 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - June / July 2000 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim
Gibson
I
was talking with Michelle Morgan recently about a test that I had just
discussed in this column. Examining
the scenario as it was submitted to me, I concluded (unofficially, by the way)
that the test violated a portion of our rulebook.
This led to a discussion of who can or should declare a test illegal at
a hunt, and what happens if a complaint is filed about an illegal test, or a
rule or policy violation. When I’m
outlining the scenarios that have been submitted to me to use in the Judge’s
Corner, and I state, “this happened at a recent hunt”, please remember
that while I’ve usually been given enough information that I feel I can
adequately discuss what happened, many times I’m given only one side of a
story. 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’m sure that at some time I’ve gotten my facts wrong
about a situation, or I will. I’m
mentioning this to illustrate the point that the very best time to look at a
test or judging situation to determine if there is a question of legality is
at the hunt when and where it is occurring.
The
appropriate authority at a hunt test to declare a test illegal is the hunt
committee, who is responsible for supervising the judges and all aspects of
the hunt. Judges should be
cooperative with the committee, and both respect their conclusions and comply
with their instructions if they determine a change in the test is warranted.
The field rep, if present, can assist the hunt committee in resolving any
disputes about a test they might have with the judges.
If UKC receives a complaint about test legality, they will ask the
judges and club to respond. If a test is determined after the fact to have
been clearly illegal, Michelle tells me that it is most likely that both the
club and judges will receive a letter of reprimand from UKC.
In order not to penalize the dogs who ran the test successfully, points
earned will in almost all cases stand, but if a club is grossly negligent in
their duty to supervise the testing, UKC may order a premium refund be given
to all handlers in the affected category. I’d consider this quite an
incentive to a hunt committee to exercise the proper supervision over the
testing that our rules and procedures require.
Let me say
one more thing about filing a complaint.
There seems to be some misconception about when to file a complaint.
Our rule book clearly states on page 43, under Formal Complaint
Procedure, in the first paragraph: “Any
owner of a UKC Registered dog entered in a UKC licensed event has the right to
make a formal complaint when a UKC rule or policy has been violated”.
Michelle tells me a large percentage of complaints crossing her
desk generally concern judgment calls or decisions, and should have been
handled at the hunt. In virtually
all cases concerning judgment calls, UKC will side with and support the judges
or committee. Do you know that
UKC keeps a file on judges? Michelle
advises me that if a handler feels they need to complain about a judge, the
appropriate venue would be a letter to UKC.
In some instances, the offending judge may be asked to respond.
As I’ve
said before in this column, perhaps not in these exact words, most judging
challenges can be met using our HRC Rules and Guidelines, recommendations from
the Judge’s/Handler’s Seminar, experience, good judgment, logic, and a
liberal dose of common sense. These
are the tools we’ll use to tackle the questions asked in the scenarios
described below. Let’s get to
the first one.
Situation:
At
the Finished land test there was a working dog on the left, and an honor dog
on the right (who had just completed the test).
The marking test consisted of a triple, thrown from left to right.
The working dog handler shoots all three marks.
The working dog is required to pick up all the marks, but in no
specific order. The honor dog is
asked to simply sit and watch the marks fall, then is allowed to retire after
the working dog has completed its first retrieve.
As the third mark is thrown, the honor dog breaks and picks it up. This
of course fails the honor dog.
Question:
As
the judge in the test, you have to deal with this situation as respects the
working dog. You have two
choices:
a) stop the test, and have the working dog come back for a re-run or;
b) since only a double is actually required in the Finished marking test,
allow the test to proceed and let the working dog pick up the remaining two
birds. What would you do?
Answer:
This
scenario was sent to me via e-mail by a licensed finished judge who told me
that in discussions with several other judges, some told him they would go for
answer a) and some would chose answer b).
He wanted to know what I would do in this situation and I told him. It’s
actually happened several times while I’ve been judging and my various
co-judges and I have ended up handling it the same way each time.
I mentioned that it might make a good scenario for this column because
it’s a very common test situation, but before I used it, I wanted to throw
it at the field reps for their opinions as well.
Before I tell you what my field rep “poll” revealed, let me digress
a moment to remind you of a couple of earlier Judge’s Corner columns where
we talked about a nearly identical test set-up. The scenario was slightly
different in that the honor dog stopped and returned before picking up the
third mark. We were looking at
whether the honor dog should be failed for the controlled break, not
specifically the question of whether or not to re-run the working dog.
If you wish to, you can find this discussion in the April-May 1996 and
June-July 1996 issues your HR magazine, or on the internet at the Judge’s
Corner website (accessed through the HRC homepage) under the topic:
“controlled break”. I
stated then that our rules allowed the judges the discretion to make the
determination if the honor dog should either be marked down or failed for the
controlled break. Some of you might remember that noted gundog writer, Mr.
James Spencer, wrote to disagree with my statement in the scenario that there
was “no apparent interference” with the working dog.
It was his opinion that anytime the honor dog distracted the working
dog (“visually” was the term he used for the working dog watching the
honor dog have its controlled break), and the honor dog forced the working dog
to be re-run, it should be failed. I
responded that while I agreed with the majority of what Mr. Spencer was
saying, I had seen instances where the controlled break caused no apparent
distraction to (or interference with) the working dog, and it was able to
successfully complete the test. I also agreed that anytime the honor dog
interfered with the working dog, the working dog should be re-run.
About right now you’re asking what does all this have to do with the
scenario in this issue? Here it
is.
We considered in our 1996 scenarios how much the honor dog was
interfering with the working dog, concluding that any interference
should cause a re-run for the working dog.
By picking up the third bird, the honor dog in our present scenario is
interfering with the test. As
the judges in this situation, I would ask you to ponder this question:
How can the working dog successfully complete the test you constructed
if there is a bird missing? The
majority of the field reps agreed, by about an 85% to 15% margin.
While picking up the remaining double might meet the finished marking
requirements of our rules, it most likely will not meet the requirements of
the test as you and your co-judges designed and constructed it.
Let me explain.
As hard as judges work to avoid it, there will always be minor problems
and distractions in our tests. Poppers
occasionally get jammed in the gun, and throws get delayed.
While annoying, these occurrences many times do not have a detrimental
enough impact on the dogs’ performance that the test should be halted and a
re-run ordered. But, removing one third of a triple mark might have a
significant impact on the ability of the judges to access the dog’s marking
abilities. In my response to the
judge who submitted this scenario to me, I said that personally, I try to set
up a marking test with a definite purpose for each bird thrown.
I might be using the third bird to see how well the dog marks when
there is a big swing with the gun (observed from the line, confirmed by the
retrieve). The third bird might
be used to “set up” the blind.
I might want the dog to have picked it up prior to watching them go
back through the fall, or under it’s arc, etc. when running the blind.
Or, I might want the honor dog to pick it up, setting up a challenge
for the working dog to stay away from it on the remaining two marks. If I had
elected to have the finished dogs pick up only two birds that day, I probably
would not have put the double where bird one and two of the triple were
placed. To put it another way, a
very good double marking test is different for me than simply a triple with
one less bird, if that makes sense to you.
There is also the argument for consistency for each dog in the test.
While we can’t always control exactly where birds fall, we ought to
certainly be able to control how many we throw.
The only real argument for allowing the working dog to simply complete
the double is the fact of how a re-run might affect the working dog.
As one person put it, after already seeing the marks thrown “the dog
might break on the re-run”. But isn’t that always a chance a handler takes on a re-run,
no matter what caused it. And
while there is that to think about, we spend time in the Judge’s/Handler’s
Seminar discussing the impact of re-runs and the consideration judges need to
give when a dog is coming to the line for the second (or heaven forbid, third)
time on the same test. I have one
more point for you judges in the “let’s let the dog just pick up the
double” camp. What if instead
of the honor dog picking it up, the third mark just didn’t come out of the
winger? How many of you would let
the working dog continue? Not
many, I suspect. Things get more
interesting with our next scenario!
Situation:
The Finished land test in the afternoon had both a working dog and an
honor dog. The male honor dog
went over and smelled the female working dog while the handlers were loading
their guns. The judges told the
honor dog handler to heel his dog, which he did immediately.
Both dogs completed their portions of the test and eventually left the
line. Several dogs of both
genders subsequently ran the test uneventfully.
Later in the afternoon a male came to the line and totally screwed up
the test, only marking one bird of the triple and failing to pick up the
blind. The handler complained to
the judges that his dog acted like a female in heat distracted the dog.
The female that ran early was checked by a vet and wiped pink.
The club had no bitch check at registration that morning.
An embarrassed handler of the female stated he knew she was close to
coming in season and had wiped her himself that morning, finding no sign that
she had yet come in.
Questions:
Given
the situation described, what if anything should the judges have done about
it? Whose area of responsibility
is it to insure that according to our rulebook, “no bitches in heat will
be allowed on the test grounds”? Finally,
should there have been some relief offered to the complaining handler, or
reparations taken against the owner of the female?
Answer:
This
subject is one that has never come up in the Judge’s Corner. Although I have
a wife and five female retrievers at home, I won’t pretend that I’m an
expert in any female “matters”. What
guy can? But I will give you my honest effort at answering the
questions posed by this difficult situation.
You might
think that any discussion of the matter would need to include an in-depth
scientific/medical examination of the subject of female dogs coming into “season”
and how this can affect a male at the test site.
If that’s what you’re looking for, some of you might want to skip
to the next scenario. And
although I’m tempted to make some ribald and raucous comments about the
subject, I will strive to rise above such thoughts and address the topic with
the solemn dignity it demands. Knowing this, some more of you might want to
skip to the next scenario. Seriously,
I’ll limit my discussion to how to apply our rules and guidelines and some
common sense to the scenario described. In
considering this situation (which occurred at a recent hunt test), I spoke
with several experienced judges, handlers, owners of both male and female
retrievers, and several of our field representatives.
The first thing several people mentioned was the fact that the host
club should have conducted a bitch check the morning of the hunt. Do any of you know where the idea for a hunt site bitch check
came from, or do you think it’s something that’s always been practiced?
It came from an incident that occurred at the 1987 Spring Grand Hunt
(the second grand), which was held in Southern Illinois not 5 minutes from my
house, and hosted by my home club, Southern Illinois HRC. We had such a large
entry it was almost overwhelming. Twelve dogs entered this Grand!
Two dogs completed all five tests, but only one was awarded a grand
pass. The other was discovered to
have been in “heat” by a hunt official who noticed some slight swelling
when the dog was walking off the line after successfully running the fifth
series test. The committee
disqualified the dog on the spot. I
was there, and remember the incident clearly.
A handler whose male dog failed the fourth test earlier in the day was
very upset to say the least. The owner of the disqualified dog, as in our
scenario, also knew she was very close to coming in heat and had been checking
her daily. She was not
discharging, and he hoped she would make it through the event.
While I won’t disclose the handler’s name, I will tell you that
there is a picture of him and the dog on the bow of a boat at the second water
series of that Grand in a gallery of photos appearing in the current Judge’s/Handler’s
Seminar. While it would have been
easy to arrange a bitch check at the Grand, it was not required, nor even
suggested at that time. It has
been at every Grand since.
What about the fact that the club in our scenario probably should have
had one? While it is not required
in our rules, it is certainly a very good idea, and while most clubs do it, I
was surprised to hear one field rep say that it is not commonly done in his
region. Would this have
eliminated the problem of the dog in heat in our scenario?
The answer is no, if the owner is to be believed.
I have no reason to doubt the owner’s word that he was sincere in not
wanting his dog to be on the hunt grounds if it was in heat. Should he have wiped it again before he ran in the afternoon?
Probably, but I was not told if he said he did or not.
It’s conceivable the dog would not have wiped pink at that time
either. I’m not defending the
club for not having a bitch check. I think every club should do it. I’m just
saying while it will catch probably 99% of dogs in heat, it will not always
find them all. With my
non-scientific experience, I have no trouble believing some male dogs can be
very effected by some bitches on the verge of heat, who have not yet wiped
pink, but that is the litmus test we use.
We have to both be practical and use common sense concerning the
subject of bitch checks. I don’t
think it’s practical to attempt to check dogs throughout the day at each
test site. Also, as the owner/handler of a female retriever entered in a hunt
test, I don’t want to stay home just because the calendar says this Saturday
is the day my female is due in, but I’ve seen no swelling, discoloration or
discharge yet.
So whose
responsibility is it to see that no dogs in heat are allowed on the hunt
grounds? In my personal opinion, a club should make every effort to hold a
bitch check and catch those dogs whose owners are not aware they are in heat.
If a dog shows up to the first test site early in the morning,
particularly at a Started or Seasoned level test with an inexperienced handler
attached, and it’s obvious the dog is in heat, if I were a judge or
participant I’d be pretty upset with the club.
But the bottom line on responsibility for me rests with the
owner/handler, who should make every effort to comply with the letter and
spirit of our rules. Call me
naive, but I believe most of them try to do this the majority of the time.
What could or should the judges in our scenario have done about this?
Unless they notice that a dog is swollen and spotting all over the
line, nothing. I don’t believe
it’s the responsibility of the judges to conduct a bitch check on the
retrieving line. In my view, any
complaints from handlers of male dogs should be sent to the hunt committee to
resolve. What about the question
of penalizing the female in heat in our scenario? In my story of the incident
at the Grand, the dog was discovered to be in heat coming off the line, and
the owner paid the appropriate penalty – disqualification.
In our current scenario, the committee had no way to determine exactly
when the dog came into heat since the condition was not discovered until late
in the afternoon. I was not told
if the dog was checked at the hunt site, or somewhere else on the hunt
grounds, I don’t know if the female passed the tests or not, and I don’t
know what the committee did about it. I do know that in my opinion, given certain circumstances,
and considering the “damage” done by the female, disqualification might
seem more vindictive than appropriate in this scenario.
The final consideration is what, if any relief should be extended to
the owner of the male dog who blew up running the test.
I want to pass on some comments about this from the field reps that I
believe are worthy of your consideration, and helpful in this matter.
One of them stated that since there were several males who successfully
ran the test after the female in heat, he would offer no “clemency” to the
male. Another said rather
colorfully, “The sun doesn’t shine on the same dog’s rear end every day”.
What I think he meant (for you readers north of the Mason-Dixon line)
was every dog, regardless of its consistency, can have a bad day once in a
while. Personally, I won’t say
I presume to know how the male in question was affected.
I will tell you, however that what both of these field reps say makes a
lot of sense. Remember what I
said earlier about applying common sense and good judgment.
Since the test can’t be run again, and points can’t be awarded for
a failed performance, I’m not sure what the owner of the male can expect.
It would be entirely up to the club to offer any financial relief such
as an entry fee return, but my personal opinion is even that measure of relief
is not warranted in this instance.
Hopefully, with the “close call” they experienced, this club has
learned a valuable lesson, and will make an effort to avoid this situation in
the future by arranging a proper bitch check at their next licensed hunt test.
Let’s look at our final scenario.
Situation:
At the Finished water test, there is one licensed judge, and one
apprentice judge. After completing the marks, the retriever was cast to run the
80-yard water blind. The dog did
it in three whistle/casts, with two verbal “backs”, and no whistle or cast
refusals. The handler also had
two verbal “good girl’s” to voice his approval of the line the dog took
on the casts. The dog was
failed, with the licensed judge explaining,
“seven casts is too much for an 80 yard water blind – you over
controlled the dog”. The judge
was counting the verbal “good girls” as casts – telling the handler he
considered them commands.
Question:
There are at least two questions to consider here.
Is there such a thing as “over controlling” a dog on a blind
retrieve? Should the verbalizing
by the handler be considered casts and/or commands?
Answer:
This
situation actually happened at another of our recent HRC hunt tests.
I want to thank the handler who sent it to me.
His failing score at least gives us the opportunity to examine a couple
of issues that I don’t think we’ve looked at before.
Let’s first consider the handler talking to the dog while it was
running the test. By the way, the
handler did admit he gave two of the dreaded “good girls” to the dog while
handling on one of the water marks. She
picked the other two up cleanly. Our
rulebook says on page 33 under the finished guidelines, “Hand signals,
voice and whistle commands may be utilized by the Handler to encourage the
Finished Hunting Retriever to perform; however, should excessive handling or
noise occur, which in the opinion of the Judges, would disturb the hunt, the
Judges may declare the failure of test.”
It’s
quite possible that the judge interpreted this to mean that any verbal
communication with the dog while it was retrieving would be considered “commanding”
the dog. This is not correct.
It would take a real stretch to consider quiet praise affirming the dog
is doing what the handler wanted a “command”.
A lot of handlers acquire the habit in their early training sessions of
heaping praise on their dog to get it to perform.
Proof being the amount of verbal coaxing and encouraging commonly seen
at started tests. While most do,
some handlers never quite learn to drop the habit even when they get to
finished. As one of the field
reps pointed out, while it “ain’t pretty”, there’s nothing wrong with
it. And as the handler pointed
out, if the judge considered the verbalizing to be commands, where are the
refusals in “good girl”? If
they were casts, where was he directing the dog to proceed? One handler at the
hunt offered that the judge might have considered the verbalizing to be “intimidation”.
Verbally praising the dog is not exactly my idea of intimidating it,
unless you could consider it “positive intimidation”.
You really shouldn’t because as far as I know, there is no such thing
– I just made it up. Let’s look at the over controlling question.
I don’t want to get into a discussion of how to set up or evaluate
finished blinds. I will say
however, that I think most handlers believe that the majority of judges expect
a finished dog to head directly toward the blind, and maintain their progress
as directly toward it as possible considering any natural obstacles, suction,
or distractions our “hunting” retrievers might find along the way.
Apparently some of you handlers have taught your dogs to stay under
such tight control, and they are focused so much on going straight at the
blind, that you are over controlling your retrievers.
This has got to stop, especially considering the fact that there are
now apparently a fixed number of whistles and casts allowed in a given
distance. Of course I’m only kidding.
I can’t find the term “over control” in the HRC rulebook, and the
very thought that any judge would set a limit on the number of whistles and
casts for a blind are appalling! Judges
should be evaluating how well the retriever is under control, not how much
control is used. Given the
scenario as I have presented it, this retriever should not have been failed.
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 |