Judge’s Corner  April - May, 2007

 2007 HRC rulebook errors:  By now most of you realize there are a couple of mistakes in wording in the new rulebook.  I don’t know how these errors got by the proofreaders but I can assure you there is no conspiracy to keep the Seasoned blind retrieve distance at 40 yards as some have suggested.  When the problem was discovered, Claudene immediately put the corrections on the HRC website.  I am addressing this issue here because even cynics who don’t believe anything they read on the internet know they can always trust everything I say in the Judges Corner!  Seriously, I simply want to advise everybody of the proper wording and to let you know how your rulebooks will be corrected. The sentences in Item I of the Seasoned Test Rules on page 40 addressing the distance of the blind should 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.  The second rulebook mistake is in the first sentence of item V. in the Finished Guidelines on page 47.  The word “marked” should be struck and the sentence read:  “The diversionary bird can be thrown as the dog returns from any retrieve.”  UKC has printed a correction somewhere in this issue of Hunting Retriever that can be put in the rulebook.   

2007 Judges Test update:  I wanted to give you a quick update and some statistics regarding the 2007 Judges Test.  As of March 15^th, 193 judges had taken the test.  Two failed, missing nine and ten questions respectively.  These 193 judges missed a total of 390 questions.  On average, our judges are doing very well on the test.  The most missed question was number 4, followed by questions number 1, 23, and 24.  If you’ve not yet taken the test, and plan to, look at these questions closely and read the rulebook carefully.  In the next issue, I may get into the specifics of some of the questions that are stumping our judges.   

The scenarios in this Judges Corner will focus on evaluating an upland retriever’s performance. I hope to show you that the mechanics and timing of shooting in the Upland as I described in the last issue works hand in glove with proper evaluation.  If you recall, in my last column I covered two scenarios involving our HRC Upland Hunt Test. I discussed when gunners should be released to shoot at a bird, and what our rulebook says about natural flushes versus the use of devices to contain and then release birds during the quartering test.  I didn’t mix any words when explaining the reasoning behind having the gunners wait to fire their live loads at a flushing bird until after the handler has shot.  I was equally clear in my elucidation of the use of natural flushes in Upland hunt tests.  Predictably, I had an Upland judge write to say he disagreed with my interpretations on both the shooting issue and flushing of birds. I’ll tell you what he said and his reasoning.   First, I want to thank him for writing because his letter is what moved me to decide to continue a discussion of the Upland.   

It might surprise the judge to learn that I agree with several statements he made in his letter.  He said that in most instances of upland hunting, the dog is not marking off of the gun of the handler.  And the dog does not notice or care who shoots the bird.  True.  He noted that if a bird flushes left or right of the handler, the gunner on that side would most likely be the shooter of that bird.  Again, I agree.  But he said a couple of other things which tells me I need to help him grasp the big picture and the difference between actually hunting and gunning in an Upland Hunt Test.  He said, “There are always stories of safety violations that can be told, but your use of safety for validating your interpretations of the rules is not appropriate.”  Really?  He said that to require that a handler shoots before the live gunners seems to be restrictive and could lead to more safety issues, i.e., a handler shooting across one of the gunners.  He believed a better approach was to let the gunners wait until the dog was stopped and under control, then the gunners could drop the bird.  Interesting. 

In my last article I noted specifically what our HRC rulebook said about the handler shooting. “The Handler will shoot the gun (popper), and the gunners may kill the bird.”  That wording is verbatim and clear to me.  If this judge wants to say I’m putting my own special spin on the wording, fine.  I’ll take the credit, but I’ll need to share it with all the field reps and Upland Test judges who share my interpretation.  I also think it’s entirely appropriate to use examples of safety violations to explain the rules and reasoning behind them.  I won’t apologize for using examples if it will help our judges recognize the dangers and understand the severity of using live loads in a test.  Let’s look at something else.  I will grant you that judges using very experienced upland hunt test gunners can probably safely turn them loose to shoot at a flushed bird.  But a judge should not confuse his or her experience with that of the club’s gunners. We are seeing many more clubs holding upland hunts, yet overall we still have very few experienced Upland judges, and probably even fewer gunners who have Upland Hunt Test experience.  Many new upland handlers have used a gun in other HRC tests, just not in an Upland test.  Most already understand the penalties for pointing a gun at a judge or gunner.  As a judge, if you have a choice, would you rather take a chance that a handler with a popper shoots across a gunner, or have a gunner make a mistake shooting over the dog with a live round?  Further, when we go hunting, we pick and choose who we’ll hunt with.  There are people I simply won’t trust to gun over my dog.  I’m sure there are a few on your list as well.  Handlers in our Upland series have no choice in gunners.  Their dog is working in front of a strange gun with live loads in it.  Can we not give them some peace of mind by assuring them the gunner will not fire until the dog is steady as evidenced by their firing a popper?  If I’m going to err in interpreting anything, I’d rather it be toward safety.  I hope you agree. 

By the way, the judge writing to me didn’t like the fact that I was also adamant that natural flushes should be used in the Upland Hunt Test.  He indicated he supported using towers.   I think he meant release baskets.  I’m not sure what to say.  I did review my new rulebook and I could not find where it was changed to say Upland judges now have a choice of types of flushes.  It still says, “In all cases, a natural flush is preferred to the use of traps, pens, cages, or other devices designed to contain and then release birds during the quartering test.”   

Many clubs are learning to overcome what can often be very adverse test conditions considering the time of year Upland Hunt Tests are often scheduled, and they are putting on great events.  I had the privilege of judging the Central Kentucky/Inducky HRC dual upland hunt this past February.  Region 8 Field Rep Mike Witt came down to lend a hand.  Mike and I served as the AA judges.  It was very cold and there was snow on the ground.  The clubs obtained quality birds raised on the hunt site.  We were able to use natural flushes in seven of eight tests with baskets used in only one.  A comprehensive gunners briefing was held early Saturday morning where the gunner’s role and responsibilities and safety was explained.   Handlers were allowed to sit in if they wished.  I have to compliment the club in their choice of gunners.  They were among the finest I have had the pleasure of working with.  When a shot was in doubt, they always erred on the side of safety.  It was a real pleasure to work with these clubs and new judges and I have no doubt they will put on some quality Upland hunts in the future.  I want to especially thank Mike for sharing his wealth of upland testing experience and knowledge with everyone.  Let’s get to our first scenario.   

Scenario: 

The upland retriever was quartering the field when it hit hot scent.  It quickly found the bird which attempted to take flight.   The bird was weak and jumped up to about head height before coming back down a few yards away.  The dog ignored the first whistle on the flush, continued pursuit, and then caught the bird.  The handler did not shoot at the bird. 

Question: 

Did this dog break? 

Answer: 

We cannot consider this a break.  From time to time in an Upland test, a dog will catch a weak bird immediately, or pursue it a short distance and catch it.  It happens in hunting as well.  The Guidelines for Judging Upland Hunt Tests on page 59 of our rulebook states, “A dog that does not stop on the handlers command should be assessed a markdown for a refusal, the severity of which will be determined by the conditions of the test and the individual flush.  That said, if a bird will not flush properly, we simply can’t fault a dog for attempting to catch it.  An experienced Upland Test handler only blows their whistle on a good flush.   A no-bird should have been declared and another bird immediately planted for the dog in our scenario.  It’s the opinion of most experienced upland judges I know that if a dog catches two birds in a row, judges should bring the dog back for a re-run.  If the bird flushed properly, i.e. up and away from the dog, then we should expect the dog come to a stop on its own or on the command of the handler.  Our rulebook says the dog should “stop within a reasonable distance after the flush to allow the Handler and gunners a clean and safe shot”.  Reasonable would be while the bird is well within gun range.  And please note there is nothing in the rules about stopping on one, two, or any specified number of whistles.  Job one of a handler is to stop the dog to steady it.  Only then should the popper be fired.  The handler can shoulder the gun and shoot up into the air if they can’t safely shoot directly toward the bird.  The popper shot being the signal that the dog is steady and under control, the gunners can now kill the bird if they have a safe shot.   

Let’s consider a dog that really is breaking. The bird flushes well, but the dog won’t stop on any whistles.  It is chasing a bird it can’t possibly catch, or perhaps it finally gives up and stops when the bird flies out of the field or over the hill.  There is no need for the handler to fire their popper, and certainly no need for the gunners to shoot.  In fact it might be unsafe to do so.  This dog did not stop within gun range and should fail for breaking.   

How about a dog that moves after it has stopped once on the whistle and must be stopped again?  Was it moving to see the bird better, or did it break after the handler’s or gunners shot or when the bird hit the ground?  No foul or penalty for the former and a markdown for a controlled break for the latter if the dog is stopped successfully again.  We have another issue if the bird is killed close to the dog. This is blatantly unfair and a no-bird should be declared.  Smart upland handlers will make sure there is a little distance between the dog and the bird when it’s killed by holding their popper shot up a second or so.  Yet another reason in addition to the gun safety ramifications to have the gunners fire only on report from the popper shot.    I should not have to say that gunners are never cleared to fire if a dog is moving.  Now let’s look at a scenario involving what is perhaps the hardest call for an Upland judge to make. 

Scenario: 

The dog at the Upland Hunt Test was released to quarter.  It was reluctant to leave the handlers side even after being coaxed repeatedly to do so.  The dog never put its nose to the ground and never acted like it was doing anything other going out for a walk or to air.  It kept returning to the handler.   The judges failed the dog for lack of quartering.   

Question: 

Did the judges make the correct call? 

Answer: 

I suspect there’s not a judge reading this that won’t agree this dog should have failed.  This scenario is cut and dried and neat and clean and we’re satisfied we made the correct call.  If only it were this easy actually judging quartering in a real Upland Hunt Test.   I believe there are three primary reasons a lot of HRC judges struggle or even fail at evaluating quartering properly.  Let’s look at each. 

1)  Judging a dog on its quartering skills is a very subjective call, which makes it inherently difficult.  In my opinion it’s the most subjective call we ask our HRC judges to make about any trait we judge at any testing level.  Some of you might disagree, citing the difficulties in judging say, blind retrieves, and making pass or fail decisions about a dog’s control.  When you judge a blind you know where the dog is supposed to be going.  We record whistle and cast refusals to give us some objective measure of control.  The Seasoned blind can be pretty tough to judge, but we just stretched it out a bit to which gives our judges more distance to evaluate adequate control.  Also, if a dog is doing poorly on its blind work, some handlers will make the judge’s decision easy by picking up their dog.  When is the last time you saw a handler pick up their dog in an upland test for not quartering to suit them?  

2)  It takes a lot of judging, training, and hunting experience to have the confidence to make a decision about how adequate a dog is quartering in the Upland test.  There was a rather famous saying that came out of a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case about a topic I won’t mention in this family magazine.  The late Justice Potter Stewart was speaking about the subject of the case when he said this:  “It’s hard to define, but I know it when I see it”.  He could have been speaking about quartering.  I’m going to give you a few more specifics than the good Justice and offer the following.  Our rulebook says the Upland dog should be eager to hunt all available cover diligently and that it should hunt this cover on its own, without continual coaxing by the Handler.  It further states that while it’s okay to use hand, voice, and whistle commands to begin the dog hunting or change the dog’s direction, the test may be failed if the dog is directed by the Handler for every change of direction and to every patch of cover.  What I like to do in my tests is give the dog adequate room to understand it should break away from the handler and show me it will hunt.  I’ll give a slow starting dog the benefit of the doubt and walk a ways further if need be.  I also like to have a patch of cover available close by where a bird might be hiding and ask the handler to direct the dog into the cover.  I’ve been known to “salt” this cover with bird scent or feathers to encourage the dog to begin to hunt.  Region 7 Field Representative Paul Ramponi perhaps said it best when he advised that the upland dog should be willing to go into cover and hunt where the handler does not want to go.  If a dog is running in and out from the handler like it has a retractable lead on it, it’s not hunting.  If it takes the easy way down the field, perhaps trotting down a mowed path, or staying in the shortest cover, it’s not hunting birds.  If the handler is directing the dog back and forth like it’s in the area of the fall of a mark and the handler forgot where the mark landed, the dog is not quartering.  The dog should put its nose down and act like it’s trying to find a bird.  Please remember that a dog might circle back behind the handler or gunners while hunting because we often walk past upland game.  Also, a good upland retriever will often take off after a runner if you are using natural flushes.  This is not your windshield wiper quartering demonstration.  It’s a dog determined to chase down a bird and put it up and this dog should not be penalized.  Now we come to the final and perhaps the most common reason some judges have trouble properly evaluating quartering. 

3)  A real reluctance by some judges to tell a handler their dog has failed for lack of quartering.  It’s not easy to explain to a handler why their hunting dog, running in a Hunting Retriever Club Upland hunting test, is being failed for not hunting!  The fact that the decision about adequate quartering is such a subjective one as noted earlier, and the fact that the dog might have been steady on the flushes gives some judges an easy out to avoid failing a dog for its poor quartering.  Experience and confidence will grow with the number of events judged.  It will become easier for judges to determine if the dog would have actually found the birds had its handler not known where they were placed, or if the handler and gunners would have been as well off stomping the cover for birds on their own.  Don’t get me wrong.  Judges should give every benefit to the dog, but at times it will be necessary to step up and call a spade a spade. 

 It is a joy watching a well training upland retriever work.  The HRC Upland Hunt Test will continue to grow in popularity as more handlers become comfortable with understanding what judges expect from them and their retrievers.  I hope this discussion of evaluating a retrievers’ performance in the Upland has helped you whether you are running your dog or judging.  In the next issue of the Judges Corner, we’ll get back to some scenarios at the other testing levels.    

We hope the “Judge’s Corner” will both entertain and inform you.  Please send your questions and scenarios to Tim at:  

judgescorner@huntingretrieverclub.org