 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - October / November 1998 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
In the last magazine, I promised you that in this issue, we’d get back to
our familiar scenario, question, and answer format.
The first “scenario” we’ll be discussing concerns our “Started”
tests, and is a situation that appears to have repeated itself several times
and places this past spring hunt test season.
I had an opportunity to discuss it informally with several HRC members
(judges and handlers) at a Judges/Handlers Seminar I conducted here in
southern Illinois this past August. Several
individuals expressed a concern to me that this was occurring frequently in
our hunt tests, and wanted my opinion on it.
I have a few thoughts, which I’d like to share with you. We’ll then
tackle a couple more issues that you may find interesting.
Scenario:
The Started handler and dog came to the line at the land test, and the handler
signaled “ready” to the judges. The judges signaled for the throw. The dog seemed to look in the direction of the mark when the
attention getting device was used, and marked the flight of the bird.
The throw looked good to the judges.
After going out and hunting for the bird for a couple of minutes, the
dog could not find it. The frustrated handler called the dog back in.
The judges asked the bird boy to go out and pick the bird up.
The judges then told the handler they were going to re-throw the bird,
because “obviously the dog didn’t see it”.
They threw the bird again, and the dog got it the second time.
This scenario was repeated for every dog on the test that didn’t
successfully retrieve the bird on the first attempt.
Question:
Is it proper and acceptable for the judges to “re-throw” a bird for a
Started dog and if so, when?
Answer:
My first thought when told of this scenario was that these judges did not
understand the term “re-cast”. Our rulebook states in the Rules for Started Retrievers, page
14, item VII, “The hunting retriever
can be cast from the retrieving line a maximum of two (2) times”.
This means the dog can be cast a maximum of twice for
the same bird, thrown once! This does not mean the dog can have a bird thrown twice for
it each time. I was then informed
that some of our more experienced HRC judges were involved in the particular
incidents that were being described to me.
Obviously, they understood the difference between a re-cast, and a
re-throw, so I had to conclude there was another reason for their decision to
throw the birds twice for the dogs. Let’s
take a look at what our rulebook says about judging the Started dog, and what
we discuss in the Judges/Handlers Seminar.
The rulebook states (page 8, Guidelines For Judges, Philosophy) that: “Judges
should strive to set up tests and judge hunting retrievers in natural
situations, evaluating the retriever on qualities desirable in a hunting
retriever”. In the
Judges/Handlers Seminar, we learn that the two most important traits we are
looking for in the Started dog are marking ability, and hunting desire.
On page 9 of our HRC rulebook, Marking
and Memory, it says: “Serious
faults which would be grounds for failure would include:
failure to find a bird”. On
page 10, Hunting
Desire, it states: “A
test may be failed if a retriever: stops
and gives up hunting; shows no interest in hunting a bird or picking it up”.
Using these rulebook guidelines, the Started judge has an
obligation to fairly judge the Started retrievers for the characteristics and
abilities we look for in dogs at that level.
When we talk about setting up Started
marking tests in the seminar, we discuss how important it is to use an
attention getting device properly, shoot the gun without distracting or
scaring the dogs, and throw good marks, visible to the retrievers. We also
discuss appropriate cover for a Started dog.
The terrain and cover is appropriate when conditions exist where the
Started dog can get to the area of the fall and find the bird with a
minimum of hunting. We don’t expect the Started dog to respond to
direction from the handler. We
are testing the dogs for marking, not handling.
If the marks are poorly thrown, or not readily seen by the Started
dogs, the judges should make an effort to correct the test.
For our scenario, let’s assume the marks look good. Does the rulebook give us any guidelines for judging the performance
of the Started dogs? Yes it does.
On page 16, Guidelines For Judging Started Hunting Retrievers, the rulebook
clearly states what the dog must do: “Was
the dog attentive at the line? Does
the dog react to the attention-getting device?
Did the dog proceed directly to the area of the fall?
Did the dog hunt the area of the fall?”
We talk a lot about “fairness”, and being a good judge in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar. One
thing I always emphasize when discussing the Started test is “Don’t
signal for the throw if the dog and handler are not ready”.
We say that you can’t properly evaluate the dogs marking ability on a
bird it did not see fall. The
judges should delay the start of the test if the dog is obviously distracted,
or not ready. When the dog is
ready, and the bird is thrown, it is up to the dog to proceed to the area of
the fall and hunt the bird. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but not
every Started dog running a particular test may be able to pass it! As in all levels of our testing program, a lot of dogs are
prepared to do the work, but some are not. Clearly, our rules demand a certain
level of performance from the Started retrievers. Judges who decide they will
throw another bird for a dog who can’t make the retrieves every other dog
has been making in the test are not doing the dog or our program any favors.
Let me close with these questions for you.
Do you think our Started tests are getting to easy?
Are our Started judges putting enough thought and “sweat” into the
tests? Have you seen Started water tests recently where no decoys
were used? Are our Started tests getting the attention and support they
deserve from the hunt committee, or is most of the effort directed toward the
advanced levels? Might these be
some reasons we are not getting stronger participation in our Started tests?
Let me know what you think. Now
let’s look at our next scenario.
Scenario:
The handler was looking forward to running his first Finished test with
his dog who had recently got its HR title.
There was one item the handler was very concerned about.
The handler had a disability with his left arm that prevented him from
using a pump shotgun. He had
received permission on several occasions from judges to use his over/under gun
in the Seasoned tests. Needing
only two shots for the marks, this worked out fine.
He was now concerned that he would not be able to be the handler in a
test where the judges asked the handlers to shoot a triple.
Question:
Is it possible there could be a way for the judges to set up the Finished
marking tests so this gentleman could handle his own dog, or, depending on the
judges and test scenario, is he out of luck?
Answer:
I actually received a letter recently from a gentleman fitting the above
description. He told me that a
couple of people told him it would be difficult or impossible for him to
handle his dog if he had to shoot a triple in a Finished test.
They suggested he write the Judge’s Corner with his concern.
I wrote him back and this was my response:
Dear ……..
Thanks for writing. There should
be no reason you could not “Finish” your dog.
Our judges have a lot of flexibility in our tests.
Any good judge should be able to figure out a way to accommodate your
handicap with the shotgun. Let me
tell you what the rulebook says to illustrate what I’m telling you.
Under the Guidelines for Conducting Events, page 36, item # 35, our HRC
rulebook states: “Handlers
with physical handicaps should advise the hunt secretary of their special
needs prior to the hunt date. The
hunt committee and Judges will make every reasonable effort to accommodate the
needs of the handicapped so they can enjoy and participate in all UKC/HRC hunt
tests”. If you’re able to use your over/under shotgun to shoot
two of three marks, it’s certainly reasonable to ask the judges to figure
out a way to get the other mark shot.
If I were the judge, I’d just have you pop open the gun, unload the two
empties and load and shoot your third bird when ready.
I’d simply delay the third throw slightly.
I believe most judges rush the throws anyway, and this delay would make
little or no difference to your dog. If
this were too difficult to do, the judges could have another gunner shoot the
third mark. Our rulebook states that the handler shall use “true
hunting form”, and that a shot shall be fired at the top of the arc of the
thrown birds. It does not state
in Finished that the “handler” has to shoot at each mark.
Under “Shotguns” on page 23 (Finished rules), the rule book states:
“During the test simulation,
when directed by the Judge, the Handler must shoulder his shotgun, aim, track
and shoot at the top of the arc of the thrown bird”.
The judges could direct you to shoot at two birds, and another
shooter could shoot the third, etc.
I’d advise you to keep a couple of things in mind.
First, you need to notify the hunt secretary of your special situation.
I’d do it in writing when sending in your entry. Ask the hunt secretary to
advise the judges that you are capable of shooting an over/under shotgun, and
will be bringing it to the hunt. The
judges or committee will want to look at the gun to insure that it is in good
operating condition. They may ask
you to leave it on the retrieving line, which is reasonable, but that’s up
to them. There is no specific
rule about leaving a gun for everyone to use.
Second, expect that some judges may not understand that they can vary
the test (who shoots, and when) if necessary to accommodate a special
situation. It will be up to you
to help educate some of these judges, who are generally reluctant to change a
test. Judges are usually very concerned with keeping the test consistent for
everyone. When there is a good
reason for making a change, as there is in this case, they should not hesitate
in doing so. I’m sure you’ll
find the majority of judges more than willing to work with you when they
understand the situation and the fact that they have the flexibility to do so.
This may make a good scenario for the Judge’s Corner.
It may help to educate some of our judges.
I hope this helps you out. You
may want to give the field rep in your region a call and discuss this further. I’m sure everything will work out for you and you’ll
enjoy running the finished level tests. Good
luck and good training. Sincerely,
Tim Gibson.
I sent my response to several of the field reps for their opinion before
including it in this column. Interestingly,
one field rep said that when he first read the rulebook about accommodating
handlers with physical handicaps, he assumed it was talking about “getting
to the retrieving line”, etc., not with changing the test itself.
He believed it would be very easy, and appropriate to adjust the timing
of the throws to accommodate this handler and thought this would be preferable
to having someone else shoot the third bird. Let’s look at our final
scenario for this issue.
Scenario:
At the Finished water test, the handler who had just finished working was
asked to move to the honor bucket, taking his ducks with him.
The handler took his position on the honor stool, and just when the
test was beginning for the working dog, gave his honor dog a duck and ordered
the dog to “hold it”.
Question:
Is giving the honor dog a bird to hold while the test is commencing
acceptable, legal, or appropriate for the honor dog handler to do?
Answer:
This scenario was sent to me by a very experienced HRC finished level judge
who saw it happen while running his dog in a licensed hunt this past spring.
He told me what he would have done if he were judging the test.
He would fail the honor dog handler for “unsportsmanlike” conduct,
but wondered if this would have been appropriate.
In the Judge’s Corner column in the February/March issue of the Hunting
Retriever magazine, we discussed a scenario where the honor dog handler gave a
“down” command to the dog while honoring.
We concluded that unless the judges had a reason for wanting the dog to
sit (the dog may have been required to make a retrieve from the honor
position), this would be acceptable. I
mentioned that I had seen handlers hold the shotgun across the front of the
dog, and in one case, step on the dog’s tail to encourage the dog not to
break. Any attempt to do these things on the honor would be considered
unsportsmanlike. While not
specifically mentioned under Sportsmanship on page 11 of the HRC rulebook, the field reps I
talked with all said they would consider the actions of the handler in having
their dog hold a bird while honoring also to be unsportsmanlike.
Their reasoning was that this also encouraged the dog to stay put.
I’m not so sure dogs think like that, but I’ll accept the idea that
this is unsportsmanlike for two reasons.
First, in our scenario, the handler gave the duck to the dog.
The dog did not “retrieve” it in the course of the test.
Secondly, in a normal hunting situation, you would not have your dog
sit next to you holding a bird.
In the scenario sent to me, I was not told if the judges saw what the honor
dog handler was doing. I assume
they did, and said nothing to the handler, which prompted the letter to me.
I think if I were judging and I noticed an honor dog handler give a
bird to their dog to hold while honoring, I’d simply tell them to take the
bird from the dog. Our HRC rulebook gives very few guidelines about judging
the honor dog, but this would certainly fall within the judge’s discretion.
I feel this would be more appropriate than simply failing the dog at
the conclusion of the hunt. We discuss in the Judges/Handlers Seminar about
being “fair”, and “putting the monkey” on the handler’s back. We’d
still find out if the dog would stay put without holding a duck!
One other thought. There may be times in the test when a handler will want their dog to hold a bird for a short period of time during the test. For example, the working dog handler might elect not to take delivery of a bird from their dog until the honor dog is sent for a retrieve and is well past the working dog’s position (or vice-versa). I’d call that smart handling. These two scenarios are not to be confused with one another. Knowledgeable judges will understand the differenc 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 |