 |
|
|
|
|
Judges
Corner: December 2005 - January 2006 - from Hunting
Retriever magazine by Tim Gibson I
received many positive comments on the Started marking scenario I covered in
my last article and I want to thank those who of you who took the time to
respond. In the scenario we discussed how important it was for judges to
understand and properly explain marking test objectives, and to know what a
Started dog must do to demonstrate acceptable marking skill.
In this issue we’re going to continue with another scenario on
marking and memory. Some Finished
judges seemed to think they’ve figured out a unique way to evaluate marking
ability. In another scenario, the
judges knew what they were trying to accomplish, but it didn’t work out well
for the dogs and handlers. But
before we get to those exciting scenarios I wanted to take this opportunity to
say a few things about the recent 2005 HRC International Grand Hunt held in
Louisburg, North Carolina that I was privileged to attend.
It’s hard for many folks to grasp the scope and significance of the
Grand hunt and its importance to everyone in HRC. There is no question in my
mind that besides the obvious publicity and national attention the Grand
brings to our organization, its existence has helped every person who runs a
dog in HRC tests. We have better
dogs, better dog trainers, smarter handlers, and better judges today and the
Grand should get much of the credit. I
had a chance to speak with several HRC members attending the Grand for the
first time, and with some of the Grand judges, and I think you’ll find their
comments interesting. I’ve also
got some very telling statistics on the dogs’ scores you’ll not find
anywhere but in this column. First
and foremost, on behalf of all of HRC and myself personally, I want to thank
Stacey West and Jay Hinton and the rest of the local Grand committee for all
their hospitality, hard work and effort beyond the call of duty.
Until you’ve been involved in a Grand hunt up to your elbows, it’s
hard to fathom the amount of time and energy and number of sleepless nights it
takes to make it happen. Without
dedicated HRC folks like these who are willing to step up and carry the Grand
on their shoulders, a lot of people like me would not have the opportunity to
run their dog(s) in our premier event. Many
thanks also need to go to Ernie Istre and the HRC Grand committee whose steady
hand on the rudder continue to steer the Grand ship on the proper course.
And without question, we owe a big thanks to the 8 Grand judges.
They gave up the chance to run their own dogs, and in many cases also
gave up valuable vacation time to sit at a test dawn to dusk for 5 days in the
heat, cold, sun, wind and sometimes pouring rain to evaluate our dogs.
These judges work and worry and check and re-check their tests to make
sure everything is right and no detail is overlooked.
Well, almost no detail. There
was a slight problem at three of the first four series.
At the first test my flight ran, the judges had a nifty piece of
equipment that I think should have been mandatory at all the tests.
These judges had a big, red “Easy” button, just like the one on TV,
sitting on a table and every handler that wished to could push the button.
I did, and my dog did well on this test. I
had the opportunity of running two other tests.
I looked for an Easy button at each but unfortunately one was nowhere
to be found. As you might have
guessed, I needed it! I
visited with two HRC members who had dogs in the hunt being run by a pro. This
was the first Grand they had ever attended and they were there to watch their
dogs and to cheer the others on. Both
told me they were surprised at how straightforward the tests were.
Another spectator was overheard remarking, “these test really don’t
look very difficult”, to which a handler promptly replied, “then go get
your dog and let’s see if you don’t change your mind!”
A couple of days into the hunt, a first time Grand judge told me that
after he and his co-judge had initially set up their test, he wasn’t sure
they didn’t need to ratchet up the difficulty level.
He said Mr. Ernie assured him the test was solid and exactly where it
needed to be. He quickly added
that Mr. Ernie was exactly right. The
Grand is a graduate course in judging. I
say this for at least three reasons: 1)
Grand judges learn to keep a sharp mind and develop a good eye for details.
They take these skills back to regular hunts and it shows in everything they
do from test mechanics, to improved test briefings, to the actual evaluation
of the handler and dog’s performance. 2)
Grand judges learn something a lot of our judges never do:
That tests really don’t have to be complex to be extremely
challenging to the dogs. And the
more straightforward a test is, the easier it is to judge because the burden
of passing falls more squarely on the handler and dog rather than the whims of
the judges or some sort of test curve created after all the dogs have run for
the day. Hopefully, some of the
gospel of straightforward testing using appropriate cover, terrain, and
distances for the category being judged will filter down through our judging
ranks. And 3) Because they’re
at the same test for up to 4 days straight, Grand judges have the opportunity
to observe and learn how changes to factors within the test environment such
as wind, sun, cloud, rain, and even glare on water can have a tremendous
affect on the dogs. Trust me when
I say judges who have judged at a Grand gain a new respect and understanding
of test conditions. Many Grand
judges are also AA judges in their respective regions and I believe that much
of the knowledge and experience they gain is passed along to those judging
with them. There
are many of you reading this column new to HRC, and many are training your
first dog. If you ever get a
chance to train with someone who is preparing a dog to run the Grand, do so,
even if it’s to help set up equipment or throw a few birds.
You’ll quickly notice that HRC members training for the Grand ramp up
their training regime, set very high standards for themselves and their dog(s),
and clearly are focused on a goal.
Many folks in our program, running at all levels are reaping the
benefits of training knowledge and experience that is for the most part
willingly shared by those running the Grand hunts.
Just observing great dogs that are handled well makes it a pleasure to
spend some time in a Grand gallery. Running
any level of HRC test is fun and exciting, but there is nothing quite the same
as running a dog at a Grand test. Bluntly, the experience will make you a
better handler. It’s imperative
that a handler has their game plan together before walking to the line and
stays concentrated on each bird and every portion of the test.
So
what makes it so difficult to get a dog through all five series at a Grand?
I believe it’s a number of factors, some in the handler’s control
and some not. As much as
anything, the Grand is an endurance test.
Can the dog handle the stress of training and travel and perhaps
waiting in the truck all day to get to run for only a few minutes?
Can it keep its wits, not getting too jacked up nor loosing focus and
can it string five strong performances together?
A very experienced Grand handler told me you don’t need good luck to
get through a Grand; you just don’t need any bad luck.
The dogs run in order and unlike a Finished test, you can’t pick the
time of day you want to run nor always run under the most favorable test
conditions. The rain starts
falling and when it’s time for you to run, you go to the line.
The wind starts blowing and you go to the line.
You get the picture. A
dog’s fate can turn on something as simple as whether the bird flashes a
wing as it falls, whether it lands in cover belly up or down, or falls in open
water versus landing in a floating brush pile.
And of course there is the precision with which Grand dogs are expected
to perform. There is simply no
room for the type of errors can often still get a dog through a Finished test.
To simplify the Grand scoring system, suffice it to say a retriever can
only have one marginal performance at a Grand.
A handle to the area of a fall on a mark would almost certainly earn a
marginal score on the test. A
second misstep in any other test and the dog is headed home.
A handler is often not sure how the judges are scoring the dog.
Did the dog merely reposition itself, or did the judges see a creep?
Did it make the area of the fall, or did they think it initiated a hunt
short of the fall? Did the judges
determine the dog was having difficulty seeing the handler on a bad cast, or
did they call it a cast refusal? I
could go on but I believe you get my point.
Add all these factors together and you realize why only 43 of almost
300 champions running the event passed. I
promised you an interesting statistic. How
many dogs do you think went through all five series without earning a marginal
score from any judge in any test? The
number is less than five percent of all dogs entered.
Fourteen of the 43 dogs that passed did solid work throughout the
Grand. That leaves 29 of those 43
who at some point were one misstep away from going out.
By the way, please don’t contact me and ask your dog’s score
because I have no idea. I
inquired about how many of the group of 43 earned a marginal at some point
because I thought some of you would find it interesting.
I did not ask for individual scores, nor would I have expected to be
given any. The Grand is not easy
to get through, nor should it be, but I’m still looking forward to the next
one and I hope to see you there. Let’s
get to our first scenario that was prompted by an e-mail I received from one
of HRC’s honorary lifetime members. Scenario: The judges were briefing the
assembled handlers at the Finished test.
The marking portion of the test consisted of a triple with adequate
timing and good separation between the throws.
The judges insisted that as each bird was thrown, the dog must at
least, “turn its head toward each bird to show us it marked the bird”. Question: Must
a dog turn it’s head toward each bird thrown to show it marked the bird as
per the judges instructions, and if a dog does not, would a lower score for
lack of marking be justified? Answer: The
person who sent this to me is a long time and well-respected Finished level AA
judge with, as you might expect, a good grasp of how HRC has historically
viewed the issue in question, which I’ll cover directly. He said that the
apprentice judge said that they were told in a recent seminar that dogs must
turn their heads toward the marks. He
asked me if there has been a change in opinion or interpretation of the rules
and suggested that a discussion and clarification might benefit judges and
handlers. I polled the field reps
on this issue and those that responded shared my concern that this be
clarified. None would admit
telling anyone in a seminar that a dog must turn toward every bird thrown to
show it has properly marked the birds, and I don’t believe any of them
would. As long as I can remember,
HRC seminar presenters have instructed judges that if a handler is able to
line a dog up toward a mark, and the dog goes directly to the area of the
fall, establishes a hunt and picks up the bird, this is acceptable work.
Why do you suppose we say that? Let’s
look at what the rulebook says on this subject and what we teach in our
seminar manual and see if we can eliminate the confusion before it spreads.
The
Started Guidelines on page 31 of our rulebook tell us a marking test is
“designed to assess the ability of the dog to follow the flight of the shot
bird to the area of the fall, and its ability to go directly to the area of
the fall, retrieve the bird and return it to the Handler”.
Under Marking and Memory on page 26, we read that: “A judge must
score on whether the retriever truly marked and remembered the bird or merely
stumbled upon it while wildly running around the field.
Also, a retriever that must be handled to a marked fall does not
demonstrate marking ability”. We
say in our seminars that the skills a retriever should demonstrate when
marking are the following. The retriever should 1) swing with the gun, 2)
sight the bird, 3) perceive the line and distance to the fall, 3) proceed
directly to the area of the fall (AOF) and establish a hunt for the bird.
The
first two skills we assess at the retrieving line and combined, they can
indicate to the judges that the retriever is “following the flight of the
shot bird” described in our rulebook. Experienced
judges understand that some retrievers have the ability to “swing with the
gun” using only their eyes. Many
dogs have great peripheral vision and can mark out of the corner of their eyes
with a quick glance at a bird. Somehow,
the judges in our scenario have made the leap from “swing with the gun and
sight the bird” to “must turn its head and look directly at each bird”
to show marking ability. As one
field rep noted, it seems quite presumptuous of the judges to take this
attitude and it really makes no sense. Let
me ask this. Would the judges in our scenario mark a dog down who did not look
directly at each bird, yet when retrieving the marks, lined it self up and
chalk lined each one? And
further, if looking at each bird thrown is the indicator of good marking the
judges seem to be saying it is, what about dogs that look directly at each
bird as it’s thrown, yet can’t pick up the birds cleanly?
In short, judges should not mark a dog down because it does not look
directly at a bird or the judges didn’t think it saw a mark.
I
am not saying judges should not note issues at the line that might make if
difficult for the dog to focus on the marks. It’s important to note on the
judges sheet if a dog did not swing well with the gun, was creeping, or
perhaps did not turn toward a subsequent mark, etc.
All this information, some of which falls under the category of control
rather than marking is telling, and may end up helping explain to a handler
why the dog was not able to pick up the birds cleanly.
Then again, we’ve all seen dogs that we’d think did not mark the
birds because of their line antics and they would prove us wrong.
You’ll also see some handlers who might not know if their dog saw a
bird and elect to send the dog using their hand which is why we say in our
seminars that this is fine and is not to be considered handling to the AOF.
Experience has shown me, as I would hope it would these judges, we can
only guess how well a dog marked a bird until it attempts the actual retrieve.
The proof in the marking pudding so to speak is how well the dog
proceeds to the area of the fall, initiates a hunt for the bird, retrieves it
and returns it to the handler. By
the way, we do say in the seminar that dogs “must see the bird”, but this
is in reference to the visibility of the bird to admonish judges how important
it is that dogs see the marks as they are thrown. In this next scenario, the
judges set up resulted in testing for switching not with a diversion bird, but
with a memory mark. Scenario: The
Finished test was in the corner of a large pond with very low water.
The first bird of the triple mark splashed just outside the decoys and
the second landed in the corner of the pond over a small levee and out of
sight. The go bird was across the
pond and over the dam. After watching the first few dogs pick up the go bird,
the judges noted that some decided to shortcut around the end of the pond on
the return which put them running right by the second bird that remember, was
out of sight of the handler. The
judges decided some dogs might switch birds as they passed by, so they put an
orange ribbon on the second bird and announced that any dog that went for the
long bird and came back with a bird with an orange ribbon would fail. Question: Do you agree with the judges’ decision and their test set up? Answer: This actually happened this fall at
a hunt test. I spoke with the
field rep that had previewed the test on Friday.
No mention of flagging the second bird was made at set up.
In fairness to all, it appears that nobody, obviously including the
rep, thought the dogs would want to run the end of the pond like they did.
The question remains, was it right to flag the second bird and drop
dogs who switched out of sight of their handlers?
I polled the reps on this and as you might suspect they had plenty to
say. Most of the reps comments
can be summoned up in six words: poor
set up and poor testing. One rep
asked why judges would set up to test for something, meaning a switch, when
they nor the handler could see what the dog was doing.
Another noted that a dog might react differently when it came upon a
bird laying on the ground versus being tested for switching on a bird it had
just seen thrown. For myself, I won’t say this was
a poor initial set up. You can
put a lot of effort in a set up, but it’s often very difficult to see a
problem with a test until a few dogs have run it.
And in this situation, if every dog just came straight back with the go
bird they’d stay away from the second bird.
Like the reps, I don’t think the solution to the problem of dogs
possibly switching when they came by the second mark was to flag it and fail
those that did. I think there’s
an old adage that says it’s always better to repair something right than put
tape on it. In this case, that
would be orange flagging tape. I
would have been proud of these judges had they realized the no-win situation
they were putting the handlers in by asking them to control their dogs off a
bird when they could see neither the dog or bird. A better solution would have
been to throw the second bird where it was visible.
One rep noted he did not think the judges were intentionally trying to
trick the dogs. Neither do I.
But does something have to be intentional to be a trick?
Let’s say somebody spills a large bag of Pro Plan on the backside of
a hill where you’re throwing a mark and the dogs are not coming back with
the bird. In fact, some hungry
dogs aren’t coming back at all! Is
there a lesson here, besides I know how to work a plug in for one of our HRC
national sponsors in this article? Yes.
Change the set up to avoid the appearance of a trap or trick. Make the
concept you are testing for clear and let the performance of the dog fail it,
not the test mechanics. Thank
you for your support of this column during the past year.
I wish each of you happy holidays and a safe and successful hunting
season. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |