by Kerry Webster » Fri 14 Nov 2003 7:56 pm
Good on you Joe for initiating a forum on where retrieving is going. As a "newie" to the sport (almost 8 yrs), I have witnessed a change in the setting of runs, particularly for All Age. My dogs are accustomed to actually sighting a bird (mark) before being sent to retrieve, but, even in W.A. where we always had marks break the skyline, there are now times when a dark background of trees or hillside are used to frame a throw. I don't know about others, but unless that bird is at least 50% white, I have a devil of a time seeing it. How, my dog is supposed to see it is beyond me. This practise has been more evident to me in my visits to Eastern States trials, and I cannot understand how triallers can go along with it, over there. I am all for a test of a dog's memory, but first of all, let him see the mark/s. Several marks at the National came under the category of "unseen".
Another quirk I have, is marks not falling in the designated area stipulated by the judge, but, not being called a no bird. If a judge cannot see the fall of a bird, then surely the question should be asked "why not?" and if not, why shouldn't a field steward then have the authority to call a no bird. In my opinion, there were several no bird situations during the Nationals, which were not called.
Joe states, that many failures by dogs and handlers are passed off as 'bad luck', and whilst that is true in several cases, many a time it is due to bad run setup, and often a judge overestimating his/her expectations of the dogs running. There will always be good dogs and handlers who get eliminated, often by bad luck, bad handling, or disobedient dogs, but I was under the impression that retrieving trials were supposed to simulate real hunting field action, not, as it often appears today to be, a test to eliminate.
Crazy situations such as handling from behind trees and in ditches, may create interest, but they are not real handling situations. I'll bet there are no hunters out there who would purposely stand behind trees and bushes to direct his dog, when walking 20ft to the right gives him a clear view. Most times all these situations do, is give a tall handler an advantage over a short one (and I know cos I'm short).
I think this all boils down to fairness. Being fair to the dogs, being fair to the handlers. Not just in setting runs, but in judging them too. No one can tell me that favouritism doesn't exist in retrieving. I saw it several times over, just a few weeks ago.
I can't see an easy way around this, but judges, especially in All Age and Championship level, need to be careful. They are being watched too, and notes are being taken on their performance as well as the dogs.
There is no room for favourites in this game, especially when triallers are travelling from all over the nation with their dogs, spending enormous amounts of money to do so, then finding there is an unequal standing, not on the performance of their dog/s, but because they may be new and unknown.
Surely there can be tests for the dogs which a judge can say of "this is a good testing run, not unrealistic from actual hunting; now let's see which dog does it the best". Most times judges don't need to have runs so complicated that they eliminate dogs/handlers. They (dogs/handlers) often eliminate themselves.
Will our judges take note of the unrest, will RAFT make changes, and will there be discussion to try and rectify the situation now seen, I sincerely hope so! For the future of our sport, some guidance is definitely in order.