 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - June / July 1999 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson
I was recently asked by our executive
committee to accompany them to the new Whistling Wings HRC preliminary hunt
near Seattle, WA. I went with
Pete, Glenn, and Claudene. I’m
sure Pete will mention something about this event in his President’s column.
We met some great people who will make a wonderful addition to our HRC
family. It was exciting to see
how eager they were to learn how we set up our HRC hunt tests and judged the
dogs. We saw some good handlers
and nice dogs. I could tell
however, that most of them were not used to running a test with the handler
shooting the gun over their dog. Most
of the retrievers handled it better than the handlers did.
We talked extensively about gun safety and demonstrated what a popper
is capable of doing. They learned that putting the gun in the handler’s hands
truly sets HRC apart from some of the other retriever testing organizations.
One person remarked to me that “this
really is all about hunting”! The trip reminded me of how privileged we
are to be part of this fine organization. Let’s get to our first situation.
Thankfully,
the following scenario rarely occurs at our hunt tests.
It involves two dogs fighting on the line.
We teach our judges to maintain a proper distance and separation
between the working dog and the honor dog. This would include going to and
from the retrieving line, and their paths to and from the line during any
retrieves. Further, most HRC judges recognize that what they have the honor
dog do in a test may adversely effect the working dogs performance, and
vice-versa. Even with an excellent designed test, and usually for no apparent
reason, a dog might go out of its way to start a fight with another dog in the
test. Personally, I’ve only
seen this happen a few times in well over 10 years of judging.
UKC has in place a policy to disqualify and remove from our licensed
hunts “habitual” offenders, i.e., those dogs who have a record of fighting
with other dogs. While the
penalties for such fighting are clearly spelled out in our HRC rulebook under “Disqualified for Fighting –
U.K.C. Policy”, page 14, there has been some confusion as to how to
properly report such activity. Hopefully
we can all learn something from this situation which occurred recently at one
of our spring hunts.
Scenario:
During the afternoon Finished
water test, the honor dog ran over to the working dog that was returning with
a duck, and started a fight. The experienced honor dog handler immediately grabbed his dog
and stopped the fight. The
handler put a leash on the dog and left the line. The judges assumed the
handler knew the dog was disqualified, and never said anything to the handler
at the time. The hunt concluded
with neither judge ever talking to the handler about his dog starting the
fight, or discussing this with the hunt committee or hunt chairperson.
Over two weeks later, one of the judges wrote UKC a letter stating it
was “his responsibility to inform them of the dog’s disqualification for
fighting at the hunt”.
Question:
Is this the proper procedure for handling and
reporting a “dog-fighting” situation?
Answer:
I spoke with one of the judges who explained
the situation to me. He felt uneasy about his co-judge writing to UKC after
the fact, especially since they did not discuss the incident with the handler
or hunt committee at the time. He
told me things got busy, etc., and the hunt concluded with no one talking to
the handler. I can understand how
this could happen. I’m sure the
judges were concerned that neither dog was injured, and the handler no doubt
wanted to get the offending dog off the line as soon as he could. In the Judges/Handlers Seminar we tell judges that there are
two times when they need to inform a handler that they have failed the test before
the handler leaves the retrieving line. Those
are when the handler is disqualified for gun safety, and when a retriever is
failed for hard mouth. I would suggest a third area where the judges need to
take a moment to speak to the handler before he/she leaves the line - when a
dogfight has occurred. I would
think it would be appropriate to tell a handler the judges are going to
discuss the incident at the conclusion of the hunt and may need to file a
report documenting the incident to UKC.
The
judge in the scenario we are discussing was partially correct when he wrote
UKC stating it was his responsibility to inform them of the disqualification
for fighting. It was his and
his co-judges responsibility. They should have discussed the incident
together, then informed the handler and the hunt committee of their decision. I personally believe it is up to the judges who are on the
retrieving line, watching and evaluating the dogs to make the call. The judges
may want to talk further with the handler of the fighting dog before they make
a decision to report the incident, which will go on the dog’s record.
In
all fairness to the judge who wrote UKC, as I mentioned earlier, while the
penalties for fighting are clearly defined in our rulebook, the procedure for
reporting a fight is not. I’m
not going to discuss the penalties (you can all read page 14), but I am going
to enlighten you on how to “officially” report a fighting incident.
Not completely understanding the procedures myself, I went to the
source of all knowledge concerning UKC policies and procedures, Michelle
Morgan, Manager, Multi-Breed Field Operations, UKC, Inc. Michelle was kind enough to provide a very complete
description of the proper way to report a fighting incident, and she told me
how UKC handled the scenario we are discussing.
While
admitting that, in her words: “possibly
the rulebook needs to better define what the Judge and Hunt Committee must do
to report this type of incident”, Michelle says the proper procedure
would have been to do the following:
a)
The Judge must mark
the point receipt “Failed” box and
b)
In the area just
above the boxes the Judge must write “Disqualified for Fighting” and
c)
Both Judges should
sign the point receipt, however, only one Judge signature is required.
d)
The hunt committee
must indicate the following in the Additional Comments section of the Official
Hunt Report. The [name of dog,
dog’s UKC Registration No. (if known)] was “Disqualified For Fighting”
in the (name category) test by the Judges.
Two Club Officers signatures should follow this statement.
In
the specific scenario we were discussing, the point receipt did not verify
that the dog was “disqualified for fighting”.
In fact, the point receipt was marked as void, and the Judge’s
signature was not present. There
was also no indication by the Hunt Committee on the Official Hunt Report,
Additional Comments that this problem occurred. Michelle told me that since
the incident was not properly certified and notification was not in accordance
with the rules, while the judge’s letter will be kept on file with the Hunt
report, the disqualification couldn’t be reflected on the dog’s record.
Hopefully,
as a judge, you’ll never be in a position where you have to make a report on
a dog fighting in your test. If
you do however, discuss it with your co-judge, speak to the handler, and
follow the guidelines outlined above. Following
these procedures will insure that we identify and label habitual fighting
offenders and remove them from our testing program.
Finally, let me take a moment to make sure we all understand the difference between being “disqualified”, and “failed”. A dog can be “failed” in the morning, and still run in the afternoon. A good example of this would be failing for “hardmouth”. A handler can “fail” the dog (poor handling, excessive noise, intimidation, or any number of things – take your pick), but the dog is marked “failed”, not the handler. The handler can run additional dogs. Either a dog or the handler can be disqualified. The dog may be disqualified for fighting, and the handler may be disqualified for gun safety, or physical abuse or interference, etc., (see page 4 of our rulebook). If either the dog or handler are “disqualified”, they cannot participate in further tests that day. When a dog or handler are “disqualified”, the dog also is marked as failed (hence the need to mark the point receipt Failed in our scenario). Now that everyone is totally confused, my I suggest you speak with your field reps, or experienced judges in your region for more information on this subject. Our next two scenarios have less to do with rules, regulation, or procedures, as they do with using good judgement in setting up and executing the hunt tests, and properly evaluating the retrievers. Scenario: At
the Started Land test, the Judges threw a thirty-yard mark.
There was no wind, and it was a warm, sunny day.
The handlers stood on the backside of a small hill overlooking a pond.
The bird was thrown so that it landed about 12 feet inland from the
pond in about foot high grass. The
judges had two decoys sitting on the pond in line with the throw.
Dogs were running over the mound, past the area of the fall and into
the pond. Several handlers
(especially the shorter ones) could not see their dogs.
Questions:
Was
this a legal and/or fair Started test? Would
it be proper for the handler to move up onto the mound to retain sight of
their dog?
Answer:
A Started handler who wishes to remain
anonymous sent this scenario to me via e-mail and asked that I protect his
identity because: “I don’t want to
offend anyone.” I guess he figures I won’t mind doing the offending.
I don’t. I’m not sure
where this situation occurred, and I don’t know who the judges where, but if
the scenario is accurately described, the judges made some very basic mistakes
in setting up their test. It is
possibly also an illegal test. Do
you know why? Let me explain as briefly as I can.
The handler stated in his e-mail that the dogs could only see the bird
in the air over the crest of the mound. He
also stated that the shorter handlers could not see the bird, or their dog to
see if it was on the bird or went into the water.
If this is true, the test was illegal.
On page 22 of our HRC rulebook, Test
Rules, item IX states:
“The dog must have a clear view
of the fall.” I would make
the case that the rulebook means the entire fall, not half of it.
Judges might throw a bird behind cover or behind a hill for the
Seasoned or Finished dog, but this is not appropriate at the Started level.
The judges made several other mistakes in their test scenario.
Asking the handlers to stand and run from a position where they could
not see their dogs was almost as bad as having the dogs run to a mark they
could not see fall clearly. If I were a handler in this test, I would move up on top of
the mound to see my dog. If this
was a land test, why run toward a pond just a few feet behind the fall?
The decoys seemed to be there to trick the dogs into entering the
water. Did the judges really
think the dogs would not overrun the fall and end up in the pond?
How can they adequately evaluate the dogs marking skills with the
poorly placed throw and the distraction of the pond and decoys?
I’m not sure where the hunt committee was during the test approval. To tell the truth, this was probably one of those tests where someone on the hunt committee didn’t like it, but couldn’t find anything illegal about it. You’d have to know the rulebook pretty well to find the rule about a clear view to the fall. I’m more disappointed in the judges on this one than the hunt committee. Judges should strive to set up and execute their tests to the standards of the level they are judging. Don’t throw Started marks that would be difficult for a Seasoned or Finished dog (even though the distance is legal), and don’t set up a 40 yard Finished blind for Seasoned dogs (you all know what I mean). Be fair to the handlers, and above all, be fair to the dogs! Proving that Started judges aren’t the only ones making test set up mistakes; I give you our final scenario: Scenario:
Seasoned water test, blind retrieve.
The retrievers were asked to swim about 35 yards across an open marsh
to the far shore, which was lined with reeds and cattails. The blind was placed about 3 feet from the shoreline, up in
the reeds. The wind was 20 mph
from the left. A bird boy with a
bucket of birds was 25 yards left of the blind.
The dog got just left of the line to the blind bird and was stopped and
cast right and back. He went into
the reeds near the duck and disappeared.
The handler let the dog go for about 45 seconds, then whistled the dog
in. After 3 or 4 come in
whistles, the dog came back to the edge of the cattails where it was stopped
with one whistle and took a right over about 20 yards and picked up the bird. The judges failed the dog for being out of control.
Questions:
Was this a good Seasoned level blind?
Should the dog have failed?
Answer:
A very experienced HRC Finished level judge
sent this scenario to me. I don’t
know where or when it happened. I
think he was talking about his own dog running this test. He stated that the relatively new judges said that since they
had radio headsets with which they could communicate with the bird boys, the
judges had asked the bird boy what the dog was doing.
The bird boy said the dog was over by him. They then said the dog was therefore “out of control”. I
have no reason to believe that this situation did not happen exactly as it was
described. Those of you who are
regular readers of this column know that I am a big advocate of backing judges’
“judgmental” decisions. I’m not using this scenario to criticize these
judges for how they evaluated this particular dog, although the dog appeared
to have done exactly what is expected of a seasoned dog. I am however going to use this situation as an example of
poor blind set up.
In the Judges/Handlers Seminar, we learn that judges should set the
Seasoned blind so handlers can keep sight of their dogs all the way to the
bird. This includes giving the
handlers adequate room to maneuver and control the dog behind the blind
as well. We advise not placing
the blind against heavy cover where the dog could take one step too deep on
either side of the bird and disappear in the cover. They should not have
placed the blind in the reeds if it was obvious handlers would loose sight of
their dogs after entering the cover. The reason is the Seasoned handlers are
not expected to have as good control of their dogs as the Finished or Grand
level handlers. If a handler
cannot see their dog, they cannot control them, and the judges cannot evaluate
the dog. We also say that the
Seasoned blind should be run in the absence of “distractions.”
The distraction in this case was the scent from the bird boy and his
birds. The judges should have positioned the bird boy downwind from the blind.
The handler also stated that the judges told him that since they could
communicate with the bird boy, they: “asked
the bird boy what the dog was doing”. I’m
not sure we want to rely on our bird boys, as good as some of them are, to
relay information about the dog’s performance.
With a couple of minor changes, this could have been a very nice
seasoned level blind.
In the Judges/Handlers Seminar, during the discussions about setting up
and executing hunt tests, we learn what it takes to set up a test that will
properly evaluate a retriever’s performance.
We also discuss how to recognize and eliminate problems in our tests
before their occur.
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 |