![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Entries Scores Critiques
COMMENTARYPhoto Gallery Video Highlights |
|
WPO Tracking '99 By Tim Tieken
Since returning home to the wet side of the Cascades, where most everything is both
wet and green, I have come to a greater appreciation of the stark contrast between the
tracking conditions in which I customarily work and the conditions at the 1999
International Police Canine Championships in Reno, Nevada. In her commentary, Julia Priest
aptly described the tracking grounds as ‘the surface of the moon.’ I too had the
impression that I was at least near the Craters of the Moon National Monument in Idaho,
if not on the moon itself.
When the first Gruppe of dogs was called to the tracking field, the sun was low in
the morning sky and had not yet burned off what little moisture collected in the top
eighth-inch of dusty soil during the near freezing hours of the previous night. The
dew mildly inhibited the dust from billowing around the dog’s head as he pulled his
legs from the depths of the soft dirt. At times the dog’s legs would sink to the
stifle. There was no vegetation, no rise or fall to the land, just flat, dry, soft
and deep loose dirt. The only advantage for the dog and handler was that the track
was easily seen, as the track-layers footfalls were deep and obvious. It is a
testimony to the quality of these competitors that they maintained scores in the
90s, and that with the judge using a sharp pencil.
By the time the second gruppe was called to the field, the sun had evaporated the
dew. Now the dust billowed more with each track. Slightly compensating for this
increase in difficulty, each new track had been laid on slightly firmer and more
shallow dirt. However, the dust took its toll on each dog’s performance as the
track proceeded. One dog, who normally downs well at articles, only acknowledged
the articles with a head swing, refusing to down in the deep dusty soil. In his
commentary on this track, the judge commented that the dog did a perfect track
other than neglecting to down at the articles. In spite of missing the article
indication the dog received a score of 81. Another dog in this gruppe faltered
slightly on the last turn of his track and while diligently working out the corner,
he inadvertently picked up on a cross track laid by a fisherman who had come by after
the track was laid. The fisherman’s track was not noticed until after the incident
occurred. Unfortunately the judge did not grant another track.
The Reno competition was a grueling test of these dogs' ability to track. All
competitors should be proud of their performance; they validated themselves among
the best tracking dogs in the world and in harsh and foreign conditions. Ulrich
Gerling and his dog Haky were awarded 98 points under these adverse conditions.
It is no wonder they placed first in the overall trial, and high score in the
obedience and tracking phases.
Most of the deficits I observed during the obedience and protection phases are
easily placed into the "off day" category and accounted for about 90% of the
points lost. The remainder of the losses correspond to the experience level of the
handlers. As one would expect, the more experienced handlers had a polish that
rescued the day for them. It was these very slight differences that determined
the outcome of the trial.
Copyright 1999 Tim Tieken; ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
|