 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - February / March 1998 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
I
hope all of you got a chance to read the President’s Message in the last
issue. Pete touched on a couple
of items that I’ve been wanting to discuss in this column for some time.
The first is the number of formal complaints reaching UKC which could
have and should have been resolved at the hunt test.
The key to handling complaints at the hunt is a strong hunt committee.
I realize that for some clubs it’s difficult to find people willing
to serve on the hunt committee. Often,
clubs draft anyone who can be available on Friday afternoon. While these members are vital to a successful event, and new
blood is especially essential, clubs should remember that at least a couple of
people on their hunt committee need to have the experience to recognize
legality or safety problems in the tests.
Further, hunt committee members should be familiar with the HRC/UKC
Rules and Guidelines. Remember
that both the hunt committee and judges are working toward the same goals -
those being to ensure a safe, enjoyable event and to fairly and effectively
evaluate the retrievers against the rule book standards.
Pete correctly stated in his Presidents Message, “the
Judge’s decision is final”. This
means the hunt committee should back the judges in all judgmental decisions.
Conflicts usually arise when the judges have made a decision a handler
believes is based on an improper interpretation of the rule book.
A qualified, concerned hunt
committee can put out a lot of fires before they flare and reach the point
where a handler feels they must file a formal complaint.
The second item I was planning on covering in this column is a concern
I’ve heard several field reps talk about recently.
That being the practice of judges leaving the hunt site after the last
dog has ran, and not staying for the ribbon ceremony.
I’ve been at hunts where an apprentice judge has been left to explain
to a handler why their dog did not pass.
This is not fair to the handler, judge, or the club.
Hunt committees should look for judges who, after agreeing to judge the
hunt, will fulfill their
responsibility of being available to the handlers and explaining their
judgmental decisions. I realize
an out of town judge may have a long drive ahead of them.
Looking at it from the judge’s viewpoint, hunt committees should be
honest with prospective judges and explain any delays in the awards ceremony they might anticipate such as a large auction/raffle, or a
dinner that may be planned to start later in the evening.
UPLAND HUNT TEST -
I was talking with UKC’s Michelle O’Malley Morgan recently and she
asked that I pass on a couple of points of information concerning the upland
hunt test. Several clubs are
beginning to host an upland hunt and there is some confusion about the type of
birds acceptable to use. Michelle told me one club called and asked if it was okay to
use ducks in the upland test. While
some hunters might have the good fortune of jump shooting some ducks off a
pond while upland hunting, a duck is not exactly one of your traditional
upland game birds. UKC politely
declined the clubs request to approve ducks on the upland hunt test premium.
UKC will approve the use of pigeons on the walk-up portion of the
upland test. Pheasant, chuckar,
and quail are the more common upland game birds and should be used for
quartering, flushing, and tracking tests.
Other traditional upland birds may be approved upon request.
One other note about the upland hunt test. Some clubs have asked for
their premium to be approved showing only
6, or 10, or 12, dogs. The
minimum number of entries UKC will approve for an upland hunt test premium is
25 (an “A” hunt).
Let’s look at our first scenario . . . . . . . Scenario:
At the Finished land test, the honor dog was placed to the left of the
working dog in the simulated dove hunt. Just
prior to asking if both handlers were ready to proceed with the test, the
judge watching the honor dog notes that the honor dog handler gave their
retriever a “down” command. The
dog dropped down, and the handler then nodded that he was ready.
Question:
Is
it acceptable for a dog to lie down while honoring?
Answer:
The
aforementioned question was asked of me by a handler who stated:
“I didn’t think an honor dog
would be allowed to lie down. It
seems the dog would be less likely to break.”
My reply was there’s no
place in our rule book that states a retriever must sit while honoring.
There is actually no definition of honor in the HRC rule book.
In attempting to define the term “honor”, we state in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar book that the honor is: “requiring
a dog to sit quietly and watch while another dog retrieves.”
We go on to say: “While
one retriever is working it will be necessary for the other retriever to hold
its position and quietly watch.” When
we used the term “sit quietly” in the definition, it was meant in the context of stay put, don’t go anywhere,
don’t try to get a bird when it’s not your turn, i.e., “hold your
position”.
Honor falls under the broader category of control, which includes such things as manners, obedience, and steadiness. When we are evaluating the honor dog, the judge is attempting to determine if the dog will “stay put” while another dog retrieves. Personally, I’ve always felt a handler has good control of their dog if it will respond to a quiet, unobtrusive “lie down” command while honoring. As a judge, I never felt those handlers were trying to cheat the honor. I have caught handlers holding the gun across their dog’s face, or stepping on the dog’s tail or foot. Those handlers were definitely trying to cheat my test! The next question you might ask is can the judge require the handler to make the dog sit for the honor (hey - the rule book doesn’t say you can’t, right)? I talked with a couple of field reps about this and we all pretty much felt the same way. There is probably a circumstance when the judge could reasonably request a dog sit while honoring. That being when the honor dog handler will be shooting at a bird(s), and/or the honor dog will be making a retrieve. Judges should use common sense and good judgment when an honor dog handler tells their dog to lie down. The bottom line is if the honor dog has a clear view of the marks, and is “staying put” it’s doing a good job. Next, let’s look at a scenario that while not frequent, probably has happened to a large majority of handlers at least once in a test. Scenario:
The Finished retriever picked up the marks and was being lined up to be
sent on the blind. The handler placed their hand over the dogs head, said the
words “dead bird”, and before the handler could say “back” (or dogs
name), the dog left. The dog took
two or three steps and realized it should not have left.
The dog spun around and started back to heel. My oh my!
What to do!!!
Question:
What
is happening here and how should this situation be judged?
Answer:
You’ve
all seen this happen, often on the blind, and sometimes when a handler is
attempting to line a dog to a designated mark.
The dog is confused, or realizes it should not have left yet and per
its training, will come back around to heel to be properly cast.
Is this a controlled break? If the dog comes to heel and is re-sent,
will this be considered a re-cast, automatically failing the finished level
dog? Let’s try to sort some of
this out if we can.
I’ve
written in a previous issue of the Judge’s Corner about the dog who doesn’t
go when cast. We determined that
since the dog never left, a second command to move could not be considered a
re-cast. I stated that if the
judge felt it necessary to fault the dog at all, call this a cast refusal, if
anything. We might apply a
similar logic to the dog that moves before being properly sent and
jumps back to heel. Sending
the dog after this has occurred is not a “re-cast” because the handler never cast the dog the first time.
The judge must however be alert and recognize when a dog has made a
jump out, misstep, or is temporarily confused.
This is different than the dog heading out into the water and turning
back, starting down the bank, or out into the field with their nose down and
deciding to come back to the handler (see page 10 of the HRC rule book, Hunting
Desire). A good judge will
recognize the difference.
We could not consider a dog making a false start on their own a
controlled break. We define a “break”
as the dog moving forward on its own when a bird is thrown.
Handlers
have a real tough decision to make when this happens. It’s quite possible
they risk being failed by some judges for a re-cast by saying “no, heel”, and calling the dog back. It’s also very tough to stop a dog a couple of steps in
front of you who is attempting to return and give a “back” command and
proceed with the retrieve from a very unfavorable position.
I’ve talked with some of the field reps about this scenario.
Most seemed to agree there is a problem with many judges recognizing
and knowing how to judge what I’ll call the “canine self-cast”, for lack
of a better term. It seemed the
consensus opinion was in favor seeing the dog properly cast.
This is the only way the judge can truly evaluate the retrievers
performance. I’ve probably said
it a hundred times, but it all comes back to being fair, using good judgment,
and giving the benefit of the doubt to the dog.
Your field reps will be happy to talk with you more on this subject.
USE OF GRAND CHAMPIONS AS TEST
DOGS
I
received a phone call recently from the owner of a Grand Champion who also
happens to be a finished judge. Someone
tried to tell this gentleman that he could not use his Grand Champion as a
test dog in finished level tests.
The rule book states on page 11 under Usage
of test dogs: “Test dogs must be
of the same level as the test, i.e. a retriever with Finished points can not
be used as a test dog for Started or Seasoned.”
The subject of Grand Champion test dogs at the finished level has
come up a few times in the Judges/Handlers Seminar. We’ve always answered that it was acceptable to use a dog with a Grand pass (or Grand Champion) as
a finished test dog because the Grand dog could still legally run finished
tests for championship points. They
were considered to be complying with the rule book requirement of being at the
same “level” as the test being run. Before
I stuck my foot in my mouth and put this in writing I made a phone call to UKC
to confirm we had indeed been answering the question correctly.
Michelle O’Malley Morgan told me we had indeed been correct. She
said: “While
UKC does not recommend using a Grand Champion as a finished level test dog, it
is okay to do so”. Least
this be interpreted wrong, let me repeat, it
is okay to run a GRHRCH as a test dog at the finished level. Some handlers
may have the perception that a GRHRCH serving as a finished level test dog may
"set the bar too high” for a particular test.
In other words, said handlers are expressing the fear that the judges
will judge all the dogs in the test based on the performance of the test dog. I have a few personal comments to make about this.
First, the test “standards” are spelled out in our rule book.
Any competent judge knows you don’t know what difficulty level of
test, or what extraneous factors will influence the test you thought you had
set up that day, until several dogs have run.
Also, it’s been my experience that in any
field of dogs (which at finished may include HR’s, HRCH’s, and GRHRCH
dogs), on any given day, some will do great, some will blow the test, and most
will be somewhere in between! Lastly, as a judge, I’d much rather the test
dog do a good job and my handlers have confidence in the test rather than the
test dog blow it and everyone think they have a poor test to run!
I hope all of you had a great hunting season. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |