These past few weeks, supposedly the “lazy, hazy days of summer” celebrated in song and verse, have seemed anything but that given the level of HRC activity that has occurred, at least around the Gibson household.  It started for me with a very busy national meeting at which I had the pleasure of spending the better part of a day with your field reps discussing how HRC can improve testing, judging, and the judges seminar.  Also, at the national meeting, five new running rules were adopted which will become effective on January 1, 2001.  I’ll post them at the end of this column for your review.  Shortly after Kathy and I returned from Memphis there appeared in my e-mail inbox a rather sharply worded letter from an upset judge who was accusing me of both a lack of research about a scenario, and “hanging him out to dry”!  I’m going to share parts of his letter, and a portion of my response to this judge with you.  

Some relief from the heat came with a very enjoyable and productive trip to “beautiful British Columbia” (that’s what it says on their license plates, and they aren’t kidding) to attend the new Salt Chuck HRC’s preliminary hunt test and judging seminar. There to lend their leadership, experience, support and enthusiasm were HRC President Glenn Stelly and HRC Vice President Larry McMurry.  SCHRC president Ian Hay and his fellow club members not only did a great job in planning and conducting the weekend’s events, but served as wonderful hosts to our stateside HRC contingent and those folks from throughout the province who were attending a HRC hunt test for the first time.   Not only did the cool weather and low humidity feel good, but so did the feeling of being an ambassador for HRC, and watching how eager our new friends were to embrace our program and philosophy. 

Speaking of the Judge’s/Handler’s Seminar, efforts are underway to make some major revisions once again.  It’s only been slightly over a year since the new seminar format was introduced and adopted, and one of the promises of this new technology was its ease of updating.  We appreciate the comments and suggestions received from those of you attending the seminars and are making some changes you suggested.  New photos and video will be added to the show, and the seminar manual is being revised to both take out some redundancy and enhance the presentation and explanations of important concepts.  

With a number of items to discuss, I don’t want you to think I won’t be getting to some interesting judging scenarios in this column.  The first scenario was given to me at the annual meeting.  I could not believe that it really occurred, nor could the field reps I discussed it with.  The second scenario appeared on the message board of the UKC website.  Every field rep I was able to contact was in agreement about the answer to the question posed.  Finally, the topic of the third scenario I want to present to you was inspired by an e-mail sent to me by an experienced judge who posed a very good question about my response to a scenario in an earlier column.  I hope you enjoy them.  Before we get to them however, in an effort to better explain how I script the scenarios, obtain the answers, and present them to you, I want to review the e-mail I received from the upset judge I mentioned earlier. 

First, you folks should know that I appreciate all responses I receive about situations and scenarios I write about in the Judge’s Corner, including those few admonishing me for what some reader might perceive as an incorrect, incomplete, or inappropriate response.  When I get a note saying such, (which has been infrequent) I take it as an opportunity to review what I’ve written, and perhaps offer a better explanation of a scenario or my response to it.  Also, feedback, both positive and negative means people are reading what I write and not only acknowledging my efforts, but more importantly, thinking about judging issues!  The e-mail in question concerned the scenario I wrote about in the last magazine where I told of a judge failing a finished dog because the handler over controlled the dog on a blind.  In his letter, the judge said, among other things, I should have researched the scenario more thoroughly by contacting him about it and getting his side of the story.  I was charged with not authenticating the handler’s reconstruction of the test, and most damning, the judge felt the column was an interpretation of the rules as I personally see them.  I told the judge I must plead not guilty to all charges!  I’ll restate what I told him, and let you readers draw your own conclusions. 

After thanking him for his letter, I wanted to make it clear to this judge that there were several items he needed to grasp a more complete understanding of.  I explained that the scenario was not meant as a personal affront to his integrity or judging abilities in part because I never divulge names, hunt locations or dates of the situations I cover.  If I got it “wrong”, that should be an even stronger reason not to take the column personally.  I reminded him that I’ve admitted that many times I’m only given one side of a scenario. I said that more importantly, while I’m usually given enough information that I feel I can adequately discuss what happened, I’ve also been known to edit or embellish the facts to make them a better fit with the concept I’m attempting to illustrate or explain.  I reminded the judge that I in fact made almost that exact statement at the beginning of the article in the issue he is referencing.  I also addressed the issue of not contacting judges to verify scenarios.  I made it clear that for the purposes of this column (to take scenarios and turn them into learning experiences for judges and handlers) I didn’t need the other side of a story, and I did not want to become an arbitrator in disputes between judges and handlers.  I stated that if a judge or handler wanted to respond to a scenario, as I had written it, and give me their opinion as to why I was wrong, or why I left out an important fact that caused them to make the decisions they did, then I would be happy to hear from them.  I said that I could perhaps use this new information to present the scenario in a different light that might be helpful to everyone.  In this case, I advised him that I must stand by what I said about a judge evaluating a handler “over controlling” a dog on a blind retrieve, again considering the scenario as I presented it. I also addressed the issue of interpreting the rules.  I explained in detail the time and effort I make to research the issues, and talk with the field reps and other experienced judges about the scenarios.  When I am stating my own opinion, I say so, whether it’s in this column or a judging seminar I’m presenting.  I will not plead guilty to trying to teach judges what to think, but I willingly admit I always take every opportunity to help them learn how to think. By the way, by now I shouldn’t have to tell all of you that if you send me a scenario, I don’t want or need to know who was involved or where it occurred.  Let’s move on.  If this first scenario actually occurred at one of our hunt tests (I was told it did – oh boy, here I go again!), I’m not sure what these judges were thinking! 

Situation: 

            At the Finished land test, the judges told the handlers they wanted the handlers to bring their retrievers from the holding blind to the retrieving line off lead, heeling the dogs on the right!  At the line, the dogs would be required to sit in a designated spot to the right of the handlers to run the test. 

Question: 

            Can the judges require handlers to heel their dogs on a specific side coming to the retrieving line? 

Answer: 

            Shortly after talking with the field reps about this scenario at the national meeting, and just by coincidence, I received an e-mail from a judge with a question (actually several questions) about dogs heeling during the test.  He said he could find no specific definition of “heel” in our hunt test program like there is in obedience training programs and asked if dogs could heel on the left, right, or between the handlers legs at our hunt tests.  Both these issues are semi-related and I’ll try to cover each in this answer.  

            The first response from the reps when I asked them about the scenario above was, and I’ll paraphrase:  “Why in the… (expletive deleted) would judges want to require that?”  Remember, it was at the end of a long day.  To summarize their feelings, it was their opinion that judges could not, and should not do this.  I’ll try to explain why.  Heeling falls into the broader category of control.  Unlike UKC obedience rules, which as part of a very lengthy definition, requires the dog to be on the handlers left side, our HRC rulebook does not offer a definition of “heel”.  In fact it rarely mentions the word, using it at finished only when talking about a controlled break, stating: “if the finished hunting retriever leaves the retrieving line before being signaled to do so, it must stop and return immediately to heel”  (page 31, item II).  The rulebook does say that the finished retriever will come to the line off lead.  It also says that the finished hunting retriever will remain under control at all times.  Simply putting two and two together, adds up to the fact that judges can and should require that finished dogs walk to the retrieving line off lead and under control.  While the “heel” position has always been the defacto standard for demonstrating control when walking to the line, judges asking for a dog to specifically heel on one side of the handler or another are operating beyond the scope of both their authority and common sense.  In answer to the judge who was wondering how we define heel in our hunt tests, I’ll say this.  It’s been generally accepted that a handler can heel their retriever on whatever side they feel most comfortable.  While obedience rules might dictate specifically where the heel position is, we seem to be more flexible in our program given the work our hunting retrievers are expected to perform.  Judges in our testing program soon learn to make their own determinations if the dog is “heeling” properly or at minimum, adequately.  One more point though. We do teach in the seminars that heel is not when the dog’s head is even with or beyond the end of the barrel of the shotgun (can you say creeping?).  The judge who wrote to ask me about heeling also asked why a handler would use a heel position other than left when hunting or in hunt tests.  I wrote back and said that if the dog is trained to work from either side, their view of the marks may simply be better from one side or another.  I’m sure there are other reasons.  Can you think of any?  

            One more point about our discussion of heeling.  The rulebook states that the finished retrievers may be placed a reasonable distance from the retrieving line.  If “remote” work is required in the test, the judges may ask that handlers place their dogs in positions to either the right or left of the handler.  We recommend however, that when this is not the case, let the handlers “heel” their dogs on the side they want (but please, no between the legs stuff).  This will encourage good performance and should in no way hinder a judge’s ability to evaluate the retriever.  Let’s look at another scenario. 

Situation: 

            The handler at the finished land test had done a pretty good job of getting the dog near the blind, demonstrating adequate control.  However, when the dog was a few yards away from completing the retrieve (getting to the orange marker which clearly indicated the spot where the bird lay), the handler gave the dog a verbal “hunt em up” command.  The dog proceeded to hunt for the bird on its own until it found the bird.   

Question: 

            When handling a dog to a blind in a test and you get the dog in the area of the blind is it acceptable to give it a "hunt em up" command?  

Answer: 

            The short answer to this question is no.  It is both my personal opinion, and that of each of the field reps who responded when asked about the scenario that this is poor handling, somewhat sloppy, and should not be encouraged or accepted. The blind retrieve is the portion of a test where the judge specifically tests for control.  Handlers should demonstrate “prompt and precise” control of the dog to the bird.  A handler who is giving a verbal “hunt em up” at the end of a blind is not doing this.  They are giving control of the retrieve to the dog. Several reps mentioned that it’s important that judges take great care to adequately mark the blind retrieve and insure that handlers are instructed to direct their retrievers to it.  

 Years ago, HRC had several judges who set up what were called “area” blinds.  This was where the dog was directed to an area that the bird was in, and then expected to find it without further aid from the handler.  I think judges did this to simulate those times during hunting when a hunter does not know exactly where a crippled bird went.  I know, because I’ve done it myself when judging, a long time ago.  (I’ve since learned however, that as a judge, I’d rather see the handler control the dog to the blind).  You need to remember; several years ago shackled birds were frequently utilized. As a handler, having a hunt em up command in my dog helped me pick up birds on at least three occasions that walked or swam away from where they were supposed to be after I had directed my dog to the blind marker.  In testing today, on the very rare occasion where a blind might come loose from a rattrap or drift away in heavy waves, a handler might issue a hunt em up command after directing the dog to where the bird should be.  I’ve seen that happen recently.  

What about the dog that winds the bird near the end of the blind and picks the bird up without that final cast from the handler putting it precisely on the marker?  As a judge, I carefully note whether the handler controlled the dog to the position where it could wind the bird, or if the dog put itself in that position (by ignoring critical whistles or casts, and/or the handler simply letting the dog hunt for the bird on its own).  There is a big difference. Which would you say demonstrated proper control? I promised you a third scenario/discussion where an experienced Finished judge wrote to ask me about an earlier Judges Corner.  

Scenario:

In the December 1999-January 2000 issue of the Judge’s Corner, we reviewed a situation where after delivering the first bird to hand; the Seasoned retriever took off, apparently on its own, after its second bird of the double.  The question posed asked if you could have a break on the memory bird at Seasoned?  In my answer, I stated that this activity did not meet the classic definition of a break as we teach it in the seminar (leaving an assigned spot before being told to do so – generally when a bird is thrown).  As such, I said this Seasoned dog should not be failed.  A very experienced judge wrote to say that while he has a great amount of respect for my knowledge of the rules, as well as that of the field reps (wasn’t that nice of him), he must take exception to my answer.  He said he was of the opinion that the dog had an uncontrolled break.  He pointed out, quite correctly, that the rulebook clearly states on page 26: “If seasoned dog leaves the retrieving line before being signaled to do so, it must stop and return immediately to heel.  Any hesitation will be considered an uncontrolled break.” He further stated that the rulebook does not differentiate between the first and second bird.   

Question:

            Do you think this judge is correct, or would you agree with my original answer that this dog should not be failed?

Answer:

            Shortly after getting his e-mail, I sent a reply thanking the judge for sending this to me.  I happen to know him personally.  I told him it was a very, very good question, and I was surprised no one had asked it sooner.  In originally asking the field reps about this scenario, none mentioned the rule he quoted.  I told him I was impressed with the fact that he obviously knew what the rulebook said, and figured out that I didn't address this in my scenario.   

            In my initial discussions with the field reps about the Seasoned dog leaving on its own for the second bird of the double, none felt it was good technique for the handler to allow this, and all felt it could cause problems for the dog if it became a habit.  But I couldn’t recall anyone feeling the dog should fail for it. I circulated the scenario once again to my experts, pointing out the rule the judge quoted about the seasoned dog leaving before being signaled to do so.  I knew why I still thought I was correct, and wanted to see if any of reps held the same opinion.  All stood by their earlier answers save one.  This is one of the reps that to use a baseball analogy, “sees the stitching on the fastballs coming in”.  This field rep stated that if the rule says the Seasoned dog should return immediately to heel if it leaves before being signaled to do so, then it should be enforced, with one caveat:  “the judge must without question understand that the handler did or did not send the dog.  To do this, judges would have to instruct the handlers in the briefing that they must cast their dog for every retrieve with a clear verbal or hand signal.”  That’s the rub, isn’t it?  We stated in the original scenario how difficult it is at times to determine if the handler actually released the dog.  Judges would almost have to require the dog to remain steady until they verbally told the handler it was okay to send the dog on every retrieve.  That’s not very practical, not recommended, and could certainly be disruptive for the dog completing the marked retrieves.  

A couple of the other field reps stated that they thought many judges believed the rule about not going until signaled meant only on the “go” bird.  While I wouldn’t put it like that, this hits close to what I feel is the heart of the defense of my position.  Remember what I said earlier about teaching judges to learn how to think?  We say in the seminars that good judging means learning how to:  observe (see everything the dog is doing, and everything happening in your test), record (write down what you see), understand (figure out what is happening, and know what the rulebook does and does not say about the situation), apply (the rules, guidelines, and recommendations to the situation), and properly evaluate the retrievers performance.  Because there are so many situations our rulebook can’t cover, learning how to think means judges should learn to understand the intent as well as know the letter of the rules.  The entire section II on page 26 of the rulebook, which includes the rule about returning to heel if the dog leaves before being signaled to do so is about requiring the dog to be steady at the retrieving line. In other words, not going when it should stay put.  The rule makes it clear that the retriever must be brought back immediately if it leaves without being signaled.  The intent behind the rule is to make sure a dog stays put when it is supposed to.  I believe it’s meant to apply to situations where the handler understands the dog is expected to stay put.  Examples might be shooting marks, honoring in Finished, or a walk-up situation.  Think of a traffic light at the retrieving line.  The signal is red sometimes, green others.  In the examples I just gave, the handler knows the red light is on.    This rule is about what the handlers responsibilities and obligations are when the red light is on!  Keep the dog steady, and call it back to heel if it leaves early. Once the marks are down, and the dog has “shown steady”, the green light comes on.  Pick up the marks.  Apply the rule, and its intent when it is clear to the handler that he/she is expected to keep their dog steady!   

We keep using the word “signaled”.  The rulebook does not say the dog must return if it leaves before being commanded to do so.  All verbalizing or gesturing aside, I could probably make the case that for some Seasoned dogs, the very act of taking the first bird from the dog is a signal that it is okay to go get the next one!  Good training, or a good habit to get into, certainly not, but not grounds for failure.  As promised, here is a brief summary of the new running rules passed at the national meeting in Memphis, to be effective on Jan. 1, 2001. 

            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.  For more information about judging scenarios in the Hunting Retriever Club, go to the Judge’s Corner website, accessed through the HRC homepage at:  www.hrc-ukc.com