 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - February/March 1997 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
I received a note a few weeks ago from HRC President Pete Stritzinger asking
me to respond in the Judges Corner to a letter he had just gotten from a club
member concerning clarification of several of the requirements to become a
licensed judge. A copy of the
letter was enclosed. It’s taken
me awhile to answer, and I apologize for the delay, but the issues the
individual brought up were important enough that I needed to do some research
on the subject to give a correct response. This member’s letter was prompted by Pete’s President’s Message in the October/November 1996 issue of our
magazine. In his comments, Pete
asked that “every club look
within its membership, see who is qualified to judge, and start them on the
road to being licensed UKC/HRC Judges.”
This excellent letter asked specific questions about the
requirements to be a licensed judge that state: “An individual must have owned, trained, handled and passed a Started (or
Seasoned, or Finished, as appropriate)
Hunting Retriever Test and must be able to provide proof”
(HRC Rulebook, Item 4, pages 37, 38, 39).
There has been much speculation in the past about what exactly this
requirement means, specifically concerning the “training” portion of the
requirement. This individual was
concerned that while eventually he may wish to become a licensed judge, he
might not meet the “trained” requirement.
He writes that he acquired a good pup, worked with it daily on some
form of training both on his own, and with other club members, then took the
dog to a professional (also a club member) for force fetching and collar
conditioning. Since the time he
got the dog, he attended every training session held by the club, read several
books on training, assisted where he could at the hunts, and attended a
Judges/Handlers Seminar. While
his dog was with the pro, he continued to work with other club members to
learn everything he could about training, handling, and working retrievers.
He plans to hunt and run the dog himself.
If needed, the dog will go back to the professional for fine tuning. He says that he has listened to several horror stories about
how people have screwed up a good dog trying to train them without help, and
wishes to avoid this if at all possible whether he ever judges an HRC test.
In his letter, he asked:
l.
You must have trained a dog. To
what degree? How much
professional help is allowed, if any?
2. Does training have to be done with a specific dog or does training while working with other club members and handlers over a period of time constitute training a dog?
3.
If a dog is doing single marks and goes to a trainer and you pick the dog up
and he is doing doubles, you work the dog on handling, backs, overs, lines,
etc. and take the dog back to the trainer for fine tuning for a month or two,
who is training the dog? Does
this meet or violate the requirements of training?
To find the answers to these
questions, I spoke at length with UKC’s Michelle O’Malley Morgan.
Michelle told me that this has been an area of concern for some time
and welcomed the opportunity to help clarify the issues.
She noted that not only have people been confused about the owning,
training, and handling requirement, but UKC had received several complaints
that individuals were progressing through the judging levels “automatically”,
for lack of a better term, who may not have needed to progress beyond the
Started or Seasoned level. It’s
hard for a licensed judge to throughly evaluate an apprentice by judging with
them at only one hunt. It appeared to UKC and our HRC executive committee that
some additional oversight on a potential judge’s progress was needed.
To that end, Michelle asked me to point out a new judging requirement.
Effective Jan. 1, 1997, in addition to being required at the Started
level, the Requirements for a UKC Licensed Judge now read:
“An individual must be
recommended by a local UKC/HRC Club” (Rulebook
pgs. 38, 39) for both the Seasoned and Finished levels.
What this means is that before an individual may progress from Started
to Seasoned, or Seasoned to Finished, that individual must now have the
recommendation of a local HRC Club (a letter signed by one or more officers,
confirming the individual meets the judging criteria).
As for the requirements that an individual must have owned, trained, handled and passed a retriever . . . I will attempt to relay UKC’s position on this as presented by Michelle as accurately as I can. For purposes of our discussion, let’s assume an individual is considering the move from being a licensed Seasoned judge to the Finished level. Before an applicant can apprentice Finished, the individual must have handled and passed a dog in a finished hunting retriever test (either at a licensed or preliminary hunt). That dog must be owned by the individual, as shown on the dog’s UKC registration. Co-ownership of the dog is acceptable. In the case of an individual running a dog owned by a spouse or family member (son, daughter, etc.), UKC will require the dog to be re-registered so that the applicant’s name appears as either owner or co-owner on the dog’s registration. This is the only effective way UKC can determine that an individual has met the ownership requirement. Proof that an applicant has passed a Finished test with the dog can be supplied by providing a copy of the dog’s point receipt if a licensed hunt. Michelle and I did not discuss how to provide confirmation of a pass if it occurred at a preliminary hunt, but I’m sure your field rep could provide this information to you. Now for the difficult issue.
Training. The first thing
Michelle said about this was UKC expected an individual to do the “majority”
of training of the retriever they owned (co-owned), and passed the test with
at the judging level they were moving up to.
After some discussion, we both agreed the word “majority” was a
very subjective term, and she attempted to narrow it down for me.
Both UKC and HRC recognizes that much of the strength of our
organization comes from the fact that both clubs, and individuals in those
clubs are willing to work with newcomers, and each other to obtain a better
trained dog. Evidence being club
training days, picnic hunts, or just a group of regular training “partners’
that develop within a club. Further,
both UKC and HRC recognize and understand the fact that some novice trainers
seek both amateur and professional help and advice with their training. There is no question that the involvement of professional
trainers in our organization has elevated both our training and testing
programs to a higher level. Having
a better trained retriever is what our organization is all about.
It’s probably easier to explain when a person has not
trained a dog sufficiently to meet the training requirement.
UKC does not consider the training requirement met when an individual
picks the dog up from the trainer on Friday, then runs and passes a hunt on
Saturday. Nor do they consider
the requirement met when a spouse who is wishing to judge runs and passes a
dog their partner trained. UKC
recognizes and accepts the role of the professional in adding to the development and training of the retriever (force
fetching, collar conditioning, basic handling, etc.), but still requires the
owner to be involved in the training program.
Michelle used the phrase “spirit of the intent of the rule” when
describing the level of involvement they were expecting from the owner.
What she meant was that to properly test a dog at any level, an
individual must understand what it takes to train a dog to that level of
development. UKC is not going to split hairs over who taught the dog doubles,
etc., and certainly will not say that a person who might receive help and
guidance in their dogs training cannot comply with the spirit of the rule!
Michelle asked that I emphasize
the importance of the recommendation letter an individual must now submit to
judge at the Seasoned and Finished levels.
If a club feels that an applicant has not complied with the spirit and
intent of the rule regarding training a retriever at that level the club
should not recommend the person. There
will be cases where a club is unsure if the individual meets the training
requirement. In those instances,
Michelle advised me that UKC will look at those cases on an individual basis.
She asked however, that we please NOT
call or write UKC with a bunch of “what if” scenarios about meeting the
training requirement. Also, UKC
will not consider inquires or “complaints” from third parties about
particular individuals who may now hold a judges license.
I hope I’ve answered at least some of the questions that have emerged
recently about the requirements that a judge “own, train, handle and pass”
a retriever, etc. Let’s look at
our first scenario.
Situation:
At the Started Land test, the
handler signals ready and the bird is launched. As the bird reaches the high point of the arc and the shot is
fired, the handler says “mark” to the dog.
The judge admonishes the handler, stating “you had better not do that
again or you will fail.”
Question:
Does a judge have grounds for
marking down, or failing a handler for telling a dog to “mark” the bird in
flight?
Answer: Having recently read your new
HRC Rulebook cover to cover, I’m confident I don’t have to tell you the
answer to this question is no.
Not at Started, or any level of testing, can the judge fail or mark
down a handler for telling a dog to “mark” a bird after it is thrown, with
one exception. That being the
handler who in the judge’s opinion is making excessive noise so as to
disturb the hunt, or intimidate the dog.
Even at the Grand level, after signaling ready, a handler may quietly
and in an unintimidating manner, continue to talk to his/her retriever.
What about the handler who quietly says “mark” before the
bird is thrown? Or how about the
handler who points the shotgun in the direction of the first mark, and says
“mark” before the bird is thrown. Is
this acceptable?
This topic has been the subject
of some confusion in the past. To
find the answer to these questions, we need to review both the text of our HRC
Rules and Guidelines, and the intent. Our
HRC Rulebook Guidelines for Started, Seasoned, Finished and Grand levels state
that voice commands may be used to encourage the retriever to perform.
But, you say, under Sportsmanship on page 11 of our rulebook, a handler may be failed or marked down for “pointing out the bird throwers and/or gunners to the retriever prior
to the birds being thrown”. This
statement is repeated in the Rules for Seasoned, Finished, and Grand
retrievers (Item IV, pages 19, 24, 28), but oddly, not mentioned in the
Started Rules. The judges must
make a determination if the handler was merely encouraging the retriever to
perform, or being unsportsmanlike. Obviously,
it would be unacceptable for a handler to walk to the line, align the dog at
each bird thrower in order, say “mark” each time, then sit down and signal
ready. Clearly this would be
unsportsmanlike, and in violation of our HRC Rulebook.
A handler who shouldered the gun,
said “mark” to the dog, then signaled ready to the judges should be
told to lower the gun until the first bird was thrown.
It’s important to
remember that many handlers will not lower the gun and remount it between
throws. Some will, however,
verbally cue the dog to swing with the gun and mark the bird by saying “heel”,
“here”, or “mark”. A
strong case could be made that it’s verbally impossible to “point
out the location of the bird throwers and/or gunners.”
In a tough marking situation, such as a wide swing between throws, or a
difficult mark to see, both a verbal reminder or a gun pointing in the
direction of a subsequent throw would in most instances be considered acceptable encouragement for
the dog to perform, not unsportsmanlike conduct by the handler. The
judges must make this determination using common sense, and when unsure, give
the benefit of the doubt to the retriever.
Remember, the intent of the rule is to fail or mark down
unsportsmanlike behavior. This
subject is discussed in more detail in the Judges/Handlers Seminar.
Situation:
The Seasoned hunting retriever
came to the line at the water test wearing a choke collar. The judge told the handler the choke collar must be removed
before the dog would be allowed to run the test. The handler said the Seasoned rules allow the dog to wear a
collar. The judge said remove it
or I will disqualify you.
Question:
Since the rulebook does not
specify what types of collars a Seasoned dog is allowed to wear, was it
permissible for the Judge to order the removal of the choke collar, and if so,
where is the rulebook justification?
Answer: The judge was justified in
ordering the removal of the choke collar, but not for the reason many of you
might assume. Many of you are
thinking the judge asked the handler to remove the collar because it could be
considered a “training aid.” While
a choke collar is used for training by a number of handlers, a lot of dogs
wear a choke chain when not training.
A pinch or shock collar would be quite another matter.
These types of collars are used almost exclusively for training
purposes. The judge at the
Seasoned test was concerned about the retriever’s safety
when the collar was ordered removed. Our
HRC Rulebook on page 35, Guidelines for Conducting Events, Item # 6 states: “Safety
should be the Judge’s main concern . . . .”
The judge realized that there were any number of things the loop of the
choke chain could get entangled in causing severe injury to the dog including,
the edge of the boat or blind, brush or debris in the water, or the dogs own
foot. The judge at this test was
acting responsibly and with the safety of the dog foremost in mind.
Perhaps however, the judge could have taken a moment to carefully
explain the hazard to the handler rather than threaten the handler with
disqualification. The judge could
also have offered to allow the handler to change to a different type of collar
if the handler wanted the dog to wear a collar.
Someone is going to ask what if
the Seasoned handler just brings the dog to the line with a lead and choke
collar, then voluntarily removes it before signaling ready to run.
Is this acceptable? The
issue here is now whether the choke chain was used as a training aid in
bringing the retriever to the line. Part
of the judges job is to watch the retriever coming to the line, and an alert
judge would notice if the handler was intimidating the retriever (jerking on
the collar). If unsure, at their
discretion, the judges could ask the handler to come back a couple of dogs
later, with a normal collar and lead on the dog.
You may want to ask your field rep for their opinion on other types of
training “devices” you’ve seen handlers bring to the line.
This topic has generated some lively discussion at several
Judges/Handlers Seminars. Perhaps
you’ll think of more questions on this subject for future Judges Corners.
Thank you for your ongoing
support of this column. While
continually looking for new topics, I’m starting to receive duplicates of
several questions and scenarios we’ve discussed in past issues of the Judges
Corner. We are in the process of
compiling an index of these past topics for your reference.
Many situations warrant additional discussion and I look forward to
your questions and comments whether you are a handler, new or experienced
judge.
We hope the Judges Corner will both entertain and inform you. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |