 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
December 2002 - January 2003 - by
Tim Gibson
Whether you are a relatively new
reader of Hunting Retriever magazine and this column, or a long-time HRC
member familiar with the Judge’s Corner, you will know that I’ve written
extensively about the characteristics of a good judge.
I’ve stated that among the many attributes they must possess, a good
HRC judge must be familiar with hunting, retriever training, our HRC rules and
guidelines, and the seminar material. I’ve
said a good judge uses good judgment and common sense, treats the handlers
like he/she would like to be treated and works well with the club hunt test
committee, marshals, bird throwers and fellow judges.
A good judge is a good observer and recorder, and is smart, without
being a smart …, if you know what I mean.
I thought I was close to completing the definitive description of a
good judge, but I’ve recently realized there is at least one important
characteristic I’ve left off my list. It
may be the single reason why two individuals, both of whom began their judging
careers by meeting the same requirements and going through the same
apprenticeship and training program don’t turn out to be the same quality of
judge. One does a fine job, while
the other, shall we say, “wrecks havoc” upon the handlers, dogs, hunt
committees, and their fellow judges wherever they go.
I’m speaking about being “teachable”, which by the way has a lot
more to do with attitude than intelligence.
I’ve had the opportunity of late to take a close look at a training
program in a company (not retriever related) I’ve become involved with
recently. This multi-million
dollar corporation bluntly states in their training material that if an
individual is not teachable, they will not succeed with the organization.
They talk about teach-ability as being willing to listen and learn from
others more experienced in the business. Being willing and prepared to follow
a proven system, and to attend training that at first glance might seem
repetitive in nature. I
considered how all this might relate to our HRC judges training program.
Who do you think might become the better judge:
A person who; a) bemoans the fact that they have to begin judging as a
Started apprentice or; b) one who understands that regardless of their hunting
and/or training experience, to be the best possible judge, they need to start
at the lower level and “learn” their way upward.
An individual who; a) complains about having to attend yet another
judge’s seminar (hey – it’s only been two years!), or; b) one who
decides to attend every one they can because they understand that each seminar
is an opportunity to interact with knowledgeable HRC members and pick up
valuable “nuggets” of judging information - realizing that these nuggets
might come in handy when they find themselves in a difficult situation with a
tough decision to make. Being
teachable means among other things possessing the ability and willingness to
learn from your mistakes so as not to repeat them from weekend to weekend. It
means admitting that you don’t know it all (and probably never will).
It means understanding that your learning does not stop when your
judging license is issued. When
your club gives its next recommendation to an individual to enter the judging
ranks, consider if that person is “teachable”.
For the hundreds of you who now carry a judging license, or are
progressing through our judging system – are you teachable?
An inordinate amount of seminar time as well as ink in this column has
been spent over the past years battling what I’ll call judging myths and
misconceptions. I’ll give you a
few examples of what I’m talking about:
“If you elect not to hold your Started dog and it starts to go,
it’s an automatic failure”; “There is no such thing as a controlled
break on the honor”; “You can’t talk to your dog at the Grand”; “If
your dog gets its feet wet, it’s a break “if your dog gets its feet dry
(on the point of land) while running this water blind, it will fail”; ”;
and my personal favorite – “If you handle on two marks at Finished, you
fail”. We’ve made a fair
amount of progress dispelling this sort of stuff but our first scenario shows
there is more work to be done. Scenario:
The Seasoned test consisted of a challenging blind, then a double mark
retrieve. The dog did an
exceptional job on the blind and after taking the bird from the dog, the
excited handler reached down and gave the dog an affectionate pat on the head,
saying “good boy”. At the
conclusion of the hunt the judges advised the handler that they must fail the
dog because the handler “touched” it during the test.
Question:
Were the judges correct in failing
this dog? Answer:
In short, let me relay some words
from one of our most esteemed and experienced field reps when I asked this
question, who replied as follows: “We
have here two judges who have really “lost” the picture.
We have to watch these judges! While
we may fault the handler for headwork, there are no grounds for failure
here”. I agree.
The dog should not have been failed, period. Some of you are thinking,
“but does the rulebook not say you’ll fail if you touch your dog after the
test starts”? No, it does not
really say that (another myth and misconception) and I’ll explain.
First, I’d probably put most physical contact during the test between
the handler and their retriever into three broad categories:
Intimidation – Restraint – Praise.
Let’s take a closer look at each of these.
At every testing level, under Handlers, our rulebook states, “The
Handler shall not intimidate the hunting retriever at the retrieving line”
(rulebook pages 25, 29, 34 and 39). We
all understand that if a handler for example pulls the dog’s ear, shakes it
by the scruff of the neck, or gives it a swift kick to get it to behave or
perform during the test (perhaps just walking to the line), this is physical
intimidation (and can be abuse). Consider
the Started retriever that may be hand held during the test.
The handler is still not allowed to physically intimidate the dog.
What I want you all to understand is the failure that should result
from physical intimidation is not from the physical contact (touching), but
from the intimidation itself. Restraint generally involves physical contact to keep the dog from moving. At the Seasoned and Finished levels this is discussed under Test Rules – Item II, pages 30 and 35, where the rulebook states: “At the retrieving line the hunting retriever may be touched to steady, but when the Handler signals ready it may not be touched again”. The intent of this rule about not touching after signaling ready is foremost to keep a handler from restraining a dog to prevent a break. This portion of the rules about not touching also would cover re-positioning a dog that is not properly swinging on the marks, or not lining up on the blind, etc., i.e. physical contact to get the dog to perform. Let’s also consider tests where the judges tell the handlers they can help the dog into the boat or onto the dog stand, etc. It’s obviously just not correct to state that a dog can’t be touched during the test. That brings us to touching a dog in praise. It should be discouraged for several reasons. First of all, a dog should not need it to perform. Secondly, judges should not be put in a position at a Seasoned or Finished test where they must decide if the physical contact was praise or intimidation (but judge, I always yank his ear after every mark to let him know I’m pleased!). Finally, it’s just a bad habit for a handler to get into. All that said, it just makes no sense to fail a handler for giving their dog a truly inadvertent pat on the head at the conclusion of a difficult retrieve. Our rulebook never intended judges to do this and I hope our discussion has helped those who might have not clearly understood that to make the right call. Our next scenario involves another sort of “contact” between handler and retriever – electrical. A handler with an e-collar on their dog is confronted at the test site. Scenario:
The handler of a dog entered in Seasoned simply put an e-collar on the
dog rather than a leash when he let the dog out to relieve itself at the land
site just prior to running the test. Although
well away from and out of sight of the retrieving line, a spectator informed
the Seasoned judges the handler had the e-collar on the dog.
The judges spoke to the handler about this, informing him that the
rulebook stated that e-collars were not allowed on the test grounds.
After not finding it in their rulebook, they informed the handler that
it had been recently taken out of the book, but it was a long-standing HRC
policy. Question:
What is the HRC rule or policy
about e-collars and other training devices at the hunt sites and/or on the
test grounds and is it written anywhere?
If not, why? Answer:
This recently occurred at one of
our hunts. I suspect it has
happened at several others. I
received an e-mail message in which I corresponded briefly with the handler
involved and soon concluded that I might need to address this in the Judge’s
Corner. I felt the handler had a
good point about rules versus policies, particularly unwritten ones.
I also received a phone call from one of the judges at this hunt asking
me about HRC’s policy on this. Let
me first say the handler informed me that the judges (I did not know who they
were at the time) were very
friendly and non-confrontational. I
later replied to the handler that after finding out the names of the judges, I
knew them personally and knew them to be very conscientious individuals. I was
not surprised the handler was treated with professionalism and courtesy.
This is one of those confusing issues that I hope to shed a little
light on.
There is very little to no references in our HRC rulebook about
training aids except where it specifically mentions that: “The Handler
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” (see Handlers, pages 25,
29, 34 and 39) nor was anything ever taken out of the rulebook about these
items. A few years ago a rule was
proposed whereby
all training aids, including e-collars would not be allowed on the hunt
grounds. Wisely, the clubs voted
this down. This failed attempt at putting the "training aids" policy
in writing meant well but was worded poorly.
Any rule like this would simply not be practical and virtually
impossible to enforce for obvious reasons. (What would you do, check your
whips and collars at the hunt site headquarters?) The rule about not having training devices on the line is of course there because dogs will act differently when these devices are present. Judges and participants have generally accepted that the rule extends behind the line to include the hunt test site itself and all parking and airing areas adjacent to it. Quite simply, if you need to have a collar on your dog or a training aid in your hand, you don’t need to be at the hunt site. It’s not the time or place to correct your dog. Whether this extends to all the hunt grounds has always been left to each club individually as both the size of the hunt grounds and the rules that they must follow when using those grounds varies widely. Aside from “Sportsmanship” issues (which along with physical abuse issues does apply to the entire hunt grounds – see Disqualification, rulebook page 5) in which handlers might use whips, collars, etc. to "intimidate" or threaten a retriever or “tune it up” just prior to running, there's another unwritten rule that says it's in poor taste to "train" on the test or test concepts at or near the hunt site. The presence of these devices can give the impression one is doing that. In the scenario in question, I believe it's better to have had the judges err on the side of believing the e-collar was banned than saying nothing to a handler using one on site and/or just off the retrieving line. They were more right than wrong although they couldn’t point it out in the rulebook. I've always believed for the most part that we can generally rely on the common sense of our judges, hunt test committees and participants to govern our events, and as most of you know, I’ve never been a supporter of expanding the rulebook to cover every little incident or possibility. The handler making the inquiry indicated to the judges that he was more than happy to comply with their request that the collar come off the dog and be put away. I’ve got one more scenario for you and it’s an interesting one. Scenario:
The Finished land test was straightforward.
It included a triple marked retrieve for the working dog with an honor
dog sitting quietly that had just completed the test.
When the last mark of the triple comes out, the judges call
“no-bird”. The honor dog
breaks on this bird and picks it up. The
handler expects to be able to honor again because of the no-bird.
The judges tell the handler the dog has failed because the no-bird only
pertained to the working dog. Question:
Were
the judges justified in determining that the honor dog should be failed?
Answer: At the time this was sent to me via e-mail, I was not aware it had been posted and discussed on the HRC message board a couple of weeks prior. I had not seen the post (in which it was stated the judges “yelled” no-bird) or read what the various posters said. In my e-mail response to the individual who sent the scenario to me, I indicated I agreed with the judge’s decision, based on the limited information I had to go on. Later, I went back and read the comments on the message board, the majority of which favored giving the honor dog another chance. While a few good points were made, I still saw nothing on the message board to convince me I was wrong in my assessment of the scenario. As we discuss this, keep in mind we’re talking in the hypothetical. I’m not exactly sure this actually happened at a hunt test. If it did, understand I don’t claim to have all the facts, or have them all right. I do know one thing. This is most likely one of those situations where the people in the best position to make a decision were the judges.
The arguments in favor of the honor dog being allowed another run seem
to center on a couple of things. Primary
is the fact that the judges stopped the test so the break should not count
against the honor dog. Someone
asked the question, “How can you stop a test for one dog and not another”?
Another asked if the judges yelling might have contributed to the
break. My first thoughts on
reading the scenario were why did the honor dog handler let the dog pick up
the bird? Could it be the honor
handler thought it didn’t matter since the test was stopped?
I don’t buy that because a Finished handler should still know not to
let their dog get a bird they did not send it for, period.
Let’s look closely at this “the test was stopped” argument.
I contend the marking portion of the test was halted because a throw
was not acceptable to the judges. This
is not the same thing as stopping the testing and I’ll explain the
difference to you. Judges can
declare a test stopped for a number of reasons.
Among these might be re-birding, lunch break, equipment malfunction,
and on occasion to pick up a set of marks when a no-bird has been declared
(get the boat or the pick-up dog). When
a test is stopped, judges generally advise handlers they may put their dogs on
lead, hold them, or perhaps if the delay will be lengthy – leave the line
and return when called. I’ve
never seen judges give a dog carte blanche to run around the test site out of
control because the test was stopped for any reason.
Am I mistaken, or does the Finished Purpose and Philosophy on page 34
of the rulebook not say, “The Finished Hunting Retriever must respond
promptly to either voice or whistle commands and remain steady and under
control at all times”? I
find it far-fetched (no pun intended) to think the dog understood the test was
stopped the moment the judges said no-bird.
I contend that just because the judges “halted” the marking
sequence, both dogs were still being tested and required to remain under
control. The honor dog did not.
The lesson here for the handler to learn is anytime you are on the
retrieving line, “assume you are under judgment unless the judges indicate
otherwise”. By the way, I would give the honor dog another run if its
call name were No-Bird.
I did consider the fact that the no-bird might have landed unreasonably
close to the honor dog, or for some reason been particularly tempting to the
dog, placing it at what one rep called a “disadvantage” compared to the
other dogs. It’s hard to tell
if this was the case from the limited description of the test that was
provided, but it might be grounds for giving the honor dog the benefit of the
doubt if it was. Apparently the
judges did not think so.
Yet another field rep said, “My knee jerk reaction was to agree with
the handler, but after thinking about it a while, I think the judges were
right”. I would suspect many of
you might conclude the same thing. Agree
or disagree, I hope you’ve at least found some valuable judging nuggets in
these discussions. I hope everyone is having an enjoyable, safe, and productive hunting season. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |