 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
August - September,
2003 - by
Tim Gibson It’s hard to believe that by the time this issue reaches you, summer will almost be over and the hunt test and hunting seasons will nearly be upon us. I hope your summer is going well and each of you and your retrievers are finding ways to “beat the heat”. I had mentioned in my last article that I would be giving you a brief report on the recent national meeting. First, congratulations to our newly elected Executive Committee. HRC has chosen a fine group of dedicated individuals to lead us for the next two years. The field reps once again spent a productive day together discussing judging issues and ways to improve and update the Judges/Handlers Seminar presentation and manual. Due to time constraints, most of you attending seminars this summer will still be getting the present format, with rules and page numbers updated to the current rulebook. Plans are in the works to re-format and streamline the seminar to make the most productive use of the allotted time and to eliminate redundant material. It was decided that HRC would develop a “yearly” seminar schedule. This will hopefully allow everyone more time to plan on attending a seminar should they need one. By the time this magazine reaches you, the seminar schedule for the next year should be on the HRC website. The HRC running rules committee met to review rule change proposals submitted by our membership. We learned that they had received only five rule proposals, four of which they determined were policy matters they could not address, not running rule issues. The time frame for submitting running rule proposals has closed and the clubs will now vote on the one running rule proposal. The running rules committee reported that at the joint request UKC and the HRC executive committee, they are working on a definition of a running rule versus a “policy”. I’ll report more on both of these matters in a later article. Before we move on to the first scenario in this issue, I’d like to remind all judges and anyone applying to begin judging to take the Judges Test which is now available on the HRC website (www.huntingretrieverclub.org). It can be easily taken on-line. First reports indicate most judges are doing well on the test. I received some interesting e-mail comments about both the test and our revised rulebook (and expect a few more), which I’ll report on in the next installment of the Judges Corner. Let’s take a look at our first scenario. I received an e-mail message a while back from an experienced judge who told me of being contacted by the hunt committee with a special request on behalf of a handler entered in their upcoming hunt. The judge asked for my opinion on the following situation. Scenario: The hunt committee advised the Finished judges that a handler who was recovering from some surgery had entered the hunt. The handler informed the club he could not shoulder the gun, but could “tuck it under my arm” and use it that way. One of the judges thought this might be acceptable while the other believed it might be better to let someone else shoot the gun. Question: Should the handler be allowed to shoot the gun with it tucked under their arm, or would it be better to provide a “shooter” for the handler? Answer: Before answering the question above, some rulebook review might be in order. I believe I first addressed the subject of handlers with physical handicaps and shooting the gun in this column almost five years ago (October-November 1998 Judges Corner). A scenario had been sent to me where a handler could not operate a pump gun, but could shoot his over/under (which he’d been using in Seasoned tests). The handler was concerned about how he was going to run a Finished test and shoot a triple. What I wrote back then regarding what our rulebook says about accommodating handlers with physical handicaps and shooting the gun in our testing program still applies. If you’re curious as to how I addressed the handler’s concern, or if you think it might be helpful to read more on this subject, you can find the article from 1998 on the Judges Corner website. And no, I did not tell the poor guy to just run tests where the Finished judges only threw doubles (I had not thought of it at the time). All kidding aside, the following rulebook wording has not changed. From the Guidelines for Conducting Events, page 52, item 35: “Handlers with physical handicaps should advise the hunt secretary of their special needs prior to the hunt date. The hunt committee and Judges will make every reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of the handicapped so they can enjoy and participate in all UKC/HRC hunt tests”. In my 1998 article, I did not address something, which I want to cover now – the issue of “temporary” handicaps (or disabilities). I had one judge a while back tell me they felt a handler with a temporary injury (say a broken arm) that prevented the handler from shooting the gun should wait until they healed before running a dog again. In very short order, I explained to that judge that our rulebook does not distinguish between temporary, or permanent handicaps. Mr. Webster says the word handicap means “a disability” – to make incapable (incapacity) or physically unfit. There is no time frame in that definition either. I had another judge tell me he felt a handler was faking an injury to avoid shooting the gun. Other than the fact that you’re being judged for gun safety any and every time you handle a gun in our tests, is it not more advantageous to shoot the gun for your dog than to let someone shoot it for you? A few handler’s have turned using the gun to “help the dog” almost into an art form. Following the mark all the way to the ground with the muzzle, “pulling” the dog around to the next mark by sweeping the muzzle in front of the dog who is fixed on the previous bird, ejecting the shell at just the right moment to get the dog to turn, etc., and one or two tricks that shall remain unmentioned (because I might need to use them again sometime without getting caught) are but a few of the ways a handler can help themselves with the gun.
Let’s all agree then that handlers with temporary disabilities or
injuries can run our tests, and there is not problem having someone else shoot
the gun for an incapacitated handler. Now
what about the question of the handler who can only tuck the gun under his
arm? The rulebook says, “The
Handler must hold the shotgun in a safe hunting position. During test
simulations, when directed by the Judges, the Handler must shoulder the
shotgun, aim, track and shoot at the top of the arc of the thrown bird”. You’ll
find this wording at every testing level of the rulebook, under Shotguns
and Gun Safety, which used to be labeled “Shotguns”.
By the way, someone wrote me in a panic and said since the Started
Rules and Guidelines now contain the second sentence I mention above (when
directed by the Judges, etc…) which
was not in the previous rulebooks, this must now mean the Started judges (or
if you prefer, “the mean Started judges”) can now tell a handler they must
shoot the gun. Sorry – wrong!
This was added to make the Shotguns and Gun Safety wording consistent
throughout every testing level, and it makes sense.
If a Started handler elects to shoot the gun, the rulebook now
rightly spells out how they are to use it, i.e., “shoulder
the shotgun, aim, track, etc…”.
I would suspect that after reading the above paragraph, many of you
have already guessed the answer to the question in this scenario.
I replied to the judge who asked my opinion on this matter that I
thought it better to provide a shooter for the handler than to see the handler
attempt to shoot with the gun tucked under an arm.
While you may have guessed my answer, how many of you think you’ve
zeroed in on my reason? If you
think I said to provide a shooter only because I just don’t like seeing
someone shooting a gun not fully shouldered, guess again.
I’ll admit that while I don’t like seeing someone not even trying
to shoulder the gun (we’ve all seen Rambo run our tests), sometimes a
handler with short arms and a long stocked gun can’t quite get it fully
shouldered. They still have it
griped tightly and under control. In
the scenario with the injured handler, it’s more a matter of safely
operating the gun than fully shouldering it.
If a person who otherwise would not have a problem shouldering and
pumping the gun can only “tuck it under” their arm, I’m not so sure as a
judge that I need to take the risk that they might not move it or raise it up
quickly enough if the need arose (dog was breaking, etc.).
Better to be safe than sorry. Besides,
letting someone else handle the gun may serve to protect the handler from
additional strain or injury while they mend.
This next scenario came to me from a handler who wrote with concerns he had about what the judges at a test seemed to be expecting from the dogs on the water marked retrieves. The handler began his e-mail to me by saying, “I really enjoy your column”, which of course immediately got my undivided attention. He went on to describe the following: Scenario:
The judges at the Finished water series told the assembled handlers
that they wanted the dogs to “take a straight line” to the marks.
They indicated it was not a problem to run the shoreline when returning
with a duck, but they would frown on the dog taking the bank or finger of land
out to the area of the fall. Question:
Is it acceptable for judges to require retrievers to proceed
“directly” to the birds on a marked retrieve?
Answer:
Be careful, it’s a trick
question (I’ll explain why shortly). The
handler who sent this to me indicated he felt judges were increasingly
“requiring” a straight path to the marks on water retrieves.
He believed this to be a carry-over from field trials and a
“technical exercise” to make the marking requirements more demanding.
He said that in a hunting situation, he wanted his dog to get the duck
as quickly as possible. I agree
that while we all like to see (and we teach and train for) a straight line to
the marked falls and back, we must acknowledge that this is sometimes not the
most efficient or desirable way to pick up birds when hunting.
The question remains, what can the dog be required to do in a testing
scenario?
The answer to the question posed in this scenario is technically, yes -
the Started Guidelines, rulebook page 32, item 4 state,
“…the following should be considered:
Did the dog proceed directly to the area of the fall?” Given
that wording, would it not seem reasonable that judges can require dogs to
take a “straight line” to a fall? Therein
lies the trick I mentioned. To
take the rulebook wording literally would be to misinterpret either the
meaning of the word “directly”, or the intent behind the rule.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the judges, I’d prefer to believe
they’ve done that, rather than to think they were making a concerted effort
to make the marking test more difficult, or require the dogs to run at, for
lack of a better term, a “field trial” standard.
I would remind you that our rulebook says, “The judge will not
require the retriever to run a predefined route or channel.
This wording is in the Finished Test Rules – item IX referencing
the blind retrieve. If judges are
not allowed to define a route on the blind (a test of control to a bird the
retriever has not seen fall), it follows they should certainly not do so on a
marked retrieve. Telling a
handler the dog must take a “straight line” to the water mark is pretty
definitive. I should note that when discussing Finished blind retrieves in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar, we make a point of saying judges should ask
handlers to “run at the blind”, but we say this is not the same
thing as “defining a route. Defining
a route on a blind would be something like; “you must go past that point,
over that log, or between those two trees. In the blind retrieve test, we want
to see if the dog will both take an initial line, and respond to directional
commands from the handler. Again,
judges should not tell handlers the “track or route” dogs must run on
birds they saw fall. So what does the word
“directly” mean? If it helps
you, don’t think of a path or route, but instead, substitute the word
“immediately”. While it is
perhaps not taking a straight line, a dog that has marked the bird well leaves
the line and leaves no doubt that it is immediately progressing toward the
area of the fall. It proceeds
with confidence, does not stop to hunt, is not wandering around the field, and
does not need any aid or encouragement from the handler.
This dog will run past old falls and other areas of suction because it
knows where it is going. The
handler who sent this scenario to me stated, “If my dog runs the bank and
gets in trouble, mark him down”. He’s
correct. Judges should evaluate
how well the retriever truly marked the bird, not whether it took a straight
line to it or not. Our last
scenario involves some “challenges” handlers and dogs faced at a Seasoned
land test. It sort of hits close
to my heart as Kathy and I have a young dog we are preparing to run in
Seasoned this fall. When I told
her I was going to write about this she said readers might think I’m trying
to influence the way Seasoned judges set up their tests or evaluate the dog.
I responded, “Of course you’re right – guilty as charged, but why
stop now”! Scenario:
At the Seasoned land test, the dog got a walk-up bird thrown left to
right coming into the test area. After
the handlers took this bird from their dog they were asked to shoot at the
blind from a position very close to where they took delivery of the walk-up
bird. The distance to the blind
was 40 yards and the path to the blind retrieve was directly under the arc of
walk-up. Many of the dogs running
the blind were drawn to the right, and got back into the area where they
picked up the walk-up. Question:
Is this
a fair test for the Seasoned dogs? Answer:
At some
point you’ve probably heard someone, somewhere, at some time say that the
Seasoned level is perhaps the most difficult to judge.
I believe that to be true, and understanding why will help answer the
question asked in this scenario. Judging
Seasoned is not difficult because you have a group of young dogs that are
unprepared for that testing level or are struggling on part of the test.
That’s not “difficult” – it’s time-consuming.
Judging Seasoned is not difficult because you’ve got handlers moving
up from Started who might not be the most adept at shooting the gun and
understanding the test rules. It’s
not “difficult” to work with these handlers – it just takes patience.
So what’s so difficult about judging Seasoned?
The distances are shorter and the rules are clear.
Let me give you a clue with this simple scenario: It’s Friday afternoon at the hunt site and the all the judges are busy setting up their tests. A casual observer (aren’t they always around during set-up) at the Seasoned land test mentions to the judges that scent from where the diversion bird was to land could interfere with the next dog to run their blind. After thanking the guy, the Seasoned judges agree this could be a real disaster and scramble to fix the problem. Our same casual observer meanders over to the Finished land test site and notices essentially the same thing, which he of course points out to the Finished judges. After telling him he has no business interfering in their test and running the poor guy off, they admit to themselves they hadn’t noticed the conflict. Of course rather then admit this, they immediately point out to all who are listening that they “planned it like that” since “we wanted to see how the dogs react to the suction”, and “they’re Finished dogs – they can handle it”. Are you beginning to get the picture? Judging
Seasoned is difficult for a couple of reasons.
1) The judges have an obligation to keep the elements of the test well
separated and well defined. They
must make every effort
to insure that no one part of the test interferes in any way with
another. That includes scent from old falls or interference of the
marks or walkup with the blind and vice-versa. 2) They have to do
all this on what is sometimes the second best field or pond on the hunt
grounds. Finished judges
may combine test elements and set hazards out for the dogs (if they are
willing to judge how the retrievers recover from those hazards). All this
finally brings me around to answering the question about fairness in the test
I described. The judges should
have seen the problem when the set-up dog or test dog reacted to the walk-up
while running the blind. If they
did and decided to keep the set up they had – they were not being fair.
It’s possible they simply did not notice the “challenge” in their
test during set-up. Many times
test conditions change or it takes a few dogs running to fully define a test.
One of our most esteemed and knowledgeable field representatives
thought it might be important for me to mention in this discussion of Seasoned
testing that the Hunt Committee plays a big role in the success of the
Seasoned test by choosing the test site wisely.
They can really help the judges by understanding the Seasoned
“logistics” I mentioned above. The
rep noted, “It’s very hard to hold a Seasoned test in the corner of a
field – it takes 180 degrees.” I
agree. I
was speaking with a pretty good dog trainer the other day and talking about
running Seasoned this fall with our young dog.
He indicated that besides teaching the dog everything it needed to know
to pass a solid Seasoned test, we’d still better be prepared for a few
things he hoped we would not see at Seasoned.
He mentioned things such as in-line marks, obstacles between the line
and the blind, scent problems, test elements on top of each other (like our
scenario), and blinds between marks. I
of course responded that I was not worried – we have some of the finest
Seasoned judges in HRC in our region! I’d
better run for now – we’re heading out for an evening training session.
I just remembered a few minor things we need to brush up on….
Stay cool, and good training. 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 |