October - November, 2006
I
had more trouble writing this article than any I have done for several
years. I knew what I wanted to write
about for this issue but my problem was sitting down at my desk to do it. Many of you know that Kathy and I just lost Dusty,
our young black lab. We buried him two
weeks ago this morning as I’m writing these words. Dusty had just turned four this past May and
since he was a puppy whenever I worked at my desk, he was curled up under it at
my feet. Hanging on the wall above my
desk is a beautiful framed photo of Dusty and I at the Spring 2006 Grand that
Mike Witt sent me unexpectedly. In it, I’m
looking down the barrel of the gun shooting a mark at one of the water series,
and Dusty is sitting frozen at my side with his toes curled over the edge of a
platform just above the water. His every
muscle is rippling and he’s starring at the mark with the most intense look any
lab ever had on its face. I can’t look
at the picture with dry eyes. HRCH UH
Gibson’s Grassy Bay Dusty, who we often called “Mister” because he was such a
little gentleman, was a phenomenal hunting and hunt test dog. He loved people and he loved to train and run
tests like no dog we have ever had. At
one of the first few Finished tests he ever ran one of the judges turned to me
and said, Dusty is going to be a Grand Champion. We were looking forward to the Fall 2006
Grand, where we were hopeful Dusty could complete his title.
Titles
and passes are wonderful, but more importantly to us, Dusty was a loving pet
and companion who wanted nothing more than to just be wherever Kathy and I
were. He loved Kathy, but he and I had a
bond that is impossible to explain to anyone who has never experienced it. Dusty ran his last Finished test at
In
the last installment of the Judge’s Corner, I asked a question at the end of
each of the two scenarios discussed. The purpose of those questions was to
elicit more thought and discussion among handlers and judges on the subjects in
the scenarios. Since that issue hit the
mailboxes, I’ve had several folks come up to me and give me their answers to my
questions. Now I’d like to take a few
moments to give you my own.
The
first scenario concerned a Seasoned dog that dropped a mark at the handler’s
feet, then went for the diversion. After
delivering the diversion, the dog picked the mark back up and delivered
it. I made the case that this dog should
not be failed for not delivering to hand, but should be marked down for the
switch. I then asked, “If a Finished dog
had spit a mark out at the handler’s feet, retrieved and delivered another
mark, then picked up the first one and completed delivery of it, how would you
judge this?” The answer to this question
is as obvious as the nose on your face.
The dog switched and should be failed.
It dropped one bird and picked up another. If any Finished judge missed this, please
send in your judges license immediately.
And there is a lesson here for handlers…a dog must complete delivery, to
hand, of the bird it has in its mouth before picking up another bird.
The
second question followed the scenario where a handler with an injury who was
unable to operate a pump shotgun asked to hold and point an empty gun at the
marks. A designated shooter would be
firing a shotgun as the birds were thrown.
I asked, “If the judges allow a designated shooter for a handler, and
the shooter is unsafe with the gun, is the dog disqualified?” To answer this we need to consider both the
intent of our rulebook and common sense. At every testing level, under Shotguns
/ Gun Safety, our rulebook states that “mishandling of firearms will result in
immediate disqualification of both the handler and the hunting retriever”. Immediately preceding this statement is
wording describing how a handler must hold the shotgun in a safe hunting
position, and how the handler must shoulder the gun, aim track and shoot at the
top of the arc of the thrown birds. It
is clear the rulebook penalty of disqualification for the dog is meant to apply
when the dog’s handler is unsafe with a gun.
I just don’t see how we can penalize a dog when a designated gunner is
unsafe with the gun. Common sense tells
me we would not for instance disqualify a Started dog if a designated Started
gunner points the muzzle at a judge. I’ve
got some more to say about gun safety and designated gunners in a test later in
this article, but right now, let’s look at our first scenario. The Finished judges decided to change a test,
then declined to offer a re-run to a dog that had failed earlier on it. The scenario is a little long, for which I
apologize, but please bear with me.
Scenario:
The Finished land triple was thrown right,
middle, left. The handlers were told
they would get a diversion when they picked up the right bird, no matter when
that was. They were told they must pick
up the diversion, and then pick up the remaining mark(s), if there were any
after picking up the diversion. The
diversion was thrown up the middle and it was often landing as close as 10
yards from the short middle mark. The
handler in question decided to “no” the dog off the right bird and go ahead and
pick up the middle bird so he would not have to deal with the diversion and the
mark close together. The handler’s
trouble started when the dog wanted to get the right bird. When sent for the middle bird, the dog tried
to split back over to the right bird and feeling he was committed to it, the
handler handled to get the middle one
picked up. The job got done but it was
not pretty, with the dog giving him some cast refusals along the way. The dog then picked up the right bird, got
the diversion and picked it up, and ran the blind. The dog had a couple of cast refusals early
in the blind and rather than fight the dog again, the handler called it in, believing
he was going to be dropped for lack of control anyway with the combination of
poor handling on both the middle bird and blind. After a few more dogs had run the test,
someone advised the judges their test had an “illegal” diversion in it because it
came between the marks. Not true by the
way, but the judges decided that for the remainder of the dogs, they would
throw the diversion on return of the third mark retrieved. They did not mention
anything about re-running any dogs. The
handler in question asked about a re-run.
The judges told him since he picked his dog up on the blind, not the
mark, the change didn’t make him any difference and he could not re-run.
Question:
Should
the judges have allowed the handler a re-run?
Answer:
We’ve
had scenarios involving re-runs in the Judge’s Corner, but usually they have
been with regard to a no-bird, gun malfunction or interference in a test. This scenario allows me the chance to give judges
some tips to help them make the right choices when faced with deciding to offer
any dogs a re-run when a test is changed.
But before getting to that, I feel compelled to point out some mistakes
made in this scenario by both the judges and the handler. If these mistakes had been avoided in the
first place, we would not be discussing the issue of re-running a dog on this
particular test. Let’s start with the
judges and what I believe to have been their first mistake, a poor setup.
Obviously,
these judges had not read the last couple issues of the Judge’s Corner where I
made the case for clean marking scenarios.
I won’t beat that horse again here, but suffice it to say had the judges
decided in the beginning to throw the diversion after the last mark was picked
up no one would have tried to convince them the diversion was illegal. If the diversion in this test was not thrown
until after the last mark was picked up the handlers would not have to gamble
whether it was better to try to get the middle bird out of the way or hope the
diversion didn’t cause the trouble they wanted to avoid. The placement of the diversion could have
been improved. If it had been thrown
well away from the area of the fall of the middle bird, like it should have
been, the diversion would not have caused the anxiety it did. And the judges should not have insisted the
diversion be picked up before any remaining marks. I understand why judges desire that
diversions be thrown after a particular mark is picked up – to give a handler
adequate time to load and shoot. But a
well planned diversion is one where there is ample time for the average handler
at the level being tested to load and shoot after any of the marks are
retrieved. I’ve beaten these judges up
pretty good on their setup and as you might guess, I have some more to say regarding
their re-run decision. But first, let’s
take a look at some mistakes I think the handler(s) made.
It
would seem to me that at least one handler would have asked the following
question in the test briefing. If the
diversion lands near the middle mark, and the mark is still there, what
difference does it make which bird we pick up first? The judges might have thought about that and
after thinking that’s a pretty good question, have replied, “It really does not
make any difference” so pick up either one. The big mistake by the handler in
question occurred while running his dog, and I’m not speaking of the decision
to fight the dog to get the middle bird.
This handler probably should not have picked up his dog during the
blind. Thinking the combination of cast
refusals on the right bird, and early in the blind was enough to fail the dog
should not have been reason enough to give up and call the dog in. Often judges understand parts of a test that
are causing difficulties and accept lapses in control if they are followed by
recovery. A perfect example is accepting
a couple of cast refusals on a point if the dog finally takes a cast off the
point and is handled successfully from there on. And don’t presume because you handled to pick
up two birds during the marking test that the dog is going to be failed. The judges may have a different view of
whether the dog reached the area of the fall before being handled than you
do. Or, when they see good dogs being
handled to more than one mark, they may realize the test has some flaws in it
they did not recognize during setup. The best advice I can give inexperienced
handlers is to simply run your dog the best you can until the judges say
they’ve seen enough. I would hope that
judges would advise new handlers when they felt a dog was out of control and
creating bad habits.
Now
that we’ve gotten all that out of the way, here are my thoughts on offering
re-runs when a test has been changed. There is a simple rule I go by, and no,
it’s not in the HRC rulebook: Any time a
test is changed; all dogs that were affected by that portion of the test that
was changed should get a re-run. As an
example, a dog that comes out of the holding blind and runs up into the
Finished test out of control does not deserve a re-run if the judges end up
changing the blind. In a test where a
cold blind is run and the dog blows up on it, then later a mark is moved
because it was hard to see, the dog that failed on the blind should not get a
re-run. If a blind retrieve location is
moved because the handler and judges can’t see the dog then any dog that got
out of sight and failed the blind before the move should be offered a
re-run. Seems simple, correct? Here is where it gets a little tricky. Judges must be sure that the change they made
did not affect any dog they had already failed.
In our scenario, the handler’s request for a re-run was quickly
dismissed by the judges because he picked his dog up on the blind. Did changing when the diversion was thrown,
affect this dog’s performance? I can
make a case that it did. The handler
would not have fought the dog off the right bird if he didn’t have to worry
about the diversion coming after it and landing close to the middle bird. If the dog had picked up the marks cleanly,
the handler may not have been so quick to call it quits on the blind. Should the dog have been able to “no” off the
right bird, handle to the middle, then still be in control on the blind. Probably, but we can only speculate how much
better the blind control might have been without the handling on the mark. This dog did not have the same test, nor did
it have the same opportunity that every dog had that ran after the diversion was
changed. The dog was affected by the
change and meets my personal criteria for a re-run. Perhaps we’ll spend some more time on this
topic in the near future. If you have some war stories about tests that were
changed and re-runs either offered or denied I’d be interested in hearing them.
Our next scenario occurred at a recent hunt test in the flight I ran and
although I witnessed this, I did not talk to the judges about it until after
the hunt when one of them sent me an e-mail about the situation. I’ve never addressed the topic in this column
and I hope you find it interesting.
Scenario:
The afternoon Finished land series
included an honor. The last dog had just
completed the working dog portion of the test and the judges called for a “by”
dog to run the marks so the last dog could honor. A young man stepped forward with his
dog. This handler and dog were in the
flight and had run the test earlier. The
site marshal was looking for a by dog and some folks in the gallery thought it
would be okay for him to get his dog back out.
One of the judges told him it was inadvisable for him to run the dog
again and they would find another dog to use.
Question:
Do
you agree with the judge’s decision, about it being unwise to allow a handler
who has run a dog once to come back as by dog?
Answer:
For
those of you new to hunt tests and not familiar with the term “by” dog, perhaps
a brief definition is in order before I proceed with my answer to the question
above. After a dog has run the test from
the working dog position, which usually means it’s picked up the marks and a
blind, it normally then moves into the honor dog position. Our Finished and
Grand rules require that a dog honor the work of another retriever. In essence
the honor dog sits and watches the marks thrown for the next working dog. Sometimes a handler will be asked to shoot
while at the honor position, and sometimes the honor dog will be required to
pick up a bird in the test. When all
dogs entered in a flight have run the test, a dog is needed at the working dog
position so the last dog to run can honor.
This dog is known as the by dog, and it is of course not being
judged.
I
noted earlier that this scenario took place in the same flight I was in at a
recent test. I had seen the young man
get his dog out and walk up to the holding blind, then back again but really
didn’t pay much attention beyond that. One
of the two very experienced licensed judges sent me a note explaining what
happened. He wanted my thoughts on the situation and had some other questions
which I’ll share with you shortly. He indicated their main concern was the
possibility that if the handler was unsafe shooting the gun while running his
dog as by dog, both he and his dog were still subject to disqualification. After carefully reading his e-mail I replied that
I believe he and his co-judge made the correct call. I had another reason in mind.
The
judge noted that he felt the dog had passed the test. Still, he and his co-judge had not had time to
compare their score sheets, so in actuality the jury was still out on the
pass/fail determination on the dog. That
being the case, what if this was a bubble dog, i.e., a dog with a marginal
performance whose fate could tip either way? How it performed as a by dog might
color their final decision. As an
example, if they thought the dog’s control coming to the retrieving line was borderline,
and they saw the same poor control as a by dog, even the most unbiased judges
might lean toward going ahead and declaring a failure. As judges, I believe it is simply not wise to
allow yourself to be put in that position.
Now
let’s address the gun safety concerns.
The judge asked me what would happen to a handler who was unsafe with a
gun while running a by dog. He also
wanted me to address gun safety as respects handlers who acted as designated
gunners. This might occur when a handler
is shooting for a dog honoring on lead, as well as when a handler who might
have other dogs in the flight or at other levels at the hunt is running a test
dog. And while he was at it, the judge
asked what sanctions if any does someone other than a handler such as the
started or upland gunner, or for that matter a judge who runs a test dog, face
at a test for gun safety infractions? This judge had a lot of time to think on
his six hour drive home from the hunt! Let’s
see if we can answer his questions.
Remember,
HRC places responsibility for gun safety at the test site squarely on the
shoulders of our judges. Judges are to
instruct handlers as well as anybody else shooting in a test on the importance
of gun safety, and the penalties for lack thereof. Handlers can be warned for
various infractions such as leaving the safety off or breach closed after
setting a gun down, or disqualified for a serious gun safety violation such as
pointing the muzzle at somebody or unsafely shooting over the dog. The point of disqualification is to take the
gun out of an unsafe person’s hand for the remainder of the hunt test. Our rulebook makes no exceptions to these
penalties that I can find when a handler is running a dog as either test dog or
by dog. That is certainly something for
a handler to think about the next time they decide to volunteer to do either of
those. I will say I don’t think a dog that is not being judged can be
disqualified. How about a handler who is
just shooting for another handler for some reason? The rulebook does not address this, but
common sense tells me if as a judge I decided a shooter was unsafe, and would
have been disqualified had they been the dog handler, I would not want them to
come back up to my test and actually handle a dog and shoot again. I would kindly inform them they can have
somebody else run their dog if they still had one yet to run. Some may argue with me on that point but I
would again ask this question. Why would
we want someone unsafe coming back to the test and picking up a gun?
That
brings us to how to handle designated shooters who are not handlers. Judges must warn them when necessary, or ask
the club to find another gunner if they determine the shooter is unsafe. I know this is not easy to do, but it is the judge’s
obligation and responsibility to remove and replace a gunner who is unable or unwilling
to follow instructions and whose unsafe actions place hunt participants in
jeopardy. I have asked a club to replace a gunner at an Upland Hunt Test more
than once. I apologize for being
repetitive, but get the gun out of that person’s hand.
Finally,
what about a judge is who is unsafe with a gun, perhaps while running his own
dog as test dog, shooting for a handler, or while carrying a gun around the
test site? I’m not going to surprise
many of you with my feelings about this.
A judge who is unsafe should not pick up another gun that day. Further, I would think said judge would want
to apologize for the poor example he set.
Our rulebook does not address this specific issue. It does say in the
HRC Judges Code of Ethics on page 26 that judges should to the best of their
ability, “Set an example for which future judges and participants will seek to
aspire”. Perhaps this scenario will make
judges who routinely decide to participate in the shooting in their tests to
think a little more about that. I hope
I’ve given all of you some food for thought.
I’m going to close with something Claudene is always reminding us to do. It’s a short admonition that has hit
particularly close to Kathy’s and my heart as of late. Please, hug your dogs.
We hope the “Judge’s
Corner” will both entertain and inform you.
Please send your questions and scenarios to Tim at:
judgescorner@huntingretrieverclub.org