interesting HT rule...

david gibson · Jan 7, 2009

"....A dog is not eligible to be entered in any Hunting
Test (Junior, Senior or Master) at a licensed or member
Hunting Test if a Judge of that Test or any member of
his family has owned, sold, held under lease, boarded,
trained or handled the dog within one year of the starting
date of the Hunting Test......

what if the judge in question trained the trainer/handler - or trained with the handler in a group situation or advising situation, but never actually handled the dog during the training session(s)?? there's some food for thought there.....

Tim Thomas · Jan 7, 2009

Look under the thread " Judge Training??? "

K G · Jan 7, 2009

surfgeoD300 said:
"....A dog is not eligible to be entered in any Hunting
Test (Junior, Senior or Master) at a licensed or member
Hunting Test if a Judge of that Test or any member of
his family has owned, sold, held under lease, boarded,
trained or handled the dog within one year of the starting
date of the Hunting Test......

what if the judge in question trained the trainer/handler - or trained with the handler in a group situation or advising situation, but never actually handled the dog during the training session(s)?? there's some food for thought there.....

No sweat. The regulation is about people's influence on or personal involvement with the dog, not on the dog's people. ;-)

kg

david gibson · Jan 7, 2009

K G said:
No sweat. The regulation is about people's influence on or personal involvement with the dog, not on the dog's people. ;-)

kg

so you are saying its to be careful the dogs performance is not affected or influenced by its knowing the judge in a pack alpha way, and not to avoid any judging bias by being favorable to a dog/handle he has a training re;relationship with??

Russ · Jan 7, 2009

Not to put words in Keith's mouth, but I think he is talking about the interpretation of the rules as they are written, not the theory or if he agrees or disagrees.

K G · Jan 7, 2009

Russ said:
Not to put words in Keith's mouth, but I think he is talking about the interpretation of the rules as they are written, not the theory or if he agrees or disagrees.

Dang, Russ....that was good!

The question was singular, about the rule, and nothing else. Adding "moving parts" tends to take emphasis away from the rule (and....<ahem>, they aren't "rules"....they are "regulations and guidelines." :wink

.

What Russ said regards,

kg

Gun_Dog2002 · Jan 7, 2009

I think they wrote the rule because we all know at the end of the day, judges like dogs more than people so the chance for impropriety is greater...

/Paul

Lady Duck Hunter · Jan 7, 2009

Glad to see you are reading and digesting the Regulations and Guidelines prior to entering your tests. That was a great question!

As a judge, you shouldn't let your personal bias one way or the other influence the decisions you make. When you put on that judge's hat you have to forget who is running the dog and just watch the team's work.

There is good and bad to running under someone with whom you've trained. You will have more confidence knowing the judge, you've been exposed to his/her idea of what is good work and what will not carry. On the other hand that judge knows your dog's and your weaknesses.

But that same thing can be true for running under the same judge more than once. While it is hard to remember specifics of all 50 dogs that ran one week to the next, sometimes a dog can leave a lasting impression that might sneak in to have an influence - good or bad.

What I am trying to say is that it is impossible to judge in a vacuum. Good judges try their best not to let personal relationships (good or bad) influence their judgement when they sit in the chair.

Tom Mouer · Jan 7, 2009

The Regulations & Guideline require (2) TWO judges, that must agree, in order for a dog to receive a qualifying score.

david gibson · Jan 7, 2009

Lady Duck Hunter said:
Glad to see you are reading and digesting the Regulations and Guidelines prior to entering your tests. That was a great question!

As a judge, you shouldn't let your personal bias one way or the other influence the decisions you make. When you put on that judge's hat you have to forget who is running the dog and just watch the team's work.

There is good and bad to running under someone with whom you've trained. You will have more confidence knowing the judge, you've been exposed to his/her idea of what is good work and what will not carry. On the other hand that judge knows your dog's and your weaknesses.

But that same thing can be true for running under the same judge more than once. While it is hard to remember specifics of all 50 dogs that ran one week to the next, sometimes a dog can leave a lasting impression that might sneak in to have an influence - good or bad.

What I am trying to say is that it is impossible to judge in a vacuum. Good judges try their best not to let personal relationships (good or bad) influence their judgement when they sit in the chair.

thanks - actually i am not so much worried about undue influence as i am training with people i know that are also judges and finding myself in a situation where i have to skip a test because someone i worked with is judging that day. i have 5 people just right off the bat i may be training with as time goes by that are judges - and in one or two cases some money may change hands in a "train the trainer" sense and it could be a bit more involved than just tossing birds and honoring for each other; certainly as a judge and in some cases a pro there will be sage advice conveyed at various times.

and since they are all in the same area, it is very possible to see one in each of an A or B series, and in a full year that could "potentially" happen in as many as 5 or more local tests. so - just bringing it up at the test and moving from A to B or vice versa is not necessarily a solution.

certainly this will be brought up and discussed between shutting the truck door and letting the dog out to make sure we are very clear, just curious as to what others here have come across.....

DarrinGreene · Jan 7, 2009

as with most things it's all good until someone does something stupid....

badbullgator · Jan 7, 2009

surfgeoD300 said:
"....A dog is not eligible to be entered in any Hunting
Test (Junior, Senior or Master) at a licensed or member
Hunting Test if a Judge of that Test or any member of
his family has owned, sold, held under lease, boarded,
trained or handled the dog within one year of the starting
date of the Hunting Test......

what if the judge in question trained the trainer/handler - or trained with the handler in a group situation or advising situation, but never actually handled the dog during the training session(s)?? there's some food for thought there.....

"Training with" and the "training of" are two different things. Offering advice to someone in your training group is not "training" someones dog.

john fallon · Jan 7, 2009

There are instances where technically a case could be made where this rule as written could come into play.... but they tend to generally be ignored .

john

K G · Jan 7, 2009

john fallon said:
There are instances where technically a case could be made where this rule as written could come into play.... but they tend to generally be ignored .

john

How 'bout an example, John, since you brought it up?

kg

Joe Brakke · Jan 7, 2009

I personally have notified one person that I will be judging an event they were considering entering. I have been handling her dog and have been assisting her in handling (Not for a fee). As the rule states, I can not judge that dog for one year from last contact. Last year I skipped a test because I was running a dog of whom the breeder was the judge (with in 1 year). The rule is clear as stated but does require everyones honesty for it to be effective.

Now, on the other hand, this probally does occur more than less. The effort someone would need to go through to look at every entry and its association to the judge and identify potential conflicts of interest would be massive undertaking.

This would even extend out to the OB ring and Rally courses, because it states "handled". How often do these two worlds of OB/Rally and HT/FT come together. Not very often to know who is training who. They are a separate set of people, in the majority of the case, so to know if a judge just handled dog X in a OB contest and now is judging that dog in a Hunt Test would be hard to know unless AKC was policing the entries and premiums.

john fallon · Jan 7, 2009

K G said:
How 'bout an example, John, since you brought it up?

kg

.................................boarded,
trained or handled the dog within one year of the starting
date of the Hunting Test......

I see no qualifying verb(i)age there...... so if taken literally, those words could be rather inclusive.

With your imagination examples should be unnecessary.

john

K G · Jan 7, 2009

john fallon said:
With your imagination examples should be unnecessary.

john

I'm not the issue here, John....I get it, I understand it....I (and so should you) want everyone else to understand what you mean with your post....technically, that is....:wink:

kg

K G · Jan 7, 2009

Flowageboy said:
reg⋅u⋅la⋅tion

/ˌrɛg

ʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [reg-yuh-ley-shuh

n] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct.

semantics regards....

Now....if only the AKC went by this definition, it wouldn't be an issue...but they don't, so it is.

Semantics indeed regards, ;-)

kg

John Kelder · Jan 7, 2009

Mucken&Ducken said:
I personally have notified one person that I will be judging an event they were considering entering. I have been handling her dog and have been assisting her in handling (Not for a fee). As the rule states, I can not judge that dog for one year from last contact. Last year I skipped a test because I was running a dog of whom the breeder was the judge (with in 1 year). The rule is clear as stated but does require everyones honesty for it to be effective.

Now, on the other hand, this probally does occur more than less. The effort someone would need to go through to look at every entry and its association to the judge and identify potential conflicts of interest would be massive undertaking.

This would even extend out to the OB ring and Rally courses, because it states "handled". How often do these two worlds of OB/Rally and HT/FT come together. Not very often to know who is training who. They are a separate set of people, in the majority of the case, so to know if a judge just handled dog X in a OB contest and now is judging that dog in a Hunt Test would be hard to know unless AKC was policing the entries and premiums.

I have heard judges (yes ,more than 1 ) say what a nice job that dog did and it was one of their pups .The dog in each case was more than a year old .But , one time specifically , that dogs work was sub par ,and did qualify . If I repeated what I had heard there might have been quite the scene .But the RULE hadn't been broken , had it ??

DEDEYE · Jan 7, 2009

Every one of my training partners judge. Every single one of them have given me the boot out of an event! And later, they fill me in on what idiotic thing I did to throw myself out........ It workd out pretty sweet that way..

interesting HT rule...

david gibson

Tim Thomas

K G

david gibson

Russ

K G

Gun_Dog2002

Lady Duck Hunter

Tom Mouer

david gibson

DarrinGreene

badbullgator

john fallon

K G

Joe Brakke

john fallon

K G

K G

John Kelder

DEDEYE

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities