JUDGES CORNER - October-November, 2001 - from the Hunting Retriever magazine

            Sitting down to write this column a few short days after the horrific, cowardly attack on our country, I must confess it’s difficult to focus on HRC judging issues.  Like many of you, Kathy and I have been glued to the television and radio looking and listening intently to the continuous news coverage, and amazed at the resiliency, strength, courage and resolve of the people of New York and Washington who bore the brunt of the attack.  Our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost friends, family, and loved ones.  I would also remind you that many of our HRC members serve in the military, both active and reserve, or are police officers or firefighters.  Take time to thank them for the service they give, the sacrifices they make, and the risks they take to help keep us safe and secure.  When people are injured or killed, property destroyed, and our security and way of life are threatened, becoming upset at the way our dog performed at a test, or at the decisions the judges made seem pretty small and insignificant by comparison.   

            Given all that has occurred, I thought it might be appropriate to do something a little different in this issue of the Judge’s Corner.  For the first time in a great while, I want to dispense with the familiar scenario, question, answer format of this column.  I still have several issues and items to discuss, and some information I’d like to share with you. I want to focus on the positive, and to remind you that we all enjoy the benefits of belonging to the Hunting Retriever Club, and participating in its events and activities because of the hard work, commitment, and dedication of our fellow HRC members.   

Local seminar report: 

It was my pleasure recently to travel to the St. Louis, MO area to conduct a Judges/Handlers Seminar hosted by the Gateway HRC.  Generally in this column, rather than report extensively or in detail about any of the many seminars HRC holds, my comments or remarks about the seminars have for the most part been focused on content or structure.  However, on the two-hour plus drive home from the seminar site at Busch Wildlife Area some thoughts struck me that I wanted to share with you.   

            I’ve commented many times in the Judge’s Corner about the work of your executive committee and field reps in seminar organization, support, and development.  What I have perhaps neglected to some degree is to recognize the efforts made by clubs hosting these seminars, without which, HRC could not bring the seminar training to our membership.  I want to take this opportunity to thank Gateway HRC President Ed Nelson, and his wife Lesley, not only for their gracious hospitality to me personally, but also for their hard work in making the Gateway seminar possible.  Beginning with scheduling a seminar date, confirming a presenter, and spreading the word through newsletters, e-mail and phone calls, organizing a Judges/Handlers Seminar also involves securing a suitable location, arranging equipment and manuals, and taking care of details such as coffee and donuts and providing lunch arrangements.  Please take a moment to express your appreciation to those folks in your local area or region who have done the same.   

            I’d wish I could tell you that it was a gloomy, rainy day at Busch Wildlife, and we were all glad to be inside.  Exactly the opposite was true.  It was a perfect early fall day, with temperatures in the low 70’s, a light breeze, and blue skies.  It was a day where it should almost be against the law to stay inside, which is why I wish to thank everyone who attended.  A number of people asking good questions and adding their thoughts and comments to discussions of judging topics always makes the day go quicker, and makes the seminar presenters job a lot easier.   

The HRC “Judge Club”:

             Currently, we have 576 licensed judges in the Hunting Retriever Club, Inc.  These HRC judges give their time freely and without remuneration or reward.  Among other requirements, our HRC judges must have a Hunter Safety card, take the Judges Test periodically, and attend Judges/Handlers Seminars to earn and maintain their judging license.  They arrive the day before the hunt to set up the tests, then judge all the next day, and often two days.  They shoulder the responsibility to evaluate our retrievers in accordance with the HRC/UKC rules and guidelines, to be fair and consistent in their decisions, and to explain those decisions and judgmental calls to handlers who often don’t agree.  It’s with great pleasure that I can report to you that HRC is recognizing the effort of these folks with the creation of the HRC Judge Club.  By the time this magazine is in print all of our licensed judges will have received an envelop with a letter thanking them for their willingness to judge for us, and a beautiful lapel pin indicating they are an HRC Judge.  HRC hopes this small gift will give our judges some measure of recognition, and be a visible indication of the prestige and respect they have earned and deserve.   

Expanded Field Rep Responsibility and Authority: 

            I touched on this briefly in the August/September 2001 issue of our HR magazine, with a paragraph describing how in a couple of regions the field reps were taking a more active role in test review.  I indicated this trial effort was for the most part being well received by judges who appreciated the experienced input and advice offered which enabled them to do a quality job on their tests.  HRC President Glenn Stelly reported in his President’s Message in the same issue, the HRC Executive Committee’s approval and adoption of expanded authority and additional responsibilities for our field reps at our licensed hunt tests.  A letter of explanation has been sent to each licensed HRC judge, a portion of which has been posted on the HRC website.  These new field rep duties include observing and discussing tests with the judges, and where they feel it necessary and appropriate, requiring judges to make changes to the test  “to help judges avoid problems that may cause difficulties in evaluating the retrievers”.  A new test report form has been developed (more on that shortly) to generate a written record of these test “reviews” the field reps conduct.  Glenn’s column stressed the importance of HRC’s continuing commitment to helping our judges continue to setup quality tests and make good decisions.  Some of our judges seem to have a little anxiety about the field reps possibly requiring a change in their tests, so I think it’s appropriate to give you  some background about HRC’s decision to implement these procedures, and some details about how the field reps are expected to conduct themselves.   

            First, let me remind you our HRC field reps are some of our most experienced licensed judges.  They have received additional training to qualify them to conduct judging seminars, and have spent countless hours in meetings, discussions and study to fully understand good test setup and testing procedures.  They know what we expect from our judges, and how to build and maintain fairness and consistency in our testing program.   

Traditionally, the field reps attending your hunts complete a report indicating how well the club is prepared in manpower, equipment, facilities, etc.  Occasionally they are called upon to answer questions about test legality issues where disputes between the judges and hunt committee have surfaced, or where a handler has questioned a test or a judge’s decision.  Just as the vast majority of our clubs do a great job in planning and conducting the hunt tests they hold, most of our HRC judges do a wonderful job in setting up tests and properly evaluating our retrievers.  These judges will not notice the field reps doing anything different from their traditional duties, other than to perhaps extend a hand of thanks to the judges or offer a pat on the back for a job well done!  Let’s look then at why, when, and in what way the field reps might step forward to confront some judges about concerns they have with a particular test. 

Our HRC Rules And Guidelines for Hunting Retriever Tests booklet (our rulebook) does an admirable job of explaining our purpose and philosophy and gives us a solid framework around which we’ve built our testing program.  It is however, sometimes hard to interpret, and often lacks specifics and definitions about issues and procedures our judges are expected to understand and implement.  In short, the Judges/Handlers Seminar was created (and is constantly being updated and improved upon) to help fill in the gaps and to offer explanations, recommendations and judging tips for good test setup and retriever evaluation.  On occasion, judges will construct a test that, while it may not be possible to point to a specific rulebook illegality, does not follow HRC’s recommendations for good testing.  More importantly, these marginal, or questionable tests often adversely affect the retrievers’ performance or the judges’ ability to properly evaluate them.  Hunt committees, whose review is limited to safety or legality issues, can do little to correct these problems.  On rare occasions, when concerns are expressed, some crusty judges (with their hackles raised) have gone so far as to simply say their test is legal and they are not changing it.  The dogs and handlers usually pay the price of a poor test.  Enter HRC’s decision to expand the role of the field rep in test review.  It makes no sense to have our field reps (with all their training and experience) at the hunt site, and not have them step forward to press for correcting a problem test! 

A great deal of time was spent in the field rep meeting at the 2001 HRC national meeting discussing when it would be appropriate for a field rep to confront a judge, and how.  First, let me state unequivocally that the field rep is not there to tell judges how to set up tests, or make judging decisions regarding evaluation of the retrievers performance.  Obviously, where a test is illegal or unsafe for some reason, and the hunt committee did not catch the problem, the reps will explain the situation and require a correction.  The reps will not tell the judges how to change the test, just what needs to be changed to bring the test into compliance.  Examples might be not firing a popper immediately prior to casting the Seasoned dog at the blind, the line to the falls less than 90 degrees at Started, or the Finished diversion not being run with the marking test. 

The field reps might find a test where the judges are not following specific seminar recommendations for good testing procedures, resulting in real problems for the handlers and retrievers.  If the reps feel the test has a sufficient enough problem that the judges cannot possibly properly evaluate the retrievers’ performance, they may decide it is necessary to speak with the judges, and may exercise their authority to require a change.  Examples might be a severe angled water entry on the Seasoned blind, or scent interference problems at Started and Seasoned.  In all cases, the reps will advise judges exactly why they feel there is a problem, citing the rulebook or specific seminar guidelines or recommendations, and first ask the judges to consider making a change.  The field reps will be prepared to offer a suggestion as to what the change needs to be if asked, but would prefer the judges come up with their own solution to the problem. The reps will not ask judges to change tests because they personally don’t like the test, or its not the way they would set the test up.  They will provide solid and valid reasons for their involvement.  

The field reps will not always step forward to require a change in a test they have concerns about.  They may elect to speak privately with the judges at the conclusion of the hunt to discuss tests with unclear concepts, murky scenarios, poor procedures, or realism issues they have concerns over.   

Test Report Form: 

            A written test review report form will be completed by the field reps. It will provide a written record of their review of tests they have the opportunity to look at.  In addition to a brief test description area, the form contains a section where the reps can state their compliments, comments, concerns, issues, or recommendations they have (if any) about the test.  There is an area to indicate if the test was changed, if applicable.  Finally, there is a space for the judges to make comments, remarks, or any explanation they wish to record.  A copy will be left with each judge.  The field reps will retain these forms as a record of the performance of judges in their regions.  HRC hopes that these records can be utilized to make changes in the seminar program where areas of improvement or further education seem to be indicated.   

Alternate (Designated) Field Reps: 

            Because of the tremendous workload of many of our field reps, HRC has authorized the reps to designate an “alternate” person to serve in their place at a hunt test.  Whether to name an alternate, and who that might be is entirely up to the individual field reps. I’m mentioning it in the Judge’s Corner so everyone will realize there might be a qualified HRC member designated to fill in for your regional rep on occasion.  If your rep decides to name an alternate to represent him (or her in Janet Kimbrough’s case) at your hunt test, the club will be notified in advance, and said designated alternate field rep is only a field rep for that specific event.  They will have the full power, responsibility, and duties of your regular regional field representative. 

A couple of items in closing…. 

            I’ve been asked to pass along a reminder to all judges.  When reading the names of dogs that have passed at the conclusion of the hunt, in addition to calling the dog number, please remember to read the dogs full name and UKC titles it holds, and the handlers name. For me, it’s a privilege to announce the passes and recognize the dogs and handlers for their hard work.  I think most handlers will forgive judges who have difficulty pronouncing names if a good faith effort is made.   

            Finally, I want to offer my own suggestion to judges to help them improve their test setup and retriever evaluation.  At the conclusion of the hunt test, when sitting down with your co-judge and deciding the passes and failures, try taking a few minutes to critique your test.  Consider how well it worked mechanically, and if each bird or element of the test performed as you thought it would or should.  What changes would you make if you could start the day over? 

            We’ll return to our normal format in the next issue.  Good hunting and keep safe.  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. 

back to home page

back to articles index

---