 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - April / May 1998 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
A couple of items before we get to our judging scenarios for this
issue. It seems hard to believe,
but this June will mark the sixth anniversary of the current Judges/Handlers
Seminar. The new seminar varied
considerably from past seminars where the mornings were spent in discussion of
the rulebook, and afternoons in the field setting up “tests” under the
watchful eye of the seminar instructors.
In an effort to bring much needed consistency to our judging program,
in addition to discussing our rules and guidelines, the “new” seminar
format broke down the elements of a retriever’s performance and discussed
what the dog did and how to evaluate it.
To that end, we stayed in the classroom, and the fieldwork of the
original seminar was dropped. A
slide presentation and overhead projector were adopted for those portions of
the seminar where we needed to visualize what we did in setting up a test, or
how to use a field or pond to maximum advantage.
Realizing the current seminar consumes a full day in the classroom, it’s
hard to imagine we ever had time to do anything in the field.
The seminar has been periodically updated these past few years to
reflect running rules changes, but remains basically the same as it was
written six years ago. The executive committee has decided that it is time for
a change. To that end, we are in
the process of making some exciting revisions to the seminar.
We are planning on using current multi-media technology to add both
video and audio to the seminar. Not
only should this make it easier to sit through a day in the classroom, but we
will be able to bring more of the “field” into the seminar, hopefully
resulting in a better grasp of our material and consequently, better judges.
At the HRC national meeting this June, the field reps will gather to
discuss, review and study the new seminar presentation technology.
Shortly after, they will be presenting it to you.
To that end, it is my understanding that there will not be a
Judges/Handlers Seminar at this national meeting.
I would like to ask however that if any of you have some good quality
video, or pictures illustrating some of the concepts we discuss in the
seminar, please send them to me. We are in the process of building a video and
still photo archive to utilize in the revised seminar.
I want to take a moment to report to you the death of Southern Illinois
HRC member Gary Crowell, owner of Hurricane Creek Retrievers, Carterville, IL.
Gary passed away on Feb. 12, 1998 at the age of 46 after a long
struggle with sugar diabetes. Kathy and I met Gary and his wife Nancy Jo at a SIHRC
training session over 10 years ago. They
would become some of our closest friends. It is very true that we meet some of
the greatest people through our dogs and HRC.
Gary had played the “other” game some years earlier, but his heart
was in training gun dogs for the average hunter.
He found a home in HRC and truly gave back to the club many times what
he received. Many of you will remember Gary attending the hunt tests in your
area. The past couple of years he had trouble walking to the line, and when
his eyesight was failing, he wore binoculars to see his dogs at a distance.
Throughout his long illness, I never heard Gary complain about his condition
or the curve life had thrown at him. Gary
loved his retrievers. He was a
tireless advocate of our hunt test program, and a great friend to HRC. His
life was the very definition of honor, integrity, character, and courage.
We will miss him terribly.
Our first situation concerns something I have only seen occur once or
twice in an HRC hunt. I received
a letter from a handler asking me if it is becoming more frequent in some of
our regions. You tell me.
Scenario:
At the Finished water test, the judges had placed a “pile” of ducks
on a log for the blind retrieve. The
log was floating, but wedged against a dead tree snag in shallow water.
When the test dog grabbed a duck off the log, the log became disengaged
from the snag and floated back a few yards and stopped.
It appeared the other ducks remained on the log.
Our handler in question did not see any other dogs run.
After having a couple of early refusals, he managed to get his dog in
good position to take a back cast and get to he log. The dog refused two
whistles, then picked up a duck from the base of the dead tree snag. The duck
had apparently fallen off the log before it floated back. The judges failed
the dog for refusals on the water blind.
Question:
In his letter to the Judge’s Corner, the handler had many
questions. When the log became
disengaged, why did the judges not re-secure it?
Why was this done on Saturday, yet the birds were placed individually
on Sunday? Do situations like
this hurt HRC? The real question
is simply is it okay to use a pile of birds for a blind, instead on placing
them individually?
Answer:
I remember seeing a similar situation occur at a test I had
traveled to outside my region many years ago.
The water had run late so the judges had a lot of dogs to run on land
in very little time in the afternoon. The
blind was in the middle of an open field between the marks and they had no
bird placement technician to plant the blind.
They put a bunch of pigeons in a loose pile for the blind.
At worst, a couple of young dogs picked through the pile until they
found the bird they wanted and completed their retrieves. The judges did what they felt they had to do to complete the
series and judge the dogs. They
were lucky and no major problems developed (i.e. no dogs screwed it up and
they had to make no judgmental decisions about the pile). I wonder how they would have judged it if a retriever started
in with one of the birds (left the pile), then decided to go back for a
different one? Would that be a
switch? In the scenario above, we saw what can happen when the pile separated
and things went wrong. The
handler did not know a duck had fallen behind the snag. He stated that the dog
was close to the snag when the whistle refusals occurred. The judges must have
made the determination that the dog did not either wind or visibly see the
duck, but stumbled upon it when considering the refusals and failing the dog.
I talked with several field reps that all said this is not
common in their regions, despite the large entries we are seeing.
All agreed the practice of putting out a pile of birds for the blind is
undesirable, and should be avoided
if at all possible. There is
nothing in our HRC rulebook about a “pile” of birds, but the rulebook does
say there should be “a” land blind retrieve, and “a” water blind
retrieve. My personal opinion is
that I would find a way to plant “a” blind bird because I did not want
anyone to accuse me of being a lazy judge (I’d only have to remember to
shout, “plant the pile” once). Also,
I believe in other than extraordinary circumstances, a pile of birds makes the
test look cheap and the club unprepared to run the event.
Mostly, I’m a strong believer in eliminating any problems in the test
before they occur. One of our
field reps had a good point when he said putting the birds in a pile
encourages the dog to “shop” the pile, and is an unfair advantage to each
dog in progression because the pile will diminish.
Another said, “Quite frankly, from a hunting viewpoint – how often
does a dog attempt to complete a retrieve and find a pile of birds? Make every effort to plant one blind for each dog”.
Well said. Our next
situation concerns hunt site logistics.
Scenario:
The hunt marshal directed the two respective finished site marshals to
flip a coin to determine which flight and correspondingly where each group of
judges was to go. They did so but
when one of the finished judges arrived he did not want to go to the site he
was directed to. He claimed it
was the judge’s prerogative as to where the respective flights were
assigned.
Question:
Who chooses where which flight and where each pair of judges goes
at the hunt?
Answer:
The rulebook has very little to say about this situation.
We can look to the Guidelines for Conducting Events on page 35 for some
help. Item 2. states, “The Judges should report to the hunt grounds one day prior to the
hunt to meet with the Hunt Committee and marshal.
They should thoroughly go over and select the hunt areas in order to
test the hunting retriever. . . . “. Item
3. says, “Judges should utilize
club-prepared blinds and equipment and cooperate with the Hunt Committee in
preparation for the hunt.” In
effect, all successful hunts require a group effort. Most of the field reps said they do not generally see this as
a problem in their regions. In
the above scenario, it was not clear how many flights of dogs the club was
running. It’s possible the club
was running three flights and our difficult judge was assigned a test he had
no hand in setting up. Many times
the hunt secretary has paired the judges and handlers in the program because a
judge may have a spouse running in another flight, or has trained a dog for
compensation in the last 12 months in another flight.
On hunt morning, a judge wanting to take their flight to land when
registration has directed that flight to the water site, or vice-versa, could
throw a monkey wrench into the works and delay the start of both groups. One
of our field reps mentioned, “They may care who they judge with, but they
should take care of that when they agree to judge and it should make no
difference where they judge”.
Another said, “I would like to think that judges have more to
concentrate on than who gets to judge where and when.”
At a local event if a judge has a preference whether they go to land or water he/she should discuss it on set up day and reach an agreement with their fellow judges and hunt committee. Personally, I always try to make sure I’m judging in the shade on a hot afternoon whether its on land or water. I also like to end the day judging the test site closest to the club’s food concession, but that’s my preference. Sometimes the words we say in the Judges/Handlers Seminar “be a good judge” mean more than setting up a good test and judging the retrievers properly. Cooperating with the marshal and hunt committee will go a long way toward helping make the hunt an enjoyable one. Our disgruntled judge should not have raised a stink about where he was to begin judging. The last scenario covers a “sensitive” area. In an era where we are hearing almost any word or subject discussed on radio or the nightly news, I believe we can finally bring this subject to our HRC family magazine.
The Finished retriever walked up to the line with his handler, and
while the judge was asking the handler if he had any questions about the test,
the dog proceeded to lift his leg and pee all over the gun stand, bucket, and
on the judge.
Question:
Should the dog be failed for this?
Answer:
I received some e-mail from a reader who asked this question. The reader stated that at both agility and obedience events, dogs who urinate in the ring are asked to leave (failed). The reader said they would not like to hunt with a dog that did this and asked if a judge should fail the dog at Seasoned or Finished. The rule book makes no mention of the subject unless you want to consider urinating at the line to fall under the category of control (specifically, manners). Several field reps did take me seriously when I asked for their opinions about this (when they got through laughing). No one said they ever failed a dog for this, but several field reps made some good points. One said, “Pissing on a judge indicates the dog is doing what he wants – and he is and will further ignore his handler. You may see lack of control when the dog is handled”. Is it possible the dog may be doing what the handler would like to do also!!!! Many trainers will teach the male dog to control the urge, but as one field rep said “while peeing at the line is not desirable, like me, when you got to go, you got to go”! In fairness to the handler of a male who exhibits this character flaw, we don’t allow them to “correct” the dog at the hunt test. There are probably many dogs who have learned they can get away with it at the hunts. Maybe we should consider issuing one free “Judge Will Not Look” card for these poor owners. Just kidding. I personally will not fail a dog for this, but I think it’s entirely appropriate to ask the handler to clean up after a dog who has soiled the line with his/her big duty. There it is – we’ve said it and discussed it and I hope that covers 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 |