# UNSPORTSMAN LIKE CONDUCT...



## Targander (Jul 6, 2004)

Could someone tell me if the Judges (HT) have the "Right" to dismiss someone "off the grounds" IF they show argumentative and total lack of Sportsmanship toward the judges? Or would the matter have to go though the Committee first? 

Example would be them arguing the point of being dropped/dismissal from the test, without let up to the point of disrupting the test.

Inquiring minds want to know


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

The process for misconduct is properly outlined in AKC documentation.

/Paul


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The process for misconduct is properly outlined in AKC documentation.
> 
> /Paul


I let a guy (pro) talk me out of writing him up a few years ago and in retrospect I did the game a huge disservice. As long as it is tolerated it will be done.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Targander said:


> Or would the matter have to go though the Committee first?


An incident of conduct "prejudicial to the sport" may be reported by anyone witnessing the conduct (including the judges), a complaint is filed with the Field Trial Committee which then conducts an investigation and interviews witnesses. The Filed Trial Committee then rules and suspends the individual or dismisses the charges.

In field trials (Standard Procedures Section 40 pg 32) "The judges of a particular stake have the authority to expel a handler from any further competition in the stake if they observe unsportsmanlike conduct on the part of the handler or see the handler kicking, striking, or otherwise roughly manhandling a dog while judging of the stake is in progress. It will be the duty of the judges to promptly report to The Field Trial Committee the expulsion of the handler from the stake, and The Field Trial Committee may then expel the handler from all remaining competition at the trial, if in The Committee's opinion further action is warranted."

In your particular scenario the judges could not expel the handler from competition since they had already dropped the dog (unless the handler had other dogs in competition), anything further would become a matter for The Field Trial Committee to deal with.


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Personally I don't argue with the judges even when I know they are wrong. It's just not my way. I usually just leave in disgust if I see someone slighted or more often a poor test setup simply meant to eliminate dogs so that they don't have to be judged. I notice in your post that you seem much more concerned that someone would question your authority than whether they were right or wrong. The ones (plural) that did argue with you I can't find it in my heart to disagree with them. When dropped I was polite to you and smiled and said not a word but I saw enough that I know I don't want to run under you again. (now I'm not at the hunt test so I will speak my mind and you asked for it by trying to get sympathy on this forum)

Good Huntin'
Kenneth


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

From the hunt test regs. chapter 1 section 21:


> Section 21. Unsportsmanlike Conduct. (A) It shall
> be deemed unsportsmanlike conduct if a person during
> the running of or in connection with an event abuses or
> harasses a Judge or official or any other person present in
> ...


Hopefully this answers the question?

T. Mac


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

LeAnne,

Just set-up a junior test that all dogs entered can pass........ :wink: 

Regards from your buddy - always willing to help.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Targander said:


> Could someone tell me if the Judges (HT) have the "Right" to dismiss someone "off the grounds" IF they show argumentative and total lack of Sportsmanship toward the judges? Or would the matter have to go though the Committee first?


It's hard for me to fathom that a licensed AKC HT judge, asking about events that occurred at a test _they_ supervised, has to ask that question! :shock: 

From the AKC HT regs/guidelines:

*Chapter 1, Section 6, General Regulations, last paragraph*: "Prior to commencement of his/her assignment, each Judge of an event must sign and return to the Test Secretary the Judge’s affirmation form."

*Chapter 1, Section 7, General Regulations, last paragraph*: "A Judge of a Hunting Test *shall be familiar* with all Rules, Regulations and Procedures pertaining to the type of Test being conducted. Judges *shall be thoroughly familiar* with the applicable Standards, and *shall be responsible* for judging in compliance with the Rules, Regulations, and Standards."

The short answer is "no," a judge DOES NOT have the "right" to "dismiss" someone from the grounds. Now, that said, let's look at the following:

*Chapter 1, Section 21, Unsportsmanlike Conduct*: (A) It shall be deemed unsportsmanlike conduct if a person during the running of or in connection with an event abuses or harasses a Judge or official or any other person present in any capacity at the event. The Hunting Test Committee shall act in accord with paragraph (D) of this section. Section (D): The Hunting Test Committee shall investigate, at once, any instance of alleged unsportsmanlike conduct…..If a Hunting Test Committee, after investigation, determines that a person is in violation of this Section, and that the incident, if proven, would constitute conduct prejudicial to the sport or The American Kennel Club, it shall exercise its authority in accord with the Guide for Dealing with Misconduct at Field Trials & Hunting Tests.

Sounds like someone didn't work or play well with others. Did you or your co-judge file misconduct charges against the offender? And if not, WHY not? NOTHING happens with regard to misconduct until a WRITTEN COMPLAINT is received by the event committee. No INVESTIGATION occurs until there is a WRITTEN COMPLAINT. 



> Example would be them arguing the point of being dropped/dismissal from the test, without let up to the point of disrupting the test.


Would you care to enlighten the RTF faithful as to WHY this person was so incensed about being excused? Sure would help people understand, even if it WAS _unjustified_, *why* this person "went off"................

kg


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

oops


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

K G said:


> *Chapter 21, Section 21, ................
> 
> kg*


*

Dang, I knew it, AKC keeps sending me these abbreviated regulations and just sends the good stuff to a select few. ( I wonder whats in chapter 10?) 

T. Mac (whose copy of the regs only go up to chapter 6.) :lol:*


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It should have read Chapter 1, Section 21.

I got mine at www.akc.org. Everything ANYONE needs to know about how to deal with this situation can be found in the current AKC HT regs there.

kg


----------



## blackdogs (Jan 8, 2006)

I hate to sound like a newbie which I am, but the test in question had to be the most entertaining Junior that I have ever run. Watching first time Junior handlers stuff 10' leashes in their pockets and more than a few learning what "Don't touch your dog after you siginal" really means. It is also the first time I've ever had a judge tell me between marks what both judges had scored my dog and what I needed to score to pass and then stupid me releases the dog before the judge says my number. Did I lose my focus? Naw, just not enough experience in running HT.
But it seems the judge could have had all her questions answered when the AKC Rep and the HT committee stopped the afternoon water series
to discuss a handlers written complaint with her and the co-judge.
If all AKC events are like this it will be a wild ride to Masters with my pup.


----------



## Brad Slaybaugh (May 17, 2005)

duckdawg27 said:


> Personally I don't argue with the judges even when I know they are wrong. It's just not my way. I usually just leave in disgust if I see someone slighted or more often a poor test setup simply meant to eliminate dogs so that they don't have to be judged. I notice in your post that you seem much more concerned that someone would question your authority than whether they were right or wrong. The ones (plural) that did argue with you I can't find it in my heart to disagree with them. When dropped I was polite to you and smiled and said not a word but I saw enough that I know I don't want to run under you again. (now I'm not at the hunt test so I will speak my mind and you asked for it by trying to get sympathy on this forum)
> 
> Good Huntin'
> Kenneth


Nice post Kenneth, 

seems like a lot of blanks to fill in in this thread for the rest of us to understand.

Brad


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

Any handler can write up a complaint, and the HT com & the AKC Rep (if there) have to deal with it. 

That does not mean that the handler was correct or incorrect.

I do not know, or want to know, anything about this specific test, but anyone can file a complaint, and it does have to then be dealt with, valid or not.

From working at many a HT, there is often a lack of knowledge about rules, procedures, etc., especially with JH/SH crowd.


----------



## north of 7 (Oct 27, 2006)

This is just food for thought. When I got into FT in 1975 you went to the line with respect towards the judges because they had your fate in their hands. After returning after a period of time I see that in the most part judges are there to get abused. The point I would make is that now adays there are fewer people training their own dogs to an all-age level so there are fewer people with the expertise to judge. Too many competitors criticize without understanding what the judges are doing and too many judges don't have the knowledge to set good tests and to judge dogs according to the standard of the field rather than to their own arbitrary standard.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

K G said:


> It should have read Chapter 1, Section 21.
> 
> I got mine at www.akc.org. Everything ANYONE needs to know about how to deal with this situation can be found in the current AKC HT regs there.
> 
> kg


Yup, AKC also sends out a free copy if/when you take the written test. Just got mine in the mail this month. And Chapter 1, Section 21 is actually question # 67 of my test. 

T. Mac (Still trying to figure out what "the most severe punishment ...for event committee is despite already sending in the test?)


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Too many competitors criticize without understanding what the judges are doing and too many judges don't have the knowledge to set good tests and to judge dogs according to the standard of the field rather than to their own arbitrary standard.


Your point is well taken, but this scenario is one for hunting tests where the dogs run against The Standard _for the level they're running_.

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> T. Mac (Still trying to figure out what "the most severe punishment ...for event committee is despite already sending in the test?)


"From" the event committee?

That would be _any_ suspension if found guilty of misconduct, because it is immediate. You have NO AKC privileges as of that moment. The _harshness_ of the suspension (degree/length/$ amount) will be determined by the AKC after the hearing paperwork is submitted along with the event secretary's report.

kg


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

K G said:


> > T. Mac (Still trying to figure out what "the most severe punishment ...for event committee is despite already sending in the test?)
> 
> 
> "From" the event committee?
> ...



Keith,

Thanks, it is definite "for Event Committee" and your choice is not one of the options listed to choose from. Options listed range from 10 years and $2000 to life suspension and $5000. Which begs the question, once you have a life suspension, does the monatary element have any added incentive? Would you really fork over $2-5000 if you were already suspended for life? 

T. Mac


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

So it's a literal question. I'd pick "none of the above" because the event committee doesn't make those decisions.

That said, life and whatever dollars are the ultimate suspension, commonly known as the "death sentence" in the sport.

And you're right about the dollars....sort of a moot point after your privileges are stripped for life...but if you want to come back in the afterlife, you'd have to pay the fine! :wink: :lol: 

kg


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

If the offense is public criticism of a judge in a manner that disrupts an event, penalties range from a reprimand and a $100 fine (based on mitigating circumstances) to a 6 month suspension and $500 fine. The rules for dealing with misconduct are available at http://www.akc.org/pdfs/rulebooks/RDMSC4.pdf. The standard penalty is a 3 month suspension with a $300 fine.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Any Judge with half a brain knows that what they do on the weekend really needs to sorta go along within the confines of the Rules, Regulations, Suggestions, etc.

Just winging it cause it seemed right at the time sometimes works and most times don't. If Judges adhere to the rules, there is NO question regarding whether they did right or wrong.

Jerry


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Good points, Jerry.



> If the offense is public criticism of a judge in a manner that disrupts an event, penalties range from a reprimand and a $100 fine (based on mitigating circumstances) to a 6 month suspension and $500 fine. The rules for dealing with misconduct are available at http://www.akc.org/pdfs/rulebooks/RDMSC4.pdf. The standard penalty is a 3 month suspension with a $300 fine.


That's assuming that someone is willing to "write up" the offender.

I'm waiting to see what LeAnne has to say about what happened from her point of view to cause her to post the question.

kg


----------



## Debthomas (Nov 11, 2004)

To give you a hint.... it goes back to a discussion had on here as to wither or not you fail a jr dog if you touch the dog before you get the bird or do you give them a warning...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Sure does, Deb....but IMHO, it goes MUCH deeper than that. 

IMHO, mind you.... :wink: 

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The process for misconduct is properly outlined in AKC documentation.
> 
> /Paul


I love this board. I post this in reply to the question, and 3 people send me PM's explaining the process and then telling me to refer to the guidelines. I think the Monkey's have been drinking again...










/Paul


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Debthomas said:


> To give you a hint.... it goes back to a discussion had on here as to wither or not you fail a jr dog if you touch the dog before you get the bird or do you give them a warning...


They had their warning when they got the rulebook!!!!

The rest is ignorance if they didn't adhere to the rules. There is NO rule that says we should get a warning before being dropped.

If a handler is ignorant of the rules then that handler deserves what happens.

Jerry


----------



## Debthomas (Nov 11, 2004)

> Debthomas wrote:
> To give you a hint.... it goes back to a discussion had on here as to wither or not you fail a jr dog if you touch the dog before you get the bird or do you give them a warning...


I was only referencing a previous post.

however... I think that many times it is not ignorance that is the culpret as much as first time handler nervous.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Nervous perhaps, but that is how it goes.

Jerry


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Jerry, there's actually a section of the AKC HT regs/guidelines that deals with the issue of this sort of circumstance:



> Part IV, Other Important Considerations for Judges, item 6: If a handler is doing something unusual (for example, giving a line to a dog before a bird is thrown) that might indicate weak marking ability, _do not hesitate to advise him or her that the actions can adversely affect the dog’s scores_.


HT judges have a LOT of responsibility regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Jerry said:


> They had their warning when they got the rulebook!!!!
> The rest is ignorance if they didn't adhere to the rules. There is NO rule that says we should get a warning before being dropped.
> If a handler is ignorant of the rules then that handler deserves what happens.
> Jerry


cause to justify a grade of “zero” in Trainability/Control.
Chapter 4, Section 11, provides that holding or touching
a dog *to keep it steady*,
Section 11. *In Senior and Master Hunting *Tests, a
handler shall not hold or touch a dog to keep it steady,

Maybe we just can't agree on what steadiness refers to here but the last time I heard of someone talking about steadiness they were talking about "prior" to the retrieve.

Chap 5 section 3
"Dogs may be restrained gently with a slipcord, or held gently by the flat
buckle collar until sent to retrieve. 

Some handlers like to line up for bird #2 before removing bird#1 from said dogs mouth. Hard to touch collar without touching dog but still no "RULE' against touching your dog on the return.

I agree that not touching your dog during a test is a good idea maybe it *should be* a rule but..............

[people used to pat their dogs on the head when they did a good job or tell them "good job" now there are rules against it]


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Yep, "You been adversly affected Bubba (Bubbette), check back in next week."

Jerry


----------



## Targander (Jul 6, 2004)

No KG...I did not pursue actions taken upon the handler. Maybe I should have. To say the least it was "surreal". NEVER did I expect to see or witness anything like this in a hunt test, nor the retribution that followed from the handler. And I have been judging since it's (HT's) inception (early 1980's).

I am not new to the game by any means. I will say this...This type of conduct will NEVER happen again without me filing a formal complaint with the AKC. People that act like this should never be allowed to enter into a event and act the way they did without being REPERMANDED. I'll leave it at that. 

The test was more than FAIR. The Judges where more than lenient. And to the person that mentioned in a previous post "fair test" I say strongly.. if your dog can NOT mark 65 yards or less on open water...they deserve to fail.

But then again, this was not my original question on this matter....


----------



## Targander (Jul 6, 2004)

Touching/patting VS. Holding the collar while PULLING the bird from the dogs mouth are two totally different things. We WARNED about touching the dog before the delivery, many times to many handlers. Warnings were given.

Don't people understand what bird delivery/gentilly means (per AKC rule explanation)???? This rule doesn't only apply for the Master stake by the way.

Do handlers even READ the RULES before running their/others dogs :?:


----------



## Targander (Jul 6, 2004)

duckdawg27 said:


> Personally I don't argue with the judges even when I know they are wrong. It's just not my way. I usually just leave in disgust if I see someone slighted or more often a poor test setup simply meant to eliminate dogs so that they don't have to be judged. I notice in your post that you seem much more concerned that someone would question your authority than whether they were right or wrong. The ones (plural) that did argue with you I can't find it in my heart to disagree with them. When dropped I was polite to you and smiled and said not a word but I saw enough that I know I don't want to run under you again. (now I'm not at the hunt test so I will speak my mind and you asked for it by trying to get sympathy on this forum)
> 
> Good Huntin'
> Kenneth


Kenneth, Sympathy I do not need nor want. 

I posted only to bring up a topic that I feel isn't discussed enough. Believe me when I say, that lean-ency was given to it's fullest for all. Since you did not feel it a need to approach my co judge nor me to look at the scores on your dog nor to discuss them; I assume you know what you need to work on.


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Your first and last posts both indicate your knowledge of the rulebook or lack thereof. That speaks for itself and made my point pefectly.

No ma'am my junior dog was not dropped nor was I for that matter. She failed of her own accord and the judges had nothing to do with it and that's the way it should be. Not the case for a bunch of other junior handlers. We all know that there are unwritten rules that we run under every time out and it is up to us to try to figure them out 'cause they are "NOT" in the rule book. I run under the assumption that I or my dog can be dropped "at will" without justification at any time because that is what I have learned from running in hunt test. But when it does happen don't try to B.S. your way through it by claiming " it's in the rulebook" . One last note...... don't fail handler #2 for what you warned handler #1 not to do. If you warned #1 then you should warn #2 ....and #13 etc. Apparently many people have been doing this for such a long time that they have forgotten what being "new" to this sport is like. How many of those new people you DQ'd for a minor infraction that's not in the rulebook are gonna be back?

Kenneth


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

duckdawg27 said:


> Your first and last posts both indicate your knowledge of the rulebook or lack thereof. That speaks for itself and made my point pefectly.
> 
> No ma'am my junior dog was not dropped nor was I for that matter. She failed of her own accord and the judges had nothing to do with it and that's the way it should be. Not the case for a bunch of other junior handlers.We all know that there are unwritten rules that we run under every time out and it is up to us to try to figure them out 'cause they are "NOT" in the rule book. I run under the assumption that I or my dog can be dropped "at will" without justification at any time because that is what I have learned from running in hunt test. But when it does happen don't try to B.S. your way through it by claiming " it's in the rulebook" . One last note...... don't fail handler #2 for what you warned handler #1 not to do. If you warned #1 then you should warn #2 ....and #13 etc. Apparently many people have been doing this for such a long time that they have forgotten what being "new" to this sport is like. How many of those new people you DQ'd for a minor infraction that's not in the rulebook are gonna be back?
> 
> Kenneth


Kenneth, I will say, Junior is pretty simplistic and I've learned over the years to approach it this way. I have control for only about 1 second. That is how long it takes for me to open two fingers and release my hold on the collar. After that, sit back, enjoy the show and see what happens. If your training is solid, and the leaves aren't blowing, everything should be fine. I find it amazing that this type of life and death discussion take place mostly in junior. The standard is the standard. You'll be a lot happier if you quit worrying about what everyones else's dogs are doing and focus on the dog in the blind with you. If your dog is properly FF and holds the bird to hand, sits by your side, pins the marks then all this goes away. Thats the key to enjoying HT's... raise your personal standard higher than the level your running... 

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> If your dog is properly FF and holds the bird to hand, sits by your side, pins the marks then all this goes away.


In this scenario, add "and don't touch your dog's collar until the bird is in your hand" and you're good to go.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > If your dog is properly FF and holds the bird to hand, sits by your side, pins the marks then all this goes away.
> 
> 
> In this scenario, add "and don't touch your dog's collar until the bird is in your hand" and you're good to go.
> ...


I've always counted that as part of the delivery to hand. The key to happiness is raising your standards and then realizing that at the end of the day they're only dogs. Its not life or death. Frankly I haven't had a judge tell me I'm out in years, when the dog doesn't hit my standard he gets the big "no here"....i propose we impliment "do a judge a favor and when it gets ugly pull your dog month"

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

So if you were JUDGING, and the junior handler grabbed the Junior dog's collar before the Junior dog released the bird, would you drop the dog?

kg


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Yes I could take that approach but if I only worried about myself I probably would'nt judge any more or or work at the hunt test any more or try to get donations for raffles or work on the ground on work days or recruit new dog owner/handlers so I think I'll stay like I am. In deed the standard ......if only it actually existed. I have figured out some of it along the way but again "not from the rulebook". The "standard" can change greatly from one judge to the next on a whim so what is "standard" about that. I understand that any judge can drop me or my dog at any time for pretty much anything 'cause it did not meet the judge's idea of the standard and there's not a whole lot I can do about it. (except for ranting so if that's the only thing I have I think I'll keep it).


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> So if you were JUDGING, and the junior handler grabbed the Junior dog's collar before the Junior dog released the bird, would you drop the dog?
> 
> kg


I guess your asking me? Your making me be bi-polar this morning going back and forth between handler and judge. I can't be responsible for what happens...

When I'm judging, in junior I would provide a warning to the new handler that he can't touch the dog until after he takes the bird, nor pick it up from the ground. After that, he would be dismissed for failure to deliver to hand. 

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I guess your asking me? Your making me be bi-polar this morning going back and forth between handler and judge. I can't be responsible for what happens...


My post being IMMEDIATELY after yours might indicate I would be asking you.....I thought "So if you were judging...." might be a clue..... :wink: 



> When I'm judging, in junior I would provide a warning to the new handler that he can't touch the dog until after he takes the bird, nor pick it up from the ground.


Would you provide this warning to EVERY Junior handler as they came to the line? 

kg


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Targander said:


> We WARNED about touching the dog before the delivery, many times to many handlers. Warnings were given.





duckdawg27 said:


> One last note...... don't fail handler #2 for what you warned handler #1 not to do. If you warned #1 then you should warn #2 ....and #13 etc.





K G said:


> Would you provide this warning to EVERY Junior handler as they came to the line?


Seems to be where this is going.

/What's good for the goose, is good for the gander regards... :wink: 

(no disrespect intended; judging can't be much fun when things go wrong...the question becomes, why did things go wrong?)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> My post being IMMEDIATELY after yours might indicate I would be asking you.....I thought "So if you were judging...." might be a clue..... :wink:
> 
> 
> Would you provide this warning to EVERY Junior handler as they came to the line?
> ...


Well, I didn’t want to be presumptuous, after all it not always about us….

I would not provide this warning to every handler. I feel I should only have to explain to each handler the special instructions, not the base rules. I don’t owe them this, I do it out of the kindness of my heart….cuz ******** are good people…

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

So....(Paul, this is a question for you.... :wink: )....what would be your rationale/regs-guidelines support be for dropping a dog in Junior for the handler putting his hand on the collar of his dog BEFORE the dog delivers to hand?

Not gonna _ass_*u*me regards,  

kg


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

duckdawg27 said:


> Some handlers like to line up for bird #2 before removing bird#1 from said dogs mouth. Hard to touch collar without touching dog but still no "RULE' against touching your dog on the return.
> 
> I agree that not touching your dog during a test is a good idea maybe it *should be* a rule but..............
> 
> [people used to pat their dogs on the head when they did a good job or tell them "good job" now there are rules against it]



While there isn't a specific line in the Regulations and Guidelines that says "You can't touch a dog", strict interpretation of the other regs in the book are what cause you to be dropped for touching the dog before taking the bird. Remember a dog in a AKC Hunt Test (all test levels) is supposed to deliver the bird to hand. This is a requirement. 

Now lets look at just a few of the regs and guidelines that come into play in this situation. 

_Chapter 3 Section 17
"No handler shall carry any exposed training equipment (except whistle) or use any other training equipment or threatening gestures in such a manner that they may be an aid or threat in steadying or controlling a dog. Violation of this paragraph is sufficient to cause the dog not to recieve a Qualifying score." _ 

_Chapter 4 Section 9
"Upon returning to the line, a dog shall deliver the bird promptly and tenderly to the handler." _


As noted in your earlier post Chapter 5 Section 3, the Regs and guidelines for Junior Tests allow the handler to gently restrain a dog at the line until *sent* retrieve. The mark isn't complete until the dog has returned and delivered the bird to hand. There is no specific reference allowing the handler to use the collar (a training aid) to receive a dog as it returns to the line. 

Taking the dog by the collar before the dog delivers the bird violates Chapter 3 Section 17, as you are using training equipment (the dogs' collar) to physically control the dog before it has completed the mark and delivered the bird. Although you may be benign in your approach you are taking advantge of a training aid and manhandling (although gently) the dog during the test. 

Handlers are often dropped for using a harsh word or threatening gesture to aid in controlling their dogs. If you actually physically take the collar in hand you will most likely be dropped by the vast majority of AKC Hunt Test Judges.

Handlers need to read and be familar with all of the Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers so as not to run afoul of a Section that you may have missed along the way.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Interesting read, Swamp.

I don't disagree with your points in the least. We're pretty close on this one.

However..............


> Handlers are often dropped for using a harsh word or threatening gesture to aid in controlling their dogs. If you actually physically take the collar in hand you will most likely be dropped by the vast majority of AKC Hunt Test Judges.


.......if we're going to be strict interpretationalists of the regs/guidelines, how far do we go in keeping people from making an _elimination_ mistake? _Especially_ in the *Junior* test level???

From the AKC regs:


> Part IV, Other Important Considerations for Judges, item 6: _If a handler is doing something unusual (for example, giving a line to a dog before a bird is thrown) that might indicate weak marking ability, *do not hesitate to advise him or her that the actions can adversely affect the dog’s scores*_


"All or nothing?" regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

I don't disagree with ya at all KG :wink: 

Just tryin to give the handler an explanation of why the judges did what they did in that specific case.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

So whatcha think about Part IV, Item 6?

kg


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

When judging Jrs, I always include a brief list of the judges' expectations during the scenario. This would include not touching the dog until after delivery, not picking up a bird dropped by the dog, where to leash up, don't send until number is given, etc. My co-judge and I would discuss and arrive at the list during set up day. And we always make sure that we ask if anyone has any questions before we begin. Further, we always ask each handler as they come to the line if they have any questions. This becomes our warning and then if our expectations are not achieved, we score accordingly. This would include a 0 for touching the dog before taking the bird, or sending the dog before hearing its number, etc. Those who may miss the scenario discussion are assumed to already know our expectations and the rules under which we judge. 

Now when dog and handler reach Sr, I believe that the handler should have more of a responsibility in knowing the rules and social customs of the sport and do not offer these warnings and will DQ without first issuing a warning. 

T. Mac


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> So....(Paul, this is a question for you.... :wink: )....what would be your rationale/regs-guidelines support be for dropping a dog in Junior for the handler putting his hand on the collar of his dog BEFORE the dog delivers to hand?
> 
> Not gonna _ass_*u*me regards,
> 
> kg



Keith I rely on a variety of items in the standard to lower the score in trainability to a point they cannot pass. 




> Chapter 4 Section 4. After delivering a bird to its handler, a dog shall stand or sit close to its handler until given further orders.
> 
> Chapter 4 Section 9. Upon finding the game, a dog shall quickly pick it up and return briskly to its handler. A dog retrieving a decoy shall be graded “0” on Trainability.
> A dog shall not drop its game on the ground, but distinction shall be made between deliberately dropping a bird, and readjusting a bad hold or losing its grip because of a struggling bird or running over uneven terrain. Upon returning to the line, a dog shall deliver the bird promptly and tenderly to its handler. A dog that is unwilling to release a bird on delivery must be scored low in Trainability, and if compelled to do so by severe methods, it shall be graded “0” in Trainability, unless in the opinion of the Judges there exists valid mitigating circumstances.
> ...


Most of the time handlers grab the collar to control the dog long enough to get the bird from them. I had a handler grab the collar and shove the dogs face at the bird in the dirt commanding fetch because the dog wouldn’t do that. These sections tell me how to judge such actions. Keep in mind that Trainability is a component of 4 items, the last being delivery.



> Page 43 Trainability, or the abilities acquired through training, is generally understood to be composed of four components—steadiness, control, response and delivery.
> 
> 
> PART III
> ...


You’ll note here that the only time the handler is allowed to gently restrain the dog is on the way to the line or right before being sent to retrieve. Item 4 tell me I can drop for deliver to hand. Grabbing hold of the dog to restrain it so the bird can be ripped from his mouth is not delivering me a bird fit for the table.

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Well stated, T. Mac....and I agree about Senior as well.

So what say YOU (_Paul_... :wink: ) about Part IV, Item 6?

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Well stated, T. Mac....and I agree about Senior as well.
> 
> So what say YOU (_Paul_... :wink: ) about Part IV, Item 6?
> 
> kg


I agree with it.

/Paul


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> While there isn't a specific line in the Regulations and Guidelines that says "You can't touch a dog", strict interpretation of the other regs in the book are what cause you to be dropped for touching the dog before taking the bird. Remember a dog in a AKC Hunt Test (all test levels) is supposed to deliver the bird to hand. This is a requirement.


When there isn't a specific rule prohibiting a certain behavior it make it very hard justify dropping dogs just for "that " behavior.
I believe all the dogs did deliver to hand
Let me re-iterate that neither my dog nor I were dropped in this stake but there were apparently more than a couple that were. After all I did not start this thread I only weighed in after a whinny judge did because she got railed on. When a gallery starts booing it makes you perk up and take notice. I saw a couple of very nice junior dogs dropped that day after an admirable marking and retrieving job (running the senior marks from the day before) only to be dropped for simple new handler mis-steps that they could not possibly have known about. I found out years ago when a judge warned me "you won't be able to do that when you get to senior" (thanks judge) Thank you for finding the only refernce that gets close to explaining why a judge feels so compelled that they must drop dogs. But still I feel that is is reaching to make the situation fit that reference. I don't think that people just getting started could just read what you referenced and deduce that they will be dropped if they touch their dog. As stated before I feel that I can be dropped at anytime for any reason. Everthing you can possibly imagine will fit into "trainability" or "intimidation" if you try and can then be marked into the basement.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

K G said:


> So whatcha think about Part IV, Item 6?
> 
> kg


I like to offer suggestions when a green as grass handler is about to make a boo boo that may affect their dogs scores, but there is no requirement that "I Must" help them out. 

For me it becomes a Judgement call as to how much experience a given handler possesses, or the overall attitude in their approach to the game. 

If John (I've never seen a hunt test before) Doe comes to the line I'll likely offer some guidance to help him be as successfull as possible. Many first time handlers have read the book but they don't really understand the meaning of the terminology used, thus aren't completely clear as to the meaning of a given regulation. 

If on the other hand it's a very experienced handler or one with a huge chip on their shoulder, I'll sit back and let them do their thing and let the chips fall where they may as ultimately they are responsible to understand the meaning of the words printed in the Regulations and Guidelines. 




Just sayin :wink:


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

duckdawg27 said:


> When there isn't a specific rule prohibiting a certain behavior it make it very hard justify dropping dogs just for "that " behavior.
> I believe all the dogs did deliver to hand
> Let me re-iterate that neither my dog nor I were dropped in this stake but there were apparently more than a couple that were. After all I did not start this thread I only weighed in after a whinny judge did because she got railed on. When a gallery starts booing it makes you perk up and take notice. I saw a couple of very nice junior dogs dropped that day after an admirable marking and retrieving job (running the senior marks from the day before) only to be dropped for simple new handler mis-steps that they could not possibly have known about. I found out years ago when a judge warned me "you won't be able to do that when you get to senior" (thanks judge) Thank you for finding the only refernce that gets close to explaining why a judge feels so compelled that they must drop dogs. But still I feel that is is reaching to make the situation fit that reference. I don't think that people just getting started could just read what you referenced and deduce that they will be dropped if they touch their dog. As stated before I feel that I can be dropped at anytime for any reason everthing you can possibly imagine will fit into "trainability" or "itimidation".


First, I think disrespecting someone who volunteered their time to judge is just flat wrong. Sit in the chair and then get all high and mighty. 

Second. The judge sittin in the chair has already ran at that level, apprenticed at that level, attended a seminar regarding the rules/guidelines and/or taken a test regarding the rules. I'd put good hard cash down that the bozo's in the gallery boo'ing her haven't even bothered to open the front cover of the rulebook. 

Third - I'd say she was pretty leniant just dropping the dogs. If their were people in the gallery acting in such a manner then she could have wrote them up for misconduct and turned it into the committee where they could be disciplined for their poor actions.

I suggest those people with the really nice junior dogs put as much into learning the rules and the do/don'ts of running the test just like they spend time training the dog. Go rob a bank and use ignorance as your defense when the judges reveals that its against the law to steal from a bank. Let me know how that goes...sadly ignorance seems to prevail in the junior galleries...

/Paul


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

As someone who has yet to enter my dogs in their first test/competition, I have really appreciated this thread. I had already read the rules a number of times and had concluded that the standard was clearly don't touch the dog and the only exception was for juniors when the dog is first brought to the line. The discussions of the details gives me an even better understanding. 

Having helped marshal at field trials, I think it's unrealistic to expect individual training sessions for each person running and I can't think of any justification for berating a judge in a manner that disrupts the test.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

If a situation develops where there is a great deal of grumbling going on most judges I know or judge with will become more conservative, not more lenient. 

When Judges have to take on a defensive position during a test, they tend to adhere to the explicitly printed regulations because the Regulations and Guidelines are their protection if formal complaints are filed with the Club or AKC. They are far less likely to allow any interpretational wiggle room.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

:evil:  BOOS FROM THE GALLERY??????!!!!!

this was tolerated? the judges should have filed charges.........

is all this real????? i find it all hard to believe!-paul


----------



## Targander (Jul 6, 2004)

> When a gallery starts booing


 :lol: :lol: Never happened. The gallery was close enough in all series for us to have heard if this indeed happened. 

QUOTE: "I believe all the dogs did deliver to hand" 


I find it very interesting how a person can judge dogs from the gallery Kenneth. You might as well save it. 

I have also been told there are 2 judges, not one, while a dog is under judgement :roll: 

Com'on. Who really is whinning... :lol:


----------



## ducktrickster (Feb 19, 2007)

*Who need's to be held accountable?*



> Now when dog and handler reach Sr, I believe that the handler should have more of a responsibility in knowing the rules and social customs of the sport and do not offer these warnings and will DQ without first issuing a warning.


I don't think you should be any less strict on Junior, senior, or master. Regardless of if it is "Just a Junior". Some will say that junior is where the new blood enters the game and we should be easier on them. To those people I say "NONSENSE" If you are going to play a game then the rules should be strictly adhered to.

I entered the akc hunt test game in a master with an hrch. I had juggled through an online rulebook the night before the test and did not know about the no talking after signaling for the birds thing. I said ok and quietly told my dog to heel. After kicking the dog off one of the judges notified me that I was dq'ed. I told him politely that I understand and that I didn't realize that was a rule. Long story short, they let me slide and I passed that master. I did not feel like it was fair because I had broken a rule and I have never run another master. 

If it is a rule, follow it or get it changed. No stricter adherence due to the stake.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Sounds like the Judge got runned over by the BUS at the test!!! :twisted: :twisted: 

That ain't too swift.

Jerry


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

When I began running FTs, I made plenty of mistakes that could have eliminated me and my dogs from competition. Some of the rules I knew; some were those 'subjective' items from the rulebook. Some judges were very nice and gave me a warning, while others did not.

I just used them as learning experiences. I know now what I can and can't do, and had a few good laughs over most of them.

I have worked at many a HT, and agree with the comment about whiney handlers and the life or death crisis of the Junior stake. My goodness, folks, chill . . .

Also did not think that LeAnne was being whiney. :wink:


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

It was a very interesting day to say the least and although the booing was short lived and a few cooler heads in the crowd helped to calm the situation "it did happen". As far as the "nice dogs" that ran, yes I can have an opinion even when I'm not judging, but the judges in the chair are all that matter in the end (just ask 'em) so yes Targander you got your way and they were dropped for minor infractions. As far as I* know I have never shown disrespect to any judge at any HT including this day *and I hope I never do. Remember you are the one that started this thread and as I have already mentioned I was not dropped in this stake. My dog did not perform well in the water series and was probably scored "zero" on something and well should have been. I love hunt testing, but that day you and/or your co-judge decided to make a point and it got out of hand and you couldn't control it and it got ugly. I don't ever want to see that again so I have to look at the root cause of the problem and I'm sorry if that sticks on the judges.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

"Cowgirl Up" and tell us what happened.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Do we need a fleet of busses to take care of the gallery???

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

duckdawg27 said:


> It was a very interesting day to say the least and although the booing was short lived and a few cooler heads in the crowd helped to calm the situation "it did happen". As far as the "nice dogs" that ran, yes I can have an opinion even when I'm not judging, but the judges in the chair are all that matter in the end (just ask 'em) so yes Targander you got your way and they were dropped for minor infractions. As far as I know I have never shown disrespect to any judge at any HT including this day and I hope I never do. Remember you are the one that started this thread. As for me I will continue to run my dogs when I can and I will pass when I can and I only hope that when I don't pass it was because my dog wasn't ready or we just had a bad day.


The issue at hand is not necessarily a minor issue. The guideline clearly states that a minor issue can escalate to a major issue if repeated. Something as a handler to keep in mind. Touching the dog once in junior, not a big deal, but after I as a judge warn you a couple of times and you disregard it, it becomes a major issue you can be zeroed for it. Might as well keep this thread a learning oppertunity for new ones...

/Paul


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Assuming the test in question was E. TN HT, I was there. Ran the same marks in the senior & my 9 yr old grand-daughter & my son ran dogs in the junior. The marks were not easy marks but neither the most difficult I have seen in either junior or senior. Most of the senior dogs entered that didn't pass probably failed the blind. I only saw 4-5 junior dogs run because the set-up was not gallery friendly with trees obsuring the view. Of the junior dogs I saw run, a couple had difficulty with the relatively open water 65-70 yd swim (but it was a clear picture, one bank to the other). The more difficult aspects of most juniors I have seen (not many) has been line manners & inexperienced handlers, I'm guessing this held for some of the 50+ junior dog teams that ran this test. There was no booing while I was there. I did here some complaining about the difficulty of the test, but that's normal. As for the dog touching, if the touching was not material to the dog delivering to hand, i.e., just incidental, as part fo the process of delivery, I'd let it go. On the other hand, if the collar was used as a means to control the dog or pull the bird from the dog's mouth - DQ is in order. Not withstanding the literal interpretation of the rules, was the intent of the rules violated? Was the dog or collar held in order to get the bird or did the handler use the collar to pull the bird from a sticking dog? If yes, then DQ is appropriate.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2007)

Maybe my observations will help calm everyone down, not sure...

I ran LeAnne and Deb's test. I also spent a reasonable amount of time in the gallery, esp the end of the day on Sunday while I was waiting for my master test to finish and hanging out with some folks I don't normally have time to hang out with.

Here are my observations:

1) The tests themselves were very nice and fair. There was a gimme bird on the water balanced with a pretty long water retrieve. But both marks were nice for junior. The long water bird fell with a splash and it appeared that the only dogs who weren't getting it were dogs that MAYBE had never done "longish" marks on water. But it absolutely was not out of the realm of reasonable for a junior test. If the dogs made the swim, the bird was there to be found. The land marks were just fine, a teeny tiny change of "cover" (into a plowed area) on one. Nothing to complain about and challenged the little guys just enough to show perserverance if they didn't get in there the first time.

2) LeAnne, you are my buddy, and I have run under Deb many times. I will say this in fairness to the junior handlers... Many handlers, EVEN THOUGH THEY PASSED JUST FINE, felt like they were nit-picked on the line. (I'm NOT talking about the bad seed in question that went through all the trouble). But the general consensus was the folks were not having a good time running the test as a result. This is what was being said in the gallery -- there was NO booing. People felt nervous because of all the nit-picking and there was a sense of "anxiety" as folks were getting ready to run their dogs above and beyond what might be typical. I AM NOT MAKING EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE NOT KNOWING THE RULES... I'm just saying how the participants FELT.

I was about 6 inches in front of the ribbons on delivery and you asked me to back up. I did, but I thought it was really fussy... People were confused that they couldn't set their leads on the ground behind them, as they've done in every other test (they said, not sure if it was true or not, that you guys told them the lead either needed to be entirely stuffed in their pocket OR BACK AT THE HOLDING BLIND). I've never seen this before. And the poor guy stuffing his TEN foot (literally) lead in his pocket, handling his dog for the first time... He's a client of a friend of mine. He was scared of EVERYTHING going on up there, and felt that because of all the "negative" comments made, his dog hadn't passed, when he had done a perfectly fine job. He came off DRIPPING sweat. I felt so bad for him having to stuff the lead in his pocket. 
Another handler CLAIMS (I didn't see it), that he brushed his dog's ear/face as he reached for the bird and was dropped. I did NOT see that, but it didn't sound like he was trying to force fetch or anything. 

3) NOBODY was booing -- I believe that comment was made simply because the participants were generally stressed and unhappy. Just an exaggeration to make a point, I guess.

4) LeAnne and Deb were WELL WITHIN THE RULES in enforcing EVERYTHING they wanted with the handlers. My concern, which is worth about -$0.02, was that folks weren't having a good time. And, to be honest, I even felt a little on pins and needles at the line. There was one time when my dog went to heel and my knee banged into his head because he was jumping around to heel. I said to myself "oh, crap, I'm about to get dropped"... I was being VERY careful about when and how I touched my dog and what I said, since both dogs I was running were titling that weekend and I didn't want to lose them by accidentally touching them, etc.

5) With all that said, YES, EVERY handler should know the rules. But there were some new folks there that were very discouraged. If their dogs didn't do the work, fine, but they felt what seemed to be more pressured than average.

Those are my observations... if anyone cares. I think LeAnne and Deb were well within the rules with ALL of the decisions and comments they made. They seemed a bit tight, but that's their choice. The handlers were just, in general and as a group, discouraged and not enjoying themselves. Let me also say this, they were BOTH VERY PLEASANT. They weren't being ugly or mean or sarcastic when they made their comments. And they were complimentary and courteous to the handlers. So they were NOT sitting up there bitching or anything. They were both pleasant, smiled, chatted with the handlers, etc.

The handler that was upset put on a real show, mainly passive aggressive, but still noticeable. I did not see said handler's interactions iwth the judges. I was there for the committee meeting the handler forced them to call... But of course didn't take part. 

I'm guessing in the case of this handler that the handler used the collar IN ORDER TO GET THE BIRD. I don't know the handler or how he/she handles... I suppose that would be the a good reason to drop in that instance. And, as said above, the judges can decide anything they want and it's their choice. 

And, as a side note, I didn't talk with anyone in the gallery that thought the dismissed handler's behavior was appropriate. So it wasn't like there was a big upheaval of handlers or anything. People I spoke with (NOT everyone) thought the handler had gone overboard... I didn't talk to anyone that was on the handler's side of taking the action of calling a committee.

I didn't want to join in on this, but I didn't want anyone bashing the judges or the handlers. Neither deserves it. If you look at the results, for Pete's sake, it's not like only a few dogs passed. From what I watched, with a few exceptions, the dogs that didn't pass (on water at least) did not get across the water or got out on one of the two marks and got lost.

LeAnne and Deb made decisions well within their authority and the handlers made some mistakes that are against the rules. 

Respectfully,
Kristie


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > Touching the dog once in junior, _not a big deal_...
> 
> 
> That was NOT the case with the situation at hand.
> ...


I know Keith but I was a making a point that in general issues can escalate from minor to major. Just trying to keep this constructive. Guess I should just go back to posting pics....

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

And MY point is that it's a BIG, FAT, HAIRY deal to some folks, and not a big deal to others.8) 

No pics necessary regards,

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> And MY point is that it's a BIG, FAT, HAIRY deal to some folks, and not a big deal to others.8)
> 
> No pics necessary regards,
> 
> kg


Well it can be, depending on how many times the handler does it and how many times the judge tells them not too....

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Let's stay on the "one time, no big deal" tack, shall we...

kg


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Quit ya bitchin! I have enjoyed this thread immensley. You have here a disgruntled (where's yr pic paul) handler with an ax to grind. You have a very nice lady judge who did what she thought was right at the time. Kristie tells me the whole story, but...... as a newbie, I have loved and appreciated everybit of advice a judge has given me. I would not get unhappy in the gallery or the line if the judge taugt me something. In my case, most judges love my dog, but I suck! I Still love this game more than anything I have ever done. I love my dog, I love playing games, lets get a little fun out of it.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I wasn't there so can't make a comment on what happened.
But.............
I would like make a comment or two with regards to the rules.......
Just so everyone knows...............
Once you are called to the line YOU ARE UNDER JUDGEMENT and are until YOU ARE BACK BEHIND THE HOLDING LINE.!!! :evil: 
Also......... Just because you are new to the sport doesn't give you a "New" set of rules.If you are lucky enough to be warned for a BooBoo,consider yourself lucky AND don't repeat the infraction.
On page 25,Chapter 4 Section 4,"After delivering a bird to its handler, a dog shall stand or sit close to its handler until given further orders."
I personally see way too much "crap" when it comes to the Junior level.
IMHO: I'd like to see the Juniors 
1.)steady
2.)use of a handling gun.(I've never gone hunting without "MY" weapon"??)
Pro.,Owner,Handler, Hunter,Judge.
Sue


----------



## Targander (Jul 6, 2004)

QUOTE: "but that day you and/or your co-judge decided to make a point and it got out of hand and you couldn't control it and it got ugly".

I have NO idea what you are talking about "couldn't control it". Control what? A point? What point did we decide to make? Dropping a dog and enforcing AKC regulations/rules? Ugly? I saw nothing ugly other than one incident, that whole weekend. And you Kenneth, where not even part of it. 

My last comment to you Kenneth is towards your lack of credibility on this whole topic. You seem to have made it quite clear on another recent post when you wrote: " Although complaining about judges is one of my favorite pastimes....". 

Here's to putting one's foot in ones mouth regards,


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Yes Miss LeAnn I do enjoy very much complaining about judges.
However, when I look back at the posts in this thread I see that a number of people enjoy complaining about handlers and I don't take offense to that so maybe it all works out. I made my point I think several post back no sense trying to add to it. I was there. I saw what I saw. I heard what I heard. I hope this entire thread makes some people think. The "running rules" are not all as black and white as they are made out to be. They could be... but they are not. It can take years to figure out how to play this game and it is "NOT ALL" in the rule book. I know that I can recieve a score as low as "zero" in any category at any time by any judge at their discretion if I or my dog do not meet the "standards" as they see them at the time and that they do not have to justify their scoring to me. Every thing else seems to just be a guideline. The gray, fuzzy areas are often defined by which ever judges you are running under that day and some are not at all consistent with the "majority" of other judges. As evidenced by many post here even some of the simplest rules cannot be agreed upon as to their exact meaning and the resulting consequence for an infraction.


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Miss LeAnn
It has been brought to my attention that part or parts of my posts of this thread could have been construed as a personal attack. If so, I honestly apologize.
Kenneth


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Kenneth I do believe that this thread has much value for new ones running junior although at times it has hinged on a personal nature. Discussion surrounding the rules/guidelines often produces a new viewpoint and I enjoy quoting the book to elicit responses from other judges. I put together a junior HT handler prep course many years ago and put that class on each year. I’m very familiar with the confusion being new to this sport produces in new handlers. I’m also never surprised by the things junior handlers do. Guess that’s the fun in it for me. I insist on having a new junior dog every year just so I can hang with the crowd. Most new handlers have not read the rules, nor do they fully understand the spirit in which the HT program was developed. I would say that most new junior handlers are also very emotionally invested in their dog, and this leads to responses as noted in this thread when things don’t go well. Trust me, there’s nothing sadder than a grown man standing on the line crying as his dog heads for the south 40 on the last mark of his title ribbon. With time and experience comes knowledge and reasonableness. The lack of these is one of the risks of judging junior. 

/Paul


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Wow! I have read this topic and have only a couple of comments...
Since I wasn't there, I can only speculate. It sure seems like a lot of hard feelings, misunderstandings and stress for a JUNIOR test. 

I have worked both as a marshall and clipboard in the junior stakes and do know from experience that new handlers/competitors truly do get stressed out. They are afraid of making mistakes, making fools of themselves and often come to the tests now knowing what to expect. Their emotions are elevated and magnified due to their limited experience and often times little knowledge of the rules. Often times they don't even stick around to pick up their ribbons, thank the club and judges, or to congratulate those that were successful (all of whichare part of the game).

Those tests that seem to run well are those in which the judges, the marshall and the clipboard person work together to keep new folks calm, are friendly and are willing to explain what those handlers should already have known before they entered the test. Hearing all of the comments, it seems that perhaps, the new handlers just don't have good mentoring at the local level. Are they members of clubs? Have they trained for the event? Do they really know how to act? 

This whole post reminds me of little league baseball when my kids were in grade school. Everyone took themselves way too seriously...little league wasn't the pro curcuit and this junior test was not a championship event...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Well said, Nancy.

kg


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Nancy wrote, "Hearing all of the comments, it seems that perhaps, the new handlers just don't have good mentoring at the local level. Are they members of clubs? Have they trained for the event? Do they really know how to act? "

I think you have it the nail on the head here. 

I think very few experienced folks these days are taking time to mentor the newbies. Why is that? Well back when we were learning the game, we got together with some more knowledgable folks, some times eve a pro, who would help us learn what to do and not to do in training and in running our dogs. In exchange we shot and threw birds for them in the field. There was a mutual need for each other and we learned a lot. 

Then came all the auto launchers.....pro or serious hunt tester doesn't need to waste precious training time helping a newby, because he can now shoot and throw all his own set ups.

Seems to me like we are seeing a decline in Junior dog numbers during the last few years and as a judge, I see more of them that make serious handler errors at the tests because they just don't know.

I believe that this sport was built on the hunter helping his fellow hunters to learn. As participants who learned from others all the way up, we must continue this practice. 

Clubs help because they help to put people together, but a club sponsored training day once a month isn't enough to really help the new guy knkow what to expect or how to deal with the challenges to dog and handler that we see on the weekends.

(stepping down off my soap box now.....continue doing what you were doing before I climbed up there.)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Nancy wrote, "Hearing all of the comments, it seems that perhaps, the new handlers just don't have good mentoring at the local level. Are they members of clubs? Have they trained for the event? Do they really know how to act? "
> 
> I think you have it the nail on the head here.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with what you wrote, but I've found over the years that for every 10 new people that I invest time into helping 2 actually are reliable, the rest just waste my time. Unfortunately those two enter phase 2 and then tell me that I can no longer train with them because they're tired of carrying me....

/Paul


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

hahahaha....well that does happen some. :roll: 

Most who come out to our place to train with us seem very appreciative and those are the ones that make it worth while. This weekend we drove down to Colorado Rivers test to watch a guy who has been training with us some, he was to title both his dogs at the seasoned level on Saturday, if he passed. He did and he was at our house early Sunday morning to start working for the next level.

need to always look for the glass half full.....


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

I've tried not tp post on this but guess I will have to get on my soapbox. Where in the Rules and Regs does it state that a Junior Test be a feel good ribbon festival. Yes HT are not competitive between dog and handler teams, but there is a compitition to the standard and acheving a Title for the pedigree. Where in the Rules does it talk about Junior Marks. A Mark is a Mark is a Mark. If we are going to give out particiaption ribbons so be it :twisted: I have watched the standard of test in the junior stake become so watered down that IMDAO it is a waste of time and resources for me personally. I will venture a guess the the handler who grabed his dogs collar will never do it again in a test. Or if he does the Judges should thank him for his donation to the club. Why do Junior handlers belive they should be given four markes in a sterile environment so their dogs can all go 4x4 and get a title. Maybe the pressure from bench dogs to get a working title has lead to the watering down of the test. :evil: :evil: 
Feel free to return to your regularly schedules complaints at this time.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Interestingly enough, NONE of this thread has been about Junior work in the field.

Ironic, ain't it?8) 

kg


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

K G said:


> Interestingly enough, NONE of this thread has been about Junior work in the field.
> 
> Ironic, ain't it?8)
> 
> kg


Yep, it's all about the Handlers.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> K G said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly enough, NONE of this thread has been about Junior work in the field.
> ...


Well later down the road the role of the handler becomes more and more important and I'm living proof the handler is the weakest link....might as well get it right from the get go....

FOM


----------



## Polock (Jan 6, 2003)

I wasn't gonna post on this thread, but wonder how the whole touchy thing would have been handled if my blind client would have been running this test.
She will be running during the next two - six weeks to attain her JH Title.

We have worked hard in training and restricting any touching but whether she's reaching for the collar at the start or reaching over the dawgs head to take the duck at heel, she'll some times brush against/touch the dawg.

And with written AKC approval for her to run and handle the dawg, along with my help at her side..............whoa to those that cast the first stone...........though it is my gut feelin' that most of the judges she'll run under won't even begin to make it an issue since they and the FTC will be aware of the situation before hand..........gonna be fun in two weeks for her first test..............they're both ready........


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Polock; Best of luck to you & your blind client!!!


----------



## Stylesl (Feb 1, 2004)

Dan,

As you probably know and it seems you have some paperwork already stating the following, your handler's disability gives her protection under the American Disability Act. Let them cast the stone-if they would rather be blind so they can touch their dog at a hunt test-what can we say?

Quite frankly, I would be honored to judge your client and her dog at a test. 

Let us know how it goes-

Lisa


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I don't disagree with what you wrote, but I've found over the years that for every 10 new people that I invest time into helping 2 actually are reliable, the rest just waste my time. Unfortunately those two enter phase 2 and then tell me that I can no longer train with them because they're tired of carrying me....
> 
> /Paul


Do you think that your situation is unique? I would much prefer it that way than to have all of the new people bypass the club or individual amateurs and pay to have their dog trained and run by a pro. 

Occasionally a few good ones hang around and add to the base of people needed to plan events and actually make them happen. 

The junior level is just that...it is a place for people to get their feet wet in the sport. The stake is more about basic handling and basic dog tendencies than about advanced training and extraordinary dog talent. 

It really bothers me when a pro runs 10 or more junior dogs. Where are those owners? They certainly are not becoming activate participants at the level that they can be successful. I am not-anti pro but I am pro owner and pro clubs because without the later two components, there will be no more hunt tests.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> K G said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly enough, NONE of this thread has been about Junior work in the field.
> ...


My point being that with the exception of Kristie's observations about the Junior test set ups, all of the focus has been on acceptable handler behavior at the running line.

kg


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2007)

K G said:


> Interestingly enough, NONE of this thread has been about Junior work in the field.
> 
> Ironic, ain't it?8)
> 
> kg


The dogs weren't the problem. 

This is why I, personally (see keith's signature line, though -- I'm just a newbie), hate to see handlers dropped for things that are most likely the cause of nerves. If the dog shows good marking, perserverence and has clearly been trained to do what it's supposed to do for junior, I would have a really hard time dropping a junior dog for handler error AT MY DISCRETION that APPEARS to be a true "error".

For me, personally, the junior is to show the dog's natural ability with minimal training -- can it hunt up a bird, can it deal with fundamental "adversity", is it a willing companion, etc. etc.

I would have a really hard time dropping a dog because the handler released the dog early because of nerves. And I don't think that makes for a "ribbon fest". I wouldn't have a problem dropping junior dog for lack of delivery, being out of control, etc. etc. But I would have a hard time dropping a dog that did a nice job when it's handler accidentally touched the dog, let go of the lead early, so on and so forth.

-K


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> The dogs weren't the problem.


You ain't kiddin'.

I have a problem with dogs being dropped when the judges don't care enough to use the discretion afforded to them by the regs/guidelines to ASSIST the handler, rather than focus on _penalizing_ them.

But that's just me.

kg


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2007)

Polock said:


> I wasn't gonna post on this thread, but wonder how the whole touchy thing would have been handled if my blind client would have been running this test.(snip)


Good for her! I do know a handler or two that the judges tap on the shoulder to release their dogs because they are hard of hearing.

My husband ran, albeit in UKC, from a 4-wheeler because he was non-mobile amputee at the time.

I would be very surprised, I mean SHOCKED, if she has any problems at all. 

What types of things has she done to accomodate her disability? How much of the training has she done on her own? It sounds interesting, would love to hear more, maybe on another thread?

-K


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

It is not just you, Keith.


----------



## jcasey (Mar 17, 2005)

At my first HT, my dog did great on marking and delivery to hand. She was prepared.

I, however, accidentally said "mark" after I called for the first bird (nerves...10 years of agility competition and still I was nervous).

The judge said something to me about it after that first mark, and I was careful not to make the mistake again.

We passed, and I was very grateful for the treatment.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Polock said:


> I wasn't gonna post on this thread, but wonder how the whole touchy thing would have been handled if my blind client would have been running this test.
> She will be running during the next two - six weeks to attain her JH Title.
> 
> We have worked hard in training and restricting any touching but whether she's reaching for the collar at the start or reaching over the dawgs head to take the duck at heel, she'll some times brush against/touch the dawg.
> ...


Brother Dan,

This absolutely kicks butt! You da man!

I read /paul's thread about the 8 out of 10 who waste his time and the two out of 10 who go phase 2 and nix him....funny stuff! We all, in these games have some folks who ask for our time and assistance and then don't follow through and legitimatize our efforts.

If every dog man or dog woman could have one person like this in their careers, we'd all be blessed!

Here's to happy faces and a vision impaired handler smiling!

Chris

(Folks, try to be nice....it really bums me out to see people taking stabs at people on RTF)


----------



## Polock (Jan 6, 2003)

Kristie Wilder said:


> Polock said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't gonna post on this thread, but wonder how the whole touchy thing would have been handled if my blind client would have been running this test.(snip)
> ...


Folks, Sharon works everyday with Kody and once a week with me.
She has truly became a student of the game and has worked hard to do it within the confines of the rules, as it should be done.

As we begin our JH campaign during the next few weeks I'm sure Chris and Vicky will give me Sticky to post to keep all abreast on the journey..........I know it's been a great one for me..........


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Congrats on gettin' it done, Dan. Your efforts are both honorable and admirable!

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

SueLab said:


> Do you think that your situation is unique? I would much prefer it that way than to have all of the new people bypass the club or individual amateurs and pay to have their dog trained and run by a pro.
> 
> Occasionally a few good ones hang around and add to the base of people needed to plan events and actually make them happen.
> 
> ...


The sport does need people to step up and help out. I make my clients run their own dogs if at all possible. 

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Brother Dan,
> 
> This absolutely kicks butt! You da man!
> 
> ...


Interestingly many newbies cause havoc to the training group, yet after 15 years I haven't quit inviting new ones out to the training group. Had a brand new person last night in the training group. He shot the gun at the wrong time, threw a dead bird in a tree and lost a popper gun. On the plus side, he was on time, willing to do whatever, stayed and cleaned up and listened. The test will be how long will he last...


/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Is he going to replace the popper gun? :lol: 

kg


----------



## Targander (Jul 6, 2004)

Kristie brings up an good point. While judging (not necessarily the last assignment) had a handler re heel his dog and I guess the dogs tail swept against his/her leg (neither I nor the co judge even gave it a thought)and was asked if we where going to drop the dog becouse of it.... :shock: We both smiled and said "of course not".

I would also like to talk about some HT's gallery "mentality". Weather (especially HEAT), knowing the rules and regs, newbie's "feeding" off each other emotion's (either positive or negative), not knowing a or any of the judges; especially judges from different parts of the country, all tend to play a big part in the mood and "expectations" of the tests set forth. Yes, the willingness, attitude, courtesy and experience of the judges also play a major part as well.

Taking all this into considerations here, I feel the possible precepts to this series were:

Weather: HOT and HUMID 95 degrees + pretty much drought stricken. It was HOT.

Judges: Both where from different parts of the country. One of the Judges was very sick the day before, but recovered well.

Rules and Regs: Many, many reminders (including to those who could not keep control in continuous attempts), although most I felt understood them, or at least were familiar. The reminders where not a problem with the judges, and where told in a very friendly, courteous way.

Emotional aspect: The "problem" person may have had a bigger emotional impact on the group as a whole, as they ran earlier. 

Again, this is what I perceive. Whether or not one or any of these factors came into play, I can not say for sure as I was in "the chair". But running HT's and FT's for well over 15 now, I can say these are some of the factors that could have/have had a impact on the emotions of the handlers/owners running. 

One thing I will mention. I did NOT feel that nearly enough handlers were present when we ran the test dogs. This also may have been a big factor. Considering we ran over 64 dogs in the first series alone, and call backs where very generous for the water series. And yes, I did understand some where running in multiple stakes....

The dog work (marking, style, hunting ability and perseverance) I thought was impressive. Delivery/Trainabilty was where most had their challenges and/or failures. But again, this is a "basic" entry level for both man and beast and lean-ency should always be in the forethought of the judges.

In closing I like to thank the Junior Handlers that ran. WHAT FUN!! We should give them soooo much credit. They all did a great job with their dogs.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Is he going to replace the popper gun? :lol:
> 
> kg


Well, i told him I would look for it tonight before we train. We'll be using the upper field of the same property. It is what it is...

/Paul


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Hints from Heloise - Safety orange on the gun butt will help find a gun set down in a field in the future. :wink:

I was so proud of the camo training pouches I found for $2.00 each at Walmart, they held a duck call, a primer pistol, extra primers, and a roll of flagging. We put these together for each gun station and even the blind planter in our training group. After the first time that someone came in from the field and said, oh I forgot the gun pouch in the field - with the gun...I put safety orange flagging on them all, makes it so much easier to see.


----------



## ducktrickster (Feb 19, 2007)

*The Problem*



> For me, personally, the junior is to show the dog's natural ability with minimal training -- can it hunt up a bird, can it deal with fundamental "adversity", is it a willing companion, etc. etc.


Although that is a great frame of mind and is, or at least should be, the basis of the junior level tests, there are rules that need no interpretation and should be followed.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2007)

*Re: The Problem*



ducktrickster said:


> > For me, personally, the junior is to show the dog's natural ability with minimal training -- can it hunt up a bird, can it deal with fundamental "adversity", is it a willing companion, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> Although that is a great frame of mind and is, or at least should be, the basis of the junior level tests, there are rules that need no interpretation and should be followed.


Disagree... There are exceptions, even at master level for confusion, albeit on the dog's part.

Everything is at the judge's discretion.

-K


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> ...there are rules that need no interpretation and should be followed.


Actually, in staying with the _truest_ interpretation of the situation, there is no such thing as a hunting test "rule." 

You will not find the words "rule" or "stake" (as in Junior, Senior, Master) in the HT regs/guidelines.

Anywhere.

Just sayin'.

kg

....and Kristie is correct as well; that's one reason why there are TWO judges in HTs and FTs.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

K G said:


> You will not find the words "rule" or "stake" (as in Junior, Senior, Master) in the HT regs/guidelines.
> 
> Anywhere.


ANYWHERE?

Want to bet?   

When was the lat time you looked?

The word "rule" appears multiple times and "stake" is found on pages 2 & 3 were they state:


> At the election of the event-giving club, an Owner-Handling Qualifying Stake may be run in conjunction with a Hunting Test
> event that includes a Master Hunt Stake.


Even AKC can't get it right. :wink:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> The word "rule" appears multiple times and "stake" is found on pages 2 & 3 were they state:
> Quote:
> At the election of the event-giving club, an Owner-Handling Qualifying Stake may be run in conjunction with a Hunting Test
> event that includes a Master Hunt Stake.


I'll bet that's the second happiest you've been all day, Doug....finding it one place where it's also mentioned with a _field trial_ stake. Where else, _mentioned with Junior, Senior, Master_, is it?

But you didn't want to look up where the word "rule" was found...._multiple_ times.... :roll: 

I'm _shocked_ regards,

kg


----------



## Chaney S K (Apr 5, 2007)

_Chapter 3 Section 17 
"No handler shall carry any exposed training equipment (except whistle) or use any other training equipment or threatening gestures in such a manner that they may be an aid or threat in steadying or controlling a dog. Violation of this paragraph is sufficient to cause the dog not to recieve a Qualifying score." _


*No Handler shall use any training equipment in such a manner that may be an aid or threat in controlling a dog. *

If this is the intent of this language, the dog in question was not being threatend or controlled by the lady touching the collar. I was in the holding blind as this took place. She grabbed the bird, then the collar, then the dog released the bird. The dog would have delivered the bird w/o her having to touch the collar as it did on the first mark...which was obvious. I was not at the handlers meeting so I don't know what the judges warned the handlers about. The Marshall was the one who made the comment to me, as I was walking to the holding blind, to keep my leash all the way in my pocket and not to touch or speak to the dog after signaling the judges as there had already been dogs dropped for this reason. Its been my experience that judges will tell you not to make your dog heel before taking delivery in Jr. but rather play it safe and grab the bird then the dog, which she did. She did not have to force the dog by way of the collar to get the dog to release the bird. After seeing what took place, I had my dog come to heel before taking delivery which is not a problem for my dog and could not see it being a problem for the d'qed dog. I could have easily made the same mistake if I hadn't seen what happend previously. Then again I have to tell my self after reading all of the threads that it is supposed to be about judging the dog not the handler. I will say on the judges behalf, that they were not at all rude during any part of the test. Even with the lady that was dropped for touching her dog.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Back to the original question "theme:"



> No KG...I did not pursue actions taken upon the handler. Maybe I should have. To say the least it was "surreal". NEVER did I expect to see or witness anything like this in a hunt test, nor the retribution that followed from the handler. And I have been judging since it's (HT's) inception (early 1980's).
> 
> I am not new to the game by any means. I will say this...This type of conduct will NEVER happen again without me filing a formal complaint with the AKC. People that act like this should never be allowed to enter into a event and act the way they did without being REPERMANDED. I'll leave it at that.


Based on everything that has appeared on this thread, and everything I've been told by people who were there, I can't come up with a single circumstance that would prevent the offender from being written up for misconduct by SEVERAL different attendees....not just the judges.

If we let people get away with this sort of behavior, whether they were done right or done wrong with the judgment of their dog, we shouldn't be surprised when it happens again. Suspension is virtually the only deterrent when its apparent that folks have forgotten (or never really _learned_) their manners.

20-20 hindsight don't cut it regards,

kg


----------

