judging guideline if dog does not swim.

[Lynne Strang]

I have been wondering what judges do if a dog completes a run correctly but does not swim when it is supposed to be the swimming run. Perhaps the dog is very tall, or the water level has gone down during the day.
How is this handled?
Lynne Strang

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Lynne

Under Rule 29 of the ANKC Rules all dogs must be thoroughly tested "on land and in or through water of sufficient depth to require the dog to swim".

So if I were judging a dog that had not done any swimming, it would not do any placing either. And if the trial site is so dry that swimming is not on the agenda - there would not be a lot of judging going on (not by me, anyway).

Cheers - Alan

[Graeme Parkinson]

Alan

It is starting to get a bit dry around here if it keeps up I can quite easily see a situation arising were there is not enough water to have a dog swin or at least a particularly tall dog not swim (lets forget for the moment the dog trying avoid water). In such circumstances I would expect a judge to use his brains and not his rule book. The propect of spending the time and money to travel to a trial site to have the judge not judge doesn't thrill me either.

Graeme Parkinson

[Annie Warner]

Well said Mr P
In SA years ago, the Field Triallers were having a very hard time finding any water to test the dogs and almost as hard a time finding any game, if they one they often couldn't find the other the same end of the State...
In those circumstances common sense prevailed and if they found any water that a dog could swim in they would use it for a very simple retrieve just to prove the point that they dog could or they would look at past performances...
I know it's not the ideal, but let's face it if a dog is in AA or Restricted it is fairly safe to assume it can and does swim even if the property or circumstances do not allow the judge to test the dog on the day. Don't forget, for the dog he doesn't know if that splash of water before him is swimming water or not until he goes in!
Despite the weather becoming wet over here of recent times it is still not anything like wet enough to make that much difference, and I'm sure no one wants to cancel trials!
If it got to that stage maybe the powers that be should reconsider water tests, where the results of a dogs willingness to enter and work in water could be documented on a card or something, like the old height cards we used to have for obedience?

Annie

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Graeme

I'm all for flexibility with the rules! If a club forgets to organise any "game" for a trial, no reason why we should not extend the definition of game to include bumpers. It could be the only chance that Bonzo "the mallard muncher" has to get his title. He usually wears water wings to avoid drowning, so the lack of water should be a help as well!

Judges should always be prepared to help with "picnic days" - but hopefully know the difference between a picnic and a trial.

Cheers - Al

[Wayne Parkinson]

Alan

I read the first post as someone coming to a trial, running the test in good faith. The dog taking a good line and the challenge the judge has set. I read it as the dog taking the challenge of facing the water and through no fault on it's part being to tall to swim as the test was set or the conditions changed.

I don't wish to get into the debate on this issue but if after a rethink on the matter you would still handle the issue as your initatial response indicated you should hand back your judges licence.

This trialing caper is supposed to be about people working together for a common purpose. Not about using rules on the day to smack people over the head when they are acting in good faith.

Keep Well

Wayne P.

[Prue Winkfield]

Interesting discussion - in our sister sport of field trials - if there is not enough game to fully test the dogs - the trial is called off with no result - also very disappointing after driving for two hours to get there! My understanding is that it is up to the trial managers in consultation with the judges to determine to the best of their ability that it is possible to run the trial. Believe in the past there has been occasion when a retrieving trial has been cancelled due to lack of water.

[Gareth Tawton]

Lynne,

I try to take a realistic view. the rules say the dog must swim. If a dog is clearly cheating the water and does not swim as a result then he can't win the trial. However if the trial site makes impossible to force all dogs to swim then I would view a dog as having swum if he clearly faced the available water. As judge I think you should have enough common sense and experiance to tel the difference between cheating water and facing water.

Gareth

[Pauline Dunne]

Interesting subject, Is the dog really swimming,?? Perhaps we could issue all Judges with a wet suit and snorkel that way they could see if the feet were touching the bottom.The intention of the rule I thought was will the dog enter water without fear or forethought, correct me if I am wrong.
Pauline

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Pauline - great to hear from you again!

I have had a dog that would take a flying leap into water (of swimming depth!) for short water retrieves - but would balk if the retrieve were over 25 or 30 metres. A GSP of course. Not much of a swimmer! Not sure that that characteristic would make a dog the ideal companion if out duck hunting. Unless I were prepared to do the longer retrieves myself.

The rules require that dogs be "thoroughly tested" - that is the intent - and hopefully if judges are able to fulfil that intent (trial sites permitting!) - dogs that achieve NRD, RRD, or RT CH will be worthy of the titles, and potentially useful as hunting companions.

Cheers - Alan

[Pauline Dunne]

Thanks for your rely Alan. On the lighter side, What Colour is your GSP?.To quote an old foe of mine Jack Thompson, he always said 'speckles can not swim it is only the solid liver's that are keen on the water", OF course all Westy Morris's Champion's were speckle or should I say Liver and White, so that put Jack in the hot seat with his statement. As for your problem with distance the only thing I can suggest is make sure you drop all your ducks with in 25-30 metters of the bank.
Regards
Pauline[/img]

[Alan Donovan]

Hi Pauline - Of the 6 GSP's with an RT CH in Queensland in the last few years 4 were speckly (including my one), and 2 were solid liver. So statistics in this part of the country not exactly going along with Jack.

Probably do not have to say that all of them were quite capable of doing a lot of swimming (without benefit of water wings). No snorkels needed either!

Cheers - Alan

[Kerry Webster]

I have found it interesting reading individual interpretations of "when is a dog judged to be swimming", as posed by Lynne.
I have personally been in the situation twice, where my young Lab. who is extra long in the leg, was really not swimming but barely touching the bottom, whereas many other shorter dogs had been swimming through necessity.

In one instance, The site had been tested with a dog, by the judge, and found to be swimming depth for that dog. Through no fault of the judge or my dog, or any other larger competing dog, the depth of the water was not of sufficient depth to allow all dogs to comply with the swimming requirement, but, they faced the water, crossed it (on tippy toes), retrieved the game and then returned through the water. The second instance, the water level dropped overnight and again tall dogs were almost forging their way through the water and only had a short length of swimming depth water. Again, as long as the dogs willingly faced the water without hesitation, there was really no difference between them and the shorter dogs who swam.

Just getting away from that, but still on swimming legs:
I actually find it very annoying when a judge instructs competitors that a retrieve through a body of water will achieve higher points than that of a dog that skirts the water; then, the dog that takes the shortcut via the bank gets awarded higher scores, by that judge. That makes me fume.

Kerry

[Jason Ferris]

I actually find it very annoying when a judge instructs competitors that a retrieve through a body of water will achieve higher points than that of a dog that skirts the water; then, the dog that takes the shortcut via the bank gets awarded higher scores, by that judge. That makes me fume.

I agree Kerry. Cheating the water is not facing the test, so how can a dog which does it still score well for that run? Also I don't think it matters if the judge instructs competitors that a retrieve through a body of water will achieve higher points - if they set the run with a cheating option then it goes without saying.

Cheers, Jason.

[Gareth Tawton]

Jason/Kerry,

I, like you, would much prefer a dog face the test than skirt the water. Personally, I am a little my forgiving on the way back than on the way out. When judging it is sometimes difficult to deal with the dog who has heaps of commands and many of which are disobeyed but faces the water verses the dog that skirts the water but picks up the blind on only one or two commands. At some point all those disobeyed commands trying to face the water have to catch up with you. I have always said judging good dogs is easy, judging bad dogs is easy, it the average dogs that are the hardest to judge. The best judges can rank the inbetween dogs correctly as well as the good and the bad.

At the end of the day the penalty has to fit the crime. I suspect that in most of those trials where we have seen a surprise result, the judge has not a had a penalty appropriately fit the crime or is not in balance with the rest of the retrieve.


All the best,

Gareth