 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
-December 2001 - January 2002 -
As promised, in this issue of the
Judge’s Corner, we’re going to get back to our familiar scenario,
question, and answer format. Before
we do, I want to re-visit a topic I discussed briefly in the last magazine –
the subject of the expanded responsibilities and authority of your regional
field representatives. I believe
the vast majority of our HRC judges fully understand and support this concept.
However, it seems that despite my recent explanation (which I thought
was quite clear) of why, when and in what way the reps might “step
forward” to speak with some judges about their tests, a small (make that
very small) group of folks have risen (mostly via the UKC message board) to
voice their concerns about the subject. To
be honest, I normally don’t pay much attention to this message board.
While there are some thoughtful, well written posts, there seem an
inordinate number of people interested in simply “stirring up the pot”.
I no longer respond on it for several reasons.
One of which is lack of time, and the difficulty I find in offering a
thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-written response in a few short lines.
Another, I can perhaps explain like this:
Two retrievers are sitting by their handler’s side.
The handler throws a bumper out and one dog says to the other,
“Don’t go for it, you’re just being an enabler!” I
was not planning on spending more time on this topic until I noticed posts
from a couple of people containing statements such as “the reps can require
changes to tests that don’t feel right to them”, or “maybe just
send the reps to set up all the tests on Friday, then judges can show
up on Sat/Sun to keep score”. Enough
is enough. I feel compelled to respond with a more complete discussion of the
subject. Not to the anonymous posters who may not even be judges or HRC
members, but to those I know to be sincere and who genuinely seek answers to
their questions and concerns. I
was present in the meeting where the HRC executive committee gave their
“blessing” to the field reps to approve the reps being able to
“require” judges to change a test. I
also know more than a little about how all this came about.
Before I begin to explain it, let me ask you to consider these
questions: Who really benefits
from the reps stepping forward to ask (then possibly require) judges to make a
change in their tests? The reps,
the executive committee, or the dogs and handlers running the test?
Do you really believe that once a person becomes, let’s say, a
licensed Finished judge, said judge shouldn’t have to answer to anyone
(can you say “accountability”), regarding their test set up unless someone
can prove the test is unsafe, or point unequivocally to a specific page,
paragraph and line in the HRC rulebook which proves its illegal?
Is it possible that some of our judges are worried they might have to
take more responsibility for the tests they construct?
I think I can show you HRC has made a move in the right direction.
To
begin, (all conspiracy theorists and interminable complainers please pay close
attention), this was not the executive committees idea.
A few people (including some reps, judges, and handlers) began to ask a
couple of very simple questions: We
have developed an extensive set of recommendations for good judging (presented
in the Judges/Handlers Seminar) over the past several years – if it will
eliminate a lot of problems we’re seeing in our testing program, why
aren’t judges required to follow these recommendations?
Is it not logical that if a field rep is present and sees problems in
the tests (from not following seminar recommendations) that are causing the
dogs difficulty and/or adversely affecting the judges’ ability to evaluate
the retrievers, should the rep not be able to do anything about it?
To their credit, and to the benefit of HRC, your executive committee
responded. It was not as much a
matter of the executive committee requiring, or even asking the field reps to
go out and start enforcing seminar recommendations, but rather a matter of
stating that they would stand behind those reps who felt comfortable with,
compelled, or found it absolutely necessary to ask judges to make a change in
a test. That said - it was made
clear that the reps role was to be limited and well defined.
Limited by the fact that no, they could not require a judge to
change a test that didn’t “feel” right, or one that was not set up the
way they’d do it! The test must
clearly be in violation of seminar recommendations for good testing.
Well defined in that the reps must point out specific problems
with the test to the judges, and ask them to make a change, not tell them how
to change it. Some have asked by what right
have the field reps been given this new “authority” to review tests.
In other words, can HRC create a policy where this is possible?
The answer may surprise you. There
exists in HRC a “Policy and Procedures Manual”, which details the
operations of HRC and it’s many committees and the responsibilities of
elected and appointed positions within our organization.
Most of this can be found on the CD distributed to the Board of
Directors. This procedures manual
contains a document called the Field Rep Overview that, among other things,
specifically discusses the responsibilities of the reps, part of which I will
quote as follows: RESPONSIBILITY
- “to observe the overall operation and quality of Hunts and ensure
compliance with all HRC/UKC test rules, policies and guidelines” “If discussions take
place regarding potential problems during set up day, the Judges can make
adjustments on their own volition, before the Tests are started and prevent
being placed in the position of changing a Test after some dogs have run on
Test Day, while a gallery and handlers are waiting”.
We have a lot of policies and procedures, created at the national and
local levels that guide the operation of HRC that assures the smooth operation
of our organization and our hunt tests. UKC
mandates policy that HRC must follow, much of which appears in our “running
rules” book. The grand hunt
committee creates “policy” which guides the operation of the grand hunts.
If you say to me that none of these “policies” affect how our
retrievers are evaluated or judged, I would only need to point out one example
to prove you wrong. Try telling
me it makes no difference in testing when a local club decides to use only
ducks at their hunts! I also
contend that this new “expanded” field rep authority to review tests is
actually an awakening of a dormant responsibility they’ve had all along,
given the wording in the field rep overview quoted above.
Let’s look at the matter from another angle.
We’ve just had a full fall season of hunt tests.
While I’m sure some reps expressed their concerns about a few tests,
can any judge tell me they were “required” to change their test?
Were any even asked? As I
mentioned in my last article, this new “policy” will not affect the
majority of our judges, most of whom do an admirable job.
Finally let’s take a look at the dreaded seminar
“recommendations” our judges are now being “required” to follow.
You tell me why it’s so difficult to understand why judges should
follow them. Do we really need to make them running rules?
They fall into several categories, which include gun safety,
evaluation, being fair, judge/handler relationships, and test set up.
All are clearly spelled out in the seminar manual.
As respects gun safety recommendations, how can you argue against
complying with a recommendation that states:
“It is also strongly recommended that no handler shall hold or
operate a shotgun if they are also holding a dog on lead in any portion of the
hunt test!” Or “place a gun
stand near the retrieving line” so the handler does not have to juggle a gun
while handling the dog. Since the
reps will not involve themselves in judgmental decisions, we can only hope
judges decide the seminar recommendations on “evaluation” are important
enough to follow on their own. Examples
include recommendations for evaluating the five desirable traits, marking and
memory, and blind retrieves. Recommendations
for “Being Fair” include such things as:
“As a judge, you will make mistakes.
Recognize them and correct them as soon as possible”, and “Be
consistent”. Real controversial
recommendations as you can see. The
recommendations for Judge/Handler Relationships include practical advice for
speaking with handlers before, during, and after the hunt test.
This brings us to the seminar recommendations regarding test set up,
which by the way, were not written arbitrarily, or capriciously.
Ninety plus percent of the problems with and complaints about HRC tests
result from test set up. Several
recommendations concern blind retrieves, and marking tests in particular.
Among them: “Be careful
to run Seasoned blinds away from the marking tests, and make sure scent from
other parts of the test does not interfere with the blind”.
“Avoid tight angle entries and bank running blinds in Seasoned”.
As respects the timing of the marks, “Don’t throw marks in such a
manner that the retriever cannot physically mark the falls”.
These are proven, common sense testing recommendations that judges
should be more than willing to follow to be fair, avoid problems, and keep
them out of trouble. To base an
argument against following them solely because the rulebook does not
specifically address these issues is ridiculous, and frankly, not good enough
anymore. We’ve spent enough
time on this subject so let’s get to our first scenario, which involves a
very questionable marking test at one of our recent hunts. Scenario:
At the Finished water test, an honor dog was on the left, and a working
dog on the right. Two ducks are
thrown, one splashing to the right of the dogs, the other to the left.
Working dog handler shoots twice at the right duck, honor handler
shoots twice at the left duck. Working
dog is asked to pick up both marks. In
order to “simulate real hunting” to quote the judges, both marks were
thrown simultaneously! Question:
Is it okay for judges to do something like this, and is it good
testing? Answer:
Of course not!
The handler who sent this to me indicated that he could barely see the
splash of the second duck after shooting at the first one.
I was told of a similar set up at another hunt this past fall.
In that incident, the winger operator on the second mark was told to
“have your winger pulled back and ready, and release it immediately upon
hearing the “shot” at the first duck”.
The result was most handlers couldn’t get the gun pumped fast enough
to avoid shooting the second mark on the water.
I guess that was supposed to “simulate real hunting” also. I’m
not exactly sure how many times I’ve said this in this column, or how many
times it’s been said in our seminars, but here we go again.
What can happen in hunting does not necessarily make a good testing
scenario. While we are
simulating hunting, we are still “testing” for specific attributes and
qualities valuable in a hunting dog. In
the scenarios above, the judges have abdicated their responsibility to
properly evaluate the dogs marking ability by throwing marks the dogs could
not clearly see and sort out. It
appears to me that what they were really testing was who could pump the
shotgun the fastest!
When I mentioned this scenario to one of the field
reps and asked if this should make the Judge’s Corner, his reply was an
emphatic, “Yes – let’s not get something like this started!”
Finally, in light of the discussion in the first part of this article,
I can’t resist asking a couple of questions.
Do you suppose these judges (or any setting up a similar test) might
defend the test by saying 1) it’s legal, and 2) the rulebook does not say we
can’t throw marks like this? Also,
if you were a handler faced with running the test, and the dogs were clearly
having marking problems, would you wish there were a rep present to speak to
the judges about the test? Our
next scenario also happened at a recent hunt test.
While appearing to be minor, I believe it reflects the lack of effort
(leading to other realism issues), and lackadaisical manner in which a few
judges/clubs have been conducting their tests lately. Scenario:
The
Seasoned land test had no winger hides up whatsoever.
While the wingers were not visible from the retrieving line (behind
natural bushes), both marks were thrown such that the dog had to run past each
winger to pick up the birds. When
the dog did this, the wingers, and bird boys sitting on their buckets were
completely exposed to the dog. Questions:
First,
I must ask the same questions as our first scenario.
Is it okay for judges to do
something like this, and is it good testing?
Also, could this possibly be an illegal test?
Answer:
To the first couple of questions,
same answer – of course not. A
couple of handlers apparently questioned the judges about the visibility of
the wingers at the beginning of the test.
One handler asked the site marshal if hides were available and was told
there were plenty in the club trailer, but the judges said they didn’t need
them! Hogwash!
If you have hides, use them, or start cutting brush if you don’t.
I suppose to be fair I should give the judges credit for putting the
wingers behind bushes, but they could have easily gone one step further in the
right direction. They seem to
have forgotten they were not setting up an evening training session where the
goal might be to simply get some marks on the ground and a blind planted so
they could get repetitions in for the dogs.
Judges owe a club and the handlers their best effort at setting up a
quality test, which includes their best effort at hiding the wingers and bird
throwers so as not to create any “distractions” visible to the dog at any
time during the test. It’s that
simple.
As to the legality issue, I would offer the following.
The rulebook specifically states in the Seasoned guidelines, page 32
– item VIII: “Gunners and
Bird Boys should be inconspicuous, in keeping with the hunting situation. It
is the intent of these regulations to provide the dog with adequate
opportunity to focus its attention on the area of the fall”.
You tell me if a dog proceeding to the area of the fall that runs
past a visible winger/bird thrower might lose its focus on the area of the
fall? I think it’s quite
possible. I believe the hunt
committee should have insisted the wingers be hidden better, regardless of
what the judges thought. Folks,
this is basic stuff that HRC is working hard to correct in our testing.
Get these judges to a seminar, quickly!
Just so you won’t think I’m pounding test setup too harshly, our
last scenario involves some Finished judges’ evaluation of the dogs’
performance at a hunt test. Scenario:
At the conclusion of the Finished hunt test, the judges had failed 16
of 22 dogs entered in their flight (not in itself very unusual at all).
What seemed unusual however, was the fact that the judges specifically
indicated that six of the failures were for “popping”.
The judges explained to one failed handler that their dog had two pops
- one on the water test when it got tangled up in a decoy on the way to the
blind and looked back for direction, and another on land when it got confused
because it was sent with a loud voice. They
then told this particular handler: “We felt the two pops were
inappropriate”. Question:
How should HRC judges look at
popping at the Finished level? Answer:
Let me say that while I was told
this happened at a recent hunt test, I did not speak personally with the
judges in the flight in question. I
got my information second hand, but from a usually very reliable source and
frequent contributor to the Judges Corner.
That said, I do not in any way wish to cast any aspirations on the
decisions made by the judges at this test since they were obviously in the
best position to see the dogs performances.
Instead, I want to use this scenario to kick off a general discussion
of “popping” which I hope will benefit everyone.
First, let’s be clear what popping is, and what our rulebook says
about it. The Seasoned
Guidelines, page 32 – item V states: “Popping
(looking to the Handler for direction without a signal), shall not be
penalized”. That’s all
the rulebook says about it, and about all we cover in the Judges/Handlers
Seminar. This leads me to ask all
of you a couple of questions. Since
the rulebook says popping should not be penalized at Seasoned, does it
necessarily follow that it should be at Finished?
Or do you believe it does not necessarily follow that it should be
penalized at Finished? I ran this
by the reps for their thoughts, some of which I’d like to share with you
along with my own opinion on the subject.
I liked how one of the reps put a couple of reasons
for some dogs popping – lack of confidence or confusion.
This same rep indicated it was important for judges to determine if
possible what caused the dog to pop (what have I always said about judges
needing to be good observers). Why
do you think that’s true? Because
determining what caused a dog to pop helps a judge determine if they should
access a penalty (mark the dog down) for it, and to what degree.
I liked what the rep also had to say about how he evaluated dogs for
popping: “I treat it much like
I do whistle and cast refusals. When
I see the first one (make a note), I’m not too worried.
The second, my ears perk up. The
third one really has my attention!” What
I think this rep is saying is that it’s highly unlikely three legitimate
reasons for a dog to pop would occur one right after the other.
The flag pops up (no pun intended) indicating:
“Houston, we might have a problem”.
Let me ask another question. Judges
see popping most often on the blind retrieve test.
Does this make popping a control issue?
I think not exactly. Another
rep addressed this quite well by saying:
“Suppose a dog thinks it heard a whistle and stops while another dog
hears a whistle and does not stop. Which
dog is more out of control, the one who popped, or the one who didn’t stop
on the whistle?” I know what
else some of you are thinking – what about a dog that pops after not
carrying a cast very far – is this not control?
I’ll come right back at you and ask you if you’re willing to fail a
dog for not carrying a cast as far as you’d personally like it to?
Besides, don’t most dogs that fail to carry a cast just simply turn
in another direction?
If popping is not really a control issue, then what is it?
How about lack of desire. Now
we have something a judge can sink their teeth into.
One page 22 of our HRC Rulebook, under Hunting Desire, it states:
“A test may be failed if a retriever l) stops and gives up
hunting; 2) refuses to enter rough cover, water, ice, mud or any situation
involving difficult or unpleasant going after being commanded to do so; or; 3)
shows no interest in hunting a bird or picking it up.”
Can we agree that popping is sometimes the manifestation of a lack
of desire? Judges should be
careful to remember there is a definite difference between a dog that wants to
make sure it’s doing the right thing (especially in a complicated test) and
one that is exhibiting a lack of desire.
It’s the difference between one verbal “back”, or a simple arm
gesture to let the dog know it’s on the right path, or a barrage of loud
backs and continual coaxing after multiple pops, without which, the dog would
not go get the bird. I think most
of our judges are smart enough to see and understand this difference.
Let’s
agree that the judges in the scenario as I described it above made at least
two basic mistakes. They stated
they failed the dog for “popping”, something which is not specifically
mentioned in the rulebook. They
compounded their mistake by putting a number on it – “two pops is
inappropriate”. I don’t think
I could have failed a dog for two pops I could attribute to “confusion”.
I’m personally looking for a lack of desire behind the pops.
Any time a judge makes a decision regarding their evaluation of a
retriever in the test, I hope they do so with a full understanding of the
issues involved. I hope this
discussion about popping adds to that understanding.
Until the next issue, please have a safe, enjoyable, and successful
hunting season.
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 |