 |
|
|
|
|
Judges
Corner December 2004 – January 2005 - from Hunting
Retriever magazine by
Tim Gibson I received a number of interesting e-mails in response
to my last article and the blind retrieve scenarios. One licensed Seasoned
judge who is running Finished tests, and I presume is working toward a
Finished license had some questions about a particular statement I made in the
article. I had said that if I
have determined that the dog’s performance was weak or marginal in the
morning, but had not yet warranted a failure, I was looking for a much
stronger performance in the afternoon test, and that I think handlers
understand and accept this. The
judge asked: 1) Is each blind not
a separate test? 2) If they don't fail in the a.m. and they have a similar
performance in the p.m., how can they be failed on the blind or blinds?
He added, “I’m not sure all handlers do understand and accept this concept of
the 2 blinds being judged as 1.” I had not considered that there might be
some misunderstanding about this. In
a nutshell, this is about how judges evaluate marginal dog work, and how they
decide when it warrants a passing or failing score, which is perhaps the
toughest job judges’ face. Our
rulebook, page 52, item 32 states; “With
the exception of the Grand Hunts, Judges will evaluate the same dogs on land
and water in all multiple flight Hunts”.
We do this to allow judges two opportunities to look at a dog’s
performance before rendering their decision. For your information, this was
added to our rulebook after clubs started running double flights of dogs and
some wanted to leave each pair of judges at one test site and rotate the dogs
through it. I remember Omar
speaking passionately at a national meeting that judges need to look at the
“total dog” before making their pass/fail decision.
A couple of examples might help explain this:
1) A Finished dog marks only two birds of a triple on the
morning test. If this were repeated on the afternoon test the judges would
most likely fail the dog for lack of marking ability, i.e. it could not mark a
triple. 2) Another example might
be a dog that creeps on a couple of birds in the a.m. test.
The judges might have a question mark on their sheets on this, and will
no doubt be looking closely to see if this is repeated in the next test.
If the dog improves, i.e. does not creep it will likely be okay.
If it repeats the creeping the judges can feel comfortable saying the
dog has a creeping problem and although it did not “fail” either test, the
total performance does not add up to a pass.
This same concept applies to the blind retrieve tests.
When a dog has marginal work on both blinds, judges must look at the
total performance and decide which sides of the pass/fail line it falls on. I’ve got a couple of short, but interesting scenarios
to present that actually occurred at recent hunt tests I attended.
I had never seen either situation and immediately knew I wanted to
share them with you. Scenario: The handlers gathered for the afternoon Finished
water test were told it would consist of a left to right triple with a blind.
An honor dog would be on the left and a working dog on the right.
The honor dog handler was to shoot the first mark out to the left. The
working dog handler was instructed to shoot the middle and right birds only,
and then fire a shot for the blind retrieve.
One of the judges stated, “If any working dog handler shoots at the
first bird thrown, they will be failed for gun safety”.
The test dogs and handlers assumed their positions and signaled ready.
The working test dog was one that had failed on the morning land
series. The working test dog
handler was running two more dogs that were still in contention.
You guessed it; the working dog handler shot at the first bird thrown.
Question: Can or should this test dog handler be disqualified for gun safety? Answer: I need to preference my answer with a couple of things.
I ran a total of nine Finished hunts this past fall which would be,
let’s see, about eighteen land/water tests.
In over half a dozen the working handler was told not to shoot the
first bird thrown, so it would seem it was going around.
Although I’m a big proponent of giving a dog every opportunity to
mark a bird, which I feel includes letting the handler point and shoot at the
marks, I must give the judges I ran under credit.
I’d have to say the birds the working handler didn’t shoot at in
these tests were generally short, very visible, and fell in distinct areas.
My dog had no trouble marking and remembering these birds nor did most
others that I recall. Most were
thrown such that if a working dog shot at the first bird, the honor dog would
not be in the blast cone. I happened to be a handler in the test in this scenario
and was standing with the other handlers directly behind the working dog
handler when the test dog was run. I
understood why the judges directed that only the honor dog shoot the first
bird. It came from the same bank
of the lake the handlers were on and a short throw or a quick shot would have
meant that the honor dog handler might be in the blast cone of a shot from the
working handler. In actuality,
the bird in question was thrown high and well out into the lake and the
working handler made a very safe shot, albeit against instructions.
My first thought when all this happened was it would make an excellent
scenario for this column. My
second thought was, I hope I don’t shoot at the first bird thrown!
My third thought was, how are these experienced judges going to handle
this as they had obviously boxed themselves into a nice corner with the
statement that they would fail any working handler for gun safety who fired at
the first bird. They were faced
with disqualifying a handler running a test dog that had two more dogs to run. Now I’ll answer the question posed.
Yes, anytime a handler in an HRC test is unsafe with a gun, they should
be disqualified, regardless of whether they are running a test dog or a dog in
the flight. There might be a
lesson here for multiple dog handlers that volunteer to run test dog.
If you are unsafe with the gun, you won’t be running your other dogs.
Which brings me to this point. I
believe the criterion for disqualifying a handler should be whether they
pointed and/or shot the gun in an unsafe direction, i.e., they were actually
unsafe with the gun, and not the fact that the handler shot or did not shoot
at a particular bird. This
handler did not make an unsafe shot. The
judges apparently realized this, and decided they should not have said
they’d fail any handler just for shooting at the first bird because the
handler was allowed to continue. I
should mention that I saw a similar test setup at another hunt where a shot at
the left bird would definitely be unsafe.
A handler who shot at it was rightfully disqualified.
I happened to be present when this next situation occurred as well.
I can assure you that from the holding blind to the line, I was saying
to myself, “don’t shoot the left bird, don’t shoot the left bird,
don’t shoot the left bird, …! Scenario: The Finished land test was run in a large cut
cornfield. It consisted of a
triple marked retrieve, a diversion coming on the return of the last mark, and
a blind. The retriever had picked
up the marks and diversion and was cast for the blind.
The dog handled reasonably well to the blind, having a bit of
difficulty as many dogs did due to the roll of the terrain and the angle to
the blind through the crop rows. When
the dog reached the orange blind stake and did not find a bird, the judges
both realized the blind had not been planted.
They instructed the handler to “call the dog in”, and from that
point things got interesting. The
dog refused to come back to the handler, despite repeated whistles and
increasingly loud verbal commands. The
dog ran back to an old fall, then back toward the blind, etc.
After unsuccessfully trying to get the dog to come in, the frustrated
handler walked out into the field, leash in hand and caught it.
The handler exclaimed to the judges, “The dog would not come back in
without a bird”. Question: How should this be judged, and did the handler have a
legitimate point which might warrant some consideration? Answer: I covered a scenario similar to this one in the October
– November 1997 magazine where I wrote about a blind not being planted.
I concluded in that article that it was generally accepted in HRC that
the dog is “given” the blind if it was successfully handled to the blind
stake and found no bird. Probably
the most important lesson to come from this article was; handlers should
always have somebody in the gallery watching to confirm your blind is planted!
I’m just kidding, but it’s not a bad idea.
This scenario is really not about whether the blind is planted or not.
It’s about what the dog did when the handler tried to call it back to
the retrieving line. Most often, when judges tell a handler to call their
dog in, the dog has failed the test and is being picked up and the test is
over. It is however, not unprecedented that a dog is called in that is still
okay as was the case here. I’ve
seen dogs called in where a bird has disappeared when thrown into a hole,
sunk, or drifted off with the wind. Further,
the handler’s statement about the dog not wanting to return without a bird
won’t hold much water. Consider
that Started and Seasoned dogs when called in for a re-cast return without a
bird. A Finished dog, which
should be under more control, should be able to come in without a bird as
well. By the way, because they
asked the handler to call the dog in does not mean the judges had
“stopped” the test at that point or stopped judging the dog. Handlers need
to understand they are under judgment at all times until specifically told
otherwise or until the lead is on the dog and they’ve left the retrieving
line. A Finished dog must respond
promptly to voice or whistle commands and remain under control at all times.
This Finished dog should have come back when called.
End of story. Hunting season is in full swing for the majority of us. It’s the time of year when your hard work and long training sessions are hopefully paying big dividends with some great retrieves from your hunting companion. Have a safe and productive hunting 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 |