 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - October/November 1996 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
One of the most frequent
comments I hear from handlers in every region is that they are seeing the same
judges over and over at the hunt tests. I’ve
talked with several field reps recently about this specific issue. Each
is constantly looking for qualified individuals in their respective regions
who would make good judges. I
hope everyone got a chance to read Rich Carpenter’s article “Here
Come The Judge” in the last issue of Hunting Retriever magazine.
Rich is to be commended for an excellent discussion of a wide range of
issues the judge must consider, and for giving the handlers a better
understanding of what our judges go through.
Remember, those judges that you
might be tired of seeing again and again are making it possible for you to
enjoy running your dog. Many
handlers I know would make excellent judges if they would step up to the plate
and take a swing at it. While it
may not be any easier to become a judge than it used to be, with the advent of
the Judges/Handlers Seminar, the
efforts of our Running Rules committee, and the strong support from our
knowledgeable field reps, it is easier to become a “better” judge than it
used to be.
Situation:
At the Started land test, the
new handler came to the line with their young retriever to run their first HRC
event. The judges suggested the handler hold the dog when the mark was thrown.
The handler had the dog on a short lead.
The handler was instructed to send the dog when the bird was on the
ground. The handler signaled ready and the bird was thrown.
When it hit the ground, the handler merely released the lead instead of
un-snapping it, and the retriever ran out and back with the lead dragging all
the way.
Question (s):
How should the judges handle
this situation? Is this legal?
Should the handler be failed?
Answer: Our rulebook
requires the handler to bring the Started retriever to the line on lead.
Common sense tells us that at the Started test, a lead is allowable,
and is not considered to fall into the same category as “any
training aid to intimidate the hunting retriever: i.e., whip, prod, cane,
quirt, dummy, weighted or shock collars or other similar equipment.” The handler was using the lead to steady the dog, and either
forgot to unsnap it , or didn’t
realize they should not have sent the dog with the leash dragging. In speaking
with a couple of our field reps about this scenario, the consensus opinion was
that it would be a stretch of the imagination to consider the dangling leash
as “intimidation” in this case. If
anything, the dragging lead was more of a safety consideration.
The dog could have been
severely injured if the closed loop of the lead caught on something while the
retriever was running.
Interestingly,
our rule book states: “The hunting retriever may be hand held
at the retrieving line” (HRC Rulebook,
page 12, Test Rules), but does not specifically define hand held.
I’ve seen situations where a 120 lb. dog literally dragged a 100 lb.
handler to the line, and a strong leash was the only chance the handler had at
controlling the dog. Our judges should have seen that the handler had the lead on
the retriever when the bird was thrown, and anticipated what was about to
happen. After the incident, a
kind reminder to un-snap the lead and hold the dog by the collar for the next
retrieve would be the appropriate way to handle the situation.
Scenario:
At the
Seasoned land test the handler was instructed to walk their retriever at heel
down a dirt lane leading to a small field.
Halfway to the field, a bird was thrown out of the trees in front of
the dog as a walk-up bird. When
this bird was recovered, the handler and retriever were to proceed into the
field for the marking portion of the test.
As the pair entered the field, instead of stopping
to sit on a stool with the dog sitting by their side, the handler was
told that the double mark would appear (right, then left) as they entered the
field. The judges explained that
in this part of the country dove were not hunted, and the test was to simulate
two partridges flushing as the hunter appeared.
Question:
At the
Seasoned level, do the marks have to be thrown with the handler sitting on a
stool and the dog at heel?
Answer:
The short answer to this question is no. This is an interesting situation, which actually occurred at a Seasoned hunt test this past year. I discussed the scenario with the field rep in the region who was present the day of the hunt. Apparently, there was some discussion among the gallery and participants whether it was ok for the judges to do this. I’d seen similar tests set up at the Finished level, but not at Seasoned. The judges were setting up a test like they actually hunted in that area. It’s important for judges at any level to consider whether the test they have set up is safe, legal, and is it allowing them to evaluate the dogs ability to perform to the standards appropriate to the level of dog they are testing. A judge should ask not only “is this test realistic, but will it show me the work I need to see the retriever do?” Good judges give the handler the best opportunity, and a fair chance to show the judges the dog can do the work required. When setting
up a test, judges need to also ask themselves what can possible go wrong with
the test. This particular
scenario could have turned out to be an excellent, realistic test, or a
logistic nightmare for our judges. The
success of the test would depend on whether the retrievers could mark the
falls adequately from the position they found themselves in.
Our rulebook makes no specific mention that the handler must sit with
the dog at heel for the marks. In
fact, the rulebook states that “during
hunting tests, the Seasoned Hunting Retriever may be placed a reasonable
distance from the Handler at the retrieving line.” Don’t we also ask
the Seasoned dog to retrieve diversions it sees fall while away from the
handler’s side? Its important
however, that during the marking tests, the dog be given every opportunity to
see the birds and mark the falls. Generally,
this is best accomplished with the dog at heel and the handler sitting on a
dove stool. The judge can get a
good idea that the retriever knows how to swing with the gun and follow the
flight of the falls. Our judges
in this scenario could minimize any potential problems with the test by doing
a couple of things. It would be
wise for them to admonish the handlers to stop when entering the field, and
make sure the dog was at their side. If they gave a moment
to the handler to heel the dog, the dog who was bouncing out in front
would penalize itself. They
should make sure the marks were clearly visible, and there was adequate time
between throws. In a word, the
test “mechanics” would need to work smoothly.
Our rulebook
states that “when bird boys are
hidden, an attention getting shot or shots may be used.” This might be an appropriate situation to use an
attention getting device on the marks.
Item VIII. of the Guidelines for Judging Seasoned Hunting
Retrievers on page 18 states “It is the intent of these regulations to provide the dog with
adequate opportunity to focus its attention on the area of the fall.” Considerable
time is spent in the Evaluating Marking and Memory section of the
Judges/Handlers Seminar talking about various marking test scenarios and what
effect they might have on the retrievers performance.
Perhaps one
of the most important attributes a judge can bring to the test is good old
fashioned common sense. Occasionally,
however, there occurs a phenomena where two knowledgeable, experienced
individuals, each possessing a high degree of common sense and understanding
pair up to judge together and problems still develop.
We’ll see an example of this in our final scenario.
Situation:
The handlers assembled at the Finished Land test were all ears as they listened to the test explanation from the Judges. The club had selected the two veteran Judges for their reputations as avid hunters as much as the fact that each had been judging Finished for as long as anyone could remember. The test was a realistic dove hunting scenario. A triple mark, right to left, with a blind up the middle between the first and second mark. The first bird came from the right out of the treeline the handlers were sitting along. The second mark simulated a dove flying into the field and came toward the handler and retriever. The third mark came from a winger hidden in the field on the left. Just to make it interesting, the judges decided to designate bird number two as a “cripple” to be retrieved first. When the dog returned with this designated bird, the handler fired two more poppers. One shot was at a diversion thrown out from the treeline behind the line, and the second shot was at the blind. The blind retrieve was already out before the test began, and was to be picked up last. In the test explanation, the handlers were told by the judges that “this is a marking test - we don’t expect to see any dogs handled on the marks.” After the
first few dogs had run the test, it was apparent that some were having trouble picking up the designated bird.
A couple had marked the middle fall deep, and ended up picking up the
blind first. Naturally, the
handlers waiting to run noted this and when it was their turn to run, they
handled their dogs if it looked like the dog was going to hunt deep on
the center bird. At the
conclusion of the test, and to everyone’s surprise, those handlers who
handled on any of the marks were failed!
Question:
Were the
judges correct in failing dogs for handling on a mark? After all, they did tell the handlers this was a marking
test, and warned them about handling.
Answer:
I’m not
making this scenario up. This
situation actually occurred at one of our HRC hunts this past year.
I hope that it only occurred once.
The test itself was indicative of what the handlers were expecting from
two experienced Finished judges - innovative, tough, and challenging, but
manageable. The judges parking
lot defense of their decision to fail the dogs that handled was that the
handlers were warned not to handle - and hunting dogs should be able to mark 3
birds and retrieve them unaided. We
saw situations like this occur more frequently several years ago, before the
advent of the Judges/Handlers Seminar, and the intense education our judges
now receive regarding how to evaluate marking and memory, and test set-up
skills.
It’s my
guess that these “experience” judges merely assumed the test would work as
designed. Apparently, each
thought the other knew what they were doing.
These judges made several small errors before they made the big mistake
of failing the dogs who handled. The
first was putting the blind too close to the hunt area on the second bird.
Second, while its reasonable to still expect the dog to proceed to the
area of the fall on a designated marked retrieve
and initiate a hunt, its probably unreasonable to expect the handlers not to handle
their dogs, especially if the dog was likely to pick up the wrong bird.
Third, the judges should not have said they did not expect to see
handling on the marks. The first
few dogs that picked up the blind by mistake paid the price for this comment.
Judges cannot predict how much handling will be necessary on a marking
test until several dogs have run the test and they see how the test develops!! We learn in the seminar, that if a dog proceeds from the line
to the area of the fall, and initiates a hunt for the bird, there are times
the dog must be handled to complete a retrieve, and should not be penalized
for it. Perhaps most
disappointing is the fact that with their reputation as experienced HRC
finished judges, the decisions they made were so wrong.
If an
experienced judge looks back at the many tests they’ve judged over the
years, there will always be a few times when they wish they had made a
different call. The best judges I
know learn from their mistakes, and are continually trying to be better
themselves.
It’s our hope that the Judges Corner will both entertain and inform you. Please send your questions to:
|
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |