 |
|
|
|
|
No-birds... in the scenario below, a Finished honor dog breaks after a no bird was called - from the December 2002 - January 2003 Judges Corner by Tim Gibson
Scenario:
The Finished land test was straightforward.
It included a triple marked retrieve for the working dog with an honor
dog sitting quietly that had just completed the test.
When the last mark of the triple comes out, the judges call
“no-bird”. The honor dog breaks
on this bird and picks it up. The
handler expects to be able to honor again because of the no-bird.
The judges tell the handler the dog has failed because the no-bird only
pertained to the working dog. Question:
Were the judges justified in
determining that the honor dog should be failed?
Answer: At the time this was sent to me via e-mail, I was
not aware it had been posted and discussed on the HRC message board a couple of
weeks prior. I had not seen the
post (in which it was stated the judges “yelled” no-bird) or read what the
various posters said. In my e-mail
response to the individual who sent the scenario to me, I indicated I agreed
with the judge’s decision, based on the limited information I had to go on.
Later, I went back and read the comments on the message board, the
majority of which favored giving the honor dog another chance.
While a few good points were made, I still saw nothing on the message
board to convince me I was wrong in my assessment of the scenario.
As we discuss this, keep in mind we’re talking in the hypothetical.
I’m not exactly sure this actually happened at a hunt test. If it did,
understand I don’t claim to have all the facts, or have them all right.
I do know one thing. This is
most likely one of those situations where the people in the best position to
make a decision were the judges.
The arguments in favor of the honor dog being allowed another run seem to
center on a couple of things. Primary
is the fact that the judges stopped the test so the break should not count
against the honor dog. Someone
asked the question, “How can you stop a test for one dog and not another”?
Another asked if the judges yelling might have contributed to the break.
My first thoughts on reading the scenario were why did the honor dog
handler let the dog pick up the bird? Could
it be the honor handler thought it didn’t matter since the test was stopped?
I don’t buy that because a Finished handler should still know not to
let their dog get a bird they did not send it for, period.
Let’s look closely at this “the test was stopped” argument.
I contend the marking portion of the test was halted because a throw was
not acceptable to the judges. This
is not the same thing as stopping the testing and I’ll explain the difference
to you. Judges can declare a test
stopped for a number of reasons. Among
these might be re-birding, lunch break, equipment malfunction, and on occasion
to pick up a set of marks when a no-bird has been declared (get the boat or the
pick-up dog). When a test is
stopped, judges generally advise handlers they may put their dogs on lead, hold
them, or perhaps if the delay will be lengthy – leave the line and return when
called. I’ve never seen judges
give a dog carte blanche to run around the test site out of control because the
test was stopped for any reason. Am
I mistaken, or does the Finished Purpose and Philosophy on page 34 of the
rulebook not say, “The Finished Hunting Retriever must respond promptly to
either voice or whistle commands and remain steady and under control at all
times”? I find it far-fetched
(no pun intended) to think the dog understood the test was stopped the moment
the judges said no-bird. I contend
that just because the judges “halted” the marking sequence, both dogs were
still being tested and required to remain under control.
The honor dog did not. The
lesson here for the handler to learn is anytime you are on the retrieving line,
“assume you are under judgment unless the judges indicate otherwise”. By the
way, I would give the honor dog another run if its call name were
No-Bird.
I did consider the fact that the no-bird might have landed unreasonably
close to the honor dog, or for some reason been particularly tempting to the
dog, placing it at what one rep called a “disadvantage” compared to the
other dogs. It’s hard to tell if
this was the case from the limited description of the test that was provided,
but it might be grounds for giving the honor dog the benefit of the doubt if it
was. Apparently the judges did not
think so. Yet another field rep said, “My knee jerk reaction was to agree with the handler, but after thinking about it a while, I think the judges were right”. I would suspect many of you might conclude the same thing. Agree or disagree, I hope you’ve at least found some valuable judging nuggets in these discussions.
|
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |