Back
to CyberHound This month, I will interrupt the series on handling to discuss several proposals for changes in tracking events. I will discuss common handling errors next time. To my knowledge, there have been two recent proposals for additional tracking classes, besides TD and TDX. I will briefly discuss each of these, as well as the possibility of TDX certification.
Richard Knapp of Florida has proposed a new tracking event in- between TD and TDX, called the TDI. It would involve a track between 550 and 750 yards, aged between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 hours; with four to seven turns and four articles. The start would have one flag, and there would be from one to three obstacles and no crosstracks. Eligibility would be a TD title, like the current requirement for entering TDX tests.
Many people around the country support this idea, since the pass rate in TDX is so low. With a TDI, it is believed, there would be more opportunities for tracking titles. I can't see why an exhibitor would object to such an additional opportunity for tracking titles, although one might argue about specific track requirements. The real objections to this additional test come primarily from judges and clubs who put on tests, due to the additional work effort required.
Of course, if the AKC approved a new kind of test, that doesn't mean clubs would HAVE TO put one on. However, as is often the case with conformation and obedience clubs, the entire membership votes to do something in tracking, and a few tracking enthusiasts get to do all the extra work.
This is a proposal by John Bernard, the chief "trackmiester" at the AKC. I call this "urban tracking." It involves tracking on pavement, around buildings and allows for multiple unplanned crosstracks. The idea is to duplicate a realistic search for a lost person in a city.
My understanding of the latest proposal is a track between 600 and 800 yards, aged between one and three hours, with one starting flag. There would be four articles (plastic, metal, leather, fabric) and at least two right angle turns. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the track would have NO vegetation. This could be pavement, bare ground, concrete, or other surfaces. John has been discussing this proposal and encouraging people around the country to train for it within the last few months.
Since I have not observed this kind of tracking, I don't have the proper expertise to evaluate it. I would be interested to learn if any of you have been trying this, and how your dogs are doing. I have heard mixed results, ranging from "my dog can't make a turn on pavement," to "no problem."
Some people, including myself, favor a certification test for TDX. So many TDX entries flunk before successfully completing the first turn (about 40%), that many people have concluded that the problem is in general a lack of preparation. A certification test would tend to minimize this.
I can speak from experience; just because your dog doesn't get past the first turn doesn't mean he is not prepared for the track. However, I have judged many dogs in TDX who appeared to not be ready. TDX requires superb scent discrimination, concentration, intensive training and the stamina to work out the last turn or crosstrack of a 1000-yard track. I especially like a recent proposal by Herb Morrison of Athens, Georgia which seems to address most of the previous objections to this.
Mr. Morrison's proposal is a track between 400 and 600 yards in length, aged between three and five hours, with one start flag and three articles. With no crosstracks or obstacles, it would not be difficult to plot, but would mainly test aging and stamina. It could be accomplished by a TD judge. An innovative proposal by Mr. Morrison is to not require the certification to get into a TDX test, but to discriminate in favor of certified dogs when drawing for slots in a test. I think this is BRILLIANT! A big drawback, of course, is that it would require extra time and effort by both judges and exhibitors. But that is true of any certification, which I heartily support. There are just too many dogs entering TDX tests who aren't ready.
I appreciate that exhibitors don't want to be limited by such a requirement. I suggest they try designing seven TDX tracks in a single day, and then watching unprepared dogs blow the start. The simple fact is that passing a TD test does not prepare a dog to enter a TDX. All the arguments against TDX certification are based on practical considerations of time and the availability of judges. But until the standards are raised to get into tests, we will continue to see unprepared dogs waste everybody's time while thoroughly trained dogs wait on the alternate list. I think Mr. Morrison's proposal is the best and most fair I've seen, although it obviously can't please everyone.
Personally, my preference to solve this problem is one that most people don't like: price out demand. By charging higher prices until you don't have big alternate lists, you tend to see better prepared dogs. This is exactly what happened when my local club raised the TDX entry fee from $50 to $75. This also provides more money for tracking clubs, and does not require an additional type of test or extra judges' time. It simply and effectively solves all the demand problems. Of course, exhibitors who do not work at tests or judge them would prefer to maintain the status quo.
The TDI, variable surface tracking and TDX certification are all proposals to deal with a variety of problems that currently exist in tracking. Most of these problems originate from the large difference in skill levels required for TD and TDX. While all the proposals discussed here are serious, only the variable surface tracking proposal seems to have much chance of approval at this time (although any club can unilaterally raise prices as I have suggested). However, the other proposals deserve your consideration, regardless of what you think of my opinions. I would appreciate any comments you might have about any of these proposals. Next time, back to handling.