Psychology of Dog Judges

Psychology of Dog Judges.

Psychology of Dog Judges

" To see ourselves as others see us."

In the early stages of the development of " homo sapiens", his undesirable actions and thoughts usually had a simple explanation—such as faulty upbringing, vanity, sluggish liver, or false ideals—but the present wonderfully developed generation requires a more complicated and implicated analysis of cause and effect! Therefore to be thoroughly up-to-date it may be interesting to analyse the " reactions" and " complexes " of field trial judges which they are supposed to demonstrate!

THE PRECONCEIVED IDEA

The usual failing to which a judge is assumed to be liable is the " preconceived idea ". This is a very natural failing, as a man who, at a previous trial, has seen a dog demonstrate exceptional capability in its work, must subconsciously be influenced by the memory of such performance when he is judging the same dog at a subsequent trial—and a judge must therefore continually remind himself that he is judging the dog on Its work during the subsequent trial only.

For this reason, there may be some sense in the suggestion offered by field trial critics that no judge should officiate at the championship meeting who has judged at any other meeting during the same shooting season—but, on the other hand, this restriction would add to the difficulty of obtaining competent judges for the championship meeting. Another way in which this " preconceived idea " is supposed to influence a judge is when he has to call up another dog to try to find a bird on which the two dogs he is already judging have failed; if he is a keen shooting man, with humane ideas, he is naturally very anxious that the bird should be recovered as soon as possible, and he is tempted to try a dog which he knows is a really good retriever—but to be absolutely fair he should try some unknown dog in its turn, to give this novice an opportunity to " wipe the eye " of the other retrievers and so place itself high up in order of merit.

THE " IDEA FIXED "

Another " complex", to which judges are supposed to be subject, is the somewhat feminine trait of refusal to alter an opinion previously expressed. Thus, a judge may be impressed by the work of a dog when first tried and, having expressed an opinion of its excellence to the other judges, is loath to alter such an opinion when the dog fails to maintain the high standard in its subsequent work.

INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE

Certain judges are supposed by some handlers to react favourably to particular points In performance; thus a judge may get the reputation of only giving high marks to fast dogs, or of penalising a retriever unless it has a perfect " showy " delivery. But when we begin to consider field trials from the judge's point of view, we begin to wonder how the various societies ever manage to obtain competent judges to officiate at field trial meetings.

With no fixed rules or standard of points to guide him, the judge must concentrate on his work for eight hours on end (even the luncheon interval gives no respite, as he must then compare notes with the other judge or judges) and during the whole of his trying task he must be tactful, fair, consoling and considerate—as well as possess the necessary qualifications to appreciate the most intricate details of gun-dog work.

THE HANDLERS

We must not forget to consider the point-ofview of the handlers. For the most part they are long-suffering individuals who never reap their merited reward. In their case an "inferiority complex " is a fatal handicap (particularly when their " nerve flutter " takes the form of loquacity, and the judge's temper is worn to a thread by conversational remarks) as the dog which is being handled by such an individual may be sensitive to depreciation and fail to show its best form.

But although trials may offer every ideal opportunity, and the judges take the greatest interest luck is certain to play an important part in the proceedings; and it is the handlers who represent the sporting element of field trials—for they almost invariably accept cheerfully the decision of the judges, and encourage that delightful spirit of enjoyment which is demonstrated at these congenial and jolly meetings.

Field trials have their lighter moments, and the following episode, which took place at a recent meeting where I was judging, provided much amusement. The spectators happened to be standing within a few yards of one of the Guns, as a field of roots was being beaten out for pheasants; among the spectators was the wife of one of the farm workers and she had brought with her a pram—this vehicle Is used in that particular part of the country for a variety of purposes, such as shopping, wood collecting, etc., but on this occasion It happened to contain a baby; one of the pheasants as It was shot fell dead Into the perambulator; the woman was so amazed (or maybe she realized the possibilities) that she hurriedly wheeled away the pram, with Its mixed contents of baby and bird, to the great amusement of everybody,

A few clays later at a Shoot, one of my fellow Guns said to me, "I hear you sent a dog to retrieve a pheasant out of a perambulator, and when the animal brought back the baby instead, you disqualified the retriever for hard mouth because It made the baby cry! " In such a way is a reDiitation rained.

---

Related Items:

• Afghan Hound Dogs
• Alaskan Husky Dogs
• Alaskan Malamute Dogs
• Basset Hound Dogs
• Bulldog