 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
June - July, 2002 - by
Tim Gibson By
the time you receive this issue of Hunting Retriever magazine, the 2002 HRC
National meeting will have been held in Memphis.
In the next Judges Corner, I’ll give you a complete report on any
running rules changes that were voted in.
I hope those of you running dogs this past spring did well, and more
importantly, regardless of whether you passed or failed, I hope you feel that
for the most part, your retrievers were judged fairly and consistently.
On behalf of HRC, I also want to thank those of you who joined our
judging ranks this spring. Your
time, effort and hard work at becoming a judge are appreciated.
Someone recently asked me what personal attributes I felt were most
important to have to become a good judge.
I replied, “the ability to play well with others and an abundance of
good common sense” were two things that would take a judge far.
It might be an interesting exercise to develop a more complete list of
characteristics of a “good”
judge versus what is perceived as a “poor” one.
For example, a good judge would have as one of the field reps put it:
“good judgment of the whole picture” during a testing scenario.
A poor one might be too busy writing down minor infractions to see good
dog work, or may be too busy acting important to do a good job.
You get the idea. Send me
your comments and I’ll start a list! Along
these same lines, I want to share one more thing with you before we get to our
scenarios. I received an e-mail
from a reader recently lauding the common sense I showed in an answer I gave
to a scenario I was writing about. He
also lamented the fact that a judge that he recently ran under seemed to lack
it on the same subject. He closed with a statement he felt more judges would
do well to ponder: “Excellence
is difficult, but being difficult is not the same thing as being excellent”.
I agree. I’ve
got a couple of scenarios from a recent hunt where there seemed to be a lot of
testosterone flying around the line. You’ll be surprised who sent these to
me and what happened. Also, I had
promised in the last column that we would try to take a closer look at the
Upland Hunt Test and some judging issues associated with it.
To that end, we’re going to discuss an interesting Upland scenario.
I’m going to give one answer to the first two scenarios we’ll be discussing since they deal with a common subject matter, and the question is the same. Interestingly, the two situations occurred at the same hunt test, albeit in different flights with different judges and handlers involved. They were observed by and forwarded to me by a gentleman I’ve known for a long time. After explaining what he saw, the long time HRC judge stated in his e-mail to me: “I have my ideas, what are your thoughts?” and signed the note; Regards, ………… “King of Finished Judges”. After carefully reading his e-mail, my first thought was, “how can this gentleman claim to be the King of Finished Judges”? I immediately launched a comprehensive, detailed and exhausting search of HRC archives of judging records and related pertinent documents. Folks, what I found was simply amazing. My investigation revealed that there is absolutely no empirical or anecdotal evidence to be found anywhere that this gentleman is not who he claims to be, i.e., the “King of Finished Judges”! To that I must say, “Long live the King”! I’m not going to reveal his identity at this time. I think it’s enough that you know he exists, and may be among you at your local hunt test, judging, running a dog, or simply observing. When the time and conditions are right, I’m sure he’ll reveal his identity to our general membership. I’m thankful that his keen powers of observation have given us these first two scenarios to discuss. Scenario
No. 1:
During the morning Finished land test, as instructed by the judges, the
handler approached the line with his male dog off lead.
Another dog and handler (that just completed the working portion of the
test) were already at the line to “honor”. Just before reaching the
bucket, the working dog broke away and ran over to the honor dog position.
The working dog attempted to “mount” the honor dog, also a male.
The working dog handler physically grabbed his dog and pulled him off
the honor dog after some growling on the part of both dogs.
The judges told the working handler/dog to go to their bucket and start
the test. The dog did fine, and
after completing the afternoon water series, was awarded a pass for the day. Scenario
No. 2: (same test - different judges and handlers)
During the afternoon Finished test the handler came out of the holding
blind with his dog off lead and walked toward the working bucket as
instructed. Near the retrieving
line, the dog broke away from the handler and approached the honor dog.
The honor dog turned, growled, and snapped at the working dog.
The judges instructed the working dog handler to pick the dog up.
They indicated the dog was being failed for fighting and a report would
be sent to UKC. Question:
Did the judges in these two
scenarios handle the situations correctly? Answer:
Being as
polite as I know how - the short answer to the above question is:
the judges in these scenarios could have made some better decisions. In
our justice system (given my layman’s understanding of it), when assigning
“liability” in a case, often a judge or jury will determine that the
responsibility for an action should be split between a plaintiff and
defendant, or between two or more defendants.
In a follow up e-mail from the “King”, it seemed clear to me that
the judges (and to a minimal extent, the handler) in at least one of these
scenarios should probably bear some liability for the behavior of the
retrievers in the test. His
majesty stated the following: “The
test was set up poorly because of the cold windy conditions. A truck was
parked 10 feet behind the running line to act as the holding blind and a
windbreak for the judges. If a handler exited the holding blind from the
left side, he had to pass within 8 feet of the honor dog. An exit to the
right was no problem. Both handlers in these scenarios chose to exit to
the left.” While the judges should expect the dogs in the Finished level to
exhibit a certain level of control, they should plan for the unexpected.
We understand that in actual hunting, two retrievers will often share a
boat or blind. Dogs sharing a hunting experience are often somewhat familiar
with each other. In testing, it serves no useful purpose to “jam” dogs
tightly together on the retrieving line or walk one close to another entering
or leaving the test site. Most of
the problems I’ve personally seen during
testing occur exactly as in these scenarios, when a dog is coming into or
leaving the test. Occasionally,
during the test execution, judges will have one retriever run almost directly
in front of another when retrieving a bird, which is another formula for
problems. These judges could have
provided a more discreet path for the working dog to enter the test - one that
would have provided greater separation between the dogs.
As one of our field reps stated, “A lot of judges simply assume the
dog will stay in good control coming to and from the retrieving line in the
Finished class. Not always so!”
The working handlers could have recognized the fact that they were
operating in tight quarters, and exited the holding blind on the right side.
Also, if I owned a male with aggressive tendencies toward other males,
in this testing situation, I’d consider signing up to work when a female was
honoring if possible. It may be
helpful for judges to think in terms of the “diversion bird” when
considering two dogs working in a test, or dogs entering and exiting the test.
We say that a good diversion bird is one that is positioned where a dog
has to go out of its way to switch to it.
Try to cleanly separate the dog work such that it’s clear who went
out of their way to cause trouble, and who should receive the penalty for it.
With that stated, let’s consider the specifics of each incident.
In the first scenario, the working dog that broke away and attempted to
mount the honor dog should have been failed, probably immediately.
I say this for two reasons. Part
of the “Purpose” of HRC (rulebook page 21) states that:
“Those hunting retrievers that demonstrate desirable hunting
abilities will be rewarded with titles and incorporated into a sound
breeding program”. Obviously,
the working dog in this scenario is openly gay.
Do we want to perpetuate that characteristic?
I think not. Before some
of you start sending letters to UKC (again), I’m just kidding!
Seriously, a dog that has to be physically pulled off another in a test
has no business passing. Where
does the rulebook say this? Take
your pick from any of these: Manners
and Obedience, page 23: “Failure
may result from 2.) A retriever out of control.”
Steadiness, page 23: “Seasoned,
Finished and Grand Hunting Retrievers are required to be steady at the line
without physical or excessive verbal restraint.”
Or perhaps you like what the Finished Guidelines say on page 37: “The
Judge should look for the dog who walks obediently to the line, sits
obediently, and exhibits an attentive attitude”.
Let’s say the judges recognized the fact that the dog failed.
Should they still have allowed it to run the test?
It’s my opinion, and those of the reps I discussed this with (ditto
the King of Finished Judges) that no, the dog should not have been
allowed to continue. It’s not
because the dog was “disqualified”, or because it was failed, or because
the handler grabbed the dog. I’ll
explain.
Dogs are disqualified for fighting (more on that shortly).
There was no fight, so no disqualification was warranted.
Handlers are disqualified for physical abuse (along with the dog), but
the physical contact in this case was not abuse, but to restrain and/or
recover control. It was probably
the right thing to do – pull the dog away from the honor dog.
Our rulebook’s Guidelines for Conducting Events, page 46, item 29
states that: “Judges should ask
a Handler to pickup their dog if the dog has, in the Judge’s mind, already
failed and is creating bad habits or endangering itself”.
We’ve established the dog should have been failed.
Endangering itself? Probably.
Creating bad habits? Possibly
– by being “rewarded” with birds after the infraction.
Most experienced handlers would probably have not let the dog continue
after the physical restraint. The
judges should have helped the working dog handler make the right decision and
asked that the dog be “picked up”.
In our second scenario, a strong case could also be made that the
working dog was “out of control” enough that there might be grounds for
failure. What I don’t understand is why the judges stated that the working
dog was “failed” for fighting. First
– there is no such thing. Dogs
are “disqualified” for fighting. To be perfectly accurate, the rulebook
(page 5, Disqualifications) uses the term “eliminated” for fighting (are
you thinking the Sopranos here?). Since
we’re not sure what “eliminated” means let’s settle for disqualified.
Secondly, where was the fight? It
seems the honor dog was doing the growling and snapping.
Let’s not however, construe that to mean the honor dog was at fault.
Clearly, the working dog was the aggressor and “invaded” the honor
dog’s territory, (who by the way was where it was supposed to be and minding
it’s own business). One of the
reps mentioned that had a fight ensued, the honor dog should probably be
considered as interfered with and defending itself.
Not to cast any aspirations against them, but some dogs are naturally
defensive about their game, food bowl, kennel, boat, or blind. The bottom line
for good testing is set up your ingress and egress routes properly, and
provide adequate separation and room for the dogs to work.
In the event of an altercation, learn to recognize what happened, and
who was at fault, and then apply the proper penalty or remedy. I
hope this discussion has helped. In
the last magazine, I stated that one of the Upland issues we’d take a look
at concerned dogs chasing birds during the test.
I’m sure the following scenario, or something like it has occurred
more than once at our Upland events. I
want to once again thank a couple of our outstanding field reps that submitted
this scenario to me along with their thoughts and comments about it. Scenario:
At the Upland Hunt Test, the handler/dog team had done well on the
walkup and first bird flushed. The
dog had shown steady and retrieved the bird on command after the gunners
dispatched it. Soon after
resuming quartering, the second bird was flushed. The dog was steady, and the
handler fired his popper. The
bird flew about fifteen yards and sailed down.
Assuming the bird was hit, and as per the judges’ test briefing
instructions, the handler sent the dog to make the retrieve.
The handler was not aware that none of the gunners had fired at the
bird. When the dog got to the
bird, it flushed again and the chase was on.
The handler immediately attempted to stop the dog with two or three
whistles that the dog ignored. The
dog caught the bird and retrieved it. The
judges informed the handler that the test was failed.
Questions:
Did the judges make the correct call?
Answer: Maybe, maybe not. How’s that for a precision answer! The question is whether the judges failed the dog for chasing the “cripple” and not returning on command, or failed it for not being steady when it re-flushed the bird it was sent to retrieve. Judges should not expect the same steadiness from a dog on a bird it is sent to retrieve as on the original flush! (Some of you may want to read that sentence again, slowly). I know that at least two judges in our program are having difficulty with the concept that a handle is not always a handle. I hope they don’t have as much difficulty understanding the concept (here I go again with those rogue thought processes) that “a flush is not always a flush”. Let me explain. When a dog is quartering during the Upland test and it flushes a bird (or when a bird is launched for it mechanically), the dog is required to be steady (see our HRC rulebook, page 43, Quartering). This is still true if the same bird (un-hit by the gunners) the dog has already flushed has flown some distance down the field and is quartered up to and flushed once again. Now consider a bird we assume to be hit by the gunners (or we know to be hit poorly) that the dog is sent to retrieve. This crippled bird flushes when the dog reaches it in an attempt to get away. Should we require the dog to be steady on this bird? Of course not! We have sent the dog to retrieve the bird. We want the dog to make every effort to bring this bird back to our game pouch. Common sense says that after being sent on a retrieve, if the dog stopped again on the flush without giving chase, the wounded bird might never be recovered. With that said, the dog should be allowed a reasonable time (and distance) to chase and catch the bird if needed. After a reasonable effort (judges should decide), the handler should be required to recall the dog back to the hunt area if the retrieve was unsuccessful. If the dog won’t return, then it is not demonstrating enough control to pass the test. In the scenario as I described it, the dog did more things right than it did wrong. It certainly did more things right than either the handler or judges. It was steady when both birds flushed while it was quartering. It brought a crippled bird back that might have been lost while actually hunting. Remember what I said in the first scenarios about sharing the blame? The handler made a mistake by immediately trying to stop the dog when the bird it was sent to retrieve flushed again. He should not have blown the whistles. Besides sending mixed signals to the dog, the handler in effect told the judges he did not want the dog to retrieve the bird. The two or three quick whistles the dog ignored (probably instinctively blown) confirmed to the judges that the handler did not have control of the dog. For their part, the judges should probably have not allowed him to send the dog for a bird they knew was not hit. The dog had completed the required portions of the test in fine fashion. Asking the handler to re-heel the dog would have been the best course of action. Region 7 Field Rep Paul Ramponi offered an excellent suggestion for handlers faced with retrieving a wounded bird: “Say the word fetch as the dog gets near this type of bird. The dog will understand that he is to retrieve this bird no matter what. The Judges will understand the handler has given the OK for the dog to give chase”. I want to thank Paul for this tip and his expert help with this scenario.
Good luck to those heading to Canada to run the Spring Grand.
I had the pleasure of judging the last Grand held in Canada and I can
assure you our good friends and fellow HRC members up north are gracious hosts
who will conduct an outstanding event. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |