 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - April / May 1999 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim
Gibson
First, for those of you missed the Judge’s Corner in the last issue
of the magazine, let me apologize. Can
you say “hard drive crash”? A
word of advice for all you computer buffs.
When you hear the CPU making funny whirling and clanking noises like an
old eight-track tape player, it is trying to tell you something.
Can you say “backup”? Two days before my article was due (which
co-incidentally was the day before I had planned to write it) I experienced
massive and irreparable hard drive failure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that I had an appointment the next
day with some ducks on the Grand Prairie in Arkansas.
Since there was only a few days left in the Arkansas duck season, and I
had not yet made it there, I abandoned all hopes of completing my article and
headed south. My computer went to my computer guru to see what organs were
salvageable. This story is similar to the tale of the old bird hunter on his
deathbed. Speaking to his family
gathered around him, he told his wife, “I wasn’t always there for our
anniversary, or even the births of our kids.
I was always out bird hunting”.
And to his kids he said, “I wasn’t there for your birthdays, or
graduations, or weddings because I was always out bird hunting”.
They all asked if he regretted missing all the important events in the
lives of his family members. He
said, “No, I killed a lot of birds”! I hope all of you will understand.
Enough said.
It was exactly one year ago that I first mentioned updating our
Judges/Handlers Seminar. I asked
for HRC members to send me photos and/or videos of their dogs either in
training or at hunt tests, which might be able to be used in the new seminar. So far, I have received little to no responses.
I constantly hear people complain they are tired of the old seminar,
yet they don’t realize it takes a combined effort to gather sufficient
material to effectively update the program. I am again asking for your help.
We are hoping to have the new, improved seminar up and running by the
national meeting.
In this issue of the Judge’s Corner, we’ll take a close
look at two scenarios that may be of interest to you. I’ve also included an
updated index of past Judge’s Corner topics. I’m exploring the idea of
establishing a web site of Judge’s Corner articles that may help serve as a
reference source for judges and handlers. Let’s look at our first scenario.
Scenario:
The Finished land test consisted of a working dog and
an honor dog on the retrieving line to start the test.
A single mark was thrown, which the honor dog retrieved.
The working dog then ran its blind.
The honor dog retired from the line.
There was no honor on water.
Question:
Was this a legal test?
Answer:
Not wanting to sound like a politician who never answers a question
directly, I will save you the suspense and say that in my opinion, this was
not a legal honor! I spoke with
several field reps that shared this view. This scenario actually occurred
recently at one of our HRC hunts, according to several people who told me
about it. I was informed that the
test caused great debate at the hunt. Let’s look at what the rulebook says
about the Finished honor requirements, and what is happening in the scenario
described above.
We all understand that to “honor” means a dog must sit quietly and
watch another dog work. The HRC
rule book says: “either or both the marked water retrieve or the multiple marked land
retrieve must include an honor,. . . . “ (HRC Rule book, pg. 30,
Description). The judges have the flexibility to either let the honor dog
simply sit and watch, or allow them to make a retrieve.
At their discretion, they can keep the honor dog on the line until the
working dog has completed a retrieve(s), or allow them to leave after the
working dog is initially cast for its first retrieve.
It seems clear to me however, that the honor dog must at the very
minimum watch a multiple mark being presented in the test, and sit still while
another dog is sent to retrieve one of the marks thrown.
In the scenario described above, the “working dog” (who has just come to
the line) is honoring a single mark thrown for the “honor dog” (who has
completed the test, but is really still working because it must pick up the
single mark). Then the “honor
dog” watches the working dog run its blind. I think what we really have in this test scenario is two dogs
“working” on the line, neither of which can be called an honor dog
according to our Finished rules. Let me ask you this: Do you think it’s more
difficult for a retriever to watch a single mark, or multiple marks being
thrown, then have to sit and watch while another dog is sent for the bird(s)?
Is “honoring” a dog sent for a blind retrieve as difficult as honoring
marks? Which better tests whether
a dog will “honor” another dogs work?
In the August/September 1997 issue of the HRC magazine I covered another honor
situation in the Judge’s Corner. In
that scenario, we asked whether it was okay to position the honor dog where it
could see the first two marks thrown but could not see the third mark of a
triple because it’s view was obstructed by the working dog handler and some
bushes. In discussion with
several of the field reps, we determined that this was acceptable because the
honor dog could see at least a double, which is the minimum number of birds
required to be thrown at the Finished level.
In that test scenario, if the honor dog could only have seen one of the
three birds thrown in the test, I would personally say it was not a legal
honor because the dog could not see a “multiple” mark.
In that article, I made the statements:
“Each judge must decide within
their own test if they have a valid honor situation set up. Have they positioned the honor dog so it can see as much of
the test as necessary so that they can evaluate whether the dog completed the
honor requirements?”
Let me offer these personal comments on how you might incorporate the honor
into your tests. In the interest of time, I usually attempt to include the
honor in the portion of the test where logistically it is most easily added.
Remember that you will need a “by” dog for the last dog so plan
accordingly. You may or may not let the honor dog “work” in the test.
It depends on the complexity and structure of the test.
If you feel the terrain or cover is not especially challenging to the
finished retrievers, you might use the honor to “set up” other portions of
the test, as perhaps our judges were doing in the scenario we discussed. For example, at a recent Finished land test the terrain was
flat and open. I and my co-judges let the honor dog pick up the left bird
(short, and first thrown) of a triple, while the working dog was returning
with it’s first retrieve (far right bird, last bird down). The honor dog was
on the left. Both handlers shot
at the first bird (left) while the working dog handler continued to shoot the
center and far right bird. When
the working dog picked up the designated far right bird and was returning, the
honor dog was released to pick up the short left bird.
This “set up” the center mark, and the blind.
Several working dogs returned with the right bird and insisted on going
to the left bird although the honor dog had already picked it up.
Some wanted the left bird after successfully picking up the center
mark. Others still wanted it when
running the blind that was placed deep between the first and second marks.
The left bird was thrown purposefully short, to allow the honor dog to
quickly pick it up, and give the working dog a good look at it.
Incidentally, for consistency, we did not allow the working dog to go
for the middle mark until the honor dog had returned with the bird and the
honor handler had taken delivery. Personally,
I always insist on the honor dog handler holding a gun, and I usually have
them participate in the shooting if their dog is to make a retrieve.
Remember, it’s important the honor dog exit the retrieving line
without disturbing the working dog. One last item.
This might make a good question for the next Judges Test (coming up in
a short two years). Is it okay to
include an honor on both the Finished land and water test? I hope our
discussion will encourage all of you to talk about the honor requirements with
your field reps and fellow judges.
Our next scenario concerns shooting the gun at the Started test. Scenario:
The Started dog handler came to the line and asked to shoot the gun for
their dog. The judges
informed the handler that the designated gunner was shooting for every dog.
They would not allow the handler to shoot.
Question:
Were the judges within their rights to not allow the handler to
shoot the gun?
Answer:
No! A Started handler
sent this scenario to me which occurred at one of our hunt tests this past
year. I asked the handler if he
was sure he was at an HRC test! I
was assured he was, although I can’t imagine this could happen. By their
actions in not allowing the handler to shoot the shotgun, the judges were
undermining one of the basic principles our organization was founded on:
putting the gun in the hands of our handlers.
I think they forgot we are an organization “Conceived by Hunters, for
Hunters”. This is unconscionable! We
cannot allow judges at any level to decide they don’t want a handler
shooting the gun! Several
years ago, one of our early clubs (who couldn’t decide whether to be
affiliated with HRC, or one of the other retriever testing organization)
informed our national officers and UKC that they would not be allowing the
handlers to shoot the shotgun in their licensed tests.
They were concerned with liability and safety issues, and decided to
provide “gunners” at all levels. They
were informed, immediately, that this was unacceptable, and asked to leave our
organization.
There
is only one place in our rulebook that mentions the handler not handling the
shotgun. On page 22, Test Rules,
Item II, our rulebook states: “If the hunting
retriever is hand held, the Handler “will
not handle the shotgun”. It’s
obvious that for safety considerations, a handler cannot be allowed to hold
their retriever and shoot the gun at the same time, hence the rule book
wording adopted effective Jan. 1, 1999. The
Started judges in the scenario described may have been worried that the
retriever would break. While it
may be appropriate to make sure a handler understands their dog must not
break, whether to shoot the gun is the handler’s decision to make.
These judges took that option away from the handler.
As they do when actually hunting, handlers in our tests understand they
must assume responsibility when using the shotgun and will be
judged for gun safety at all levels.
In all fairness, I can think of one instance where as a judge I might not allow a handler to shoot the gun. That being when the handler may be physically unable to safely operate the gun. I would not allow the handler to attempt to handle the gun with one hand if for example they had a broken arm, etc. I would, and have in the past made special arrangements for a gunner in those cases. Let me ask this. Are all our Started judges explaining the gun option to the assembled handlers before the test begins? Are we putting enough emphasis on properly handling the gun and shooting the marks at the Started level for those handlers who elect to shoot the birds themselves? I hope this scenario was an isolated incident, and upon reflection, the judges realized what they had done. Putting the gun in the hands of our handlers keeps the “hunting” in the Hunting Retriever Club, and keeps HRC head and shoulders above the rest of the retriever testing organizations. 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 |