 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - June / July 1997 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
I want to begin this issue of the Judge’s
Corner with an apology and correction. In
the last April/May 1997 issue, I mentioned the fact that an individual in
Canada who owned a HRCH was going to begin judging, and was required to go
back and run and pass a Started test with the dog, who had never run Started.
I had understood this dog to be Canada’s first HRCH.
Had I bothered to check the Grand Hunt Database, which contains a
master list of all champions, I would have discovered this was not correct.
Making matters worse, I have this data in my computer at home, and
needed to look no further to verify who was actually the first Canadian dog to
title. I want to apologize to
Burt Moulton, owner of HRCH Moulton’s Golden Rebel, who titled 5-6-89,
making him Canada’s first Hunting Retriever Champion.
I had promised that in this issue we would return to our familiar
format. Let’s get to the first
scenario.
Situation:
At the Started land test, the young retriever
did a good job retrieving the right mark.
The dog was having some difficulty on the left bird however.
After marking the bird in flight, and proceeding to the area of the
fall, the retriever could not find the bird in the moderate cover.
The handler elected to begin handling the dog after a couple of
minutes. As you might expect, the dog did not handle cleanly, but had
several cast and whistle refusals until it was successfully handled to the
mark. At the conclusion of the
hunt, the dog was failed. The
judges explained that even a started dog could not have that many cast and
whistle refusals.
Question:
Where the judges justified in failing this “poor
handling” started dog?
Answer:
I
asked a couple of field reps and
some other judges to respond to this scenario which occurred at one of our
hunts. Don Ley sent me a
note with his excellent response, which, with his permission, I’d like to
share with you. Don wrote: “I
don’t know if I have missed something all these years, but I could swear
that HRC does not expect a started dog to handle at all much less poorly.
Also the rule book is very clear that the started dog is tested for
marking, not handling. Some may argue however, that section I. under the Started
Guidelines does suggest a started dog is tested for handling.
Analyzing the intent of this section, statement by statement, it is
still clear that a started dog should not be judged for handling.”
The rule book states on page 16:
“Hand signals, voice and whistle commands may be utilized by the
Handler to encourage the Started Hunting Retriever to perform”.
Don goes on to say: “This
statement says what a handler is allowed to do to encourage the dog to get the
job done. It says nothing about
how the started dog is expected to respond to the handlers efforts, just that
the handler can use certain signals or commands to help the dog.”
The rule book also states on page 16: “however, should excessive handling or noise occur, which in the
opinion of the Judges would disturb the hunt, then at the Judge’s
discretion, they may declare the test a failure.”
Don writes: “Again, this statement refers to the actions of the
handler. Too much hollering, too
much whistle blasting, and too much jumping about by the handler may be cause
for a failure. Nothing in the
statement says the started dog must respond in a certain manner to the
handlers directions.”
The last two sentences of item I., page 16, Started Guidelines state: “The
dog is being tested for its marking ability, not handling.
However, a clean handle is preferable to an extended hunt.” Don
responds: “The first part of this statement is clear and leaves no doubt as
to the intent of the started test. The
“clean handle” part just reflects our desire as hunters to get the bird
picked up as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Still, no reference that a started dog must be able to handle.
If the dog in this case was handled back into the hunt area and
completed the retrieve, the judges should not have failed the dog for poor
handling. They may, however, have
been justified to declare a failure if they felt the handlers actions in
handling the dog was disruptive to the test.”
We learn in the Judges/Handlers Seminar that once a handler begins to
handle a dog on a mark, we should judge the handling (control). This is true at those levels of testing where the HRC rule
book has established that we will test the retriever for control (Seasoned,
Finished, and Grand). Our judges
in the above scenario were wrong for failing the started dog for poor
handling.
Scenario:
At the Started water test, the handlers were
told that their dogs were to retrieve each bird thrown into the pond, bringing
the duck out of the water to the handler.
The water was very shallow out to about 20 feet, where the dogs were
then able to swim. The handler
sent the dog as instructed and the dog went directly to the first duck.
Coming back however, the dog “beached” about 20 feet down the bank
to the right of the handler, dropping the duck onto dry land.
Wanting to impress the judges, the handler commanded the dog to “fetch
it here”. The dog picked the duck up, ran back into the pond and came
toward the handler, splashing in the shallow water. The dog then dropped the duck about three feet from the
shore, directly in front of the handler.
Being a young, impatient retriever, the dog thought “hey, I brought
it to you twice, now I’m going to come out of the water and I’m ready for
my second throw”. The handler
took one step into the shallow water, not going over his ankle, and picked up
the duck. At the end of the hunt,
the judges failed the dog. In
explaining their decision, the judges stated that the dog did not do as they
instructed and bring the duck out of the water.
Question:
Were the judges correct in failing the dog for
“not delivering the bird”.
Answer:
“Be a good judge.” These words are repeated over and over in the Judges/Handlers
Seminar. Our judges in the above
scenario are certainly in the running for the prestigious “nit-picking”
judges of the year award. One of
the reasons we use retrievers when waterfowling is so that we don’t have to
wade, swim, get the fishing rod and treble hook, or boat out to get our ducks
and geese. This is a classic case
of the judges painting themselves
into a corner before the test even began by making specific demands.
Instead of stating the duck must be brought out of the water, it would
have been better to say the “edge of the shoreline”, which could mean the
edge of the dry land, or water. I may be wrong, but I’d say most judges would believe that
this started dog did a good job by bringing
the duck close enough to the shoreline that the handler could put one
foot in the water and reach down and pick it up. If the judges were so opposed to the idea of a handler doing
this, perhaps they should have run the test from the dam side of the pond,
where one step out would mean seeing only the handler’s hat floating.
If the handler unconsciously stepped into the water to pick up the
duck, then I would ask, “are we judging the dog or the handler?”
In all fairness to the judges, this may have been the only area
available to run the test in. Started
judges should expect however that when setting up the test in “running”
water, some started dogs will take the opportunity to splash and play around
on the delivery. The same is true
of setting up the test where the dog has the opportunity to “beach” on a
point short of the handler. Many
young dogs will take the shortest route back to land.
Good judges will recognize these factors and if they are unavoidable,
show fairness and good judgement in their evaluation.
Ironically, these judges told the handler they would have passed the
dog if the handler had walked down the bank and picked up the duck from dry
land! Simple common sense can go
a long way in making good judgmental decisions.
What this dog did should not be considered a delivery “problem”,
and should not have been grounds
for failure. In the
Judges/Handlers Seminar, we discuss what does constitute a delivery problem,
and how to recognize it.
I have to tell you a short story that happened at a spring SIHRC hunt
several years ago. For reasons that will soon be apparent, both the handler
and dog shall remain anonymous. The
handler came up to the Seasoned water test and shot the double.
The test was run at Rend Lake, in a neck that was running water out to
about 100 yards. After picking up the second duck, the dog would not come back
in. I am not kidding, it
took close to an hour to catch the dog. There
were about 20 people wading around, screaming at this dog, who was having the
time of his life. The dog never
dropped the duck! To make matters
worse, a couple of people were filming the test.
The entire episode is on tape, holding a special place in the SIHRC
archives, and remains one of the most hilarious moments in our club’s
history. Had we known how long it
would take to catch the dog, it
would have been quicker to reset the test up in another neck of the lake to
finish judging the rest of the dogs! Let’s
look at our next situation.
Scenario:
At the Seasoned land test, the judges
designated the order of retrieves for the marks. When questioned whether this was acceptable, their
justification was that since the HRC rule book did not specifically prohibit
the ordering of retrieves at the Seasoned level, it was ok.
Question:
Was this legal?
Answer:
I was told this happened at one of our HRC
hunts recently. The hunt
committee, being inexperienced, accepted the judges opinion and approved the
test. My personal opinion is that
it is not legal to designate the marks at the Seasoned level.
I say this is my personal opinion because I can’t point to any page
in the rule book that states: “It is
illegal to designate an order of retrieves to the marks at Seasoned”.
I can, however, make a strong case that the rule book “prohibits”
this. First, common sense tells
us that the HRC rule book cannot address every conceivable situation that
might develop in our tests. Our
rule book would be as thick as the IRS tax code manual if that were to be
attempted. This pretty much
shoots down the argument that if the rule book does not specifically prohibit
something it is ok to do it! Secondly,
the rule book does address the issue of ordered retrieves in the Finished Test
Rules, item IV, stating: “At the Judge’s
discretion, they may require the Finished Retriever to make retrieves in an
established sequence.” Logic
tells us that if it was acceptable to do at the Seasoned level, it would be
written in the Seasoned Test Rules.
Some of you alert readers may at this point be considering charging me
with being “inconsistent” in my statements in the Judge’s Corner. In
consulting your “Index of Judge’s Corner Topics” in the last magazine,
you turn to the August/Sept. 1996 issue of the Judge’s Corner where I
discuss the dreaded double blind at Finished.
I don’t call a double blind illegal at Finished, although the only
place it is discussed in our rule book is at the Grand level.
I will not, however, plead guilty to being inconsistent!
Let me explain why. One
reason I didn’t call a double blind in Finished illegal was because in some
regions of HRC this practice had
been (and may still be) in
widespread use. I don’t think wanting to designate the order of retrieves
at a Seasoned test is widespread or common in HRC.
I’ve said many times in the Judge’s Corner that judges should not
attempt things in their tests that are ill advised, make no testing or hunting
sense, add nothing to the test, are not necessary to “test” the retriever,
and can cause potential problems to arise.
Double blinds in Finished, and designating the order of retrieves of
the marks at Seasoned share most of these traits.
There is something, however, that makes designating the order of the
Seasoned marks a more serious “infraction” of our rules, and the reason I
say it is not legal. Can you
guess what that is? Simply, by
asking the Seasoned dog to pick up the marks in a specific order, you are
asking the retriever to perform a more difficult task than would normally be
expected regarding Seasoned level marking ability.
It takes more training and experience to do this successfully, enough
that the rule book doesn’t mention it until the Finished level.
Asking a Finished dog to run another blind (usually shorter) is asking
the dog to do no more difficult a task than it should be trained and prepared
to do at any Finished test. Can
you follow my logic here? I don’t
mean to imply that this reasoning should be the criteria for determining
whether something is acceptable to do in our tests. Judges should consider all
factors when deciding to set up a situation not specifically covered in the
HRC rule book. Let’s take
another look at a subject we covered back in the Aug./Sept. 1995 issue of the
Judge’s Corner - the “quad” at Finished.
I’ll summarize the scenario as it was sent to me after occurring at a
Finished test recently.
Scenario:
At the Finished water test, an honor dog is
seated on the left (who has completed the test), and the working dog is on the
right. I was told that after a
short “chuckle” (I’m assuming a duck call, not the judges chuckling at
the handlers’ predicament) the honor dog handler shoots a dry popper (blind)
to start the sequencing of the marks. A
mark is thrown on the left for the honor dog, then a double thrown on the
right for the working dog handler to shoot.
The working dog handler is told to cast the dog for the far right bird
first. As the dog enters the
water, a diversion is thrown, also to the right.
The working dog can pick up the diversion first.
As the working dog is coming in with the first retrieve, the honor
dog is sent for the left throw.
Question:
Is this a “quad” at the Finished level,
making it an illegal test? Also,
can you throw a diversion on the way to the first mark in a Finished test?
Answer:
Let me give you a brief history of the “quad”
question for those of you new to our organization. Several years ago, our HRC Rule book only used the term “multiple
marks” when describing what was allowed at the Finished level (it still does
in the test description). The only reference to
quad marks in the HRC Rule book was in the Grand Test Rules which said
“a quad or delayed quad is
permissible.......” Several
judges were throwing four marks at Finished, believing
in the axiom that “since the rule book doesn’t say I can’t throw
a quad, I guess it’s ok.” Where have we heard that before!
A few years ago, our board of directors, deciding we really should not
be throwing quads at the Finished level,
voted to amend the running rules so the Finished Test Rules now read: “Testing will consist of double or triple marks for both water and
land” (Rule book pg. 24, Item IV).
The conundrum we continue to face is what is a quad?
The scenario I used in discussing this subject in 1995 was one where
the honor dog handler shot a mark on the left, and the working dog handler
shot a triple on the right. The
working dog was sent for the triple, and the honor dog for the left bird. I made the case that this was a quad because the working dog
looked at four birds “prior to being cast for a retrieve”.
Several field reps picked up this phraseology, and use it in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar. There is
however, no clear cut definition of a quad mark in our rules.
The dogs in the scenario with the diversion described above were having
difficulty with the test. Several
experienced observers believed it was because a “quad” was being thrown. They may have been correct.
My personal opinion is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,
and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Seriously, I am saying that if it appears that the dogs are thinking
they have to “mark” four birds, including the diversion, then it probably
matters very little if the last bird was thrown before the dog left the line
or just after it stepped into the water.
The result was the same, dogs being asked to do work at a Grand level
of testing (where a quad is an option even there), not Finished.
The judges could have eliminated any problems with their test by merely
throwing the diversion on the cast to the second retrieve
if they wanted to see the retrievers handle a diversion on the way out
to a bird. Judges should make
every effort to eliminate the “gripes” in a test before the first dog is
run. By the way, our rule book does not say you can’t throw a
diversion on the initial cast to the first mark to be retrieved.
If a judge wants to do this however, they should consider what effects
this might have on their ability to judge the dog’s marking!
One other quick quad story. At
a Finished water test this spring, Shane Fooks, Region 2 Field Rep, and I
watched from a hillside above the pond and tried to decide if the judges were
throwing a quad. An honor dog and
handler were at the waters edge in the left side of the duck blind. The working dog came out of the holding pond 30 to 40 yards
up the hillside and to the right, and walked down to join in the morning’s
hunt. Immediately, the honor dog
handler called a lone duck into the spread and shot it on the left.
The honor dog was sent. As
the honor dog was making the single retrieve, the working dog and handler
quickly walked down the hillside, got in the blind, and began to call in some
more ducks seen heading toward the pond.
The working dog handler shot a triple to the right. When the honor dog
completed it’s retrieve, the working dog picked up the triple and ran a
blind. Was this a quad?
You tell me. Clearly the
working dog saw the first bird thrown for the honor dog.
The working dog then “changed locations” by some 30 to 40 yards,
coming down to the waters edge before seeing the triple. The working dogs had absolutely no problem with this scenario
whatsoever. None attempted to go
to the area of the fall of the first duck.
Clearly the test was realistic, considering that many times ducks come
into the decoys with a dog out swimming.
Also, not every hunter gets to the duck blind on time. The experienced
judges who set this test up did not feel they were asking the dogs to mark
four birds, and the dogs performance verified their decision.
The HRC rule book gives our judges a lot of flexibility in test set up.
In those situations and scenarios where there the rules are not clear,
the judge should make every effort to comply with the spirit and intent of the
rules, be fair, use common sense, and exercise good judgment.
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 |