 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
- April-May, 2001 - Hunting
Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson Before jumping into the scenarios we’ll be discussing in this issue of the Judge’s Corner, I want to take the opportunity to share some information with you concerning a few items I think you’ll find interesting. Among these is the most recent Judges Test, a quick seminar update, some comments made concerning a subject I wrote about in the last Judge’s Corner, and as always (my favorite), some e-mail correspondence I’ve received about judging issues. In the December 2000 / January 2001 issue of Hunting Retriever magazine, HRC President Glenn Stelly reported that beginning January 1, 2001 HRC was to assume all responsibilities for approving HRC judges. This was to include creating and administering the Judges tests, creating a system of penalties for failing the exams, determining the numbers of grand fathered Judges, determining seminar requirements, keeping track of apprentice reports, and developing an accurate profile on each judge. I want all of you to join me in thanking HRC’s Administrative Secretary, Claudene Christopher for her outstanding work in successfully implementing this program. Claudene is also keeping an up to date list of licensed Judges and approved apprentice Judges on the HRC website. As if she does not have enough to do, I asked her to provide some information to me documenting how well our Judges are doing on the most recently required Judges Test. This can be helpful in focusing our Judge’s/Handler’s Seminar on areas that need more explanation. As I’ve done in recent years, in a future Judge’s Corner article I’m going to be discussing some of the questions that are proving “challenging” to our judges. In support of this, Claudene is tracking the responses to each question. For now, she tells me that a lot of you are doing really well, but some of you are having some difficulties with a number of questions. When Claudene told me that a handful of judges were complaining that they actually had to read through the entire rulebook to find the answers, a vision of a scene from the classic movie “Casablanca” popped into my mind. Do you remember what the French police inspector said when informed that a murder had occurred? He said, in what was to become a well remembered, often repeated, and still apropos phrase, “Round up the usual suspects”. Some of you will understand what I was thinking. Let me offer a couple of other thoughts. The Judge’s Test is not designed to “fail” anyone. Its purpose is to assure HRC, that at least once every two years (when new running rules go into effect), judges will carefully read through the HRC rulebook. Judges who seem to have the most difficulty with the test either don’t like being tested (understandable), are not good test takers (understandable) or, more accurately, resent being asked to thoroughly read the rulebook (not understandable). Most of you will have taken the test by the time this issue of the magazine arrives. If you have not, and if you are a judge who questions the value of a periodic, careful examination of our rulebook, try the following. Take the test without reading the rulebook (but please, don’t send it to Claudene). Take it again, looking up the answers. I’ll say one more thing before moving on. Each time before I judge an event, I carefully read the Rules and Guidelines for the class I am going to judge, then I methodically read the Guidelines for Conducting Events near the back of the book (hint, hint). Speaking of understanding the rulebook. In the third paragraph of his President’s message in the last issue of the magazine, HRC President Glenn J. Stelly made a wonderful statement that I think should have been in big bold letters, and underlined. In what I’d term a classic understatement, he said, “It is probably safe to assume the more knowledgeable one is of the rulebook, the less likely they are to experience any unnecessary anxiety”. That statement, for the impact it should have on his HRC constituency, should rank on a par with the most famous (and infamous) quotes from other presidential office holders, such as: “Ask not what your country…” or “I feel your pain”. I’m just curious about what type of “unnecessary anxiety” Glenn was thinking of! A talk with the field rep or hunt test committee perhaps? Or worse? Glenn went on to
encourage all of our members to attend Judge’s/Handler’s Seminars.
I wanted to take a moment to thank those of you who have sent videotape
and photos to be considered for inclusion in the seminar.
We are presently looking at several hours of tape with the idea of
adding a large number of video clips to the seminar to better illustrate
judging concepts. Most of the
video we are considering has come from actual hunt tests.
One thing I’ve learned in looking at a lot of this hunt test footage
is that the next time someone walks up with a camcorder and asks,
“Do you mind if I record some of your hunt test”, several of you
judges and handlers need to say, “yes, I do mind”! Seriously, and in all fairness, the camera does show things from an entirely different perspective than seen from a handler or judge’s point of view. Distances sometimes look farther, and cover thicker. After sending an edited clip to one of our field reps that showed a dog running a Finished land blind that was placed in what appeared to be heavy cover, I received an e-mail comment that went something like: “I’m not sure about this video stuff, I think that was my test!” The reality was the blind was not as tough as it looked on tape, and most of the handlers could see their dogs well. My purpose in editing the clip as I did was to illustrate what problems a less experienced judge might have if they placed the blind a little differently. In working with these hunt test videos, I completely understand why UKC and HRC will not consider the use of any electronic audio or video recording devices in the process of reviewing a formal complaint regarding a Judge’s decision. If you find yourself, your dog, or your test the subject of our roving camera, understand that in all likelihood, the footage is just a few seconds of the big picture, or has been edited to put the focus on the concept we are illustrating in the seminar, and is not necessarily an accurate representation of the actual events. We think these new film clips will help make the seminar more interesting, entertaining, and informative. To mitigate any complaints about the footage from upset judges, hunt test committees, or handlers, we will be making the standard disclaimer: “Hey, we don’t know how that got in the seminar!” The Upland scenario I covered in the last magazine generated a piece of e-mail that came smoking into my computer. A very experienced HRC judge suggested that I needed to retract a statement I made about a flushing scenario. I had stated: “If the dog only sits to the sound of the launcher, or the handler’s whistle, a no-bird should be declared.” After several e-mail exchanges where I was having difficulty explaining what I meant to this judge’s satisfaction, I finally said that if there was any chance at all that someone else would interpret what I said as this judge did, I did not want that to happen. To that end, I would bring this up in my next article. And so I am. I think we finally agreed that we had no disagreement about what I meant, only how I said it. I was using the word “sit” as a euphemism for steadiness. My point was, when it’s necessary to use mechanical launchers in an Upland Hunt Test, judges should make sure the dog sees the bird flush. Merely demonstrating steadiness to a whistle, or “sound” of a launcher (as many dogs trained with mechanical launchers will sometimes do) does not meet the requirement of being steady to “wing”. The dog witnessing the flight of the bird gives judges confirmation of the dogs training, i.e., steadiness to wing. Judges must make the decision whether the dog saw the bird being launched. I bring this up again
not just to explain what I meant about the use of mechanical launchers, but
also to have an opportunity to clarify another issue.
In one of our e-mail exchanges, the judge had made a remark to the
effect that before long HRC judges will be quoting from the Judge’s Corner
as justification for deviating from the rules.
I stated how difficult I found it to write something that is not
interpreted wrong by at least one reader (or more).
I also said that I have
neither asked for, or want to be any kind of authority that interprets the
rulebook to the degree that my words replace or supplant it. I hope I
never hear of a situation where a judge quotes the Judge's Corner as an
acceptable deviation from our rules. I think the majority of readers are
sophisticated enough to understand that most of what I write about in this
column is my own personal opinion, often mixed with the opinions and valued
comments of your field reps and other experienced judges.
When something I say comes from our rules and guidelines, I’ll
reference it. You can take my
opinion, and that of others on these issues for what you feel they are worth.
Scenario:
The Finished judges asked the club to provide them with some
“shackled ducks” for the water series.
The hunt test committee hesitated; with one member stating that he
believed you could not use live ducks or pigeons at a licensed hunt test.
The judges responded by asking the committee to show where it said that
in the rulebook, pointing out that only the Started guidelines stated that
shackled ducks could promote the development of bird-shyness in young
retrievers. The Finished rules or
guidelines don’t mention shackled birds. Question:
Who was right, the judges
or the hunt committee, and can judges use live and/or shackled birds in our
hunt tests? Answer:
The use of live birds
issue surfaced recently when our alert national vice-president, Larry McMurry
was taking his judges test and made a remark about Question 24.
It states: Fill in the blank in the following sentence:
It is ____________that dead birds be used in the Started class.
The responses to choose from are the words “recommended”, and
“required” (for those of you who have not taken your test yet, you are
going to get a freebie). Larry
sent me an e-mail saying: “while
the rulebook states it is "recommended" that dead birds be used in
Started (page 28) we have a policy that states all birds will be dead in every
category except for a shot flyer or flush.
"A shot flyer shall not be used in the Started Class" (also
on page 28). So, even though the
rulebook does state dead birds are recommended, it is in fact required.
Is this not correct?”
I responded to Larry, that he was correct in saying that while the
rulebook “recommends” using dead birds at Started, it also uses the word
“live” in several places. In every category from Started to Grand, under
“Hunting Tests”, the rulebook states:
“Live or dead pheasants, pigeons, ducks or other game birds must
be used……”. It
also uses the term “live bird” when discussing the quartering test in
Seasoned, Finished, Grand and the Upland Hunt Test.
He was also correct in that HRC has a policy about the use of live
birds which conflicts with what is printed in the rulebook.
I told Larry that for myself, when talking about this issue in the
seminar, I point the conflict out, and using my best powers of persuasion,
tell judges they should not use live birds in a hunt test, and explain why.
Larry is correct when he says we should do more to make the issue
clearer. The rulebook should have
been corrected to eliminate the conflict.
Our HRC, Inc. Rules and Guidelines for Hunting Retriever Tests
booklet is a mixture of rules, guidelines, policies, and procedures.
The “policy” Larry is referring to originated at the 1999 HRC
National Meeting. In the opinion of our executive committee, this policy
should trump the rulebook references to live birds (except shot flyers and
upland). Courtesy of Claudene,
the following is a portion of the minutes from that meeting that pertain to
this issue: VIII.
NEW BUSINESS: ·
USE OF LIVE BIRDS
- President Stritzinger moved that the following Policy & Procedure be
adopted. "Upon careful thought and
consideration it has been agreed to be in distaste to throw or launch live
birds either by hand or by automated launching devices in UKC Licensed HRC
events. It is the desire of the
Hunting Retriever Clubs that no live birds be used in UKC licensed HRC, events
except for shot flyers and/or Upland Hunts.
This Policy shall prohibit the use of live birds in UKC licensed HRC
events, except for shot flyers and/or Upland Hunts." Claudene Christopher seconded the motion. Discussion was heard. Vote was held - 52 for/5 against - PASSED by 2/3. You can see where judges can get confused. More carry copies of the rulebook than minutes of the 99 HRC National meeting. 1999 was not a year where running rules were voted on. The live bird issue, which was a concern to both HRC and UKC was therefore handled by vote of the Board of Directors by adopting the above “Policy” about the use of live birds. Your executive committee is moving to clear up the issue. I suspect something will surface at our 2001 HRC National Meeting this June in Memphis. In the interim, let’s follow the correct policy and procedure, and do not use live birds in our hunt tests, except for shot flyers and the upland-quartering test. For those of you who insist on using shackled birds until you read in the rulebook that you cannot, make sure they are dead when you shackle them! Also, if you wish to answer, “required” on question number 24 on your judge’s test, clearly print the words “HRC policy” next to your answer. I’m sure Claudene will give you extra credit for it. Let’s look at a scenario that is sure to stir some controversy. Scenario:
The handler and retriever came to the line at the Finished water
series. The retriever was wearing
a neoprene vest. The two licensed
judges got into a discussion about the vest.
One wanted the handler to take the vest off the dog, while the other
had no problem with it. Question: Is it okay for a dog to wear a vest at our HRC licensed hunt tests? Answer: I’ve been considering this subject for some time. I suppose to be helpful I should have covered it in my last article. Except for the northern clubs, the water will probably have warmed up for most events by the time you read this. I apologize for my timing, especially if you faced this situation as a handler, judge, or hunt test committee, and what I say here would have been helpful to you. While I don’t believe this is a critical issue facing judges, I know there have been incidents where the vest question has surfaced. I would have talked about it sooner, but I guess I’m sort of like both judges in the scenario – half of me wants to tell the handler to take the vest off, while the other half has no problem with it. I normally don’t have a problem making a decision about a judging issue, and I rarely develop a rash straddling a fence before forming an opinion. However, after going through a whole jar of Gold Bond medicated powder I felt it was time to address the issue. It might be constructive to list not only what the rulebook says about vests, but some pros and cons associated with their appearance in our tests. It helped me make up my mind and I hope it will help you answer the question. The first two things I did when tackling this issue was look in the rulebook, and seek the opinion of the field reps. The rulebook part was easy. I couldn’t find any reference to neoprene vests, but a couple of things were mentioned that some folks believe might apply to the use of vests. The rulebook mentions under Sportsmanship, page 24, “carrying exposed training equipment to the line”. It also mentions under Handlers, in each category that: “Handlers shall not have any training aid to intimidate the hunting retriever, i.e., whip, prod, cane, quirt, dummy, weighted or shock collars or other similar equipment at the retrieving line”. The question a judge must decide if either of these rulebook references are going to come into play, is do vests fall into the category of either equipment, or training aids? The field reps, had some interesting things to say to support the positions they took. Before reporting some of what they said, I will tell you that the percentages of field reps that responded ran about 70/30 in favor of “I don’t have a problem with handlers using vests in a test”. I did not talk with a handler who didn’t want the option of using one, but I’m sure there are some out there. Comments from field reps: “I know of an instance where a handler was running a female in a flooded timber test who just had pups. The vest helped protect her tummy. I think the use of a vest is okay.” “I used one twice this year hunting. They did help keep the dog warm and protect him from ice. Having said that, I see no place for them in a hunt test. First, the time the dog is exposed to the cold is limited, and I think they are an aid, giving an advantage to those using them over those who don’t”. “I have no problem with them, but the issue needs to be addressed in the rules”. “If the weather is cold and the protection of the dog is what you are after, then put the vest on. The phobia comes from judges who think someone is cheating their test by running with a vest”. Comments from handlers and judges: “The test dog ran with a vest on, but when I came up to run, I was asked to take it off my dog. It was 38 degrees and blowing snow. The judge said it was considered a training device”. “I went to the line with my dog wearing a vest. The two judges began to argue about it. One said to the other – You’re wearing a coat today, aren’t you? The vest was allowed to stay on”. “Just like people, some dogs are more susceptible to the cold than others”. “I don’t think we’ve
ever lost a dog in an HRC test from hypothermia”. “I consider them a safety issue. The dog could get hung in stickups”.
Personally I never used to put a vest on any of my dogs.
Even though they stay in the house at night, they were always eager to
retrieve ducks and geese, even in icy water.
One day a friend brought his dog along and it was wearing a vest.
I stuck my hand down the front and was amazed how warm the dog’s
chest was after making a retrieve in cold water.
I ordered one the same day. My
dogs were getting older, and I thought it would make them more comfortable and
protect them from ice. I really
believe the vest does as much or more good when the dog comes out of cold
water and is exposed to the frigid air. That said, on the one hand, since our
tests are short, I probably would personally not consider using a vest in a
test. On the other, given certain
circumstances, I might want to have the option.
Extremely cold weather, cold water, cold wind, a long honor in the
test, or running the test on big water where the dog might make several
multiple deep water swims could be things to consider (by judges or handlers).
I don’t worry much about the safety issue.
I’ve hunted dogs a lot in flooded timber and I’ve never seen one
hung up. A vest could possibly
get snagged on something, but if the dog were in swimming water, unlike a
collar around their neck that could cause real problems, they’d probably
just tread water until someone could help them.
Not a nice thought, but not a life-threatening predicament. I think the field rep that said “the vest issue needs to be addressed in the rules” had a very good point. Since HRC has no rules, guidelines, or policy about vests that I know of at this time, it seems this is another decision that falls on the judge’s shoulders. I personally can’t consider the vest a training aid. I believe the rulebook is using the term training aid to cover devices used to intimidate or correct a dog. I’m not sure how a vest can do this. I suppose someone will now write me to explain how a trainer can develop a program where the dog is only corrected when wearing a vest, thus learning that it must behave with it on. I would ask then, is their dog only going to run tests where conditions warrant the use of a vest? While I might not have a problem with a dog wearing a vest in my test where conditions might warrant it, I’m going to ask a handler to explain why the dog is wearing one if conditions don’t. “The dog always wears a vest won’t be a good enough response”. Unless or until we get a more specific policy, I’m going to fall on the side of the fence where the handlers have the option of asking to use a vest, and the judges, using common sense and good judgment then make the decision that the use is or is not acceptable given the circumstances and conditions. As far as fairness, the judges at the test should be consistent. If one dog runs with a vest, all should have the option. If possible, this issue should be considered and agreed to by both judges before the first dog runs. If I’ve missed something with this response, or you don’t think I’m being reasonable or logical, let me hear from you. I appreciate all of you taking time to read the Judge’s Corner articles. I want to mention just one more thing. Since the Judge’s Corner website has been re-built, I thought it might be time it needed a slogan, motto, catch phrase, or whatever you want to call it. Everybody has one. I thought I might borrow one from any number of popular talk show hosts, televisions shows, or companies. From Rush Limbaugh: “America’s Truth Detector”. Judge’s Corner: “HRC’s Truth Detector”. From Fox News Channel: “We Report, You Decide”. Judge’s Corner: “You Judge, We Decide”. From talk show host Neil Boortz: “America’s Rude Awakening”. Judge’s Corner: “HRC’s Rude Awakening”. From Tri-Tronics: “Making It Easier For Dogs To Learn Since 1968”. Judge’s Corner: “Making It Easier For Judge’s To Learn Since 1995”. Purina: “Chosen by Champions”. Judge’s Corner: “Chosen by Judges”. All worthy of consideration, but none seems to be a real good fit. I’m announcing a contest to choose the perfect slogan for the Judge’s Corner. Please e-mail your entries to me with the subject line Judge’s Corner Slogan Contest. Please send you entry by May 15th, 2001. Prizes for this contest have not yet been finalized at press time. Thank you. 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 |