 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
October - November, 2002 - by
Tim Gibson
Before getting to the core of the
information, scenarios and situations we’ll be discussing in this article, I
wanted to take a moment to share a couple of things with you.
As I write this, our dove season here in Southern Illinois has been in
full swing for over two weeks. Kathy
and I have been fortunate to have the opportunity to go several times and the
hunting has been excellent. More
than that however, the thought struck me that almost without exception we’ve
hunted in places and with people we’ve met all through HRC and our dogs!
Some of these “HRC” friendships forged through training, traveling
to hunt tests, and actual hunting experiences have endured for over fifteen
years. What a wonderful testament
to our organization and the quality of people found in it.
For far too many of us now, the retrievers we started with in HRC have
passed on. I believe those
continued friendships with folks we met through them are a large part of the
legacy they leave us.
On another note, I want to pass something on to the clubs, which might
be of interest and help in promoting HRC in your area.
I’m a volunteer Hunter Safety Instructor for the state of Illinois.
While the basic Hunter Safety course is the same in every state, our IL
DNR (as I believe most states do) gives instructors quite a bit of flexibility
in adding things to the core curriculum which would be of interest or benefit
to the students. This past year
we’ve added a section to the course about gun safety and hunting dogs.
It’s proven to be an immensely popular part of the course.
We’ve developed an informative and entertaining PowerPoint
presentation (using HRC dogs of course) that shows dogs in a variety of
hunting settings and gives the students valuable information they should know
when in the field, boat or blind with their dog or others.
At the conclusion of the slideshow, we actually bring some retrievers
into the classroom and demonstrate some of the concepts we’ve discussed such
as obedience, steadiness, etc. Some
of you might wish to contact the folks that coordinate hunter safety classes
in your state (usually your state conservation agencies) and inquire if they
would be interested in doing something like this.
We’ve exposed HRC and our retrievers to well over two hundred
students and their parents in Southern Illinois just in the past year.
I would be glad to share what we’ve done with any of you who want to
contact me.
If you’ll recall from the last magazine, I gave you an overview and
explanation of the new “AA” (Apprentice Approved) judges program developed
at the last national meeting to recognize those
individuals to which apprentice judges can be assigned at licensed hunt tests.
I want to pass along an update on this as well as a change in how clubs
need to get approval for all the judges at their hunts beginning in January
2003, and say a couple of things about the judge’s test that will be coming
up again this year. Under the new
AA program, beginning Jan 1st, 2003 an apprentice judge can
judge only under a judge who carries the “AA” designation in the class
they are judging in. It will be
the clubs responsibility to verify the AA status of judges they select to
judge after the first of next year. HRC Administrative Secretary Claudene
Christopher has currently mailed out over 300 new judges cards which in
addition to showing a judges name, HRC membership and judging number, and
levels they are licensed at, now indicate a judge’s “AA” status at the
bottom of the card. Updates to
the HRC judge’s database have recently been completed giving credit to
judges for the hunts they judged to this point in 2002. The remainder of
judge’s cards should be mailed by the time you read this article.
Claudene has also advised me that clubs will be able to go to the HRC
website to check a judges AA status by the time this magazine is out as well.
Prior to that, if anyone has any questions regarding their AA status
they can contact Claudene. Please
feel free to contact her, your field rep, or any executive committee member if
you have additional questions about the AA program.
Also,
(beginning with hunt tests scheduled after January 1st, 2003) all
HRC clubs seeking approval for judges they have selected to judge for them
should submit the judges names for each testing level to HRC Administrative
Secretary Claudene Christopher, not UKC.
Some of you already know that HRC will now be administering the
complete judges database and approving judges for all hunt tests.
UKC will mail a club’s hunt test package when UKC receives the hunt
test application fee.
Once again, as in each year the HRC running rules are modified, all current
HRC judges must take and pass a written judging test.
The test will be mailed to each licensed judge and will be posted on
the HRC website. The rulebook is
in the process of being updated to reflect the changes in the running rules I
covered in the last Judge’s Corner. The
judges test will sent to judges only after the new rulebook is completed and
mailed to judges which I would hope would be sometime in December, but expect
will be sometime in January. Adequate
time will be given for completing the test and the deadline for returning it
will be posted on the HRC website. The
test itself will also appear on the website and Claudene has indicated she
will try to find a method by which judges can take and submit the test back to
her online. There are a couple of things I want to mention now about the
Judge’s Test since it might be out before the next issue of HR magazine.
First, all the answers to every question can be found somewhere in the HRC
rulebook. I also want to tell you
what the most missed question was on the last test and caution you that it
might be asked again. The
question stated: “According
to the HRC rulebook, the Judge’s main concern in setting up the most
realistic hunting test for the dog and handler should be”: The answers
to choose from were:
A.
Realism _____
B. Safety _____
C. Bird quality ______
D. HRC Test Rules and
Guidelines _____ The correct answer can be found in the HRC rulebook on page 45, under Guidelines for Conducting Events, item 6. (You didn’t expect a total “gimme” did you?) Our first scenario is quite simple and one I know I’ve covered before. You’ll soon see why I’ve elected to bring it back, and it’s not just because it has happened at least twice recently that I know of. Scenario:
At the land series of the Seasoned test, the judges threw a walk up
bird for the dogs and instructed the handlers to shoot twice at it.
One shot simulated downing the walk up bird while the other simulated a
cripple that sailed away. The
handlers were instructed to pick up the walk up bird, then turn and run their
“blind”. Question:
Was this a legal test? Answer:
No.
In the section of the Judges/Handlers Seminar covering blind retrieves
at the Seasoned level, we show two video clips of judges doing this, and if I
recall correctly, a clip of HRC Vice-President Larry McMurry talking about
this in which he says something like: “judges must have the Seasoned handler
fire a popper at the blind just before running it”.
Larry is of course correct. We
point out in the seminar that what the rulebook (Seasoned Guidelines, page 32
– item V) means when it uses the words “while the dog is at heel prior
to the dog’s running the blind retrieve” is shooting a separate shot,
just prior to the blind, and not in conjunction with other shooting or birds
in the test. So how did the test
get set up like it did? I happen
to personally know one judge in one of these recent incidents and I can tell
you that the judge is qualified, knowledgeable, highly experienced, and a very
competent HRC Finished level judge. The
judge simply made a mistake and rather than the hunt committee catching it,
embarrassingly, the handlers did. We
all make mistakes in our testing, some of which while not making our tests
illegal, makes the going difficult for the retrievers, which leads me to the
main reason I’ve revisited this scenario.
It gives me the opportunity to address two issues.
The first concerns “challenges” our licensed judges face when
stepping back down to judge at a level lower than the highest they are
licensed at. The second is why
HRC requires even experienced people to start on the first rung of our judging
ladder by becoming a Started apprentice. Many of these folks who want to begin
judging have “finished” their dogs and some even have considerable
experience judging retrievers in other organizations.
Before going further, let me thank an under appreciated group of judges
in our organization. I’m
speaking about those who are content to stay at either the Started or perhaps
Seasoned level of judging. I
hear of very few problems in tests that come from this dedicated and
experienced group. They are proof
that proficiency and excellence at both test set up and evaluation builds with
experience at each level. This is
one reason we are encouraging judges to become AA qualified at each level
before moving upward. The
Finished judge who has not judged at a lower level in a long time must be
concerned not only with constructing a legal test, but in setting it up to the
proper standard. A good place to
start is by re-reading the rules for the lower level. I can’t emphasize that
strongly enough. It’s rather
easy to see that dogs at Started are both young and inexperienced, and the
rules are simple. Seasoned is a
different matter. Many of the
dogs might be only one pass away from going to Finished, and many of the
“elements” also found at a Finished test are introduced at this level
(blind, multiple marks, diversion, etc.).
For Finished judges who have not judged at Seasoned in a while, it’s
all too easy to forget to cleanly and clearly separate the elements of the
test. It’s easy to forget that
cover and terrain considerations play an important role in the Seasoned
marking test. To think it’s merely a matter of throwing two birds at legal
Seasoned distances is to fall far short of the understanding it takes to build
a quality set of Seasoned marks. To
set up a 40-yard blind with Finished “obstacles” between the line and the
bird is failing to understand the standards for blind retrieves and control
expected at the Seasoned level. Setting
up a legal test, built to the proper standard aside, the Finished judge at a
Seasoned test must now be very careful to evaluate the retrievers to
the Seasoned standard. We’ve
seen and heard of judges who expect perfection from the Seasoned dogs running
under them because “after all, the test is awfully simple”.
Understand that the double and 40 yard blind is as challenging to the
Seasoned dog as a triple and 100-yard blind can be to a Finished dog.
Earlier I noted that a Started apprenticeship is the first rung of the
HRC judging ladder. I did not say
“bottom” because to decide to get on that first rung means you’ve
already taken a step up. Over 700
judges to date have climbed the judging ladder in HRC.
Save for a few who have grand fathered at Started or Seasoned, most
have done it one step at a time. In
building a strong judging program, and evaluating the challenges we find
ourselves with from time to time as we do so, HRC has learned that to be a
successful HRC judge, to develop the proper skills, experience, and attitude,
a judge must have practical experience at the level they are judging.
That practical experience includes working with more experienced judges
on test set up and retriever evaluation, and running a dog at the level for
which you are seeking a judging license.
There are really no short cuts to the process.
It seems this is the issue where I review past scenarios. I received an interesting letter recently from a gentleman responding to a scenario I covered in the June-July HR magazine. I’ll briefly summarize the scenario once again, and then tell you what he wrote. If you remember… Scenario:
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. The question was did the judges handle this correctly? The gentleman that wrote to me took issue with part of my response where I stated, “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).” I stated that a strong case could also be made that the working dog was “out of control” enough that there might be grounds for failure. The gentleman seemed to think I agreed with the judges that the working dog should be failed for “fighting”, which I clearly did not. That aside, what is interesting is he believes that if the working dog was disqualified for fighting, the judges should have done the same to the honor dog and he makes a good case for it that I wanted to share with you. He also thinks I let the honor dog off lightly and explained why. Although I don’t believe he is a licensed HRC judge, he states that he has been a UKC licensed Master of Hounds since 1985 and pointed out that in the Coonhound events, UKC’s rules state that “Dogs fighting or attempting to fight must be scratched and will be reported to UKC. Attempting to fight is defined as follows – When dog(s) are interfering with other dog(s) by aggressive behavior”. He goes on to say that aggressive behavior would include – growing, snapping, biting, and just plain grabbing hold. What I find interesting is that while our HRC rulebook describes the penalties for fighting (see page 15 – Disqualified for Fighting, UKC Policy) it does not define either fighting or aggressive behavior. I guess for the judges in the June-July scenario, the working dog was “fighting” when it ran up to the honor dog, but the honor dog was not. The gentleman writing me stated that there is absolutely no room for an aggressive dog at a coonhound event with multiple dogs perhaps circling the same tree at the same time. As for my comment about the honor dog and his “territory”, he said that if a coonhound considered the tree his territory there would be a fight at every tree! His final “coup de grace” so to speak was his P.S. that said – “As far advanced as the retrievers are over the hounds as far as handling, obedience, etc., it is a shame that they lag so far behind in this area”. What do you think? There are of course obvious differences in our testing programs. We don’t send more than one dog at a time for a bird (well we try not to anyway), but we do place a lot of emphasis on “control”. While I’m certain I was correct in my assessment of the honor dog’s growling and snapping given our current HRC rulebook wording, does HRC need a better definition of aggressive behavior? I can recall more than one dog running local hunts in years past that nobody wanted to get near, and especially honor with. You knew that if your dog even came close to this dog it would get attacked. The judges’ solution seemed to be to give these aggressive dogs a very wide operating area. I want to thank the gentleman who wrote me for giving us a different perspective and his thoughts on the matter. I hope everyone is having an enjoyable, safe, and productive hunting and testing season. 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 |