Dec98_Jan99

In this Judge’s Corner we’re going to cover a couple of issues that have not been brought up before. In the first scenario, the judges feel a handler took advantage of the rule allowing his seasoned dog to wear a collar. In the second situation we’ll be discussing, an incident occurred at a hunt recently that brought up the question of handler physical “abuse” of a retriever. A discussion of both these issues might help us understand what the HRC rulebook says, and what authority and responsibilities the judges and hunt committees have when incidents like these occur. Let’s get to our first scenario.

Scenario:

An HRC Finished licensed judge recently wrote me and said: “I have a question. At our recent hunt I had the opportunity to judge a Seasoned flight. My co-judge, a very experienced judge, and I encountered a difficult situation. The rules allow for dogs to have a collar on at the seasoned level. We had a handler come to the line with two dogs wearing the same collar. I initially noticed its similarity to a TriTronics black plastic collar, but made no objection to it at that time. In the afternoon the handler came to the line with the collar cinched tightly. We discussed it following his run. We both felt he was clearly intimidating his dog into believing it had the "collar" on. But also felt uncomfortable in reprimanding the handler, as the rule is not specific beyond a "training collar" which could be argued either way in this case”.

Question:

Did the judges handle this situation properly, or could they have used their discretion and authority to say something to the handler about the collar?

Answer:

Before answering the question, I thought it might be helpful to look at the Seasoned dog collar issue as it relates to the other classes. I understand why our rulebook allows the Started dog to wear a collar. They come to the retrieving line on lead, and we allow the handler to hold the dog during the test. The Finished dog is not allowed to wear a collar (except where prohibited by local ordinances), probably for a couple of reasons. Can you think what they are? First, since the dog comes to the line off lead, it does not need a collar. Second, I suppose some handler might “accidentally” tighten the dog’s collar too tight (simulating an e-collar). How many of you thought of the second reason first? I’m not exactly sure what our founders had in mind about this. Years ago, most handlers didn’t use an e-collar until their dogs began advanced training. Now, many dogs are introduced to the e-collar early. It would make more sense to me to not allow a Seasoned dog to wear a collar also. The only justification for the collar is that the Seasoned dog is brought to the line on lead. Now let me get to the answer about the dilemma our Seasoned judges found themselves in.

The first issue judges should be concerned with in every test is safety. If the dogs are run where hazards could be encountered (usually stick ups and brush in the water), they can (and should) ask the handlers to remove the collars on their Seasoned dogs. I’ve done it myself at a Seasoned water test, and I know of several other judges who have done this. Safety takes precedence over all else. Secondly, I believe the judges had the authority, and the responsibility to question the handler when he brought the first dog to the line wearing the black plastic collar that bore a resemblance to a Tri-Tronics e-collar whether it was initially tight or not. They definitely needed to question the handler when he came back after lunch with the collar tightened. Our HRC rulebook states on page 17, Rules for Seasoned Hunting Retriever Tests: “The Handler shall not have any training aid to intimidate the hunting retriever; i.e., whip, prod, cane, quirt, dummy, weighted or shock collars or other similar equipment at the retrieving line.”

I would make the case that a black plastic collar (especially tightened) was similar enough to a Tri-Tronics e-collar that it would be prohibited by our Seasoned rules. As one field rep wrote me and stated: “If it looks like an e-collar, and feels like an e-collar, in the dogs mind it is an e-collar”. It may have been uncomfortable to ask the handler about the collar, but I believe our judges in this situation should have asked to inspect the collar when it first showed up. If they allowed the handler to use it, demand that it not be tightened like an e-collar usually is. I don’t think judges need to try to figure out what a handler is thinking, or if the handler is trying to fool them, or get away with something. Judges simply need to understand what the HRC rulebook says, what their authority and responsibility is, be good observers, and judge exactly what happened.

In our next scenario, the judges had to make a determination about possible retriever abuse. It was a touchy situation, and a tough call. I was at the hunt test where this situation occurred. I did not see the incident, and although I talked with several people about it, I’m still not exactly sure what happened. I’ll relay the facts as told to me.

Scenario:

At the Finished land test, the dog had completed the work and was now asked to honor. The dog started to creep as the marks were thrown. I was told the handler reached out and grabbed the dog by the ear and pulled it back in. I was also informed the dog did not holler or make any noises like it was in any pain or agony. There is no doubt the dog knew it was being corrected, and the handler knew he would fail for this action. This is where the incident gets confusing. I was told later by some people who observed the situation that the hander got up from the dove bucket, picked the dog up by the ears, and carried it back to its proper position. This was a multiple dog handler.

Question:

Did the handler threaten, intimidate, or abuse the retriever, and what does the rulebook say about this? Should the handler have been disqualified?

Answer:

First, let me say that I know the judges involved and the handler. I told the handler I was going to write about this incident in the Judge’s Corner. I am doing so in the hopes that we can all learn from this, not because I’m trying to make any judgements or conclusions about anyone’s conduct or decisions. There are several issues in question here, and several things to consider. There was no doubt the judges were correct in failing the dog. The handler grabbed the dog after signaling ready. The handler at minimum threatened and intimidated the retriever, which are also grounds for failure (Rulebook, page. 22, Handlers). The handler also demonstrated unsportsmanlike conduct, which he admitted. The interesting questions here are: Is there a difference in threatening, intimidating, and abuse? Can judges “disqualify” a handler for abuse? Can a disqualified handler run their other dogs? Let me attempt to sort some of this stuff out.

This incident drew more attention than usual both when it occurred and later, probably because of the individual involved. The handler was a very experienced, multiple dog handler who was preparing several dogs to run the upcoming HRC Fall Grand. One of the judges believed the dog in question had a creeping problem, which while not sufficient to fail in a Finished test, might fail it at the Grand. The judge felt the handler might have been using this test to set the dog up, and “cure” the creep. On the other side, after the handler grabbed the dog, he was very apologetic, stating that he did not intend to abuse or harm the dog, but grabbed it out of anger and frustration.

Before we discuss what the rulebook says about situations like these, let me say this. As I stated earlier in this column, judges should strive to judge scenarios as they actually occur. Judge a handler for their actions, not what you think their intent was. I realize it’s not always easy to do. It should make no difference whether this was the handler’s first time running a Finished dog, or they were very experienced. Make judgmental calls and decisions based on what you see happen in front of you.

I believe judges have to make a determination between threatening and intimidation, which are grounds for “failure”, and physical abuse of a retriever, which will result in a handler’s disqualification. Page 5 of our rulebook, under Disqualifications states: “Physical abuse of a hunting retriever will result in the immediate disqualification of both the Handler and the hunting retriever”. I think the rulebook is quite clear about this. Also, like gun safety, I believe that the rulebook intends that if a handler is disqualified for physical abuse of a retriever they should not be allowed to run any more dogs that day. I’ve talked to several people who agree. Physical abuse is simply more severe than intimidation. The next question is what constitutes physical abuse. I can only offer you my humble opinion. I don’t think it is touching or grabbing the dog. I don’t think it’s popping the dog lightly on the side of its head with a hand or knee when trying to line a dog. While there is no doubt these actions would be grounds for failure, I don’t think they reach the level of physical abuse. I think abuse would consist of deliberate or intentional actions by the handler consisting of physical activity resulting in pain and/or potential injury to the retriever. This may be a poor definition of abuse, but it’s the best I can come up with.

The best time to make a determination about physical abuse is immediately when the situation arises. If the incident occurs while the test is being run, the only people to make the decision whether the handler’s action constitutes abuse are the judges. The test should be stopped and a decision should be made. If abuse is determined, the handler should be told they are disqualified from participating in any further tests that day. If an incident of physical abuse occurs off the retrieving line, the marshal and hunt committee should deal with it using their discretion and good judgement. In the incident in question, the judges allowed the handler to run his other dogs. As I stated, I’m not sure how physical the handler got with the dog. If the dog was picked up off the ground by the ears and carried back to the honor bucket, and I was judging, I would disqualify the handler without question. Apparently, the judges felt the handler’s actions did not cross the line to actual physical abuse. Knowing the experience, quality and capabilities of the judges involved, I’m sure they made the right decision at the time. I also think the handler knows he barely dodged a bullet on this one, and will think twice about grabbing another dog like he did.

Someone else said something interesting about this case. It’s ashamed we fail the dog for the unsportsmanlike conduct of a handler. I would tend to agree, but that is how are rules are written. I’m very appreciative of the letters and e-mail I get from all of you about the Judge’s Corner. Keep sending me your questions and comments. If you are at a hunt test and you observe some outstanding judging or test set up procedures, let me know so we can share this with everyone in HRC. There’s a lot of good stuff going on in our program. I hope to update the reference index of Judge’s Corner topics in the next issue of the magazine.

We hope the “Judge’s Corner” will both entertain and inform you.

Answers to your questions will come from the UKC/HRC Rulebook, the Judges/Handlers Seminar and the consensus of your Regional Field Representatives.

back to home page

back to articles index

Last modified: February 18, 2008