 |
|
|
|
|
Re-throwing a bird.... from the October - November 1998 Judges Corner by Tim Gibson The Started judges decide to re-throw a bird.
The
first “scenario” we’ll be discussing concerns our “Started” tests, and
is a situation that appears to have repeated itself several times and places
this past spring hunt test season. I
had an opportunity to discuss it informally with several HRC members (judges and
handlers) at a Judges/Handlers Seminar I conducted here in southern Illinois
this past August. Several
individuals expressed a concern to me that this was occurring frequently in our
hunt tests, and wanted my opinion on it. I
have a few thoughts, which I’d like to share with you. We’ll then tackle a
couple more issues that you may find interesting. Scenario: The Started handler and dog came to the line at the
land test, and the handler signaled “ready” to the judges.
The judges signaled for the throw. The
dog seemed to look in the direction of the mark when the attention getting
device was used, and marked the flight of the bird.
The throw looked good to the judges.
After going out and hunting for the bird for a couple of minutes, the dog
could not find it. The frustrated
handler called the dog back in. The
judges asked the bird boy to go out and pick the bird up.
The judges then told the handler they were going to re-throw the bird,
because “obviously the dog didn’t see it”.
They threw the bird again, and the dog got it the second time.
This scenario was repeated for every dog on the test that didn’t
successfully retrieve the bird on the first attempt. Question: Is
it proper and acceptable for the judges to “re-throw” a bird for a Started
dog and if so, when? Answer: My
first thought when told of this scenario was that these judges did not
understand the term “re-cast”. Our
rulebook states in the Rules for Started Retrievers, page 14, item VII, “The
hunting retriever can be cast from the retrieving line a maximum of two (2)
times”. This means the dog
can be cast a maximum of twice for the
same bird, thrown once!
This does not mean the dog can have a bird thrown twice for it each time.
I was then informed that some of our more experienced HRC judges were
involved in the particular incidents that were being described to me.
Obviously, they understood the difference between a re-cast, and a
re-throw, so I had to conclude there was another reason for their decision to
throw the birds twice for the dogs. Let’s
take a look at what our rulebook says about judging the Started dog, and what we
discuss in the Judges/Handlers Seminar. The
rulebook states (page 8, Guidelines For Judges, Philosophy)
that: “Judges
should strive to set up tests and judge hunting retrievers in natural
situations, evaluating the retriever on qualities desirable in a hunting
retriever”. In the
Judges/Handlers Seminar, we learn that the two most important traits we are
looking for in the Started dog are marking ability, and hunting desire.
On page 9 of our HRC rulebook, Marking
and Memory, it says: “Serious
faults which would be grounds for failure would include:
failure to find a bird”. On
page 10, Hunting
Desire, it states: “A
test may be failed if a retriever: stops
and gives up hunting; shows no interest in hunting a bird or picking it up”.
Using these rulebook guidelines, the Started judge has an obligation
to fairly judge the Started retrievers for the characteristics and abilities we
look for in dogs at that level. When
we talk about setting up Started
marking tests in the seminar, we discuss how important it is to use an attention
getting device properly, shoot the gun without distracting or scaring the dogs,
and throw good marks, visible to the retrievers. We also discuss appropriate
cover for a Started dog. The
terrain and cover is appropriate when conditions exist where the Started dog can
get to the area of the fall and find the bird with a minimum of hunting. We
don’t expect the Started dog to respond to direction from the handler.
We are testing the dogs for marking, not handling. If
the marks are poorly thrown, or not readily seen by the Started dogs, the judges
should make an effort to correct the test.
For our scenario, let’s assume the marks look good.
Does the rulebook give us any guidelines for judging the performance
of the Started dogs? Yes it does.
On page 16, Guidelines For
Judging Started Hunting Retrievers, the rulebook clearly states what the dog
must do: “Was
the dog attentive at the line? Does
the dog react to the attention-getting device?
Did the dog proceed directly to the area of the fall?
Did the dog hunt the area of the fall?” We talk a lot about “fairness”, and being a good judge in the Judges/Handlers Seminar. One thing I always emphasize when discussing the Started test is “Don’t signal for the throw if the dog and handler are not ready”. We say that you can’t properly evaluate the dogs marking ability on a bird it did not see fall. The judges should delay the start of the test if the dog is obviously distracted, or not ready. When the dog is ready, and the bird is thrown, it is up to the dog to proceed to the area of the fall and hunt the bird. It may come as a surprise to some of you, but not every Started dog running a particular test may be able to pass it! As in all levels of our testing program, a lot of dogs are prepared to do the work, but some are not. Clearly, our rules demand a certain level of performance from the Started retrievers. Judges who decide they will throw another bird for a dog who can’t make the retrieves every other dog has been making in the test are not doing the dog or our program any favors. Let me close with these questions for you. Do you think our Started tests are getting to easy? Are our Started judges putting enough thought and “sweat” into the tests? Have you seen Started water tests recently where no decoys were used? Are our Started tests getting the attention and support they deserve from the hunt committee, or is most of the effort directed toward the advanced levels? Might these be some reasons we are not getting stronger participation in our Started tests? Let me know what you think. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |