Not a substitute for, but it helps

Not a substitute for, but it helps

THEME judges expert in hunting dog is so clear that talk about it at length just is not necessary. Ekspertiznye assessment exterior dogs judgments of judges on their field work — it is the basis on which the entire breeding.

Therefore, the judges, the experts rightly high demands perfect knowledge of the characteristics of each breed, its history, its status at present and, most importantly, a proper understanding of the direction in which the development of the breed should go.

However, some professional knowledge have not created any of the judge or of the expert.

A real judge and an expert handler creates a combination of knowledge from the moral purity of the modern Soviet man, above all which puts the interests of the public.

Such judges have the majority. They appreciate the trust exerted by hunting groups, in their activities in the ring and in the field is a model not just the high demands of himself, in the conclusions of integrity, strict observance of the existing rules of examinations, tests and competitions.

Undoubtedly, such a decision even different judges are not always and not all have liked. But it is the perfection of the moral image of the judge and the expert did not give and does not give a reason in these cases to challenge their decisions, to act with protests in their reports. If such protests arise, then the public gets to protect the objective of judging, not allowing defame honest experts and judges.

But speaking about the remarkable detachment of our judges and experts, we have nevertheless sometimes bitterly remember the old adage about the family, which is not without its black sheep.

Everyone knows the points rules test hunting dogs, where it is recorded that the chairman of the judging committee and its members have no right to judge the dogs belonging to them personally, their family members and close relatives, as well as dogs that are descendants of the first generation of their own pets, and so on. Etc. .

The ethics of judging requires that, in the cases provided for in those paragraphs of the rules, or that the judge did not take part in the work of the commission, giving way to spare.

But tests on beagles in the Kirov region in 1961, members of the jury min. Raspopov and Pervushov requirements of ethics, it is clear not even remembered by awarding «Amur» Raspopov and «grass» Pervusheva diplomas of the third degree. .

We assume, of course, that «Amuschu and» Grass «- working dogs, but the fact, v that tried them themselves owners, makes guard.

Judge of the Moscow Society of Hunters min. Grigoriev, bursting fishing healed and allowed themselves to take part in the judging huskies, which are descendants of the first generation of their personal dogs.

And here, as in Kirov, this could not talk about the cause of judicial bias estimates.

Russian piebald hound thunder. Exterior rank «very good» in tests three W diploma degree. Owner A. Snarskii (Gatchina, Leningrad region.)

Photo by KOMISSAROVA

No less overall harm to our cause and bring those judges who admit when testing tions formalism ready for the early completion of work to deviate from the rules, turn a blind eye to deliberate simplification of test conditions.

For example, rules for testing huskies duck and squirrel require that out of each dog was sure to shoot a duck and a squirrel. This shooting is needed to determine the ratio of dogs to podranennoy or killed wild game, as well as to assess the bird feed produced from the reservoir.

In practice, clear and strict requirements of the rules are not always fulfilled. The huskies section of Moscow society of hunters in the past year, they openly ignored and with the connivance of the judges min. Shnygina, Furtova and some other extremely simplified. Judges of these for yourself, do not hesitate to write in the protocols «tests» that «supply from the water bat duck tested for clean water, which was abandoned meters on 25 from coast killed shoveler», and that «the attitude of the slain small animal tested tossing on fir under shot killed proteins. «

It is possible that the judge went on to gross violation of the rules of the test due to the absence of sufficient field testing of animals and birds. However, this does not justify them. They would have done better if I had not chased number «otsuzhennye» dogs, and stopped the test.

Individual judges from the IPO as deliberately violate the rules and tests of stool huskies bear. It is believed to test each dog to hold a bear in the woods for at least two hundred meters, and to tie the animal on the rope. Another dog embarks on a search to 15-20 meters from the trace of the beast, and no closer than 150 meters from the bear. Under these conditions, the dog must, crossing the track, it confidently prichuyat silently walk to the beast, and then rush to snap.

These requirements MOO replaced by simplified, lighter. Bear held for leaving a trace only once for all tested dogs, the number of which sometimes reaches 25-30. Then the owners of huskies in turn fed his dogs to track and keeping them on a leash, carried out on the trail of 1-2 meters. On the basis of this «test» the judge assess «the relationship of the dog» to track the beast. When puffing on a bear dog owners be allowed to judge about the beast, voice and gestures to play off the dog, causing it to become embittered and make grip.

Undoubtedly, the number handed after such «trials» of diplomas increased, but the value of such certificates is questionable and, even worse, it discredited the idea of ​​field testing as a means of identifying the most complete working qualities of dogs.

In the final result, all these deviations from the rules, as well as violations of ethics and judging expertise, not just the sum of its negative impact on the credibility of judges and experts, but also lead to blunders, errors in dog blood.

The quality of refereeing at the trial or examination of the ring, as well as compliance with the rules of the test dogs judges no one really does not control — neither the public nor the state hunting inspection, despite the fact that the leaders of the last sign and issue the diplomas awarded by the judges of the field work dogs.

Naturally, workers gosohotinspektsii themselves everywhere to keep up can not, and it would be wrong to require them to «omniscience» and «omniscience» But is it so small, our army of amateur breeders, it was impossible to find among her enough to experienced and respected people who may be subject to the control of the judging?

It is, of course, is not about to put judges on some higher authority, which would be in the ring to interfere with affairs judges. No, but in the form of a look-control committee, as, for example, is done in football, gymnastics and all other sports, perhaps, it would help the judges.

You can choose another form of social control, without undermining the authority of the judge. These commissions, which, without interfering with the direct work of the judge and the expert, without joining with him in controversy in the ring or in the field, could be a good help is only one that would monitor strict compliance with all the rules of judging, would be appointed to check submitted reports, their presence would be firmly protected the judicial staff against unfair attacks.

In our opinion, the issue has matured and advanced training of judges and the exchange of experience it. And that, apparently, has to do Rosohotsoyuz.

It seems to attract the public to help referees — it is overdue and necessary. I would like to know what people think about this other dog lovers of blood.

dog is so clear that talk about it at length just is not necessary. Ekspertiznye assessment exterior dogs judgments of judges on their field work — it is the basis on which the entire breeding.

Therefore, the judges, the experts rightly high demands perfect knowledge of the characteristics of each breed, its history, its status at present and, most importantly, a proper understanding of the direction in which the development of the breed should go.

However, some professional knowledge have not created any of the judge or of the expert.

A real judge and an expert handler creates a combination of knowledge from the moral purity of the modern Soviet man, above all which puts the interests of the public.

Such judges have the majority. They appreciate the trust exerted by hunting groups, in their activities in the ring and in the field is a model not just the high demands of himself, in the conclusions of integrity, strict observance of the existing rules of examinations, tests and competitions.

Undoubtedly, such a decision even different judges are not always and not all have liked. But it is the perfection of the moral image of the judge and the expert did not give and does not give a reason in these cases to challenge their decisions, to act with protests in their reports. If such protests arise, then the public gets to protect the objective of judging, not allowing defame honest experts and judges.

But speaking about the remarkable detachment of our judges and experts, we have nevertheless sometimes bitterly remember the old adage about the family, which is not without its black sheep.

Everyone knows the points rules test hunting dogs, where it is recorded that the chairman of the judging committee and its members have no right to judge the dogs belonging to them personally, their family members and close relatives, as well as dogs that are descendants of the first generation of their own pets, and so on. Etc. .

The ethics of judging requires that, in the cases provided for in those paragraphs of the rules, or that the judge did not take part in the work of the commission, giving way to spare.

But tests on beagles in the Kirov region in 1961, members of the jury min. Raspopov and Pervushov requirements of ethics, it is clear not even remembered by awarding «Amur» Raspopov and «grass» Pervusheva diplomas of the third degree. .

We assume, of course, that «Amuschu and» Grass «- working dogs, but the fact that they judge themselves owners, makes guard.

Judge of the Moscow Society of Hunters min. Grigoriev, bursting fishing healed and allowed themselves to take part in the judging huskies, which are descendants of the first generation of their personal dogs.

And here, as in Kirov, this could not talk about the cause of judicial bias estimates.

Russian piebald hound thunder. Exterior rank «very good» in tests three W diploma degree. Owner A. Snarskii (Gatchina, Leningrad region.)

Photo by KOMISSAROVA

No less overall harm to our cause and bring those judges who admit when testing tions formalism ready for the early completion of work to deviate from the rules, turn a blind eye to deliberate simplification of test conditions.

For example, rules for testing huskies duck and squirrel require that out of each dog was sure to shoot a duck and a squirrel. This shooting is needed to determine the ratio of dogs to podranennoy or killed wild game, as well as to assess the bird feed produced from the reservoir.

In practice, clear and strict requirements of the rules are not always fulfilled. The huskies section of Moscow society of hunters in the past year, they openly ignored and with the connivance of the judges min. Shnygina, Furtova and some other extremely simplified. Judges of these for yourself, do not hesitate to write in the protocols «tests» that «supply from the water bat duck tested for clean water, which was abandoned meters on 25 from coast killed shoveler», and that «the attitude of the slain small animal tested tossing on fir under shot killed proteins. «

It is possible that the judge went on to gross violation of the rules of the test due to the absence of sufficient field testing of animals and birds. However, this does not justify them. They would have done better if I had not chased number «otsuzhennye» dogs, and stopped the test.

Individual judges from the IPO as deliberately violate the rules and tests of stool huskies bear. It is believed to test each dog to hold a bear in the woods for at least two hundred meters, and to tie the animal on the rope. Another dog embarks on a search to 15-20 meters from the trace of the beast, and no closer than 150 meters from the bear. Under these conditions, the dog must, crossing the track, it confidently teach silently walk to the beast, and then rush to snap.

These requirements MOO replaced by simplified, lighter. Bear held for leaving a trace only once for all tested dogs, the number of which sometimes reaches 25-30. Then the owners of huskies in turn fed his dogs to track and keeping them on a leash, carried out on the trail of 1-2 meters. On the basis of this «test» the judge assess «the relationship of the dog» to track the beast. When puffing on a bear dog owners be allowed to judge about the beast, voice and gestures to play off the dog, causing it to become embittered and make grip.

Undoubtedly, the number handed after such «trials» of diplomas increased, but the value of such certificates is questionable and, even worse, it discredited the idea of ​​field testing as a means of identifying the most complete working qualities of dogs.

In the final result, all these deviations from the rules, as well as violations of ethics and judging expertise, not just the sum of its negative impact on the credibility of judges and experts, but also lead to blunders, errors in dog blood.

The quality of refereeing at the trial or examination of the ring, as well as compliance with the rules of the test dogs judges no one really does not control — neither the public nor the state hunting inspection, despite the fact that the leaders of the last sign and issue the diplomas awarded by the judges of the field work dogs.

Naturally, workers gosohotinspektsii themselves everywhere to keep up can not, and it would be wrong to require them to «omniscience» and «omniscience» But is it so small, our army of amateur breeders, it was impossible to find among her enough to experienced and respected people who may be subject to the control of the judging?

It is, of course, is not about to put judges on some higher authority, which would be in the ring to interfere with affairs judges. No, but in the form of a look-control committee, as, for example, is done in football, gymnastics and all other sports, perhaps, it would help the judges.

You can choose another form of social control, without undermining the authority of the judge. These commissions, which, without interfering with the direct work of the judge and the expert, without joining with him in controversy in the ring or in the field, could be a good help is only one that would monitor strict compliance with all the rules of judging, would be appointed to check submitted reports, their presence would be firmly protected the judicial staff against unfair attacks.

In our opinion, the issue has matured and advanced training of judges and the exchange of experience it. And that, apparently, has to do Rosohotsoyuz.

It seems to attract the public to help referees — it is overdue and necessary. I would like to know what people think about this other dog lovers of blood.

THEME judges expert in hunting dog is so clear that talk about it at length just is not necessary. Ekspertiznye assessment exterior dogs judgments of judges on their field work — it is the basis on which the entire breeding.

Therefore, the judges, the experts rightly high demands perfect knowledge of the characteristics of each breed, its history, its status at present and, most importantly, a proper understanding of the direction in which the development of the breed should go.

However, some professional knowledge have not created any of the judge or of the expert.

A real judge and an expert handler creates a combination of knowledge from the moral purity of the modern Soviet man, above all which puts the interests of the public.

Such judges have the majority. They appreciate the trust exerted by hunting groups, in their activities in the ring and in the field is a model not just the high demands of himself, in the conclusions of integrity, strict observance of the existing rules of examinations, tests and competitions.

Undoubtedly, such a decision even different judges are not always and not all have liked. But it is the perfection of the moral image of the judge and the expert did not give and does not give a reason in these cases to challenge their decisions, to act with protests in their reports. If such protests arise, then the public gets to protect the objective of judging, not allowing defame honest experts and judges.

But speaking about the remarkable detachment of our judges and experts, we have nevertheless sometimes bitterly remember the old adage about the family, which is not without its black sheep.

Everyone knows the points rules test hunting dogs, where it is recorded that the chairman of the judging committee and its members have no right to judge the dogs belonging to them personally, their family members and close relatives, as well as dogs that are descendants of the first generation of their own pets, and so on. Etc. .

The ethics of judging requires that, in the cases provided for in those paragraphs of the rules, or that the judge did not take part in the work of the commission, giving way to spare.

But tests on beagles in the Kirov region in 1961, members of the jury min. Raspopov and Pervushov requirements of ethics, it is clear not even remembered by awarding «Amur» Raspopov and «grass» Pervusheva diplomas of the third degree. .

We assume, of course, that «Amuschu and» Grass «- working dogs, but the fact that they judge themselves owners, makes guard.

Judge of the Moscow Society of Hunters min. Grigoriev, bursting fishing healed and allowed themselves to take part in the judging huskies, which are descendants of the first generation of their personal dogs.

And here, as in Kirov, this could not talk about the cause of judicial bias estimates.

Russian piebald hound thunder. Exterior rank «very good» in tests three W diploma degree. Owner A. Snarskii (Gatchina, Leningrad region.)

Photo by KOMISSAROVA

No less overall harm to our cause and bring those judges who admit when testing tions formalism ready for the early completion of work to deviate from the rules, turn a blind eye to deliberate simplification of test conditions.

For example, rules for testing huskies duck and squirrel require that out of each dog was sure to shoot a duck and a squirrel. This shooting is needed to determine the ratio of dogs to podranennoy or killed wild game, as well as to assess the bird feed produced from the reservoir.

In practice, clear and strict requirements of the rules are not always fulfilled. The huskies section of Moscow society of hunters in the past year, they openly ignored and with the connivance of the judges min. Shnygina, Furtova and some other extremely simplified. Judges of these for yourself, do not hesitate to write in the protocols «tests» that «supply from the water bat duck tested for clean water, which was abandoned meters on 25 from coast killed shoveler», and that «the attitude of the slain small animal tested tossing on fir under shot killed proteins. «

It is possible that the judge went on to gross violation of the rules of the test due to the absence of sufficient field testing of animals and birds. However, this does not justify them. They would have done better if I had not chased number «otsuzhennye» dogs, and stopped the test.

Individual judges from the IPO as deliberately violate the rules and tests of stool huskies bear. It is believed to test each dog to hold a bear in the woods for at least two hundred meters, and to tie the animal on the rope. Another dog embarks on a search to 15-20 meters from the trace of the beast, and no closer than 150 meters from the bear. Under these conditions, the dog must, crossing the track, it confidently teach silently walk to the beast, and then rush to snap.

These requirements MOO replaced by simplified, lighter. Bear held for leaving a trace only once for all tested dogs, the number of which sometimes reaches 25-30. Then the owners of huskies in turn fed his dogs to track and keeping them on a leash, carried out on the trail of 1-2 meters. On the basis of this «test» the judge assess «the relationship of the dog» to track the beast. When puffing on a bear dog owners be allowed to judge about the beast, voice and gestures to play off the dog, causing it to become embittered and make grip.

Undoubtedly, the number handed after such «trials» of diplomas increased, but the value of such certificates is questionable and, even worse, it discredited the idea of ​​field testing as a means of identifying the most complete working qualities of dogs.

In the final result, all these deviations from the rules, as well as violations of ethics and judging expertise, not just the sum of its negative impact on the credibility of judges and experts, but also lead to blunders, errors in dog blood.

The quality of refereeing at the trial or examination of the ring, as well as compliance with the rules of the test dogs judges no one really does not control — neither the public nor the state hunting inspection, despite the fact that the leaders of the last sign and issue the diplomas awarded by the judges of the field work dogs.

Naturally, workers gosohotinspektsii themselves everywhere to keep up can not, and it would be wrong to require them to «omniscience» and «omniscience» But is it so small, our army of amateur breeders, it was impossible to find among her enough to experienced and respected people who may be subject to the control of the judging?

It is, of course, is not about to put judges on some higher authority, which would be in the ring to interfere with affairs judges. No, but in the form of a look-control committee, as, for example, is done in football, gymnastics and all other sports, perhaps, it would help the judges.

You can choose another form of social control, without undermining the authority of the judge. These commissions, which, without interfering with the direct work of the judge and the expert, without joining with him in controversy in the ring or in the field, could be a good help is only one that would monitor strict compliance with all the rules of judging, would be appointed to check submitted reports, their presence would be firmly protected the judicial staff against unfair attacks.

In our opinion, the issue has matured and advanced training of judges and the exchange of experience it. And that, apparently, has to do Rosohotsoyuz.

It seems to attract the public to help referees — it is overdue and necessary. I would like to know what people think about this other dog lovers of blood.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: