[Chris Atkinson]

Here's my most recent janitorial editorial.

I judged my first retriever event in the early 90's when my good buddy Paul Young asked me to. I've judged at least a couple a year since then. I expect to continue to. In fact, in the near future, at my expense, I get to spend a weekend apprenticing under some fairly knowledgeable and accomplished Open judges. I'm looking forward to it. But as a judge, I also have some concerns.

In the last week, modern technology has "pinched" some folks. It has to do with the posting of videotape, with the subjects in that videotape NOT being aware, nor giving their permission.

In one case, someone posted video of a pro training session. That pro learned of it, and asked the original poster, and also notified me that it was done. He felt that the poster should have obtained permission or notified him first. I agree. We are in a very tight community and this is a very special interest group-related resource. We need to treat each other right. Common Courtesy is important. This original poster pulled the video, which I know the pro appreciated.

In another case, video was posted of a judged retriever event, shot from the line, with the audio and video of the judges' dialogue present. That video has also been pulled by the original poster. Again, I'm sure some folks appreciate it.

I just want to ask that we all use common courtesy with the posting of video here on RTF of our training sessions and tests. Please be sure that you are doing so with the interests and impact upon those in the video taken into consideration.

I don't think that our rulebooks need to get any fatter. I don't think we need to "legislate" proper use of recording devices into our retriever sports. I will say, however, that I used to think that judges instructing handlers to leave cellphones at their vehicles and NOT come to the line with them was extreme.

I no longer feel that way. With videocameras built into sunglasses, and "strap on" video cameras, my intention as a judge is to ask handlers something like this:

"Please leave all electronic communications and recording devices in your vehicle or back in the gallery. Cellphones, cameras, recorders, etc. are not to be brought to the line by the handlers"

I have always welcomed handlers to have friends or family photograph or video their dogs from behind the line or the gallery. But I sure as heck expect that those folks who take that video use it for their own private memories or education, and NOT use it to post to the retriever world - unless they show common courtesy by communicating with those who could be affected first.

My request to all of you on RTF: Please, if you post video of retriever training sessions or tests, be sure that you are authorized to have that video, and that it is acceptable to those whom could be impacted, before posting it here.

Fair enough? Comments?

Thanks to all of you for making RTF what it is.

Thanks, Chris

 

[Charles C.]

I understand from the pro's perspective that perhaps his trade secrets, methods, etc., might be shown and he has a legitimate reason to not want that shown. I get THAT, but why would a judge care if the test was filmed from the line as opposed to being filmed from the gallery? What do they have to hide? Are people that hyper-sensitive? If I'm ever judging, film away. And if I'm ever running and a judge says don't bring a discreet camera to the line, I'm going to ask them where in the rules they were given authority to make that request. Obviously, it's up to you whether you allow folks to post that kind of video on RTF, but prohibiting people from recording for any purpose just seems kind of draconian.

 

[gdgnyc]

I agree with Chris 100%. Courtesy and good sense dictates that you ask first.
I think that if I videotaped handlers they wouldn't like it, especially if it's without their permission. Among other things, a video records a few minutes of an entire day and can portray the test unfairly. Also, when done without the subject's knowledge, it's like spying.

 

[Lee Jones]

I think video taping is fine at tests and should be allowed. I do not think however, that using that tape to critique a judge should be done. Sometimes a tape does not show everything going on. I actually think it would be a neat thing if a videographer would tape all runs from a favorable location (like from an elevated stand) showing dog, handler, judges and entire test site at all times. Again, just my opinion.

 

[jeff t.]

With videocameras built into sunglasses, and "strap on" video cameras, my intention as a judge is to ask handlers something like this:

"Please leave all electronic communications and recording devices in your vehicle or back in the gallery. Cellphones, cameras, recorders, etc. are not to be brought to the line by the handlers"

Is this position supported by the rules? If a handler refused the request, on what basis would the event committee side with the judge? Would AKC support disciplinary action against that individual?

I know that other AKC venues (obedience, agility) allow cameras in close quarters with the competition. Other venues (tracking) have specific rule language that prohibits handlers from wearing such devices.

For what its worth, my view is that whether I like it or not, anything not prohibited by the rules is allowed.

I haven't followed any of the threads that sparked this one, so please forgive me if the above comments have already been thoroughly hashed out.

Some wear hats, others wear cameras ;-)

 

[JusticeDog]

I understand from the pro's perspective that perhaps his trade secrets, methods, etc., might be shown and he has a legitimate reason to not want that shown. I get THAT, but why would a judge care if the test was filmed from the line as opposed to being filmed from the gallery? What do they have to hide? Are people that hyper-sensitive? If I'm ever judging, film away. And if I'm ever running and a judge says don't bring a discreet camera to the line, I'm going to ask them where in the rules they were given authority to make that request. Obviously, it's up to you whether you allow folks to post that kind of video on RTF, but prohibiting people from recording for any purpose just seems kind of draconian.

I personally think it's a matter of respect for our judges, who are volunteers and giving of their time to not put additional contraints in any manner upon them. Even if it's the ability to be themselves and crack a joke or the like.

If you don't like the way they judge, two things can be done: 1) don't ever run under them again and b) take away their paycheck.

I think the media is one reason why the highly qualified don't run for public office... who needs the headache or abuse?

It's a small community... let's keep it a community and respect others. When the forefathers drafted that rule book, the biggest piece of technology was Maxwell Smart's shoe phone.

 

[ARay11]

Common courtesy... just as a handler may object to the judge recording a series, the judge may object to the handler recording..

Club "could" hire a videographer to video the entirety of an event and then offer the DVD to each handler (for a small fee)

 

[Chris Atkinson]

I understand from the pro's perspective that perhaps his trade secrets, methods, etc., might be shown and he has a legitimate reason to not want that shown. I get THAT, but why would a judge care if the test was filmed from the line as opposed to being filmed from the gallery? What do they have to hide? Are people that hyper-sensitive? If I'm ever judging, film away. And if I'm ever running and a judge says don't bring a discreet camera to the line, I'm going to ask them where in the rules they were given authority to make that request. Obviously, it's up to you whether you allow folks to post that kind of video on RTF, but prohibiting people from recording for any purpose just seems kind of draconian.

Charles,

Thank you for bringing that up. There's a piece that I left out of my original post and I need to address that.

First, when I call an 800 number, I will get a notification that says, something like "This call may be recorded for quality purposes". I've been made aware.

Second, watch people when they are on camera. Think of how you yourself feel when someone approaches you, with or without your permission and they are holding a camera looking through a viewfinder. People, when they know they are being recorded, will do something differently: They may fix their hair. They may suck in their gut. They may snap out of the zone they were in for the last 30 dogs and become more cognizant of a little comment they make to their co-judge.

My point is that if someone is going to audiotape and videotape the judges' faces, words, and comments, it is inappropriate to them to have this done without their knowledge. This is especially true when the material is then posted on the internet without their knowledge.


Now that I've clarified my thoughts, I hope we can find a strand or two of agreement. Can't we?

I'm not saying that I won't ever allow someone to tape my test from the line with spyglasses on. I just would like to be aware that they are recording. I think it is common courtesy.

If they want good quality video to see their lining up of the dog, their timing of whistles and casts, etc. they really need a 3rd party to do the taping...not a sunglasses cam.

Thanks. Chris

 

[Happy Gilmore]

According to the poll put up, 52% of the people here who took the survey are gonna think you're a crummy judge because they are going to be told to leave their electronic junk in the gallery.....boo-hoo..

 

[ARay11]

Is this position supported by the rules? If a handler refused the request, on what basis would the event committee side with the judge? Would AKC support disciplinary action against that individual?

I suppose if the handler were to be that way about it and demand to be able to wear his cam device... it could be considered a training device and be disallowed on those grounds per the rules.

 

[Chris Atkinson]

Is this position supported by the rules? If a handler refused the request, on what basis would the event committee side with the judge? Would AKC support disciplinary action against that individual?

I know that other AKC venues (obedience, agility) allow cameras in close quarters with the competition. Other venues (tracking) have specific rule language that prohibits handlers from wearing such devices.

For what its worth, my view is that whether I like it or not, anything not prohibited by the rules is allowed.

I haven't followed any of the threads that sparked this one, so please forgive me if the above comments have already been thoroughly hashed out.

Some wear hats, others wear cameras ;-)

No Jeff. It is NOT supported by the rules. That's my point. I don't think the rulebook needs to be any fatter or thicker to enforce common courtesy.

I have never had any problem with videotaping from the line. But I have always had a handler bring a friend or relative to do the taping, and they've always asked if they can come on up in front of the gallery.

This is my point. I welcome videotaping. I just want common courtesy to be used.

 

[Brian Cockfield]

I personally think it's a matter of respect for our judges, who are volunteers and giving of their time to not put additional contraints in any manner upon them. Even if it's the ability to be themselves and crack a joke or the like.

If you don't like the way they judge, two things can be done: 1) don't ever run under them again and b) take away their paycheck.

I think the media is one reason why the highly qualified don't run for public office... who needs the headache or abuse?

It's a small community... let's keep it a community and respect others. When the forefathers drafted that rule book, the biggest piece of technology was Maxwell Smart's shoe phone.

My thoughts exactly. It's a matter of courtesy more than anything else in my opinion.

 

[Chris Atkinson]

I understand from the pro's perspective that perhaps his trade secrets, methods, etc., might be shown and he has a legitimate reason to not want that shown. I get THAT, but why would a judge care if the test was filmed from the line as opposed to being filmed from the gallery? What do they have to hide? Are people that hyper-sensitive? If I'm ever judging, film away. And if I'm ever running and a judge says don't bring a discreet camera to the line, I'm going to ask them where in the rules they were given authority to make that request. Obviously, it's up to you whether you allow folks to post that kind of video on RTF, but prohibiting people from recording for any purpose just seems kind of draconian.

Charles,

I am realizing my quoted potential comments to the handlers as a judge probably detracted from the intent of the original and true intent of my post. Lesson Learned.

Let me ask: Do you agree that it is inappropriate for folks to post those videos on RTF without those impacted by the video being made aware in advance?

I think I'm at a point with the RTF resource where some precedent can be created. I am not interested in standing aside and letting folks advance certain agendas by posting videos of pros or recorded audios with judges, for all to see and hear, unless common courtesy is extended to those impacted. Make sense?

 

[dixidawg]

My point is that if someone is going to audiotape and videotape the judges' faces, words, and comments, it is inappropriate to them to have this done without their knowledge.

It is also illegal in some states. In Mass, you can record video, but if you are also recording audio, you MUST get permission and make people aware first.

I suspect there may be similar laws in other states.

 

[Brian Cockfield]

There have been many times as a law enforcement officer I have been video recorded by individuals just because they could. I didn't appreciate them recording me and I wouldn't appreciate a dog handler doing it either. It seems courtesy is more and more becoming a thing of the past. It's more about whether something is lawful or within the rules. Sad really.

 

[Chris Atkinson]

There have been many times as a law enforcement officer I have been video recorded by individuals just because they could. I didn't appreciate them recording me and I wouldn't appreciate a dog handler doing it either. It seems courtesy is more and more becoming a thing of the past. It's more about whether something is lawful or within the rules. Sad really.

Common Courtesy can not be "legislated" into event rulebooks. It requires that sportsmen behave as sportsmen.

 

[Brian Cockfield]

Common Courtesy can not be "legislated" into event rulebooks. It requires that sportsmen behave as sportsmen.

Amen Brother Chris!

 

[K G]

One VERY important point to remember, folks...and it's an issue broadcast and cable TV have had to address appropriately: kill shots. Along with common courtesy, let's use some common sense. Let some PETA or DDAL person post one of these FT or HT videos on YouTube and see where it puts us. We'll be tying ribbons to Dokkens for the long retired birds before too long....

Your RIGHT to do something doesn't make it RIGHT to do it. If you've never judged, you have no empathy for judges. Think of the "sport" as the bigger entity and focus on doing whatever you can to preserve and grow it.

JMHO....as always... ;-)

k g

 

[Charles C.]

Charles,

I am realizing my quoted potential comments to the handlers as a judge probably detracted from the intent of the original and true intent of my post. Lesson Learned.

Let me ask: Do you agree that it is inappropriate for folks to post those videos on RTF without those impacted by the video being made aware in advance?

I think I'm at a point with the RTF resource where some precedent can be created. I am not interested in standing aside and letting folks advance certain agendas by posting videos of pros or recorded audios with judges, for all to see and hear, unless common courtesy is extended to those impacted. Make sense?

I guess my question is how often does that happen? I really don't think Steve's intention was to throw anyone under the bus. I have zero problem with anyone videoing while I judge, so it's hard for me to sympathize with those who do. I suppose the utmost in courtesy would be to ask, "I'm going to video this. Do you mind if I post it on the internet?" It's hard to legislate morality, though.

 

[Steve Amrein]

I also think this in reverse as well. I also dont think it would be cool to have someones vid shown of a dog who could find the go bird flyer or went 400 yards in the wrong direction and had to have the handler pick up in the field posted. Or how bout if someone is marshaling and have the spyglasses on and post a whiny temper tantrum about when the should run and posted that.

Gooser may be one of the only folks I know to show themselves in shall we say unique situations.

So I think the Bosses idea could be expanded.