 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - August / September 1998 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
In this issue of the Judge’s Corner, I want to take the opportunity
to report to you on a number of issues. There
is some exciting news about the revision of the Judges/Handlers Seminar I want
to tell you about. Also, we’ll
discuss the results of the running rules voting at the HRC national meeting,
and some of my observations about the judging/test scenarios at the Grand Hunt
held recently in Canada. We’ll
resume our normal test scenario questions and discussions with the next issue
of the magazine.
I want to again thank the guest writers of the June/July Judge’s
Corner, Bill Rath, Paul Ramponi, and Don Ley. These guys took over for me
while I was preparing a “new seminar” demonstration for the national
meeting, and did a great job with the column.
As many of you know, there was no seminar scheduled for the national
meeting this year. Listening to
the feedback of the membership, and with your suggestions, the executive
committee felt it was time for some major seminar revisions.
The present seminar was written almost 6 years ago and has been updated
only to reflect new rule changes that have periodically gone into effect.
The field reps were asked to meet and discuss ways to change the
seminar to help produce better judges within our program.
New
“multi-media” presentation technology has been available for some time,
which enhances the learning process and makes sitting through an all day
seminar more manageable. A
few weeks ago, I “captured” and digitized some video generously donated by
Shane Fooks, retiring Region 2 Field Representative.
Shane was kind enough to not only send me some film he shot at a recent
HRC hunt, but some old video of a couple of his dogs which gave us some fine
examples of several concepts we talk about in the seminar. I also filmed some short video sequences with the help
of a few SIHRC members.
In addition to these video clips, I took several still photos of land
and water test sites with a digital camera. Using some software called “PowerPoint”
by Microsoft, I was able to combine the video, still photos, text, musical
sound tracks, and audio narration into a full multi-media presentation.
A computer with the new seminar demo in it was hooked to a special
projector (brought by Bill Rath who uses it in his work) and played on a large
screen. The new program has several unique features.
It gives us the ability to “draw” on any of the photos we use, much
like we do now with the overhead projector.
The instructor can draw a test on a photo of a field or pond, then
erase it and draw another. The
video sequences can be stopped, started again, or replayed as desired.
A narrator can explain a concept as it is being shown, or the seminar
instructor can do the narration as desired.
Additional photos or video clips can be archived in the computer hard
drive to be brought up if the instructor feels it necessary to show more
material on any particular point. For
the first time in our seminar, we could show things such as creeping,
controlled breaks, obedience at the line, and other concepts that are easier
to grasp if seen visually. One
advantage with this new system is the ease of updating the material.
New photos, video, music, text, or narration can be added to the
program in just a few minutes.
The
executive committee and the field reps previewed the new seminar demonstration
and all agreed this format would be a great improvement over our existing
seminar, however, the technology is not cheap.
HRC would have to purchase a new laptop computer with strong
multi-media capabilities. Also,
we would need to purchase our own media projector.
Both would be sent to the seminar locations and the presenters would be
trained to use the new equipment. The
executive committee felt this was a commitment we needed to make to produce
better judges for our program. To
that end, the field reps agreed to each take a portion of the existing seminar
and find or produce video and photos we could use in the new presentation. That material is to be gathered and assembled and edited
extensively, then approved by the field reps and your executive committee.
How long this process takes depends entirely on the length of time it
takes us to find quality video and photos depicting the concepts we are
looking for. We also talked about
editing the seminar manual to include an extensive list of definitions and
terminology commonly used, and to perhaps include a few more judging
recommendations covering situations not spelled out clearly in the HRC Rule
book. While we’re talking
rules, I’d like to briefly cover the changes to the HRC Running Rules
approved at the 1998 National meeting in Memphis.
They are as follows:
Under
the Rules for Seasoned, page 19, Part VI, first sentence that currently reads:
During
this hunting test, a diversionary bird can be thrown only as the Hunting
Retriever returns from its last retrieve.
Has been changed to read: A
diversionary bird can be thrown after the walk-up, blind, or last retrieve of
a double mark. Since this was amended, it was necessary to amend the
Seasoned test Description on page 17, which currently states:
Either
or both the double land or the double water retrieve must include a diversion.
To read: Part
of the test must include a diversion. Many
of our judges did not wish to be limited to throwing the Seasoned diversion
only after the marks. This rule
change will give the judges more flexibility in their hunt test scenarios.
Keep in mind though, the Seasoned diversion must come after the return
of the second mark if used with the marking test, and should be thrown in an
area well separated and away from where the marks or blind will be run if
thrown in conjunction with the walk-up. A
good Seasoned judge will not let the diversion bird (scent or fall area)
interfere with any other part of the test.
Also
on page 19 under the Rules for Seasoned, Part VI, the last sentence which
reads: Concurrent
falls with birds and shots coming from the same location may be used has
been deleted. I think we would
all agree “concurrent” falls is not something we want the seasoned
retriever to see or expect to handle.
Under
the Rules for the Grand Hunting Retriever Tests, Test Rules, page 28, section
VIII now reads: A shot must be fired by the
Handler when the bird is at the top of its arc. Is amended to read:
A shot must be fired at the bird when it is at the top of its arc.
This clears up something that had been bothering a lot of judges for
some time. In the lower classes,
there was no requirement that the “handler” fire the shot at the bird,
only that a shot be fired at the top of the arc (a “Bubba” gunner, guide,
or judge in a test scenario could fire at one of the marks for the handler).
It made no sense that in the Grand hunt the “handler” had to shoot
at each mark. This rule change has no effect on the lower classes.
It only gives removes the requirement that the “handler” fire a
shot at each mark in the Grand. The
vast majority of judges in the lower classes believe it is important that the
working dog handler fire at each mark to give the dog the best opportunity to
follow the gun and demonstrate its marking ability and we would encourage this
practice to continue.
Under
the Test Rules for Started, page 14, paragraph II, the current wording reads:
If
the hunting retriever is hand held, the Handler may give the shotgun, in a
safe manner, to a gunner to fire. This
sentence has been amended to read: If the hunting retriever is hand
held, the Handler will not handle the shotgun.
I believe most Started judges would not let a handler attempt
to hold their dog and still fire the shotgun.
For those that would, this rule change makes it clear this practice is
not acceptable.
Keep in mind these changes do not go into effect until January 1, 1999. Our current rules will remain in effect for the fall hunt test season. One other noteworthy announcement was made at the Memphis meeting regarding the Judges/Handlers Seminar. From now on, beginning this summer, attendance at a seminar will be good for three years, instead of two. This means that those HRC judges attending seminars this summer will not be required to attend another seminar until the end of the calendar year, 2001. This change is not retroactive. Those members needing a seminar to maintain their judging licenses this year will still need to attend one. Also, as in the past, a judge moving up in the judging ranks may use attendance at a seminar in lieu of one apprenticeship in the class they are moving to.
The 1998 Spring Grand Hunt – Ontario, Canada
I
was asked to be one of the four judges at the Spring Grand Hunt, held June
30-July 3, 1998 near Clinton, Ontario, Canada. A full article about the hunt
will be appearing in the next issue of the Hunting Retriever, but I wanted to
take this opportunity to discuss the hunt from a “judges” perspective.
First, let me thank the folks who did a tremendous job in planning and
putting the hunt on, our hosts, Middlesex Hunting Retriever Club, and the
Region 10 clubs of Canada. This
was the first time a HRC Grand hunt has been held in Canada. Not having a lot of exposure or experience with Grand hunts
did not keep our Canadian friends from hosting one of the best Grand hunts I
have ever been too. The judges
and Grand Hunt committee knew this would be a special event when we saw the
screen saver on Hunt Chairperson George McClure’s computer at the hunt
headquarters the first day. Scrolling
across the screen was: “Welcome to the HRC Grand Hunt
– began in the U.S. - perfected
in Canada”!
A
strong hunt committee is vital to the success of any hunt, particularly a hunt
as complex as the Grand. The
field operations crew was well prepared to provide every piece of equipment
and manpower the judges needed, which let us concentrate on designing and
setting up realistic hunt test scenarios to properly evaluate the retrievers. John Klomp and his grand hunt committee were on hand to
insure the safety of the tests and the legality.
John made it very clear that once the tests were set up and approved,
the committee would not question any judgmental decisions we made.
The relationship between a hunt committee and judges is very important.
Each should realize that they have a job to perform, and it takes a
cooperative effort to have a successful hunt.
In the field, the hunt committee made several helpful suggestions to
the judges, particularly regarding timing, and test logistics.
We appreciated this, and never felt the committee was stepping into our
judging “territory”. Judges
should always be willing to listen to the hunt committee. In most cases, the committee is not trying to tell you how to
set up the tests or judge, but is generally interested in making your job
easier and the hunt run smoother. Cooperation
between the judges is also vitally important.
While all judges are equal in the Grand hunt, those who have judged it
before understand how important it is to balance the tests in difficulty, and
design the tests to handle a large number of dogs. The two first time judges, Dennis Rosenbach and Bruce Shoup
had some great ideas for the test scenarios, and Mike McElroy and I were very
eager to listen to their suggestions and opinions.
As in all test design, there is always a little give and take between
the judges. In working with your
co-judges, understand that flexibility is the key word.
The
test grounds were wonderful. Not
having ever been to Hullett marsh, I had no real idea of the terrain. I’ve found that anytime I’m going to judge at a location
I’m unfamiliar with, I make an effort to not think too much about what I
want to do with the test before I’ve seen the grounds.
Besides eliminating undo strain on the brain, I believe a judge should
take a look at the terrain and ask a simple question. Where and how would I hunt this field, pond or marsh?
This will give you a big head start to answering the most important
question. How can I use this test
site to properly evaluate the dogs at the level I’m testing?
When
the handlers gathered at the line to hear the test explanation, we made it
very clear we would explain the test mechanics and objectives, but would not
answer questions about judgmental decisions.
To their credit, no handler asked any “what if .. .” questions.
As a judge, you can really box yourself in a corner, particularly at
the Grand hunt if you start trying to explain how you’re going to judge a
test before you’ve seen a number of dogs run.
While we may know what we’re looking for, we don’t always know how
the dogs will perform or how the test will unfold.
Judges should however, “what if” the test among themselves. After
test set up was complete, the four of us went back to each site and discussed
what we were looking for, and how to evaluate it.
While we knew we might each view a retriever’s performance a little
differently, it was important that we all be on the same page on a lot of
items. We discussed what we
expected on each mark and the blinds. We
talked about re-birding, areas of falls, hunt areas, no-birds, and agreed on
what would constitute a creep versus controlled break, etc. This process
builds cooperation and consistency between the judges. Judges should take the time to discuss these things at every
hunt.
I
don’t want to get into a full explanation of each test, but I do want to
mention some areas of judging and how we looked at parts of the tests for
those of you who might be interested.
Marking and memory:
The
four judges agreed it was important to evaluate how well the dogs swung with, and
marked off the handler’s gun. We
tried to keep the “area of falls” and “hunt area” well separated
between the marks on each test. We
felt this would make it easier to judge the retrievers.
We were looking for the dogs to mark the birds and proceed to the area
of the fall on their own. We made
it clear to the handlers that the birds were well separated for this purpose
and we would mark those dogs down who were handled into the falls.
Realizing the difficulty of the cover, we understood that a dog may
need to be handled to complete a retrieve once it had established a hunt in
the area of the fall and either was attempting to leave the hunt area or could
not find the bird. We told the
handlers that once they began to handle the dog, handle to the bird, and they
would be judged on control.
We
threw the marks right to left on the first water test, and left to right on
the first land series. The third
bird (last) thrown on the water test was required to be picked up first.
A diversion duck came into the decoys on the return of this mark.
We wanted to specifically test memory on the remaining two marks.
On the first land test, the handlers and dogs had a different type of
problem to solve. The working dog
was thrown a long single (about 75 yards) to the left.
The dog had to run off a steep hillside, down across a “bowl” and
up to the top of the next hill to retrieve this single.
We then thew a triple left to right with the first bird being almost in
line with the long single. This
bird came from the tree line behind the handler, and landed only about 20 to
25 yards out on the side of the hill the dogs had just run down to pick up the
long single. In effect, the long
single set the first bird of the triple up.
The dog could pick up the triple in any order.
In the third series (a goose hunt in a large field using ducks) we had
a single come into the decoys, then the handler reloaded and shot a triple.
The handlers had not seen a delayed quad yet, and we were sure they’d
want and expect one. The areas of the fall of the long triple were well separated
and the handlers had adequate time to swing and shoot at each bird.
No order of retrieves was required and most of the dogs did very well
on this test.
Obedience and
line manners:
We made it very clear to the handlers that they
were being judged from the time they left the last holding blind as they came
to the line at each test. I was very pleased at the level of control the
handlers had as their dogs walked to the line at heel and took their
positions. I only remember one
dog that arrived slightly before his handler got to the line. This dog could
not resist a quick run around the gun stands and judge’s chairs.
I don’t recall any handler who needed to use a loud voice to control
their dog coming to the line.
Creeping and controlled breaks:
In the water tests, we ran the dogs off a “Sportstand”
(freestanding dog platform) and out of a boat.
At the handlers meeting, we said that while we expected the dogs to
stay on the stand, or in the boat, if they jumped off, we would make a
judgmental call as to whether the dog was lunging forward toward a bird in an
attempt to retrieve. We
decided among ourselves that we would consider that some dogs might be
repositioning themselves to swing with the gun, and some might genuinely “fall
off” the Sportstand or out of the boat.
No dog jumped out of the boat, and only a couple jumped off the dog
stand. In each case it was
clearly a controlled break, which fails a dog in the Grand hunt.
There was some concern about creeping and possibly controlled breaks at
the goose hunt. We had the
handlers sitting in a “goose chair”, which was a large decoy they sat
under. The dogs were required to sit quietly next to the handler.
When “Bubba” the guide said, “take em”, the handlers lifted the
decoy off their head and shot. Several
people thought when the handler came out from under the decoy the dogs would
go. I’ve used these chairs
before, and I felt this would not be a problem.
No dog broke in this situation, proving once again how versatile our
retrievers really are.
Blind retrieves:
When were thinking about setting up and judging the blinds at the
Grand, the four of us decided we wanted to make both land, and both water
blinds as equal as possible in length and difficulty.
After looking at the test terrain, we realized we had to consider the
fact that with the rolling hillsides on the land series, and heavy grass
around the marsh on the water test, some dogs might go out of sight on the
blinds. We also knew that both the natural cover and the placement of
the marks might create some areas of “suction” where a dog could get in
trouble. We tried to consider the
placement of the blinds and agree on a standard of judging the blinds with
these factors in mind. In each of
the first three tests, because of logistics, the blinds were hot (in place
when the dogs ran the marks). In
the fourth test, the dog ran a cold blind, picking it up before the marks were
thrown. We were looking for a
good initial line, good control, and the ability of the dog to recover from
any hazards in its path.
In
the first land test, the dogs had to run under the arc of the center bird to
run the blind. It was placed on
the crest of the hill about 50 yards beyond the middle mark.
We agreed that some dogs might run deep, going over the hill on the way
to the bird. We were all in agreement that we did not want to fail dogs for
merely getting out of sight of the handler.
When this happened, we expected the handlers to call the dogs back into
sight and continue to handle to the bird. At the first water test, the blind
was placed straight out from the line, and slightly left of the hunt area of
the second mark, about 110 yards deep. An old log strangely materialized
directly between the line and the blind, about half way to it.
The handlers were forced to line their dogs over the log, or handle
around it. Very few dogs were drawn off course by the suction of the center
fall. Many did however succumb to
the lure of the bank behind and left of the log with its inviting tall grasses
and cover. If the dog went left
to the bank, the handler needed to give the dog a strong right angle back to
drive the dog down the shoreline toward the blind.
Again, for those dogs that got into the old fall or on the bank to the
left, we were looking for both recovery from the hazard, and the ability of
the handler to continue to direct the dog on to the blind.
The third series (goose land hunt) had a blind that required the dogs
to run off the hilltop we were hunting, through the fall of a short mark, and
carry an angle across a hillside to a blind in the open field about 115 yards
away. The hillside and other
marks did not bother most of the dogs and since the cover was light, we saw
some superb dog work on this blind.
The
fourth series (water test) blind proved to be the most complex to judge.
Depth perception from the line was a definite problem with this blind. If the handlers had been able to walk out to the blind (it
was in shallow wading water) as the judges did, it would have been obvious how
to run it. This blind was run
cold. The dog came to the line,
shot a duck which landed on the right side of the decoy spread (this was the
honor dogs bird), left it lay, and ran a blind straight out from the
retrieving line about 110 yards. The blind was on the edge of some tall grass
on dry ground. We had hidden boat wingers floating in the marsh to throw the
marks from. The wind was coming
slightly from the right and varied in intensity throughout the test.
After only a short initial line (15 yards), several dogs caught scent
from either the poison bird, or sometimes the boat winger.
We expected this might happen, and were not surprised.
The poison bird was well to the right of the line to the blind.
Acknowledging the boat winger, or the poison bird was one thing, but we still
expected the dogs to continue to the blind as directed by the handler.
Each dog saw the poison bird fall, the handlers had ample opportunity
to “no” their dogs off it. This
is a much different situation than a dog going to a marked retrieve
(proceeding to a fall and hunting on its own), then switching part way to the
fall to another bird it winds on the way.
Many dogs took great initial lines and drove past these first
obstacles. The dogs then had relatively clear going until they
encountered the infamous “big downed tree” just left of the line to the
blind at about 75 yards out. This huge tree lay in the water about where the
dogs could quit lunging and get some good running water under them. Many found
the tree irresistible. A lot of handlers stopped or attempted to stop their
dogs as they began to turn into the tree.
If the dog ignored a whistle or cast here, they were in deep trouble. One step to the left and the retriever disappeared behind the
tree. We did not realize the “magnetism”
of this tree when we were setting up the blind. Our set up dog had no problem with it, but that was several
days earlier, with different wind conditions.
It became immediately apparent that what we needed to look for
was “recovery” after this obstacle. We
realized that some of the dogs might not have heard the whistle clearly if
they were running in the shallow water to hunt the cover behind the tree.
Also, it was obvious if the handler was partially obscured to the dog
by branches or part of the tree trunk, it was going to be difficult to call a
cast refusal. It was at this
point in the Grand Hunt that we judges felt we really began to earn the big
pay we were getting. Things were
happening fast. We had to make
decisions immediately about what the dog was doing.
Some handlers never did get their dogs back.
Those retrievers were able to splash around behind the blind until they
got deep enough to wind the bird. Several
handlers successfully called the dogs out from the hazard, regained control,
and directed the dogs to the blind. We
tried to be fair in our evaluations of these performances.
I’ve always found what works best for me personally is to think about
the obstructions, pitfalls and hazards the dog faces enroute to the blind. I
watch the dog run and see how the dog/handler team handles these problems,
making as many notes as I have time for. I then make a decision as soon as I
can about whether I felt the performance was acceptable.
You can’t do this watching only a few dogs run, but you soon get a
feel for a good or bad performance especially when you are running a lot of
dogs on the test. It became
apparent to some handlers that the way to run this water blind was to bring
the dog in on the right side (the upwind side).
Those who figured this out had smooth sailing.
It also became apparent to us judges that it took a very good handler
to get their dog through this test.
Sportsmanship:
One last thing I’d like to mention is the outstanding degree of
courtesy and sportsmanship exhibited by the handlers who ran this Grand Hunt. We had two difficult honor situations. A handler sending their dog with a loud yell could have
caused problems for the other dog. Also,
the callback and conferences procedure went as smoothly as any I have been
involved with. Each handler was
polite and courteous in talking with the judges about the performance of their
dog. We tried to make it clear
how we evaluated the dogs performance, and although in a couple of cases we
agreed to disagree, there was no yelling or poor behavior like I’ve seen in
some past instances.
Due
to time and space constraints I’m going to refrain from discussing test
five, the Upland Hunt, test at this time.
I could probably write an entire Judge’s Corner about judging the
Upland test and might do so in a future issue.
In all it was a great hunt. I
enjoyed working with the committee and my co-judges, and appreciated having
the opportunity to again judge at that level.
I wish that every finished judge could at some point judge a Grand
Hunt. The HRC Grand Hunt sets a
high standard in retriever testing that other retriever organizations can only
hope to emulate.
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 |