 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - December 1997 / January 1998 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
The 1997 Fall Grand Hunt has just concluded a few short weeks ago.
Those of you fortunate enough to have been able to attend saw some
great dog work. The tests were
difficult, as you might expect Grand level tests to be, but the judging was
fair and consistent. Three of our HRC field reps judged this Grand together.
They were Bill Rath, Paul Ramponi, and Greg Moffatt who was judging his
first Grand. First
time Grand judge Mike McElroy did a great job working with
those guys. Serving on the
work committee, I had the opportunity to observe the time, effort, thought,
and sweat these guys put into the design, logistics and execution of the
hunting tests they set up. I can’t
thank the judges enough for the outstanding job they did.
A full report about the 1997Fall Grand should be appearing in the next
magazine.
I asked the judges to share their thoughts with me about what may be some problem areas they were seeing in their regions regarding test set-up, judging, etc. They agreed there was still some misconceptions and poor judging occurring in the areas of marking and memory. One of the more frequent areas of confusion occurs when a retriever starts after one mark, and then retrieves another. I’ve got a couple of examples of this I’m going to share with you in the scenarios we’ll discuss below. The first situation happened at the fourth series of this Fall Grand. Scenario:
The
judges had set up a very nice water test at the mouth of a dead tree neck in
the lake. The working dog
sat on a dog stand
in about 12 inches of water with the handler hiding against a large
dead tree next to the dog. Stumps,
stickups deadfalls, and a small island were
directly in front of the dog. The
judges threw a triple for the working dog.
The first mark (long bird) came from the left, off the island and
landed in the water behind a root wad. The
second (middle) bird came off the island arching slightly to the right, also
landing in downed logs in the water. The
third mark came from the right out of a hidden boat winger landing in the open
water just beyond the stickups. There
was no designated order. Every
dog picked up the last bird down with no problem.
During the test however, the wind began to blow from right to left.
Dogs sent for the long left bird began to wind the center mark.
The center mark was in very shallow water, only a few yards off line
from the left bird, but much closer. Most
handlers elected to handle their dogs off the center bird and continue for the
left since the dogs were initially cast for the left mark.
Several dogs did not handle well, and this contributed to some dogs
failure.
Question:
Two
questions come to mind. What is
the correct way to judge this situation, and equally important, how should a
handler handle their dog when this happens?
Answer:
Prior to the start of the Grand hunt, the judges and the Grand hunt committee
meet for a rather intensive mini “seminar” about judging the Grand hunt.
This is a practice I started several years ago when I was the Grand
hunt committee chairman. The meeting serves several purposes, including
enabling first time judges
to ask questions and solicit advice from the more experienced people present.
Grand test rules and guidelines are reviewed, judging and test set-up
assignments are discussed, and judges and committee responsibilities are
clarified. I was delighted to be
asked to sit in on this session this past fall.
I listened carefully as Grand Hunt Committee Chairman John Klomp, with
the assistance of veteran committee member Mark Brown, and new permanent
committee member Ernie Istre lead
the group in a very intense review and discussion of all aspects of judging
the Grand. Included in the
meeting was a very pointed discussion about judging marking and memory.
John wanted to make sure everyone was “on the same page” when it
came to this complex subject. I can tell you from being in the meeting, this
group of judges understood the concepts of judging marking and memory as well
as any judges I have ever seen.
That said, believe me when I tell you the judges made every effort possible to
set up good clean, fair marking tests, and judge them properly.
In the test scenario described above, the wind became a “factor”
during the test for some dogs. How did the judges look at this?
The judges informed me that although some dogs cast to the left bird
“winded” the center bird, they were surprised when the handlers elected to
try to “no” their retrievers off the center bird and continue to the left
fall. They were certainly not
going to fault dogs for having good noses.
A good nose is one of the primary attributes of our retrievers and a
principle reason a dog will find and recover game we would otherwise loose. The dogs that were being handled off the center bird had not
got to the area of the fall of the left bird, and did not abandon the hunt and
go looking for another mark. When
the handlers elected to handle the dogs, the judges were forced to start
judging “control”. I watched
every dog run this test, and I saw one handler let their dog pick up the
center bird after the dog winded it, then be again cast for the left bird and
pick it up cleanly. I can
think of only two reasons why the handlers would not let their dogs pick up a
mark they winded. The first is
the fear and misconception that a dog in the Grand hunt must pick up the bird
it is cast for. The second is a
lack of understanding about how the judges will look at this scenario.
Handlers must begin to believe that our judges will recognize
distractions and problems as they occur during the tests and judge
accordingly. Let’s look at another situation that occurred at a Finished
test recently.
Scenario:
At
the Finished water test, the birds were thrown right to left.
The first duck came from down the shoreline to the right of the dog and
handler and landed in the water. The
second (center bird) came from the opposite shoreline toward the retrieving
line and landed in the water. This
was a live, shackled duck.
The third duck (left bird) landed on the opposite shore behind some
reeds. No pick up order was
designated. The handler sent the
dog for the last bird down (#3). The
dog proceeded to swim the pond toward the bird.
Before reaching the opposite shoreline, the dog saw duck number 2 and
retrieved it. The handler picked
up bird #1 next, then sent the dog back for bird #3. The dog swam across the pond, went up on shore, and retrieved
#3 with no problem. After picking
up the blind, the licensed judge told the handler he was failed because the
dog left the area of an established hunt to pick up another bird.
The judge made the statement that this was grounds for failure in and
of itself.
Question:
Was the judge correct in failing the dog in this scenario?
Answer:
This situation is very much like the first scenario we discussed.
The live duck became the factor in this test. Judges can’t control the wind and weather, and often don’t
have any real control over the color of birds given them to use in the test,
or the quality, accuracy and consistency of the
of the bird throwers, but some distractions are possible to eliminate
before they become problems in a test. I
talked with a couple of field reps about this scenario.
We all agreed we would like to ask the judge what was the purpose of
the live duck in the marking test? I
would make the case that the “area of the fall” on the third bird was the
on the shoreline. The dog turned for the live duck while still in the water.
Let’s say the dog did establish a hunt in the area of the fall, then
saw and retrieved the live duck. Can
we forgive the dog for acting like a “hunting” dog and going after the
live duck? I would certainly hope
so! The dog demonstrated it’s
marking and memory by subsequently retrieving bird # 3 with no problem at all.
These judges should have tried to envision what picture the dog was
seeing when sent for the marks. One
might imagine that the experienced hunting dogs running this test would be the
most likely to retrieve the live duck if they saw it move.
There are enough factors that can occur during a test to make judging
marking and memory difficult without knowingly introducing
distractions or problems into the mix.
This was a very poor test scenario, and the dog was not given proper
consideration.
Some of our HRC judges should take some time to review what the rule book says
about judging marking and memory. The
chapter on evaluating marking and memory in the Judges/Handlers Seminar is
very helpful in breaking down this complex subject and making some sense of it
all. In future columns of the Judge’s Corner we’ll be discussing some more
marking and memory issues.
I hope all of you are having a safe, enjoyable hunting season. We hope the Judge’s Corner will both entertain and inform you. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |