 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER - February / March 2001 - Hunting Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson Hopefully you have all had satisfying and successful hunting seasons. Now is the time to put most of the hunting gear away, and think about dog training and the upcoming hunt tests. Time to call up your training partners and make plans and set goals. At the suggestion of one of our fine field reps, I want to cover something we’ve not talked much about in the Judge’s Corner - the “transition” period, for lack of a better term, between hunting season and hunt test season. Particularly as it applies to judges setting up hunt tests and evaluating retrievers so soon after hunting season closes. The first scenario will be a broad discussion of this topic, and it will hopefully provide you with food for thought and points to ponder. I’ll also be covering an upland test scenario I’ve been considering for a while. Scenario:
The
judges assembled at the hunt test site at noon Friday to set up what was for
each judge, the first test they would judge this spring.
After a long hunting season in which many of them had not seen each
other, a lively conversation developed about who hunted where and with whom,
and how successful (or not) each of their seasons had been.
Soon the conversation turned to setting up the following day’s hunt
tests. In the course of the discussion, several interesting
questions surfaced.
Questions:
Could the judges expect the dogs to perform differently in March than they had the previous October? Should the judges consider structuring their tests differently for the early hunt test season? If so, what factors might have an influence in how they set up the tests and evaluate the retrievers? Answer:
The
transition between hunting mode and training/hunt testing mode is usually
effortless. It requires no
special thoughts or preparation either by judges, or handlers.
Most dogs have absolutely no difficulties hunting for several weeks,
then running a complex hunt test scenario the first weekend after season. Right!
And each spring my lawnmower never has a dead battery, a flat tire, or
a gummed up carburetor. In
the real world, from a judging perspective, there are practical considerations
to ponder coming off a season of hunting and setting up and judging the first
early hunt tests. I’m going to
try to list a few and explain how they might effect testing.
As you’ll see, some things that occur in these early tests are beyond
a judge’s control, but in most instances, judges can make good decisions to
mitigate the influences at work in the test.
Before I proceed, I want to make a couple of things very clear.
The items listed below are not a list of ready made “excuses” for
why the dog didn’t do the work, or why the judges didn’t set up a good
test, or why the handler failed the dog.
Also, I am not advocating a drop in test standards for our early
events. Good judging always requires careful observation of what is going on
in the tests. An understanding of the factors at work in our early season hunt
tests will help judges set up good scenarios and properly evaluate the
retrievers. I hope this discussion helps in that respect.
I want to thank those field reps, judges, and handlers who contributed
their thoughts in this scenario.
Let’s take a look first at some environmental considerations
judges need to carefully factor into how they structure a test early in the
hunt test season.
Weather plays a big role in our early hunts.
It could be cold, wet, windy and generally miserable, or all of the
above. Early test season water
might still be cold enough to affect the dog’s performance.
Fields could be wet or soft, and roads in poor conditions; making
simply moving everyone around the hunt grounds a major task. In many areas, there could be sparse natural vegetation or
cover, much having died off over the winter months.
These environmental factors can have an adverse affect on the
performance of the retrievers, and can influence the time it takes to run the
hunt. Proper planning to handle
logistical problems and adverse weather can go a long way in making the hunt
successful. Judges can consider
shorter swims for the retrievers in very cold water, and understand bird
throwers might need to take a break to warm up.
Time is a commodity frequently in short supply during a day’s
testing, especially at our early events where daylight hours are shorter. Judges should carefully consider how long it will take to
complete their tests, including getting everyone parked at the site, up to the
line, and all the dogs run.
Performance is probably the area where judges must make the most
effort to understand the effect a recent hunting season has had on the
retrievers. It’s just a fact
that many dogs have difficulty making the transition.
A lot of poor performance comes from the fact that there has not been
enough time to get the dog tuned up. Some
of it comes from bad habits the handler let the dog pick up during the hunting
season. Much, however, comes from
unnecessarily complex test scenarios judges set up in early hunt tests. Judges
should make the effort to simplify scenarios without compromising the quality
of the testing. Let me try to
explain with an example. This
happened in the past hunting season. I
was duck hunting in central Illinois with HRCH Nikki Jo, my 10 year old, very
experienced lab. We had an open
water hole in front of the blind, but behind us was an uncut, flooded frozen
cornfield. We knocked down five
or six ducks behind the blind where Nikki could not see them fall.
I thought I had most of the ducks marked well. When handling her to
where I knew one of the birds had fallen, she suddenly ignored my whistles and
began to go from blind mode to “hunt” mode.
I soon realized she must have been tracking a cripple.
Sure enough, she came back with a live drake.
In a hunt test, she could have failed for the whistle refusals.
Running a tough blind through a set of marks with an experienced
hunting dog picking up a lot of old scent, particularly right after hunting
season could be inviting trouble in the test, especially for perhaps some of
the best “hunting” dogs in the flight.
In yet another example, we were goose hunting in a cut cornfield when
three of us knocked down several birds gliding into the large decoy spread we
had in front of us. New HRCH
Buddy was in the pit, ready to go. We
all climbed out of the pit to congratulate ourselves on our fine shooting and
to let Buddy pick up the birds. Three
dead birds were visible in the decoys. I
had seen another hit very hard and glide down about 80 yards out over a small
hill in the cornfield. His owner
elected to send Buddy past the dead birds and over the hill to the one I had
seen sail down. Buddy took a nice
line, and soon he was returning with a very dead goose in his mouth.
About the time he was coming though the decoys, an unseen goose jumped
up from the decoys and attempted to take flight almost in front of Buddy.
He quickly spit the dead bird out and literally ran and leaped into the
air to knock the cripple down, saving the loss of the goose since we had all
left our guns in the pit! Buddy
did the wrong thing if we were testing, but the right thing hunting.
Judges who remember hunting season just ended, and a lot of dogs saved
a lot of lost birds by their work in running down cripples might do well to
consider keeping diversions a reasonable distance from a dog returning with a
retrieve. I’m sure you can
think of more examples where good hunting work might get a dog into trouble in
a difficult testing scenario.
Another area to consider in our early tests is the distances we
throw marks at. While
we might make an occasional spectacular shot while hunting (in southern
Illinois, we call tall shots from a pit,
“crowd-pleasers”), we usually shoot birds at shorter distances when
hunting. It takes some time to
adjust to the distances we have come to expect from our dogs in hunt tests.
Shouldn’t we make more of an effort to replicate actual hunting
distances throughout the year?
A judge should consider that it’s quite possible a dog has gotten
sloppy with its obedience during the hunting season.
This might be the fault of the handler who is probably more concerned
with shooting birds than in making the dog behave properly.
Even the most experienced handlers running their first hunt test
of the season may be prone to make simple mistakes in executing the shooting
sequence required or in handling the dog.
Judges might consider simplifying the mechanics of the test. Remember that the judge should be testing the dog, not how
well the handler remembers when and where they are supposed to be shooting,
which birds they are supposed to pick up, and in what order.
Gun Safety is always of utmost importance in our hunt tests.
Judges might want to take some extra time reminding handlers of this,
and explaining what is expected. In
hunting, there are usually not as many people around and especially behind the
handler who might casually put the gun over their shoulder as there are at our
hunt tests. A word of caution to keep the muzzle pointed in a safe
direction might be appropriate. Also,
we are used to keeping a shell in the chamber and the breech closed while
hunting. It’s quite the
opposite in testing, where the handler is expected to open the breech after
shooting.
Realism is one of
the things we talk about extensively in the Judges/Handlers Seminar. While we
encourage judges to simulate actual hunting conditions, we caution that
attempting to duplicate something that happened while hunting might not be
conducive to good testing. I’ve
seen judges right after hunting season try to set up some crazy scenarios. It’s
got to be realistic, because it happened to them, right?
Well, that might be, but judges should ask themselves, how will this
help me test the dogs? These
early season hunt tests should be an excellent time for judges to remember how
realistic their scenarios need to be as respects decoys, camouflage, etc.
What they did to fool the birds should be fresh in their minds.
Did they sit on an open pond bank with no blind to shoot ducks? Probably not. Did
they leave gun cases, coolers, etc., in plain site, or were they careful to
cover and conceal this stuff from the ducks and geese? I’ll bet these judges carefully considered how many decoys
it would take to fool the ducks where they were hunting. Did they sit in the middle of an open field to shoot doves,
or did they try to hide in the shadows of a fence or tree line?
Good judges understand
the factors at work in the early hunt tests, and how they can affect the dogs,
handlers, and the flow of the event. Excellent
judges take the appropriate steps to mitigate problems, and give the proper
considerations to their evaluation of the dogs and the structure of their
tests. Let’s look at an interesting Upland Hunt question.
Scenario:
The club
was holding its first Upland Hunt Test. The
weather was ideal, with sunny skies and cool temperatures.
A good field had been selected with light to moderate cover.
The judges showed they understood how to “plant” the chuckars
provided to them, and the birds seemed to flush well for the set-up dogs the
afternoon before. After explaining the test, the judges asked if there were
any questions. A handler stepped forward and stated that his dog “pointed”
birds. He asked the judges if it
was okay if, after his dog found and pointed a bird, he could step forward and
flush it.
Question:
What
does the rulebook say about this situation, and how should the judges respond
to the handler’s question?
Answer:
I
have been asked about this subject a few times in the past couple of years.
The inquires were infrequent, and the question applied to only a small
percentage of dogs running our Upland Hunt tests, so I had elected not to
bring it up in this column. With
the growth of our Upland Hunt test program, and some Upland Hunt Test rule
clarifications and additions going into effect on January 1st of
this year, it may be an appropriate time to talk about this issue. Like so
many issues we’ve talked about in the Judge’s Corner, I can’t point to a
paragraph or sentence in the rulebook that will provide a specific answer to
the questions posed. Once again,
we have to look at what common sense tells us, and the intent of the framers
of the Upland Test rules to help clarify the issue.
I was privileged to serve a small role on the panel that wrote the
Upland Hunt Test rules and guidelines when the program was developed a few
short years ago, so I have a good idea of the intent behind the rules.
First, the Upland Test rules and guidelines were written to apply to
the vast majority of our retrievers who “flush” birds in the upland field,
as opposed to the minute number who are trained to “point”, and the
miniscule number who might have a genetic disposition to point.
The Guidelines for Judging Upland Hunt Tests on page 44 of our rulebook
states that: “The Upland
Hunting Retriever is expected to flush the bird.” The framers wanted the
Upland Test to simulate as closely as possible what happens when retrievers
are upland hunting. Without
belaboring the point, we all know that a natural flush trumps a mechanical
launcher in terms of excitement and realism.
Without question, a dog willing to remain steady with a natural flush
is trained to a higher level than one who is trained to be steady only on
mechanically launched birds. To
that end, our rules about the use of launchers have been clarified with a
rulebook change effective January 1, 2001.
I quote from page 43, Rules for Conducting the Upland Hunt, item 4):
“In all cases, a natural flush is preferred to the use of traps,
pens, cages, or other devises designed to contain and then release birds
during the quartering test. However,
when conditions exist that prohibit the use of natural flushes (e.g., weather,
poor birds, insufficient cover, etc.), such devices may be utilized.
When devices are used to hold and release birds, the holding device
must be sufficiently camouflaged to hide the device from the view of the
Hunting Retriever.” Judges should remember that if they need to use mechanical
launchers, the dog should be close enough to scent the bird and see it come
up. If the dog only sits to the
sound of the launcher, or the handler’s whistle, a no-bird should be
declared. In addition to this steadiness issue of mechanical versus
natural flush, I would be remiss if I didn’t remind judges of the safety
concerns with a dog getting too close to a mechanical launcher and risking
injury. I want to mention one
other point. With the scent of
multiple birds planted in an upland test field, judges seem to get a better
indication of the quartering abilities and hunting attributes of the dogs
running the test.
With all that
said, let’s get back to the retriever that points the bird.
Just as a “walk-up” scenario might require a higher degree of
steadiness than a situation where the handler is seated on a dove stool with
the dog sitting by his/her side, it might be said that it’s easier for a dog
holding point to remain steady if a handler moves in to flush the bird than
for the dog who flushes the bird on its own.
The handler will probably be closer to the dog (i.e., more control),
and of course the dog is already stopped.
It’s my opinion, and that of those knowledgeable HRC folks I’ve
talked with about this issue, that if natural flushes are being used (see new
rule quoted earlier), the dog should be the one flushing the bird.
To that end, unless or until our rules are amended, participants in our
Upland Hunt Tests with dogs who have a propensity to point should understand
that they need to play the game by the same rules as everyone else. I would
suggest many of these dogs are probably smart enough to be taught a release
command, or some indication from the handler that it is okay to flush the bird
(I hunted wild pheasants once with a friend whose black lab would hunt well
within gun range, point when the birds would hold and flush on command, but
flush them on her own if they started to run on her). For owners of pointing
dogs who wish to participate in our upland program, and feel that teaching
their dogs a release command might compromise their pointing skills, I don’t
have a good better answer. The
program was designed around the flushing dog. I have a final couple of points.
Just like the
dog that does not see a mechanical flush, we can’t say a dog whose handler
flushes the bird is meeting the intent of the quartering and steadiness part
of the Upland Hunt test. And if a gunner or judge accidentally puts a bird up
in the upland field, this too does not meet the flushing requirement for the
dog. The dog should continue
quartering until it flushes a bird. I
hope this discussion has brought some clarity to the issue, and by considering
the intent of the program and the rules and guidelines; it will help judges
faced with the conundrum of having a pointing dog in their flushing test.
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 |