 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - August / September 1999 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim
Gibson
Before we get into this issue’s
judging scenarios, I want to take a few moments to report to you about some
exciting things have been happening in the past few weeks.
The new Judge’s/Handler’s
Seminar is now a reality. We
presented a test version to the executive committee and the field reps for
their review and approval at the annual meeting in Memphis.
In development for almost a year, it’s radically different from the
slide projector program we have been using for the past 6 years.
I want to thank Bill Rath and Paul Ramponi for their help in putting it
together. The seminar is a
revision of our basic program, now presented using a laptop computer and
multimedia projector. This is
state of the art presentation technology.
The new seminar includes a lot of photographs, music, and video clips
illustrating concepts and scenarios we have previously discussed, but could
not convey visually. Those who have seen it give it “two thumbs up” for being
entertaining and informative.
Perhaps the most exciting
aspect of this new technology is the fact that the seminar can be easily and
almost instantaneously revised and updated.
The new seminar can be “customized” by inserting photos and/or
video where appropriate, that depicts dogs, handlers, and judges from our
various HRC regions. It’s fun
to attend the seminar and see people and dogs you are familiar with in the
show. We hope to build a reference library of quality material we
can draw on to add and insert into the seminar to keep it fresh.
If you have any photos or video you think might illustrate some judging
or testing concept, or if you have some nice hunting pictures, please send
copies to Bill, Paul, or myself. A
big thanks should go to your executive officers for approving the acquisition
of the laptop and projector that will be used for the new presentation.
Without question, HRC continues to lead the retriever-testing world in
its commitment to our judges training and development.
To compliment the new seminar,
the Judge’s/Handler’s Seminar workbook has changed slightly.
We’ve gone to double sided printing in the workbook, which makes it
thinner and less bulky. The book contains more complete text and information on
topics covered in the seminar. Text
explanations of concepts are included, and expanded recommendations for
judging given where photos and video are used in the actual presentation.
The appendix section of the book continues to include information about
HRC/UKC polices and procedures not covered in the HRC Rulebook.
Everyone attending a seminar will receive the new workbook.
On another note, I’m pleased to announce that the Judge’s Corner articles are now online. At the annual meeting in Memphis someone asked how they could get copies of the articles, and if they would be available digitally. I have been writing this column since 1995, and many of our newer members have not had access to the earlier issues of the magazine. One of my ongoing projects had been to build a web page where the scenarios reviewed could be organized by topic then downloaded, and/or printed out. The comments I heard at the meeting encouraged me to get the job done. You can access the Judge’s Corner through the HRC homepage at www.huntingretrieverclub.org. Let’s look at our first hunt test scenario. This situation occurred at one of our Seasoned hunt tests this past spring and was sent to me by someone who describes himself as a “beginning handler/trainer”. His test description was lengthy but very complete, and he even included a nice drawing of the test. The handler had several legitimate questions concerning the test set up. While his dog failed, he advises me that he sent this to me not as much to criticize the test, as to learn from the experience. While I have no reason to doubt that this is not exactly what happened, I’m using the scenario not to cast aspirations on any judges or club, but so we all might learn something from it. I sent the scenario to the field reps for their comments. It is rather complex, so please bear with me as I explain it as concisely as I can. Scenario:
The Seasoned water test was set up on a shallow pond that had some
flooded timber in it. The dog was
required to sit on a point of dry ground, about 8 feet left of the handler who
was standing in knee-deep water. A
winger (throwing the second mark) was set up on the shoreline only about 12
feet to the right of the handler. Thirty
yards to the right, and about 10 yards forward of the retrieving line was a
winger hidden in some trees throwing the first mark.
The first mark landed slightly right, and about 25 yards in front of
the handler. The second mark was
thrown toward the left, passing slightly in front of the handler and landing
10 yards to the left of the dog. The
handler was required to shoot once at the first bird, and twice at the second
mark. The handler tells me he
could not see the first bird in flight, nor could he see it hit the water. He fired at the sound of the winger launch.
The judges advised the handlers that while they may not be able to see
this duck, “we guarantee your dog will”.
The blind was straight out between the marks, at 40 yards.
About half way to the blind, the far shoreline came out into the water. The remaining distance to the blind was parallel to the
shore. The blind was run after
the marks were picked up. A
diversion completed the test on the return from the blind. It was thrown from the winger throwing the second mark.
The dog in question was steady through the first throw and shot, and
still steady during the second throw and shot while the bird was passing in
front. The dog broke on the third
shot just as the second duck hit the water.
Questions:
The handler asked, “While the rulebook states that the Seasoned
dog may be placed a reasonable distance from the handler, what is “reasonable”?
Further, he does not understand why he was required to fire three shots
at two ducks. Also, he asked if
it was realistic to be required to shoot at a bird he could not see.
Finally, he asked, “Is this a reasonable Seasoned level test”?
Answer:
When it was sent to me, I had to read this scenario twice. First, to get a good mental picture of the test, and second
to believe I was actually reading about a Seasoned test. Usually when a scenario is submitted to me via e-mail, I will
acknowledge that I have received it, and thank the individual who sent it to
me with a short reply via return e-mail.
In this situation, I contacted the handler because I had a few
questions.
My first thoughts considering this situation were that these judges
went to extraordinary lengths to make this a difficult Seasoned test.
Then I had another thought. I
asked the handler if this did not occur on the second day of a two-day hunt,
and if so, was this test site possibly used on the first day.
His reply confirmed my suspicions.
He stated that the scenario in question was on the second day (Sunday)
of the club’s hunt. Further, it
was his understanding that the judges set the test up on a site that was used
for Finished on Saturday. One
judge even stated in the handlers meeting something to the effect: “this is
yesterdays Finished water test, so if you pass this, you can be proud that you’ve
accomplished something”. Well I
guess so! The judges set the test up on late Saturday afternoon.
They simply “shortened” Saturday’s Finished blind, and moved the
dog a few feet closer to the handler. The
marks were essentially the same as the day before.
Before I get into the specifics of my answer to the handler’s
questions, let me take a moment to “editorialize” a little.
Most clubs do a tremendous job with their two-day events. However, at some hunts, we are seeing evidence that a little
additional time and effort should be put into maintaining the quality of the
second day’s event. Granted,
it is very hard to set up two days worth of hunt tests on Friday afternoon.
Clubs might need to consider starting earlier on Friday.
Many times it’s difficult to maintain the enthusiasm level and effort
on the second day when everyone is a little tired.
This is less evident where two clubs go together to share a hunt test
weekend, and there is more manpower and equipment to cover the job.
However, when a club commits to a two-day event, the planning,
organization, and effort must be extraordinary.
Now that I’ve said that, let me get to the answers to the handler’s
questions.
The field reps had a lot to say about this test.
There was nothing inherently illegal about the test, but in general,
they all considered it too difficult for Seasoned and a very poor test (the
judges all but admitted such by stating it was yesterday’s Finished test).
Let’s look at each part of the test and I’ll try to explain why.
First, there is no doubt this was a breaking test, especially with the
remote sit added in. Remote work,
while technically within the rules, is extremely rare at the Seasoned level.
I personally believe our rulebook uses the statement “the Seasoned
Hunting Retriever may be placed a reasonable distance from the Handler”
(page 27) to allow the dog to work outside a duck blind, or from a tree stand
when the handler may be standing by the next tree over. In this scenario, I
couldn’t see any purpose to having the handler standing away from the dog in
knee-deep water, and I think it was “unreasonable”. Further, it’s difficult enough for a Seasoned dog to be
steady with a bird thrown 10 yards from it in the water. Add the fact that the dog was sitting 8 feet away from the
handler (with the duck landing on the opposite side of the dog from the
handler) and you have a scenario that would test the steadiness of a Finished
dog. Does anyone think a Seasoned
dog should be as steady as a Finished level dog?
Multiple shots at a bird have
always been an accepted practice at our hunts and can be realistic.
In this test however, the extra shot, along with the remote sit,
appeared “tricky”. With a dog
working remote, communication between the dog and handler is always difficult.
When a handler fires a single shot at the arc of a thrown bird, that
handler usually at least has time to remind the dog to “stay” before the
bird hits the water. Having to
get the third shot off in this test eliminated that opportunity for the
handlers.
Most troubling is the fact
that the judges felt it was acceptable for the handlers to not see the first
mark they were shooting at. How
realistic is it to shoot at a bird and kill it when you can’t see it.
Many times if a handler is looking at the dog, or having a problem
shooting the gun, etc., (you can name any number of reasons), they may not see
a mark, but the opportunity to see the bird clearly should be there for
both the dog and the handler! If
the handlers could not even see the bird hit the water, how could they handle
their dogs to it if they needed to?
I can’t explain why the judges did this, other than they did not take
time to correctly position the dog, handler, or the first mark winger.
Finally, we teach in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar that the Seasoned blind should be run in the absence
of distraction. If the blind must
be run between the marks, run it first. This
at least gives the Seasoned dog a chance to run the blind without thinking
about where it just picked up two marks.
Also, the rulebook states that the blind should be “through easy
cover and relatively open water” (Seasoned Guidelines, rulebook page
28). Running the blind parallel
to the bank made it especially challenging, and offered the dog another
opportunity to get into trouble on the test.
If it was described accurately, I would put this blind into the
category of a “40 yard Finished blind”, which (in the judging seminar) we
caution against setting up in a Seasoned test.
With a little thought, common sense, and effort, the judges could have
done a lot better job. Lets look
at our next scenario.
Scenario:
The Finished retriever picked up the marks cleanly in both tests and
lined the afternoon water blind. The
dog had one whistle refusal on the land blind in the morning test.
The dog had taken a pretty good line and winded the blind about 15
yards from it. The handler had
blown a whistle about the same time the dog winded the bird.
The dog had a nose full of bird, ignored the whistle, and picked up the
blind. At the conclusion of the
hunt, the dog was failed. The
judges explained that since the dog lined the water blind, and the handler
only blew one whistle (which was refused) on the land blind, they felt the
handler did not demonstrate “control” of the dog.
Question:
The basic question is can judges fail a retriever for lining the
blind?
Answer:
No, and let me explain why. I’ve
heard this statement from handlers at several seminars: “I lined the blind,
and was failed for not showing control”. I can honestly say I’ve never
personally talked with a judge who failed a dog for “lining the blind”.
As I’ve stated in previous issues of the Judge’s Corner, there are
no Guidelines in our rulebook for Finished blinds.
Perhaps we can take a look back at the Seasoned level for help in
answering the question posed by this scenario, but first we need to agree what
“lining the blind” means.
I guess the true definition of lining the blind would mean the dog is
cast from the retrieving line and carries a straight line directly to the
bird. This is very rare. Generally, a dog will carry a nice line, which puts them in a
position where they can either see or wind the bird. They make a short turn, take a couple of steps, and pick it
up. The handler does not need to
blow a whistle or cast the dog, and knows it. The dogs line took it close
enough to pick up the blind without aid from the handler. We still call this
“lining the blind”.
In
our HRC rulebook, the Seasoned Guidelines say: “Lining the blind is
not required”. It does not say "lining the blind is not
allowed, or unacceptable"!
Can we agree that this would hold true for finished also? I think so.
We state in the seminar (in all categories) that we are looking for the dog to
take an initial line, and be under control. Is taking a great line and
holding it (especially through obstacles, suction and distractions
that our Finished judges always seem to place in the test) not showing
great training, and great "control" over the dog?
A dog who after being cast, meanders around, then ends up 20 to 30
yards from the blind and works it's way into the wind, or down a bank to the
bird (without aid from the handler) is not lining the blind, and is a
different matter. This dog, by deviating from its line, and maneuvering
itself without direction from the handler, is not showing control. I think we
all know the difference between stumbling on the blind, and lining it.
A dog that takes a straight line, carries it, does not weave or wander,
and puts itself in a position to easily wind the blind is showing control.
The dog is certainly not stumbling on it!
In our scenario, the handler lined the dog toward the blind in each test.
The dog drifted slightly on the land blind.
On this test, if the retriever had deviated from its line, then “found”
the blind by wandering around, the judges could make a case that the handler
did not control the dog. However,
while carrying the line, the dog winded the bird so the whistle refusal
could be considered one of those “oops” whistles.
By our definition, the dog lined the afternoon blind.
It would be grossly unfair for a judge to consider failing a dog for
this performance! I don’t
believe this is happening in our hunt tests.
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. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |