This section is from the book "The Dogs Of The British Islands", by J. H. Walsh. Also available from Amazon: The Dogs Of The British Islands.
THE judging at Field Trials has for some years been conducted on the above principles at Stafford and Shrewsbury, without any negative points, which were, however, introduced at Vaynol, in September, 1871, and gave great satisfaction.
The following is the scale adopted at the Stafford and Shrewsbury trials, which prevailed up to that time. Under it, a dog, which we will call Pilot, refusing to back, but reasonably good in other points, would score 52, but under the negative scale 10 would be deducted from his totals, and very properly so, that being the amount of the allowance for backing, which is not only not to be calculated in his favour, but is absolutely to be deducted from his total score. Now, as the dog refusing to back does mischief to the sport so far as often to spoil it altogether, it is quite right that he should be severely punished for his offence, and on that account I think the principle is quite sound. It was at first considered that backing is merely the result of breaking, and therefore is no test of the utility or otherwise of a stud dog. Hence, nose, point, pace, and range were made the chief tests, omitting all notice of backing, dropping to shot, etc. This was, I think, a mistake as regards backing, which is as inherent in some breeds as the point, and quite as difficult to impart by education.
20 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 100 | |||
Name of Dog. | Pace and Range. | Obedience. | Style in Hunting. | Game-finding Abilities. | Style in Pointing. | Merit in Backing. | , - . - Marks, Total. | Good Points on Game. | General Remarks. |
Mot | 15 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 12 | 0 | 52 | 3 |
The scale used at Bedford and Bala was somewhat different; but still it did not introduce the negative points. I insert it as filled up at Bala by "The Prior" in the case of the celebrated Hamlet:
Name of Dog. | 40 | 30 | 10 | 10 | 10 | Style. | 100 | |
Nose. | Face and Range. | Temperament. | Staunchness. | Marks, Total. | Good Points on Game. | |||
Before. | Behind. | |||||||
Hamlet.... First hour | 30 | 20 | 5 | 10 | 10 | Indifferent. | 75 | 2 |
Ditto.................. Second hour | 40 | 25 | 5 | 10 | 10 | Good. | 90 | 3 |
Ditto.................. Third hour | 40 | 25 | 10 | 10 | 10 | Good. | 95 | 3 |
Now, supposing Hamlet had refused to back, he would only be mulcted 10 points from the above totals; whereas, according to my ideas, he ought to lose 20. Moreover, there is no calculation made for "dropping to wing and shot," two most important items in the utility of a pointer or setter. Taking these considerations into view, I proposed for adoption at the Vaynol trials the following modifications of the Bedford and Bala scale, which was originally intended only to test dogs used for stud purposes. This, when filled up for a dog of average merits, would be as follows:
Name and Age of Dog. | Value of Points when perfect. | General Remarks. | ||||||
30 | 20 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 100 | ||
Pilot, 4 1/2 years. | Nose. | Pace and Style in Hunting. | Breaking, as shown in working to hand, and dropping to wing and shot. | Style and Steadiness in Pointing. | Backing. | Drawing on Game, or Roading. | Total Value. | A very good dog naturally, but almost wholly unbroken. |
Positive............... | 30 | 10 | 5 | 45 | ||||
Deduct Negative ... | 15 | 1O | 5 | 30 | ||||
Net Total of Points................................................ | 15 | |||||||
This scale worked admirably at Vaynol for two years in succession, and not only did the judges experience no difficulty in carrying it out, but the spectators were satisfied with the results, to a degree which I have never seen equalled elsewhere.
In the third year, however, one of the subscribers and his confederate, having been previously spoiled by a long series of successes, objected to the decisions, alleging that the dogs were not worked out in pairs, as in coursing; and since then an attempt has been made under the instigation of Mr. Lowe, the Secretary of the Kennel Club, to establish a code of points founded upon the number of times each dog has found game or backed his competitor, without reference to style, pace, etc. Again and again attempts have been made to carry this plan out, but it has uniformly failed, as might be expected, and when put to the vote of the subscribers to a stake, it has always been negatived. During the present season, 1877, and prior to the trials at Horseheath of the Kennel Club Derby dogs, Mr. Brewis, the liberal owner of the estate on which they take place, has attempted to combine the two plans; but as the combination is still in a state of development, no opinion can fairly be given of its merits.
The following article was published by myself recently in the Field, being a comparison between the two plans adopted this year at Shrewsbury and Horseheath. It may, I think, be studied with advantage by those who either dislike judging by points, or desire to carry out the system of pairing all the dogs entered, as in coursing, forgetting altogether the difference between that sport and shooting.
"At the risk of incurring the charge of publishing vain repetitions of our opinions on the above subject, we are tempted once more to return to it, in consequence of recent very remarkable events, which tend to show that we have not been without a good foundation for those so often expressed in these columns.
"In regard to the trials, we think that two positions have been established by the late meetings at Shrewsbury and Horseheath. First, that the absolute winner should never be selected until the latest possible time; and, secondly, that the same absence of haste should be displayed in finally rejecting each competitor - that is to say, the system of running the dogs in pairs, adopted in coursing, should not be followed in field trials. The great drawback to those trials is the necessarily short time which can be devoted to the several pairs; and, as a consequence it is desirable to arrange them, so that, if possible, a dog should be estimated according to his whole performance, if tried more than once, rather than by that in any separate run. In coursing it is impossible to carry out such a scheme, because the relative amount of work done by the two dogs previously to any particular course after the first round influences their respective powers very considerably, and, therefore, it would be very difficult for a judge to select any two at his discretion for trial; and the result of long experience is, that the only resource is to draw the whole entry out in pairs by lot, and afterwards try the several winners in the successive rounds together, according to their first position on the card.
But in pointer and setter trials no such difficulty exists. The amount of work done by each dog is only sufficient to steady him, and the judges can fairly pair any two whenever they like, as has been done at all meetings but those of late years held under the auspices of the Kennel Club. At Shrewsbury the covert has generally been so bad, and game so scarce, that the trials have been only of the nature of a farce; but this year the ground was nearly equally good with that at Horseheath, and it is therefore fair to compare the results of the two meetings conducted as they are on wholly different plans.
 
Continue to: