Judge’s Corner     August - September, 2007 

2007 HRC National Meeting - Memphis, TN: 

I always try to take a little time in the August – September column to report to you on our HRC National Meeting, held in June of each year.  It’s really a lucky coincidence that this meeting falls on the same weekend many clubs annually send their representatives to Beale Street!  Here are the highlights for those folks unable to be there, and for those whose memories of the weekend might be a bit fuzzy.   

General Membership Meeting - When we set up a marking test, we advise judges to ask the question, “Will the dogs see these marks”? The highlight of the Friday night general membership meeting was an outstanding presentation from guest speaker Dr. Christopher J. Murphy, DVM., PhD., who helped shed some light on this simple, but deceptively complex question.  Dr. Murphy came to our meeting courtesy of Purina and the HRC Foundation.  He is a Professor of Comparative Ophthalmology and Director, Comparative Ophthalmic Research Laboratories, University of Wisconsin – Madison, author of numerous scientific studies, and a nationally recognized researcher and authority on veterinary ophthalmology.     His presentation focused (no pun intended) on the visual capabilities of animals, especially performance dogs and the impact of vision on their performance.  I had the chance to visit with Dr. Murphy as I helped him set up his computer equipment.  He told me he had about 140 slides in his presentation which could run up to 2 hours.  I was thinking to myself that it would take an outstanding presentation to hold the members attention for even a fraction of that time.  Dr. Murphy did not disappoint.  He was humorous, entertaining, and most importantly, very informative. He graciously fielded questions from a spellbound audience, most of whom learned a lot more about canine vision than they thought they ever would.  Dr. Murphy discussed factors that influence how well dogs can see, their field of vision, and the fact that dogs can see some of the color spectrum.  Most interestingly, he talked about many dogs having visual impairment and the fact that dogs can be tested for their degree of vision loss.  I don’t know about you, but I was not aware that just like people, some dogs are near sighted, some farsighted, and some have what would equate to 20/20 vision.  This varies with breeds and with lines of dogs within breeds.  Dr. Murphy noted that puppies should be given a retinoscopy exam which tests their vision as part of a CERF exam.  He questioned why anyone would buy a puppy with poor vision, or spend a lot of time trying to teach a dog to do long marks that cannot see the throws.  As of now, very few veterinary ophthalmologists are qualified to give this exam but that is changing. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of his presentation was Dr. Murphy explaining that dogs could be fitted with contact lenses.  If you are interested in learning more, I suggest you do a Google search on Christopher J. Murphy, DVM., PhD.     

Board of Directors Meeting: 

Elections - This being an even numbered year, there were no running rule changes but HRC did elect new national officers.  First, a heartfelt thanks to outgoing HRC President Mark Lanier and Treasurer Lora Neans.  Mark has served us for two years and Lora for four.  It’s hard for the average member to fathom the long hours, meetings, phone calls, traveling, and responsibility that goes along with being an HRC national officer.  Mark and Lora deserve our appreciation and a well earned rest.  Jim Reichman has stepped up from the Vice-Presidency of HRC and is now our HRC President.  Carol Ford was re-elected Secretary.  These two experienced HRC officers have been joined by Mike Witt, elected as our new Vice-President, and Mike Dittrich, elected Treasurer.  Congratulations to each of them and best wishes. Without reservation, I can tell you that HRC is in great hands with this outstanding group at the helm.   

Policy Change - Unlike running rules, which are voted on in even numbered years, policies can be brought up and voted on at the Board of Directors meeting.   A change in our judging requirements was made, effective Saturday, June 9, 2007.  The B.O.D. voted to lower the age requirement to apply for a judging license from 21 to 18 years old.  This passed unanimously and it makes good sense.  We have a number of wonderful young folks in HRC who train and run dogs and are avid hunters.  Most are sons and daughters of HRC members who grew up in our organization.  It makes no sense for them to have to wait until age 21 to become a judge, especially with the tools HRC provides for their success such as our seminar and AA judging program.   

Honorary Lifetime Membership Award - The HRC Board of Directors bestowed this prestigious honor upon longtime Region 13 member John Klomp from Southern Colorado HRC.  I am fortunate to call John a good friend.  He’s one of the true pioneers of HRC in the western states.  John has served as Grand Hunt Committee Chairman, and currently is the HRC/UKC Field Representative for his region.  He continues to train and run dogs and tirelessly promote our program.  None could be more deserving of this honor.  Congratulations John! 

Judges/Handlers Seminar - Special thanks goes to National Seminar Instructor Ed Thibodeaux, who once again, in his own inimitable style, presented the seminar at the meeting.  Ed’s brings his vast knowledge of our HRC philosophy and his judging experience to the attendees.  His seminar is always informative and entertaining.   

HRC/UKC Field Representatives Meeting -  

Seventeen field reps, representing all but one region spent the better part of Friday meeting to discuss the seminar and judging issues.  I can report to you that this summer will mark the last few appearances of the Judges/Handlers Seminar as we have known it.  The seminar is undergoing an “extreme makeover”, for lack of a better term.  After much discussion and input, the idea for a new format to streamline the presentation and eliminate redundant material was adopted.  The new slideshow should be ready for presentation at seminars scheduled early next year.   The reps are continuing to collaborate on the revision and I’ll be reporting to you as progress is made.  A new manual will be developed that will both follow the slideshow, and provide some additional resources such as a test setup checklist for judges to use should they wish.   

Before jumping into our scenarios, let me remind everyone of a couple of things, especially folks new to HRC and this column.  One of the main purposes of the Judges Corner is to take test scenarios, some actual and some hypothetical, and turn them into learning experiences for judges and handlers.  As I’ve said before, while it’s important that we teach judges what to do in various situations, it’s more important we help them learn how to think.  Often our rulebook is not clear or does not specifically address something that happens at the retrieving line.  Learning to apply common sense along with an understanding of the intent behind the written rules and guidelines will help judges make the right decisions.   

Our first scenario comes from a discussion that appeared on the HRC message board recently. I had not seen it as I rarely look at the board but I received an e-mail from a licensed Finished judge asking me to weigh in on the subject.  The discussion was prompted by a decision of the judges at a Started hunt test.   

Scenario: 

The Started dog brought the bird back to the “immediate area” of the handler as required, then dropped the bird.  The handler took a hold of the dog by its collar with one hand, and then picked the bird off the ground with the other.  The judges failed the dog, telling the handler they must have the bird in hand before touching the dog.

 Question: 

Upon the dog's return in Started must the handler receive the bird prior to the handler touching either the dog or the dog's collar, and were the judges correct in failing this dog for the reason given? 

Answer: 

I’ve noted on numerous occasions that judges are always in the best position to observe and evaluate a dog’s performance.  It’s entirely possible this dog did something which could or should have resulted in failure.  Yet as much as I want to give the judges the benefit of the doubt, their action, i.e., failing the Started dog for the handler touching it before picking up the bird is simply not supported by the rulebook. I’m at a loss as to why the judges thought differently, and I’m concerned others might buy into what seems to be illogical reasoning. It makes one wonder if there are other common misconceptions about judging Started.  I’m tempted to launch into a full-blown discussion of evaluating Started dogs, but I’ll save that for a later article.  Let’s try to figure out why the judges in our scenario felt the dog should be failed. 

Given the reason they stated for failing the dog, we can eliminate desire and marking ability as a consideration.  The dog did fine in those categories.  That leaves us with control issues at Started. Yes – we do test for control to some degree at this level.  Issues such as manners and obedience, steadiness, and delivery fall under this category.  As respects delivery, any retriever, including a Started dog, can be failed for consistent failure to deliver (to the area of the Handler at Started), excessive dropping and mouthing of the bird, or consistent reluctance to deliver, and of course hardmouth. There is no evidence this dog had any delivery issues.  It properly delivered the bird to the immediate area of the handler. It seems that we’ve come down to our judges being confused as to when a handler can or cannot touch their dog at Started.  Applying a little common sense and rulebook intent should help clear their confusion.   

The rulebook states that a retriever must be under some degree of control to be useful in retrieving downed game. We require far less control at Started because of the dog’s limited exposure to training and hunting, and we grant a good deal of leeway and certain concessions to Started handlers to help them control their dogs.  We require them to bring their dogs to the line on lead, and we allow them to run with a collar on and to handhold their dogs to assist in achieving steadiness.  When you read that last sentence, I’d venture to say ninety-nine percent of you thought of a Started handler holding their dog while the mark was thrown! Substitute the word control for the word steadiness in that sentence and look at the big picture.  Aren’t we really talking about allowing a Started handler to keep control of their dog on the line, and don’t we always want to give them that opportunity?  Unlike Seasoned and Finished where the rules limit contact with the dog to touching it to steady before signaling ready, there is no written or implied limitation at Started.  That said, I see nothing wrong with a handler taking the dog by the collar or putting the leash on it, then picking up the bird.  In my response to the judge who e-mailed me, I said I’d consider that smart handling.  Remember though, the approval to touch the Started dog to keep it under control stops at any contact that the judges could consider as intimidation.  There is certainly a difference between merely getting a hold of the dog before you pick up the bird it dropped versus grabbing it to keep it from running to the duck dryer to get another bird or running off to parts unknown.  This brings me to another point and some questions I want to pose to you. 

Experienced trainers know the foundation of good control begins at an early age.  When you see a Started dog that drags a handler to the line, won’t pay attention, runs all over the field to find a bird it should have easily marked, or is reluctant to bring the birds back at all, you have to ask, where are the handler’s friends who should be advising that the dog is not ready to run a test?  Are folks telling these handlers hey, you can hold your dog and we know it marks pretty well so why don’t you sign up for Started? I’m all for encouraging folks to run Started, but I wonder if we’re giving these handlers the impression that the only thing their dog has to do to pass this test is bring back the birds?  Do we have Started judges who think along these same lines?  Tell me I’m wrong, but aren’t some of these dogs the same ones you’ll soon see at Seasoned with the same control problems?  I think that’s enough questions to get a bunch of folks fired up!  The revised Judges/Handlers Seminar will address several of these and I’m sure I’ll touch on a few in future columns.  Now let’s look at an issue our new HRC President personally asked me to address in this column.   

Scenario: 

The hunt test secretary was sorting through the Finished premiums and saw notes attached to four premiums, each from a different handler, we’ll call handlers 1, 2, 3, and 4.  Each was requesting that a shooter be provided for them, and all had a different reason for their request.  Here’s a short summary of the notes: 

1) - The handler had a temporary shoulder injury that prevented use of a gun.

2) - The handler had a permanent disability and was asking for assistance getting to the retrieving line and someone to shoot the gun for them.

3) - The handler had a little problem with the law that prevented him from legally operating a firearm, but wanted to handle a dog in the test.

4) – This handler was too young to qualify for a hunter safety card which was required to shoot a gun in the state where the test was being conducted.  

 

Question: 

Which of the four requests would HRC expect a club to comply with? 

Answer: 

What a coincidence – four special requests at the same hunt!  To help find the answer to the question posed above, I want to begin by explaining the following.  At every testing level, our HRC rulebook, under Shotguns, Gun Safety, and HRC Firearm Policy says that the Handler must hold the gun in a safe manner.  When directed by the judges, the Handler must shoulder the shotgun, aim, track and fire at the top of the arc, of the thrown bird.  Only at the Started level can the Handler opt not to shoot the gun, unless a handler can show a special need for someone else to shoot for them.  Recently, some questions have come up about whom exactly falls into this category.  Hence, I’ve been asked to discuss the subject and to explain HRC’s position on it.  

I’ve written about this topic in the Judges Corner on at least a couple of occasions, once in 1998 and again in 2003.  In one scenario, a handler could not operate a pump, but could shoot an over and under.  I suggested the judges find another way to get the third bird shot.  In another scenario, the handler couldn’t shoulder the gun, but could tuck it under his arm. It made sense to provide a shooter for this handler.   You can find the full text of these scenarios on the Judges Corner website if you’re interested.  In each of these previous scenarios, the handlers qualified for special assistance under rule 35 on page 62 of our rulebook covering Guidelines for Judges & Conducting Hunts.  It reads as follows:  “Handlers with physical handicaps should advise the Hunt Secretary of their special needs prior to the hunt date.  The hunt committee and Judges will make every reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of the handicapped so they can enjoy and participate in all HRC/UKC Licensed hunts and tests.”  Clubs should honor requests for assistance in shooting the gun at the retrieving line only by handlers who qualify under this rule.     

The inability to operate the gun is probably the most common “handicap” for which handlers request assistance at a hunt test. When appropriate, HRC judges must make every effort to accommodate folks who can’t shoot the gun.  But note that this rule applies only to handlers with a physical handicap. The American Heritage dictionary defines “handicapped” as a physical or mental disability.  Disability can be defined as ‘… any partial or total, mental or physical inability to perform any activity the person wishes to perform.  This definition makes no distinction between a temporary or more permanent disability, nor should HRC when considering special needs requests.  By the way, I would suggest HRC consider changing the word “handicaps” in our rulebook to the more appropriate, “disabilities” to avoid what is now generally accepted as a stigma or negative stereotyping associated with the word handicapped.   

By now, I hope you’ve figured out the key to understanding who falls under the rule about accommodating handlers with special needs is to recognize it only covers those handlers with a physical handicap.  The first two handlers in our scenario definitely qualify, but neither of the other two should be provided a shooter. In the case of handler 3, HRC is simply not responsible for the position the handler is in regarding the law not allowing them to handle or shoot a firearm.  Neither the judges nor the club are under any obligation to change the tests to accommodate this person.  In fact, we have no provisions in our rulebook allowing them to do so.  I know what many of you are thinking, but handler 4 is in essentially the same boat.  I’m not against kids participating in our tests.  Many young folks successfully run dogs at all levels. However, age itself is simply not a physical handicap. HRC has no age restrictions on who may handle a dog.  We suggest, but don’t require a handler to have passed a hunter safety course to run in our tests, and we make provisions to allow handlers to use their personal gun which might fit them better than one provided by the club. This young handler is unfortunately prevented from participating in our Finished test by a state law, not by our rulebook.  I understand there is at least one state where this applies, and I’m at a loss to recognize why the state has determined that a young person under adult supervision can’t use a firearm if they are physically capable of safely operating it.  Time will solve this handler’s problem, as well as traveling to run in states without such a restrictive statute. 

There are other disabilities besides not being able to operate the gun.  From my experience, HRC judges and clubs have done a wonderful job finding ways for physically challenged handlers to participate in our tests.  I’ve seen club members carry a disabled handler down a steep slope.  At another time judges moved a retrieving line to accommodate a handler who could not get to it.  And at a recent hunt test, the judges allowed a handler with vision impairment an “assistant” to help them see and relay what the dog was doing. Kudos to these judges for enabling physically challenged handlers to participate in their tests and for understanding that they can do so while still properly evaluating the handler’s dog.  If you’ve been a member of our HRC family for very long at all, you know these physically challenged handlers were not extended consideration and a helping hand solely because of the wording in our rulebook.  

By the way, I’m grateful our rulebook only addresses physical handicaps, not the “other” type. Think of some of the handler errors you’ve seen over the years.  Like me, you may even recall some of your own!  With those thoughts in mind, I’ll leave you with this quote from 19^th century philosopher Elbert Hubbard:  “Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped”. 

As always, thanks for taking the time to read this column and for your support.   

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

judgescorner@huntingretrieverclub.org