event.
If I mentioned who they were, many of you would recognize their names.
Several of the dogs on their trucks passed this Grand.
The great thing about training with these folks is that in addition to
having a whole lot of fun, we saw the serious side of properly preparing a
retriever to pass Grand level tests. Some
of our HRC judges could take a lesson from
these trainers regarding the thought and preparation that went into the
drills and training scenarios set up. Merely setting up a triple, quad,
diversion, and/or blind was not their idea of training.
Their philosophy was to set up training scenarios which challenged the
dog on every skill the retriever would need in the Grand tests.
Much like a good judge does when looking over a new test site, these
trainers studied the terrain, then decided how to best use the grounds to
train on the concepts they wanted to present to the retrievers. They believed that once a dog was trained on a
specific “concept” (such as swimming past a point, leaving a mark to go to
a blind, sitting remotely for a shot flyer, etc.), the dog will understand
what is expected of it if the same concept is presented in a test.
In order to successfully do this in a limited amount of time, each mark
thrown and blind run was used to elicit a specific reaction from the dogs.
No time or resources was used inefficiently.
Sounds like a pretty good philosophy to use when setting up a hunt test
does it not?
Speaking of good tests, I’d
like to commend the Fall 1996 Grand hunt judges for the quality of the tests
they set up. Their tests were
challenging, realistic hunting
scenarios. I was fortunate enough
to get to run the first three, and wish I could have tried the last two.
Our HRC Grand hunt showcases our best retrievers, and has the effect of
elevating our training and testing program to a higher level.
It has the same effect on our judges and our judging program!
Let’s get to our first scenario:
Situation:
The Finished judges had set up a
solid land test. It was the first
test of the day. The test dog had
watched the triple fall and completed the first retrieve uneventfully.
Just as he picked up his second mark, another dog bolted from behind
the gallery and came running into the test, attempting to get the pigeon from
the test dog. Fortunately, the handler was able to call the test dog in
with the bird before a dogfight developed.
An embarrassed owner came running into the test and caught the loose
dog.
Question:
How do the judges handle this situation, and what does the rulebook say? Answer:
This is an interesting scenario
that actually occurred at one of our hunts recently. Since there was no fight, UKC’s “Disqualified for
Fighting” policy would not be applicable.
The only mention the rulebook makes about a situation like this is: “A
hunting retriever that breaks away and runs into the working area of another
hunting retriever may result in disqualification”, which can be found in
the Rules for Started, page 12, and Rules for Seasoned, page 16.
Oddly, this statement is found in the same paragraph that says: “The
handler must keep his hunting retriever on lead to and from the retrieving
line”. This statement does
not appear in the Rules for Finished, although the Finished retriever is
brought to the line off lead!
The situation should be handled
by using good judgement. As
reported to me, the dog that ran into the test was not entered in the hunt,
but the owner had another dog entered. There
is no justification in our rulebook for disqualifying a handler for
this action. Only a dog may be
disqualified. May is the
key word here, and allows the judges to use their discretion and common sense
to handle each situation. Obviously,
the judges should not be to quick to disqualify a Started dog that sees a bird
in flight then gets away from its handler and runs into the test.
Even at the Seasoned and Finished level, sometimes the handlers are
required to park almost on top of a test area, and a dog who is being let out
of its truck may get away from a handler during a moment of inattention.
We discuss this issue briefly in the Judges/Handlers Seminar, but a
word of caution at the test might be in order if a judge feels there may be a
possibility of this occurring.
No two situations will be alike. Judges
and test site marshals should also be alert for any loose dogs in the gallery
area. Some visitors to our hunts
bring their dogs and may not realize the need to keep them on a lead around
the test area.
Situation:
At the Upland Test, the handlers
were told that after completing the walk-up, they were to release their
retrievers to begin quartering down the field.
One of the judges was an avid upland hunter while the other did not
have much experience with this type of test.
While judging the retrievers, they both noted that several dogs had the
tendency to circle back behind the handler while quartering.
Question:
Is circling back behind the
handler acceptable in the quartering test, or is it grounds for failure?
After all, the HRC Rulebook states that “The
dog hunts in a radius ideally from 10 to 30 yards to the side and in front of
the Handler.”
Answer: As the two judges began to
discuss which dogs should pass and which should not, it was obvious the less
experienced judge believed the dogs should have stayed
in front of their handlers. The experienced upland judge decided this
was a good time to enlighten his partner on what exactly constituted an
acceptable quartering performance. The
veteran upland hunter explained that the most important thing to look for in a
dog’s performance was that it was eager to hunt all available cover, be in
control, and stay within gun range. He
explained that a dog hot on scent in an actual hunting situation will often
circle back behind a hunter and flush the bird. He stated that many times he had walked past birds holding in
the cover, yet his dog had come back around and forced the flush.
It is up to the Upland test
judges to determine whether the dog demonstrated its natural tendency to hunt
(nose down in the cover) while quartering, which may include circling back
behind the handler on occasion. This
is very different than the dog who is not checking the cover, continually
looks to the handler for direction or affirmation that it is not making a
mistake, and constantly attempts to return to heel, lacking any understanding
that it is supposed to be hunting game.
Situation:
Our last scenario was sent to me
by a veteran HRC licensed Finished judge who saw this test at one of the hunts
in his region. His letter came
complete with a detailed sketch of the situation which I won’t attempt to
duplicate. The test site
was a Finished land simulated goose hunt.
The handler and retriever entered the field and walked up to the line,
which was a hay bale blind. The
handler picked up a gun and three poppers.
At that point, the handler notices an overturned goose decoy a few
yards in front of the blind. The
handler was required to leave the dog at the blind, walk out to the decoy
(with the gun), and turn the decoy right side up.
As soon as the handler touched the decoy, three shots were heard from
behind the tree line to the right (about 90 yards), and a bird was thrown over
the tree line (shots all preceded launch).
The handlers were told they could point the gun at this bird, but not
shoot. Following this bird two
more birds came out of the tree line which the handler shot at (30 to 35
yards). The handler is still at
the decoy and the dog supposedly at the hay bale blind.
The retriever was released for the first retrieve and the handler could
return to the blind for the subsequent retrieves. There was no pick up order.
Completing the triple, the handler ran a blind, with a diversion on the
return (popper # 3). The
gentleman who sent this scenario to me said he had two questions on rule
violations, besides viewing this as a poor logistical setup as well.
Questions:
Was this a legal test?
Also, since most dogs left the hay bale blind to be with the handler
when the shooting started, this means they left the retrieving line before
being sent. Should this be
considered “breaking”, and those dogs failed?
Answer: The test these judges set up
could be considered to be a very realistic hunting scenario.
The judges are to be commended for their imagination and realism.
How many times have you been out in the decoys when a flock of birds
appeared out of nowhere? They
could have added one more touch - when the handler went out to the decoys, a
buddy in the blind starts to call and the handler has to drop face down in the
mud for say . . . . . . 60 seconds!
Seriously, we learn in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar that while we strive for “realism”in
HRC hunts, judges must
consider many other factors when constructing their test.
As we briefly discussed in the last issue of the Judges Corner, some of
the questions they should consider are: Is
the test safe? Does the test
comply with all the rules and guidelines in our HRC rule book?
Am I testing the retriever adequately and to the standards for this
class? Does the handler and
retriever have a fair opportunity to demonstrate the skills required to pass
at this level? Let’s take a
close look at this test set-up to see if we’ve answered these questions.
First, this was not a
legal test. The hunt committee
should have discovered this when they previewed the test on set up day.
Those of you who are thinking the test was illegal because the handler
did not shoot the first bird are close to the answer.
This might be a good time to review what our rulebook says about
shooting the birds, as there appears to be some confusion about this.
Our rulebook does not say the handler has to shoot the birds at
the top of the arc (except at the Grand level)!
What the rulebook does say at the Seasoned and Finished levels is “when directed by the Judge, the Handler must shoulder his shotgun,
aim, track and shoot at the top of the arc of the thrown bird”, (pages
16, & 21). This allows the judges to simulate another hunter in the
blind who may shoot one of the birds. In
this test, the handler was not directed to shoot at bird #1.
The rulebook does say, however, at Started, Seasoned, and Finished
levels, “A shot must be fired when the
bird is at the top of its arc”, (pages 12, 17, 22).
Not having either the handler, or a gunner fire at the top of the arc
of bird # 1 made this test illegal. Apparently,
the dogs were having trouble seeing the first bird.
The judges could have had a visible gunner fire a shot to start the
test, then shoot again as the bird was thrown.
This would have the given the dogs a better opportunity to see the
mark. A test is always a poor
logistical set up if you don’t give the retrievers a fair opportunity to
mark the birds on a marking test. I’m
not sure what these judges did when they realized many of the dogs were not
marking the first bird. Did they
judge the bird as a blind for some dogs and a mark for others?
Not all dogs in a test will see all the marks (they all won’t swing
with the gun, and many will creep, etc.), but a good judge will see that poor
test logistics does not cause this.
Should the dogs who ran to the handler be failed for breaking? No. Our rulebook clearly states that “the retriever may be placed a reasonable distance from the handler at the retrieving line” (pages 17 & 21). This rule allows the judge to observe the dog working or honoring “remotely” (away from the handler), such as outside a blind, on a dog stand, etc. What distance is reasonable is left up to the judges, and may vary for the level being tested. It seems logical that when a dog is placed a reasonable distance from the handler, it should stay where it is placed. How do we then judge the dog who does not stay put? I talked this over with Don Ley, and we both agreed that in the scenario as presented, the dogs who ran into the field to be with the handler were not “breaking” in the classic sense, i.e; where not leaving the retrieving line before being told to do so in an attempt to retrieve a bird. Going to the handler and going for the bird are two different things. Leaving a remote position to go to the handler in this scenario would be more appropriately judged as an obedience problem rather than a breaking situation, and marked accordingly. Our best HRC judges have the
ability to set up a “complete” test at any level they are judging.
Every element of the test shows the judge some ability or skill they
are required to judge in the retriever. There
is no confusion about what the judge is wanting to see.
Handlers are clear about what is being judged.
The test is not out of balance, with a disproportionate emphasis placed
on one particular element or skill. Most
handlers don’t mind difficult tests, they just hate tests where either they’re
not sure what the judge wants, or some element of the test makes no training
or testing sense. Just as it
takes a lot of time and experience to be able to bring a dog up to an advanced
level of training, it takes a lot of skill and experience to have the ability
to set up a good test scenario.
As a judge at any level, don’t hesitate to ask your field reps what
their opinion is regarding your test set up.
Talk with them about how one part of the
test effects another, how to keep the gremlins out of your scenario,
and how to set up a quality, “complete” test.
It’s our hope that the Judges Corner will both entertain and inform you. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |