 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
February
– March 2003 - by
Tim Gibson
As
I write this, its mid January and we are nearing the end of what seems to have
been for most of us avid water fowlers a rather dismal hunting season.
Veteran retrievers, at least in our area, have been watching mostly
empty skies and eager young dogs have been getting plenty of practice at being
patient in the pit or blind. I’m sure that there are a good many of you
ready to make the transition from hunting to hunt test season if for no other
reason than in training and testing, there are very few “slow” days!
I’m going to do something in this issue of the Judge’s Corner that
I’ve never done since I started writing the column in 1995.
I’m going to repeat some scenarios I had written several years ago.
From what I hear in talking with folks in several clubs, they are
anticipating a larger than usual number of young dogs running our events this
spring, which is great news. Partially
for that reason, I took a look back through the Judge’s Corner archives and
found some subjects I thought our newer judges at Started and Seasoned might
benefit from seeing for perhaps their first time.
Many of you might remember these from 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Scenario:
The
Seasoned retriever was coming in with its second bird of the double when the
diversion was thrown. The dog saw the diversion. It was properly thrown well
to the side of the retriever and not across its return path. When sent for the
diversion, the dog had difficulty locating the bird. After a few passes close
to the bird, the handler elected to blow the whistle and help the dog pick it
up. The judges failed the dog for not marking the diversion. Question:
Were
the judges correct? Answer: The
real question here is: Should a diversion be judged as a mark? For the answer,
let's again look to the intent of the rulebook. As we discussed in the first
question, the purpose of a diversion is to test for the switch. In this case,
will the Seasoned retriever coming in with a bird drop it and pick up another?
The judges specifically test for marking by having the handler shoot at thrown
birds while the retriever is at heel (did the retriever swing with, the gun,
see the birds and proceed toward the area of the fall)? While most retrievers
seem capable of marking diversions quite well, asking a retriever to mark a
fall from one position and then retrieve it from another can be difficult. If
we were to judge diversions as marks, should we not ask our judges to go out
into the field, get down on their knees and look at the diversion from the
retriever's point of view? To truly judge if the dog marked the diversion,
should we not take the dog out to the spot where it was when the diversion was
thrown and send it from there? The judges should not have failed the retriever for not "marking" the diversion. This is not to say the retriever should not be in control, etc., when being handled to the bird. That's a different area of judgment. By the way, our HRC Rulebook specifically requires the Seasoned retriever to retrieve the diversion (HRC Rulebook, page 31). There is no mention in the Finished rules about the Finished dog having to retrieve the diversion (another Rulebook oddity). Our last question concerns a situation that occurred at the Finished level, although this scenario could happen at any level of testing. Scenario:
At the Started water test, the
handlers were told that their dogs were to retrieve each bird thrown into the
pond, bringing the duck out of the water to the handler.
The water was very shallow out to about 20 feet, where the dogs were
then able to swim. The handler
sent the dog as instructed and the dog went directly to the first duck.
Coming back however, the dog “beached” about 20 feet down the bank
to the right of the handler, dropping the duck onto dry land.
Wanting to impress the judges, the handler commanded the dog to
“fetch it here”. The dog
picked the duck up, ran back into the pond and came toward the handler,
splashing in the shallow water. The
dog then dropped the duck about three feet from the shore, directly in front
of the handler. Being a young,
impatient retriever, the dog thought “hey, I brought it to you twice, now
I’m going to come out of the water and I’m ready for my second throw”.
The handler took one step into the shallow water, not going over his
ankle, and picked up the duck. At
the end of the hunt, the judges failed the dog.
In explaining their decision, the judges stated that the dog did not do
as they instructed and bring the duck out of the water. Question:
Were the judges correct in failing
the dog for “not delivering the bird”. Answer:
“Be a good judge.”
These words are repeated over and over in the Judges/Handlers Seminar.
Our judges in the above scenario are certainly in the running for the
prestigious “nit-picking” judges of the year award.
One of the reasons we use retrievers when hunting waterfowl is so that
we don’t have to wade, swim, get the fishing rod and treble hook, or boat
out to get our ducks and geese. This
is a classic case of the judges painting themselves into a corner before the
test even began by making specific demands.
Instead of stating the duck must be brought out of the water, it would
have been better to say the “edge of the shoreline”, which could mean the
edge of the dry land, or water. I
may be wrong, but I’d say most judges would believe that this started dog
did a good job by bringing the duck close enough to the shoreline that the
handler could put one foot in the water and reach down and pick it up.
If the judges were so opposed to the idea of a handler doing this,
perhaps they should have run the test from the dam side of the pond, where one
step out would mean seeing only the handler’s hat floating.
If the handler unconsciously stepped into the water to pick up the
duck, then I would ask, “are we judging the dog or the handler?”
In all fairness to the judges, this may have been the only area
available to run the test in. Started
judges should expect however that when setting up the test in “running”
water, some started dogs will take the opportunity to splash and play around
on the delivery. The same is true
of setting up the test where the dog has the opportunity to “beach” on a
point short of the handler. Many
young dogs will take the shortest route back to land.
Good judges will recognize these factors and if they are unavoidable,
show fairness and good judgment in their evaluation.
Ironically, these judges told the handler they would have passed the
dog if the handler had walked down the bank and picked up the duck from dry
land! Simple common sense can go
a long way in making good judgmental decisions.
What this dog did should not be considered a delivery “problem”,
and should not have been grounds for failure.
In the Judges/Handlers Seminar, we discuss what does constitute a
delivery problem, and how to recognize it.
Scenario: The
Started handler and dog came to the line at the land test, and the handler
signaled, “ready” to the judges. The
judges signaled for the throw. The
dog seemed to look in the direction of the mark when the attention-getting
device was used, and marked the flight of the bird.
The throw looked good to the judges.
After going out and hunting for the bird for a couple of minutes, the
dog could not find it. The
frustrated handler called the dog back to the retrieving line.
The judges asked the bird boy to go out and pick the bird up.
The judges then told the handler they were going to re-throw the bird,
because “obviously the dog didn’t see it”.
They threw the bird again, and the dog got it the second time.
This scenario was repeated for every dog on the test that didn’t
successfully retrieve the bird on the first attempt. Question: Is
it proper and acceptable for the judges to “re-throw” a bird for a Started
dog and if so, when? Answer: My
first thought when told of this scenario was that these judges did not
understand the term “re-cast”. Our
rulebook states in the Rules for Started Retrievers, page 26, item VII, “The
hunting retriever can be cast from the retrieving line a maximum of two (2)
times”. This means the dog
can be cast a maximum of twice for the
same bird, thrown once!
This does not mean the dog can have a bird thrown twice for it each
time. I was then informed that
some of our more experienced HRC judges were involved in the particular
incidents that were being described to me.
Obviously, they understood the difference between a re-cast, and a
re-throw, so I had to conclude there was another reason for their decision to
throw the birds twice for the dogs. Let’s
take a look at what our rulebook says about judging the Started dog, and what
we discuss in the Judges/Handlers Seminar.
The rulebook states (page 21, Guidelines For Judges, Philosophy)
that: “Judges
should strive to set up tests and judge hunting retrievers in natural
situations, evaluating the retriever on qualities desirable in a hunting
retriever”. In the
Judges/Handlers Seminar, we learn that the two most important traits we are
looking for in the Started dog are marking ability, and hunting desire.
On page 22 of our HRC rulebook, Marking
and Memory, it says: “Serious
faults which would be grounds for failure would include:
failure to find a bird”. On
page 22, Hunting
Desire, it states: “A
test may be failed if a retriever: stops
and gives up hunting; shows no interest in hunting a bird or picking it up”.
Using these rulebook guidelines, the Started judge has an
obligation to fairly judge the Started retrievers for the characteristics and
abilities we look for in dogs at that level.
When we talk about setting up Started marking tests in the seminar, we
discuss how important it is to use an attention getting device properly, shoot
the gun without distracting or scaring the dogs, and throw good marks, visible
to the retrievers. We also discuss appropriate cover for a Started dog.
The terrain and cover is appropriate when conditions exist where the
Started dog can get to the area of the fall and find the bird with a
minimum of hunting. We don’t expect the Started dog to respond to
direction from the handler. We
are testing the dogs for marking, not handling.
If the marks are poorly thrown, or not readily seen by the Started
dogs, the judges should make an effort to correct the test.
For our scenario, let’s assume the marks look good.
Does the rulebook give us any guidelines for judging the performance
of the Started dogs? Yes it does.
On page 27, Guidelines For
Judging Started Hunting Retrievers, the rulebook clearly states what the
dog must do: “Was
the dog attentive at the line? Does
the dog react to the attention-getting device?
Did the dog proceed directly to the area of the fall?
Did the dog hunt the area of the fall?”
We talk a lot about “fairness”, and being a good judge in the
Judges/Handlers Seminar. One
thing I always emphasize when discussing the Started test is “Don’t
signal for the throw if the dog and handler are not ready”.
We say that you can’t properly evaluate the dogs marking ability on a
bird it did not see fall. The
judges should delay the start of the test if the dog is obviously distracted,
or not ready. When the dog is
ready, and the bird is thrown, it is up to the dog to proceed to the area of
the fall and hunt the bird. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but not
every Started dog running a particular test may be able to pass it!
As in all levels of our testing program, a lot of dogs are prepared to
do the work, but some are not. Clearly, our rules demand a certain level of
performance from the Started retrievers. Judges who decide they will throw
another bird for a dog who can’t make the retrieves every other dog has been
making in the test are not doing the dog or our program any favors.
Let me close with these questions for you.
Do you think our Started tests are getting to easy?
Are our Started judges putting enough thought and “sweat” into the
tests? Have you seen Started
water tests recently where no decoys were used? Are our Started tests getting
the attention and support they deserve from the hunt committee, or is most of
the effort directed toward the advanced levels?
Please keep your comments, suggestions, and your questions coming to
me. In the next issue of the
Judge’s Corner, we’ll have an all-new set of exciting judging scenarios. 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 |