 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - June / July 1998 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
I thought we’d do something a little different in this issue of the Judge’s Corner. I mentioned in the last magazine that we were revising and updating the Judges/Handlers Seminar. I had a feeling then that I would be neck deep in the process about the time the deadline for this issue of the Judge’s Corner came due. At that time, I asked some of our “distinguished” HRC judges if they would like to be guest writers of the column for this issue. I also thought you would enjoy a different perspective on some of the scenarios we’ll be discussing. I want to thank Paul Ramponi, and Bill Rath, both current HRC Field Reps, and former field rep/national HRC vice-president, Don Ley for their contributions to this issue of the Judge’s Corner. Here are their thoughts about some judging issues that have surfaced recently.
Region 3 Field Rep - Bill Rath: Scenario # 1 - At the Finished water test, the honor dog is on the left as the working dog and handler walk towards the line. At this point, the working handler does not have a gun. As they approach the line, a bird is thrown from the left that lands just outside the decoys. The honor dog handler shoots this bird but it is not retrieved. The working dog is asked to “no” off this bird and pick up a blind that is straight out from the line across the pond. After returning with the blind, the working dog handler shoots a double, and then the working dog can pick up the three ducks in any order. Scenario #2 -
At the Finished water test, both the honor dog and working dog begin to
call and the birds come out. The
honor dog handler (who is on the right) shoots the right bird, both handlers
shoot the middle mark, and the working dog handler shoots the left bird.
The three marks may be picked up in any order by the working dog.
Question:
How do we, or better yet, can we judge the first bird as a “mark”
in each of these scenarios?
Answer:
In our Judges/Handlers Seminar we begin discussing marking and memory by
defining the term marking as: “the
act of seeing a bird in flight and subsequently judging the direction and
distance of the bird when it falls”. We
define memory as “the ability to remember the direction and distance of a
fallen bird”. The seminar then
moves into evaluating marking and memory.
We discuss the four skills that a retriever must demonstrate when
marking a fall: swing with the
gun or attention getting device, see the bird, mark the line of the fall, and
the distance of the fall. We say
that the first two skills (swinging with the gun and seeing the bird) are
evaluated at the retrieving line. Remember
our two scenarios – in the first the working dog handler has no gun in hand
when the first bird is thrown and in the second does not shoot at the first
bird (would endanger the honor dog/handler).
The HRC rule book discusses the evaluation of marking on page 16:
“. . . the following should
be considered:
1.
Is there a clear field of vision for the dog
to see the mark?
2.
Was the dog attentive at the line?
3.
Does the dog react to the attention-getting
devices?
In scenario # 1, the judges were divided on how the left bird was judged.
One judge said that he was not judging the bird.
It was used only to set up the blind.
Another judge said that he was only judging “memory” on that bird.
While at times two judges will disagree about how they saw or evaluated
a particular dogs performance, they should have agreed earlier about what role
each bird was to serve in the test scenario.
Both tests were realistic hunting scenarios. Good hunting scenarios however do not necessarily make good
testing scenarios. It appears
that both the rule book and our Judges/Handlers Seminar expect that the
handler of the dog being evaluated should shoot the “marks”.
Back to our original question: “How
do we, or better yet, can we judge the first mark in each of these
scenarios?” It seems that if we
are evaluating a dogs marking, we can only do it properly if we give the dog
an opportunity to swing with the gun, see the bird in flight, and be aware of
the line and distance to the fall. In
other words, we should not evaluate a bird as a “mark” if the handler does
not shoot the bird!
Region 1 Field Rep - Paul Ramponi:
Scenario:
At the Finished land test, the honor dog was placed about fifteen feet
to the right of the working dog during a dove hunt.
During this test the honor dog would be required to honor all three of
the marked retrieves. The birds
would appear from the right with both handlers shooting at bird one.
Bird’s number two and three would continue right to left with only
the working dog handler shooting at these birds.
All three birds land at least forty yards from either dog.
As the working dog was being cast for his second bird, the honor dog
took off in the direction of one of the marks.
Question:
Would this be considered a break since the honor dog
left his assigned spot when the working dog was sent on a subsequent retrieve?
Answer: This question was asked at a recent Judges/Handlers Seminar while discussing the definition of a “break”. According to the seminar book, a break is “a dog leaves the assigned spot without being commanded to do so when the bird is thrown, shot, or released”. In the seminar, we try to simplify definitions and terminology and still cover 99.9% of the scenarios you will encounter in the field. Perhaps we should expand on the definition of break to include leaving the assigned spot “with the intent to make a retrieve, or interfere with another dog or the test”. We know that BREAK falls under the category of CONTROL, which is a learned trait. Most of the time a dog breaks when the bird is thrown, shot or released. In our scenario, the timing may be different, but the intent of the dog and the result is the same. We have historically termed this action a “break” even though it did not occur when the birds were thrown. This lack of control could be grounds for failure at the finished level if the judge deems it so. Don Ley - former Region 6 Field Rep and HRC National Vice-President and Seminar Instructor Scenario:
The handler at the Upland Hunt
Test states – “My dog is a pointing lab and does not flush the bird.
Question:
In the Upland Test, does the dog have to flush the
bird? Why can’t the handler
walk up and flush the bird while the dog is on point?
Answer: On Page 31 of the HRC rule book under Rules for Conducting the Upland Hunt, the rule book states: “each Upland gun dog must be presented with a minimum of two (2) birds to flush”. On Page 32, the rule book states: “the Upland Retriever is expected to flush the bird”. The rule book is clear that the dog must flush the bird. While there are many different methods used by the various gun dog breeds to locate and subsequently put to flight upland birds, the HRC rule book is based on the flushing method and we must stick with that method to be fair to the judges and the majority of participants.
A
Seasoned level judge asks this question:
“After reading the Judges Corner and Spencer’s article in the
Oct./Nov. 1997 Hunting Retriever, I see that HRC is now advocating that
judges, before running dogs on the blind retrieves, establish a predetermined
“corridor”, “fairway”, etc. that the dogs must stay within while being
handled to the bird. If the dog strays out of this “corridor” is it
failed? I can find no mention of
this in the rule book. Is this
really the way we should judge blinds?
Answer:
First, with all due respect to Mr. Spencer, while he
is an excellent writer, he does not speak for HRC. Second, I really don’t believe that Tim Gibson intended for
you to draw that conclusion from the Judge’s Corner article.
While he did quote a couple of field reps that described using this “corridor”
method of judging the blind, nowhere in the article did I read that this has
become the preferred method of judging, or that if a dog gets out of the
corridor it is failed. A dog that “lines” the blind or one that is handled to
the blind with a few precise casts close to the line to the blind is a
pleasure to watch, and would certainly be a pleasure for all of us to own,
train, and handle. However, this
performance is NOT THE STANDARD at seasoned, finished, or grand levels.
This type of performance may be what we all strive for in our training,
but as an HRC judge it should only represent a sure passing performance at the
seasoned and finished level, and a score of 3 at the grand level.
As a judge, setting up a “passing” corridor is a good way to paint
yourself into a corner. Take for
instance a lightning fast dog and a very slow handler.
This dog stops on a dime once the handler finally gets the whistle in
his/her mouth and casts as precise as the best of dogs.
Let’s say the judges
looking at this dog are “corridor” judges.
The dog takes three whistles and three precise casts to the blind.
However, because the handler is slow and the dog fast, the dog has
angled 20 yards or so outside the corridor each time before the handler could
blow the whistle. Adherence to a
“corridor” rule would fail this particular dog and handler even though it
responded promptly and precisely to each and every whistle and cast.
The fact that we hear judges using terminology such as “challenge the blind”,
or “run at the blind” may be leaving the false impression that we expect
our retrievers to follow a predetermined corridor.
Running “at” the blind, and staying in a corridor are not the same
thing! The fact that there was
one judge with the wrong impression may mean there are a number of them out
there. Perhaps the field reps
could spend some additional time on this topic in the Judges/Handlers Seminar.
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 |