 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - December 2000 / January 2001 - Hunting Retriever magazine By Tim Gibson By the time this magazine arrives at your door, upland and waterfowl hunting seasons will be in full swing for most of us. It’s the time of year that confirms because of the Hunting Retriever Club, Inc., and the time we take and the effort we make in training and running hunt tests, we really do have better retrievers afield, and enjoy better hunting and less lost game. Before getting to the scenarios we’ll be discussing in this issue, I want to offer you some brief thoughts and observations about some recent hunt tests I had the pleasure of participating in (as a judge in some, and a handler in others). I’m also going to report about some changes in direction we’re considering regarding a portion of the Judge’s/Handler’s Seminar. Finally, I want to pass on some comments from some of your fellow judges and handlers about both testing and judging that I gathered and recorded in the past couple of months. Let me start by mentioning
that Kathy and I handled two young retrievers to their CH titles this fall.
Two different friends of ours own these yellow littermates, each of
whom agreed to let us train and run them since our own dogs have reached the
age (in human years) where they would be drawing social security. HRCH Super
Chief’s Good Buddy, and HRCH Wetlands Katie Sue titled at our Southern
Illinois HRC hunt test on October 15th, 2000.
While I happened to handle each the day they titled, Kathy did the
majority of the training and put some of their Finished points, and all of
their Started and Seasoned points on them.
My role over this past summer was one of drilling the dogs on the days
Kathy could not train, and throwing bumpers on the days she could.
Kate is a small dog with what one judge described as an absolute “passion”
to retrieve. I’m sure most of
you have heard of companies advertising customer support 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. Kate offers “retrieving
support”, 24/7 – ready to go, day or night.
Buddy is a big dog. If he
were a football player, you might think he’d be an offensive lineman, but he
has the athleticism and ability of a running back, combined with enough
intelligence to make some big plays. Both
have been a joy to train and run.
I’m not sure Kathy
graciously agreed to allow me to run the dogs as a reward for my training
efforts, or to help in my research of incidents of handler errors and/or
common handler mistakes. She knew
I was compiling some information on this subject and probably wanted to give
me the opportunity to accumulate some data firsthand.
Thank goodness for the HRC rule about only the handler being allowed to
view their judge’s sheet. A
couple of times it saved me from having to try to convince her that the “HE”
on the judge’s sheet (which I’m sure I earned) stood for Handler
Excellence! I was fortunate at
any rate to be working dogs that were capable of getting their handler through
the tests, and running under good judges that recognized they were judging the
dog and not the handler.
You might think that by running a few hunts and judging a couple more,
I would have all the material I needed for a full year of Judge’s Corner
articles. You would be correct (I’m
just kidding). To be serious, for
the most part, I can report that the tests I personally observed this fall
were excellent. The majority were
well planned and executed, and judged fairly.
I did hear from some field reps that saw a few problems occurring at
some tests. Among these was an
incident where the Seasoned judges used the same field that the Started used
the day before, causing all sorts of scent problems.
Also, I received reports of Seasoned judges putting the blind too close
to the marks, or at too much of an angle to the bank. The issue of the “quad” at Finished is still generating
some discussion. I know of a hunt
test where the judges were at odds over throwing two “doubles” for the
Finished dogs. We’ll be
exploring these and other scenarios in future Judge’s Corner articles.
I mentioned earlier that I was going to report about a change we are
considering in the seminar. The
seminar does a good job of explaining our rules and definitions, and offering
advice and recommendations for evaluating retrievers.
It gives judges good information about setting up marks, diversions,
blinds, etc. However, if you
examine some of the problems we are seeing with the judging in our hunt tests,
there seems to be a common thread that binds many together. In a lot of cases, judges are having problems “building”
the test to meet the standards established by our rulebook for each
level of testing. The test standard should not vary from one region to
another, or from weekend to weekend. I’ve been discussing this recently with
national seminar instructors Bill Rath and Paul Ramponi.
We have made plans to develop a section in the seminar to help judges
understand the level their tests need to be at. Without stealing any thunder
from the seminar, I can tell you it involves helping judges learn what
elements they should consider when building the test to the standard.
We’ll talk about environmental factors in the test (terrain, weather,
etc.), about test mechanics (order and distance of throws, designated birds,
etc.), and about what we’ll call “controllables” or “uncontrollables”
in the test. We’ll look at how
each plays a role in setting the test to the proper standard.
We hope to avoid situations where, for instance, Seasoned judges
introduce a Finished level concept (at a Seasoned distance), or where Finished
judges perhaps “over-test” the retrievers by putting a very complex set of
mechanics on top of difficult terrain. Conversely, weak tests where the judges pass any dog that
picks up the chickens do not add to the integrity of our program, or the pride
a handler should feel when their retriever does an admirable job on a quality
test.
The following were some of the tidbits I overheard at some hunt tests
this past fall. I thought they
might provide some food for thought.
Sage words from a member of the work crew at a hunt
site:
“Did you ever notice that
the longer it takes to set up a test, the more screwed up it seems?”
From one of our distinguished field reps who was
talking about having to confront a pair of judges who had some problems in
their test:
“My job was a lot easier because when I walked up, several
handlers were shaking their heads, and several were already talking to the
judges!”
More from the same field rep about a Seasoned test:
“The Seasoned judges had problems all weekend. Here were two guys with 500 point jackets that were clueless as to how to set up a Seasoned test!” Ouch!
From another field rep:
“As a handler, how many bad tests do you remember? How many good ones? Who were the judges for the good ones? Definitely easier to remember the bad ones. Get my point?”
Scenario:
The retriever had done an overall excellent job on the water test that
morning. The marking portion of
the afternoon Finished land test consisted of a triple (left to right) with a
swing of at least 135 degrees between the first and third mark.
Several dogs were repositioning themselves to get a clear view of the
go bird. The dog in question got
up and started to come around with the gun.
Apparently fearing the possibility of a controlled break, the handler
wisely gave the dog a very firm “NO, HERE”.
The dog remained steady. The
handler then (in the judges opinion) overcompensated for the loud “no, here”
and tried to send the dog with nearly a whisper instead of his normal voice.
The dog did not leave on the soft command, but left on the normal one
that followed. At the end of the
day, the co-judge wanted to drop the dog for a “no go”.
Question:
After explaining this fully, and saying he could not drop the dog
for this one infraction, the judge who sent this to me asked just one
important question (I assure you I am not making this up).
He asked: “Have I lost
my mind?” He went on to say: “Please
let me know your thoughts on this one”.
Answer:
I knew sooner or later someone would write the Judge’s Corner and
ask if they had lost their mind. Not
having a qualified medical background, I can’t really answer specific
questions like these. I guess it
might be helpful if I review some of my old high school psychology textbooks.
Those are basically my thoughts on that. Seriously, I think the judge meant to ask my opinion about
failing a dog for a “no go”. In
my reply I advised him that he was absolutely correct in talking his co-judge
into not dropping the dog for the no go.
While I know we cover this briefly in the Judge’s/Handler’s
Seminar, I’m not sure I’ve ever written about it in the Judge’s Corner.
If my friend is correct, and there is some confusion about it, perhaps
it’s time we discussed the “no go” in more detail.
The term “no go” is commonly used to describe a situation where the
retriever does not leave the retrieving line when commanded to do so.
Without using this exact term, we mention it in the seminar when
discussing recasts, recommending that judges consider this a cast refusal.
We state that judges should not consider a cast refusal at the line as
one of the retriever’s attempts to complete a retrieve.
This eliminates the possibility of the co-judge failing the dog for
being cast twice on a retrieve at Finished.
The HRC rulebook also does not specifically mention the term “no go”.
It does however, on page 19, under Hunting Desire, state that a test
may be failed if a retriever: “refuses
to enter rough cover, mud or any situation involving difficult or unpleasant
going after being commanded to do so”.
Would this give the co-judge grounds for failing the dog? Let’s look at the intent of the rule for the answer.
The rulebook wording about hunting desire applies to all levels of
testing. This tells the logical
person that it’s meant to apply to any retriever that well…. does not want
to retrieve! In the scenario we
are discussing, the dog did not exhibit a lack of desire in the morning, or on
any subsequent retrieve on the land series.
It would not be fair to fail this dog for “lack of desire”.
While we recommend in the seminar that a no-go would more correctly be
classified as a cast refusal, I personally don’t consider it at all if I
believe the dog did not hear the go command or completely understand that it
was being released to retrieve. This
is a little like being punished for not taking out the trash when you didn’t
hear the wife ask you to do it. On
second thought, that might not be a good analogy.
Claiming not to hear her has not worked well for me before.
How about the example of giving a cast refusal to a dog that was
clearly not looking at the handler when the cast was given. You get my point. Let’s
look at our second scenario, sent to me by an observant field rep.
Scenario:
At the Seasoned water test, the judges had placed a single decoy (well
away from the rest of the “spread”) almost on line to, and about 10 yards
away from the blind retrieve duck. It
seemed that most of the dogs that got to the decoy winded the blind. When the field rep saw the test and asked them why they had
done this, their answer was: “To
help the dogs”.
Question:
Is it recommended, or appropriate that Seasoned judges place a
decoy (or decoys) in such a position to “help” the dogs complete the blind
retrieve?
Answer:
I saw a variation of this procedure in a Seasoned water test at
a hunt I attended this past fall. In
the test I observed, the marks were thrown left, right.
The intended memory bird (left) was across a small pond, and up the
bank several yards out of the water in some higher cover. The judges placed a single decoy at the water’s edge, on an
almost direct line to the memory bird. I
think it was intended to help the dogs get to the memory bird.
While it helped get the dogs across the pond, what it seemed to do to
the dogs I watched run, was to keep them from driving up the shore into the
cover where the bird was. You
might call it good intentions gone awry.
I had two thoughts about what I saw at the time.
First, I thought most of the dogs should already have everything they
needed to help them get the bird – we call it marking and memory ability.
Second, if marking and memory skills were not enough to get the dogs to
the bird, the judges might consider the possibility that the mark might be too
tough.
Using the same logic in answering the question about a decoy near the
Seasoned blind, I would question why judges who should be specifically testing
for control on the blind would do anything to make it easier (or tougher) for
the dogs? In speaking with
several field reps about this scenario, no one could figure out how this
action would be remotely appropriate in a test.
Most judges in fact go to great lengths to insure that the path to the
blind is not through the decoys so none get inadvertently dragged near the
blind when a dog is running the test. Let’s hope our helpful little decoy
buddy doesn’t start to make a habit of popping up in our hunt tests.
I guess while we’re on the subject of a helpful decoy, we might as
well talk about what seems to be the ultimate helpful decoy in a real hunting
situation and it’s role, if any in our testing program - Roboduck!
Scenario:
One of the judges at the Finished water test had his new “Roboduck”
in the back of the truck. He sat
down with his co-judge to discuss the possibility of using it in the test.
Questions:
Is there any “policy” about using a Roboduck in a hunt test?
Is it appropriate? What would be some of the factors to consider in deciding to
use or not use one?
Answer:
I knew I’d get around to discussing this sooner or later in this
column. If you don’t know what
a Roboduck is by now, don’t tell anyone, because you’ll be confirming that
you’re either a) not a real duck hunter, b) so far behind, technologically
speaking, that you probably still wear rubber waders, or c) you don’t really
care about shooting any ducks. For
those of you who meet any or all of the above criteria, I guess I’ll explain
that a Roboduck is a decoy with spinning wings that for some inexplicable
reason can pull ducks to your spread like a picnic draws ants, or a pile of
your dog’s business draws flies! I
would venture to say that even the most stubborn traditionalists among you has
by now purchased one or is hunting with someone who has one.
Now that we all understand what one is, let’s talk about it in our
hunt tests. First, let me explain
that HRC has no “policy” about using Roboducks, and I’m not going to
pass judgment on those of you who might have already used one in your hunt
tests. I just want to offer you
some thoughts about it and let you draw your own conclusions.
A Finished judge asked my opinion about this subject at a recent hunt
test. I explained that I knew
they worked in hunting. I have
two at home. The question that
needs answered is do they have a value in HRC testing?
We all know we use decoys in
our hunt tests to provide “realism”.
Since Roboducks are now being used everywhere in hunting, are we not
achieving more “realism” in our tests by using one?
While these whirling wonders might work great to help us attract more
ducks to our spreads in hunting, duck hunters still need to build good blinds,
wear camo, remain still, etc. to be successful. One of the field reps put it quite well when he stated:
“If you want to talk about putting realism in our hunt tests, lets
look at how many decoys we have at our test site, how well hidden are wingers
are, how well brushed up are blinds are and how well we blow our duck calls”.
Good point!
Only a few models of the
Roboducks are designed to be turned on and off remotely.
As a judge, I’m not sure I’d want one running in my spread when I
was trying to test marking. Hopefully, the dogs are seeing the birds thrown and not the
watching the Roboduck spin! A
couple of the field reps I spoke to indicated that by using a Roboduck, we
might merely be testing which dogs had seen one and which had not. I was informed that where they have been used in a hunt test,
the judges had one near the holding blind so the dogs could take a look at it
before running. Is this really
adequate training for retrievers who have never seen one to insure they will
not be effected by the one in the test? One
rep went as far as saying, “In hunting we use Roboducks to fool the
ducks, let’s not end up using them in testing to fool the dogs!”
Finally, there are a couple of
practical considerations in deciding to use a Roboduck. From a pure mechanical
standpoint, I’d have to wonder if the duck would keep spinning all day?
Some work for only a couple of hours before batteries need replaced or
recharged. And what about the
possibility of a dog knocking it over into the water or damaging it?
While I’ll continue to use mine hunting, I’m not personally ready
to bring them to the hunt test, and I would hope my co-judges felt the same.
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 |