August – September, 2006
One
of the things I try to do with this column is provide the membership with
current information regarding our rules and policies that affect judging and
our testing procedures. Some changes in
these areas were adopted at the 2006 HRC National Meeting in
New Running Rules, effective
The
HRC Board of Directors voted on four running rule change proposals. Two were changes proposed in the Seasoned
category, one each concerned the Finished and Grand testing levels. Two proposals passed, and two failed. The two running rule changes that passed,
which will become effective on
1) The Seasoned hunt test blind retrieve distances for
both land and water were increased. The
rulebook will read: “The land blind
retrieve maximum test distance will not exceed sixty (60) yards. The water blind retrieve maximum test
distance will not exceed sixty (60) yards.”
2) The Finished test description was changed to
read: “Part of the test must include a
diversion as the dog returns to the retrieving line from a blind, walk-up, or
the return from a marked retrieve.”
The proposal increasing the Seasoned
blind distance passed by a vote of 59 for and 28 against. The justification for the Seasoned
distance proposal stated: “At present
there is a difference of 60 yards between the Seasoned and Finished level. This change would narrow the gap to 40
yards.” Although its water under the
bridge, I’m still waiting for somebody to explain that to me. I think the discussion on the floor had more
to do with the proposal passing than the obtuse wording of the
justification. Proponents of the
increase noted that our retrievers are better, and our training is far better now
than a few years ago. They scored
another big point by saying there were several test sites, particularly water
sites, where the judges could use a few more yards to get a Seasoned blind
across a pond or channel. While I can’t
disagree with either of those statements, I didn’t think they were strong
enough reasons to win the vote, but obviously I was in error. That said, I have some reservations about
increasing the Seasoned blind distance which I hope
I’m wrong about as well. I’ll share a
couple of those concerns with you. First
and foremost is it seems to me that the 40 yard Seasoned
blind distance standard has served us well for over 20 years. Now, because we have better dogs and we’re
better trainers, we decide to increase the blind distance. Is this not akin to saying
because basketball players are taller now, and stronger and faster than a few
years ago, we should raise the height of the rim a foot or so? Sixty yards is a distance 50% greater than
40 yards. It is akin to increasing the Finished blind from 100 yards to 150, which of course is the
Grand blind retrieve distance. I recently
heard another reason to justify lengthening the Seasoned
blinds. It seems some handlers are only
teaching 40 yard blinds to pass the tests and their dogs are really struggling
when it comes time to step up to run a Finished blind. There are some who
believe increasing the distance to 60 yards on Seasoned
blinds will force these folks to train their dogs to run blinds better. I’m
confused. Do we have better dogs now, or not?
Do we have better trainers now or not?
What
concerns me more than the extra 20 yards the dogs might have to cover is the
fact that we seem to be saying our judges need the extra yardage to properly
evaluate the retrievers. Good judges
understand that a good blind setup is not about distance. I’ve seen some great Grand blinds run well
under Finished blind distances, and some very short
Finished blinds that were all the dogs wanted.
Good judges understand that evaluation
is about judging the control and cooperation a dog exhibits on the way to
picking up the bird, regardless of distance. For those without a firm grasp on
that concept, it’s unlikely the extra yardage will make them better judges or
help them make better decisions. In
spite of my reservations, a part of me welcomes the increased distance. I know
what its like to have to abandon a beauty of a blind because the rangefinder
says its 42 yards and there is no way to get closer. I hope my concerns about judges who might
decide distance trumps quality setups and proper evaluation are proven to be
unfounded.
The
Finished test description change passed by a vote of 76 to 11. It will allow judges to throw the diversion
when the dog is on the way back from a blind.
The current wording required that the diversion be thrown in conjunction
with the marks. This gives the judges
more flexibility in their test setups and probably should have been changed
years ago.
I
suppose I should mention the two rule change proposals that failed. A proposal to fail Seasoned
dogs for switching to the diversion did not pass by a vote of 43 yes to 44 no
votes. The vote was much closer than I
imagined it would be. Apparently there
is some very strong support in the ranks for failing Seasoned
dogs that switch on diversions, which surprises me. It will be interesting to see if this
proposal comes back to life in a couple of years.
Finally,
the proposal which probably generated the most speculation and passionate
discussion both prior to and during the National Meeting came to a vote. This was the proposal to eliminate the
New HRC Policies, effective
As
many of you understand, in addition to the white section of our rulebook, HRC
has many other policies and procedures that govern our operations. These policies and procedures are adopted
from various sources, including UKC, the HRC Executive Committee, the HRC Board
of Directors, Running Rules Committee Review, etc. At the 2006 National Meeting, the HRC
Executive Committee asked the Board of Directors to formally accept a couple of
policies they proposed.
1) HRC Firearm Safety Policy:
HRC
has adopted the policy of the International Hunter Safety Association. This comprehensive policy covers basic safety
rules for safe handling of firearms, such as:
assume every gun is loaded, control the muzzle, keep your finger off the
trigger until ready to fire, etc. Portions
of this universal gun safety policy have been specifically altered to apply to
our HRC testing program. This specific
set of guidelines for handling guns and their safe use now gives us something
to point to when we say HRC is serious about gun safety in our hunts.
2) HRC Policy Regarding Lightning Safety:
Everyone
involved in outdoor activities knows the dangers of thunderstorms and
associated lightning strikes. Until now,
HRC had no formal policy regarding lightning safety at hunt tests. This policy emphasizes safety first and offers
guidelines to hunt committees to make a determination to suspend, continue, or
resume a hunt should lightning threaten.
The policy tells how to recognize how far away lightning is and when to
seek safe shelter. It identifies safe
shelter and what to do when no safe shelter is within a reasonable distance,
etc.
Copies
of both these policies will be made available to the clubs on the HRC website
and the club CD. In addition to the
policies adopted regarding firearm and lightning safety, the HRC Board of
Directors made a change to the requirements to obtain an
3) Upland Judge Requirement Changed
Prior
to this policy change, to become an Upland Hunt Test Judge an individual had to
first be a licensed Seasoned or Finished judge.
The new policy adopted at the 2006 BOD meeting removes this
requirement. The policy also establishes
an AA Upland Judge Designation, which works exactly like the AA Judge Designation
for our other testing levels. All
currently licensed Upland Judges will automatically be grandfathered in as AA
Upland Judges immediately. Persons
applying to become Upland Judges either by grandfathering at a prelim or
apprenticing at regular Upland Hunt Tests will need to apprentice under an AA
Upland Judge. It was the desire of the
board that folks who primarily upland hunt and are not licensed Seasoned or
Finished judges, not be precluded from becoming Upland Hunt Test judges. This policy change should accomplish that and
help add to the pool of
Scenario:
The Seasoned dog was bringing back the
second bird of the double marked retrieve when the diversion was thrown. The dog dropped the mark at the handler’s
feet and went for the diversion. The
handler could not stop the dog. It
delivered the diversion, then picked the mark up off the ground and delivered
it to hand.
Question:
How
should the judges look at this and does this dog’s performance warrant a
failing score at the Seasoned level?
Answer:
This
scenario came up in a discussion about diversions at the Judges and Handlers
Seminar held at the recent HRC national meeting.
The
first thing that is obvious to me is the dog switched birds. Remember, switching is defined in our
rulebook under the Seasoned Hunt Test Guidelines on page 41, item VI as
“dropping one bird and picking up the other bird”. Granted, most switching occurs in the field,
before a dog makes it back to the retrieving line, but nevertheless, the dog
switched. While this is not a failure in and of itself at Seasoned, it is a
markdown and demonstrates a lack of control.
The dog demonstrated additional lack of control in a couple more areas,
those being delivery and lack of response to commands from the handler.
Under
Delivery on page 30 of our HRC rulebook, it is clearly stated that a retriever
should promptly return to the Handler with the bird and deliver it in such a
manner as not to risk losing it if it were a cripple. The second paragraph of this same section states
that a retriever can be failed for failure to deliver to hand (to the area of
the Handler in Started). Did this dog
fail to deliver to hand and should it be failed for it? Yes and No. How’s that for an answer! Yes in that it failed to deliver the bird in
the manner we all desire, promptly and to hand.
It did eventually pick up the mark and deliver it to hand. It should not
fail for not delivering to hand in this circumstance. How many times have we
seen a Seasoned dog switch to a diversion bird,
deliver it, then go back and pick up the mark it dropped in the field? How many of you would consider failing the dog
for this because it did not deliver the mark to hand? I hope none of you. While I’m on the subject of delivery, let me
take the opportunity to share some thoughts with you on how I personally score
and evaluate delivery.
Our
rulebook, again under Delivery on page 30 says a retriever should be marked
down for repeated dropping or mouthing of the bird, or failure to return
promptly to the line with the bird. As a
judge, when I see a dog stop and drop a bird, it always gets my attention. How
much attention I pay depends on what the dog does after it drops the bird. Let me explain. Any dog might on occasion drop a bird, even a
Grand dog. Sometimes a dog stumbles and
looses its grip on the bird; sometimes it might drop a bird as it stops to
shake after coming out of the water or drop it shaking water out of its ear,
etc. Sometimes the dog drops the bird at the line thinking the handler had it
in their hand. If the dog picks up the
bird immediately and without handler intervention, I consider it an inadvertent
drop and I pay no more attention and in fact usually don’t note it on my
judge’s sheet. If on the other hand, the
dog shows reluctance to pick the bird back up, and/or the handler becomes
involved, I’m making a note. In fact, I
note every bird dropped that meets this criteria with a “D” on my sheet. Often, a quiet reminder to “fetch it up” or
“here” will get the dog going again.
When a dog ignores those commands, I’m making more notes. When a handler is raising their voice toward
the level of intimidation and repeating commands, I’m really paying attention
and starting to ask myself if there are delivery issues here. Here’s how I look at this for each testing
level.
If
it’s a Started dog, I’m hoping the handler will encourage the dog to pick up
the bird and bring it in with either voice or whistle commands. Most Started judges understand that proper
test setups are the key to encouraging good delivery for inexperienced dogs,
but that’s another article. A Seasoned
dog should exhibit “reasonable control” according to our rulebook and I’m not expecting
perfect delivery from them on every bird.
The Finished dog should remain under control at all times and respond
promptly to commands. If a Finished dog
drops multiple birds in a test and must be told to fetch those birds up
repeatedly, there is a point where the delivery problem is excessive and a
failure is warranted. I might add that
the same goes for “sticking” problems where the dog refuses to let go of the
birds.
The
Seasoned dog in our scenario deserves a serious markdown, but unless it had
delivery or other control problems on other retrieves, I personally would not have
failed this dog. Interestingly, this
exact scenario occurred at a Finished water test I
judged recently. The diversion was
thrown well to the side of the dog, but a strong current was carrying the duck
past the line as the dog delivered a mark.
The dog spit the mark at the handler’s feet and jumped in the water to
get the diversion. I suppose the strain
of looking at the diversion floating by was simply more than the dog could
bear! My co-judge and I failed the dog
for switching. Now I have an interesting
question to pose to the judges among my readers. If this Finished dog
had spit a mark out at the handlers feet, retrieved and delivered another mark,
then picked up the first one and completed delivery of it, how would you judge
it? Drop me an e-mail (no pun intended)
and let me know. In our next scenario,
the judges provide a gunner for a handler, but deny his other request.
Scenario:
The Finished handler could not work the
pump action of the shotgun due to a shoulder socket injury. The handler asked the hunt test secretary
prior to the event if someone could shoot for him. The club agreed and a gunner was
provided. At the retrieving line the
handler asked the judges if it would be okay for him to hold an empty gun and
point at the marks as they were thrown to help the dog mark the birds off the
gun. The judges denied this request.
Question:
Where
the judges correct in not allowing the handler’s request or should they have
said okay?
Answer:
One
of the field reps sent this to me by e-mail, saying he heard this happened at a
hunt. The rep said he was told the marks
were thrown right, 160 degrees left, and then back up the middle. He noted this test required plenty of head
movement to see all the throws. The rep
asked my opinion on this and if I thought the judges would be giving the
handler any additional advantages by allowing him to point an empty gun at the
marks.
If
the handler was physically capable of safely holding and pointing an empty gun,
then I believe he should have been allowed to do so. Unless I’m missing something, I can’t see any
reason for denying the request. This dog
had the disadvantage of trying to follow the marks with another gun firing
nearby. Letting the handler point a gun
at the marks would at most help offset this distraction.
Let
me say a few more things about handlers shooting in a test. In the interest of full disclosure, I will
admit that using the gun in our tests can be intimidating to new handlers. Even those handlers comfortable with guns and
shooting can find it daunting to watch the dog and the birds and shoot at the
same time. And just because a person is
a hunter or experienced shooter does not guarantee they understand how to use
the gun in a test. Using the gun well is
more than just pointing it in a safe direction, taking the safety off when the
bird is thrown, and shouldering and shooting at the top of the arc. A handler can help or hinder their dog’s
ability to mark the birds by how they use the gun. Watch some inexperienced handlers, and then
watch a few very good Finished or Grand handlers and you’ll easily see what I
mean. Handlers who understand the gun
and its impact on the dog know that poor gun work can cause real problems for
the dog. Often there is shooting in a
test a handler has no control over. As
evidence, I give you the honor handler who is told to shoot at a mark or two
along with the working dog. By shooting at the wrong time, shucking the gun at
the wrong time, or sometimes just loading it at the wrong time, an honor
handler can cause real problems for the working dog. I wonder how many judges understand this and
stay in tune with what’s going on with the shooting in their tests?
There
are some fine articles in this and other magazines about training
retrievers. I’d like to see an article
on correctly using the shotgun in HRC tests, complete with tips and tricks and
dos and don’ts and other information to help our handlers. The article would have to be written by an
HRC member, highly experienced at running HRC hunt tests, and an excellent
amateur or pro dog trainer. Anybody up
to the challenge? I’ll leave you with one final question about
shooting in a test. If the judges allow
a designated shooter for a handler, and the shooter is unsafe with the gun, is
the dog disqualified? What do you
think?
As always, I appreciate those of you kind enough to send me your thoughts and scenarios. By the time this magazine is out, the fall hunt tests will have begun in many regions. Good luck and good training.
We hope the “Judge’s
Corner” will both entertain and inform you.
Please send your questions and scenarios to Tim at:
judgescorner@huntingretrieverclub.org