 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
-February - March 2002 - by Tim Gibson
To be perfectly honest with all of
you (aren’t I always), I had some difficulties putting this article
together. The publication
deadline for this issue of Hunting Retriever is January 15th –
right in the middle of the best goose hunting of the season in Southern
Illinois. Like myself, my HRC
friends I talk to this time of the year are chasing waterfowl, and thinking
and talking “hunting”, not hunt tests.
While I can’t fault anyone for that, it does tend to cause the
scenarios on which I count on for the Judge’s Corner to sort of “dry
up”. That said, I still have a
few things to say and a scenario to cover which deals with a little trouble I
seemed to have gotten myself into over something I wrote about in the last
article (no, it’s not about the Field Rep responsibilities issue).
Speaking of drying up, I hope you had a better duck season than we did here in
Southern Illinois. After several
“lean” hunts, I resorted to throwing a “Dokken” duck for the dogs so
as not to take the chance they’d forget what a greenhead looked like if I
actually managed to bag one. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the old
saying, “to only concentrate on
the amount of game you kill is to miss the point of hunting entirely”.
But a fellow wants to think there’s a chance, however remote, that
there is some payoff for your time and effort, especially when you like the
taste of duck. It got bad enough
at one point in the season that I considered breasting out a couple of Dokkens.
I probably could have handled the reaction from Kathy for carving up
her training birds. I could
probably even prove it was far cheaper than the actual cost of chasing real
mallards, but I just couldn’t find a good recipe for them! If anyone can
help, I’d appreciate it. Recently,
there were some comments and a discussion on the HRC Message Board that got me
quite upset (no, it’s not about the Field Rep responsibilities issue).
Someone posted a short scenario and question about “switching”,
(the particulars of which I won’t go into) followed by the statement,
“this might be a good one to give to Tim Gibson for the Judge’s Corner”.
That’s where the problem began.
Several folks posted replies that quoted both from our HRC rulebook,
and the Judges/Handlers Seminar. Comments
came from at least one very well known field rep (I thought he loved
everyone), and from what I believed to be some very experienced judges and
handlers. To put it simply, I
found these posts to be very incisive, perspicacious, and sagacious!
Obviously, you can understand my concern.
Okay, I’ve had my fun.
Before some of you start grabbing for your dictionary, or logging on to
dictionary.com, let me explain. Incisive - penetrating, clear, and
sharp. Having a keenness and
forcefulness of thought, expression, or intellect.
Perspicacious - having or showing penetrating mental
discernment, and the power of seeing clearly.
Sagacious - having or showing sound judgment, and
farsightedness. I found it
interesting to watch as an analysis of the question unfolded, and good
comments, suggestions and tips from both a handling and judging perspective
appeared. I had several thoughts
as I read some of the reply posts. I
was thinking, “I wish I’d have thought of that”, and “I probably could
not have said it as well, especially in as few words”.
Mainly I was thinking, “If this continues, you people will put the
Judge’s Corner out of business”! Seriously,
I wanted to bring this up for a couple of reasons.
To point out that our HRC message board can be a great help and
resource where our members can share knowledge and discussion about subjects
of interest to all of us in the organization.
Also, to say that I believe (contrary to what some of you might have
thought after my last column) that there are more solid contributors
participating on the board than “whiners and complainers”.
Again, thank you Claudene for establishing the board, and your daily
work in moderating it and keeping it up and running smoothly.
There are currently some good discussions going on, on a variety of
topics. I suspect there will soon
be some posts about the running rule proposals coming up for vote at the 2002
HRC annual meeting.
About five minutes (maybe less) after the last issue of the magazine
hit the mailboxes, your humble scribe was called on the carpet in regards to
the popping scenario I had written about. I had stated in the answer to the
scenario that I was told this happened at a recent hunt test, and had gotten
my information about the scenario second hand. I said I had not spoken
personally with the judges in the flight in question.
In fact, I did not know, nor inquire who they were. As you might guess,
I received a phone call from one of the judges who started out by saying those
four little words no guy ever wants to hear (especially from your spouse or
girlfriend), “we need to talk”. I
was quickly informed that I got the scenario totally wrong, and among other
things, told that I should have checked with the judges, and more thoroughly
researched what had occurred. Being
the type of person that I am, I of course quickly became defensive. (What did
you expect, Gandhi?) I told the
judge that I don’t make a practice of checking with anyone about what did or
did not exactly happen at a test. I’m
usually just looking for a good scenario I can use to explain judging
concepts, and have been known to “bend” (sometimes almost to the breaking
point) both the facts and what I’ve been told happened at a test to fit the
concepts I’m trying to illustrate. I
don’t do so to point my finger at any particular judges or to single them
out for doing something wrong. Apparently
however, in this case, that’s the impression I left.
The judge did concede that my analysis of the judges decisions as I
wrote the scenario was correct. However, after listening to the judge
describe what he observed during the test, I concluded that there was indeed
another aspect to the issue that I neglected to consider in my answer.
Also, on reflection, I believe I did make some mistakes with this
scenario. Before explaining, and
in an attempt to be fair and balanced (I’m getting soft, aren’t I) and to
add to the popping discussion, I offer the following expanded scenario: 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).
At least one of the handlers was concerned their dog was failed for
“popping” and asked the judges to explain their decision. Question:
How did the Judges look at popping
in this test? Answer:
The judges explained to the
handler that they did not fail the dog for popping.
Their sheets indicated that yes, the dog did get tangled in the decoys
going for the memory bird at the morning water test, but after freeing itself,
swam at least 10 yards before popping, and being handled to the bird. Then,
during the land series, the dog again popped on the memory bird and was
handled to complete the retrieve. The
judges felt there was no confusion on the dog’s part, only a lack of being
able to successfully complete a triple. They
failed the dog for lack of marking and memory.
In the last issue, I had talked about considering confusion, or
distractions when deciding whether to mark a dog down for popping.
I also indicated a judge should consider the dog’s desire (or lack
of) when evaluating popping. When
popping occurs on a mark, the handler usually has to give a verbal or hand
signal (often both) to drive the dog back.
I won’t say the dog is not being “handled” when this occurs.
When discussing evaluating marking and memory in the Judges/Handlers
Seminar, we say, “If the
retriever is scored lower for lack of marking or memory on two or more birds,
failure may result”. Would
logic not dictate that if a dog pops on two marks, and is given a hand signal
or verbal command to continue (handled), it should be failed for lack of
marking or memory? Life, at least
for our HRC judges, is not that simple. We
explain in the seminar that when deciding to mark a dog down for lack of
marking or memory, judges should first ask themselves “why did this
retriever need to be handled on the mark”?
Also, “are there legitimate reasons, or did the retriever simply not
mark, remember or diligently hunt for the bird”? We say that to demonstrate marking ability (and memory) a retriever should not be handled to the area of the fall, but reach it on its own. For the perspicacious (I’ll be you’d never think you’d see that word again) judges among us, would you be willing to consider that there is a difference between being handled, and being handled to the area of the fall? In other words, because a dog pops, and is given a “back” command, was it by definition “handled to the area of the fall”? I would answer, not necessarily. I personally would find it hard to fail a dog for popping on a mark, especially close in and where with a quick handle, it proceeds to the area of fall, establishes a hunt, and completes the retrieve. Judges must make the determination that the dog who popped was indeed handled to the fall before accessing a markdown. A clue to help make that determination might be charting the dog’s path showing that it was or was not going toward the fall before popping, or if the handler substantially changed the dog’s direction of travel with the cast following the pop. The judges on the retrieving line must make this call. I made some mistakes with my original scenario, such as using it too soon after the actual hunt occurred, and in describing the hunt in too much detail (using numbers of dogs failed, etc.). This was not fair to the judges and participants involved. I should perhaps consider a grace period after receiving a scenario from an actual hunt where I would put the information on a shelf for a period of time to let it sort of die down. Heck no - that wouldn’t be any fun at all! What I will do from now on is be more careful in giving details that might reveal where an incident occurred. It might be helpful and even fun to create a fictitious HRC club and a roster of judges to use in the Judge’s Corner scenarios. This club and judges could take the heat for every questionable hunt test situation or poor set up and evaluation and perhaps keep me out of trouble to boot. What do you think? If you have thoughts or suggestions for names, e-mail them to me. Please - no takeoffs on the names of current clubs or judges! That would be too easy. I told you my cupboard was a little bare of scenarios at this time of year, and I’ll not insult your intelligence by trying to dust off an old one to run past you. With the hunt tests getting in full swing before the next issue of the magazine comes out, I’ll bet we’ll be back to full strength with a plethora of scenarios shortly. Funny how it works like that. Before concluding, I want to pass something along to you. It concerns how much value we should consider putting on people’s opinions whether we’re speaking with someone, or reading what a person has written in a book, paper, magazine, or posted on an Internet web site or message board. The great outdoor writer Jack O’Conner once said: “No man’s opinion is better than his background, experience, and general common sense”. Thank you for considering mine and for your support of this column. We hope the Judges Corner will both entertain and inform you. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |