# Hunt Test/Field Trial



## Gunssmoke3217 (Feb 12, 2013)

How do these differ? I have good information on how to get into Hunt tests, but what about field trials? What trials can you enter and which cant you? What do you see in field trials from younger dogs on up?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gunsmoke,

Hunt Test are much more accessible for the newbie with a good dog. Hunt Test evolved out of field trials decades ago because field trials are so hard for the average weekend hunting guy to compete in. Both are fun and anybody can enter a field trial with some exceptions, but field trials are very hard and require intense training. Hunt Test are easier, I was able to take my first dog through Junior, Senior and Master just training with a small group after work and on weekends.

John


----------



## Beau M. (Feb 9, 2013)

Why are FT so tough? I'm not saying they are easy I'm really asking why are they tough, I have never been to one and want to know the difficulties in running FT? 
Thanks


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Because you are competing against all the other entries. Only a handful of dogs get a ribbon at the end of the day, and only one is declared the winner. 

In Hunt tests if you and your dog perform the tests up to the standard, you qualify and get a ribbon.


----------



## Beau M. (Feb 9, 2013)

Lady Duck
i understand that part, so is the actual setup that the dogs running that much harder then lets say a SH or MH test? I know typically they are longer marks and blinds right? But people say you train way different for FT then HT! So I'm asking why is this?


----------



## swampcollielover (Nov 30, 2012)

The key here, as noted above 'Trials' are competitive.All the dogs compete to win; therefore the judges make the trial harder so theycan separate the best dogs.

Hunt tests are based on a standard, in theory all dogs could pass or fail atest. From my experience AKC hunt tests are harder than HRC tests, so I like torun both....also the people in all of these are really great, including mostjudges...fun and fellowship with lots of good dogs....!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Beau M. said:


> Why are FT so tough? I'm not saying they are easy I'm really asking why are they tough, I have never been to one and want to know the difficulties in running FT?
> Thanks


Like Lady said, it is competitive. 90% of the dogs entered in an all age test are well bred and trained to a very high level, that said judging a field trial is a process of elimination. Last weekend at the Samish Trial is a good example, 52 dogs entered in the amateur, very hard first series, nothing tricky, just excellent bird placement, the judges called everybody they could back to the second series, including handles, that was 21 dogs. Then an excellent double land blind, again the judges were generous, 15 to the water blind. They ran the water blind in cold windy conditions Sunday morning and shortened it due to the adverse conditions, eight of the 15 picked up, so seven to the fourth. I was so proud to be one of the six finishers, no points just a green ribbon. FTs are very hard.

John


----------



## Beau M. (Feb 9, 2013)

Thanks John, and congrats on finish


----------



## Dos Patos (Oct 15, 2012)

And I do not think anyone has mentioned distance.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

The toughness of FT's is that they are competitive, in that you are running against everyone else, and the judges are trying to separate the Field and find the top dog. Now whether or not they are actually harder than HTs in terms of work, all depends on the which dogs showed up and who's judging. Sometimes judges have to get real technical and put on over the top series to separate out really close running dogs sometimes they don't, a winner reveals itself early on. 

HTs usually run more series, marks and blinds are only considered one series in a HT, in an FT a blind is a series a set of marks is a separate series. EX in a Qual you'll _usually_ (FTs can change based on what the judges need) run 4 series (2 sets of blinds and 2 sets of marks), a MH hunt test you'll run 3 series (3sets of marks, 2 sets of blind including a double B). HT like to use cover, and hidden stations to confuse a dogs marking, FT like to see a dog get every chance to mark, then judge how they get there.

Long and short of it is HT or FT "They's just dogs". I've ran difficult over the top tests in every venue, I've ran in. Are the skill set required or technics of a FT any harder than those of any other venue?There's variety, but No not really. So what's the difference? An average-good performance in a HT will more likely than not see you a ribbon at the end of a day. In a FT if you can't keep up with the upper dogs, those that are doing well that day, you'll be going home early. HT's (Stay and Play) FT's (Win or Go home)


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> But *people say you train way different for FT then HT*! So I'm asking why is this?


They really shouldn't for the first year and a half of training. The basic skills are the same. One thing I find is that hunt testers often accept "good enough" while a field trialer won't accept anything but excellent,. If failing excellent, the best the dog is capable of doing then, and then continue to work on what the dog has trouble.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

FT marks and blinds tend to be a lot longer. It is normal to have marks and blinds longer than 300 yards in an FT, while the hunt test marks are not usually going to exceed 150 yards. An FT is not necessarily harder than a given hunt test, particularly if the birds are well-placed in the hunt test, but the distance is a big difference.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> FT marks and blinds tend to be a lot longer. It is normal to have marks and blinds longer than 300 yards in an FT, while the hunt test marks are not usually going to exceed 150 yards. An FT is not necessarily harder than a given hunt test, particularly if the birds are well-placed in the hunt test, but the distance is a big difference.


I have to disagree, at least at the all-age level. The Open and Am tests are generally longer with many more factors than a MH test, including distance. The field trial minor stakes are more in line with the skill sets of a hunt test. There is a big step up to the all-age stakes from the minors.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Russ said:


> I have to disagree, at least at the all-age level. The Open and Am tests are generally longer with many more factors than a MH test, including distance. The field trial minor stakes are more in line with the skill sets of a hunt test. There is a big step up to the all-age stakes from the minors.


I was trying hard to avoid the usual hunt test versus field trial battle that pops up occasionally, but I have to agree with you on this. Any given all age test is going to outright fail 40%-50% of the field. Bearing in mind that the field is comprised of very highly trained, exceptional dogs, that tells you how hard they are right there. I have had two Master hunters and four qualified all age dogs, my dogs will fail the occasional master test on some tricky deal, break on a walk-up, mishandle a bull dog, etc, but I would say the marks and blinds are quite easy compared to field trial setups.

John


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Here we go, I thought this was being to civil for a HT/FT thread. ;-)


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Russ said:


> I have to disagree, at least at the all-age level. The Open and Am tests are generally longer with many more factors than a MH test, including distance. The field trial minor stakes are more in line with the skill sets of a hunt test. There is a big step up to the all-age stakes from the minors.


At the all-age level I too disagree. Various clubs in the Midwest host several hunt tests and several field trials with OH Qualifyings attached to the Hunt Test. It is easy to compare and contrast and I assure you the field trials are much more difficult, of course we are in Lardy, Rorem and Curtis Land and VanEgen in the Derby land, Illinois, Wisconsin,Minnesota. Eight points both sides of the fence as a judge and a MH/All-age competitor. Also, Andy Attar, Paul Sletten, Bruce Curtis (trains) etc, and just the East side of Minnesota, Northern Illinois and the fine state of Wisconsin.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Duckquilizer said:


> Here we go, I thought this was being to civil for a HT/FT thread. ;-)


Your right, but, my post still stands. Hope we don't need popcorn. It is still apples and oranges to compare different venues. My opinion one could get by with doing transition training for master hunt tests. That would not cut it for all-age championship point stakes or even tough qualifyings stakes, would have to take it to/through advanced level. No reflection on the dogs just higher level training. Transition/advanced Lardy TRT talk.


----------



## tbro (Mar 30, 2011)

Criquetpas said:


> Your right, but, my post still stands. Hope we don't need popcorn. It is still apples and oranges to compare different venues. My opinion one could get by with doing transition training for master hunt tests. That would not cut it for all-age championship point stakes or even tough qualifyings stakes, would have to take it to/through advanced level. No reflection on the dogs just higher level training. Transition/advanced Lardy TRT talk.


I think you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## n m mechanical (Oct 19, 2012)

Not to completely derail the thread but as a guy that has had nothing but pointing dogs till now what is expected out of a derby age dog? I have been to hunt test and plan on running in those this summer. Just curious


----------



## 8mmag (Jan 1, 2010)

n m mechanical said:


> Not to completely derail the thread but as a guy that has had nothing but pointing dogs till now what is expected out of a derby age dog? I have been to hunt test and plan on running in those this summer. Just curious


There are a couple FT's coming up in MI...Flat River 5/3 in Fenwick MI and Wolverine in Metamora 5/17. Come out and see one for yourself, ask questions, meet folks, etc. We'd love to see you there. Fenwick is really close to you too.


----------



## n m mechanical (Oct 19, 2012)

8mmag said:


> There are a couple FT's coming up in MI...Flat River 5/3 in Fenwick MI and Wolverine in Metamora 5/17. Come out and see one for yourself, ask questions, meet folks, etc. We'd love to see you there. Fenwick is really close to you too.


Planned on coming out on the Friday at fenwick I have pointing dog trial over the weekend


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I've never seen a master or finished set of marks that compared in complexity to what I saw in derby this fall. Especially the water. The minor stakes may be closer to HT's in technicality but there is no comparison IMO.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I certainly agree that field trials are much more difficult, complex and technical. I disagree with the premise that transition level dogs are passing Master set ups reliably. This simply is not true. Poison bird blinds, indents, inlines, hip pockets, blinds through flyer scent and very cheaty re-entries are just some of the advanced level concepts I have ran this spring.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Russ said:


> I have to disagree, at least at the all-age level. The Open and Am tests are generally longer with many more factors than a MH test, including distance. The field trial minor stakes are more in line with the skill sets of a hunt test. There is a big step up to the all-age stakes from the minors.


Keep in mind that I very carefully said that FTs are not _necessarily_ harder than HTs, particularly with well-placed birds - which could incorporate similar factors. If you get right down to it, there are only so many concepts, although the greater distances In FTs obviously tend to allow more concepts or factors to be incorporated for a given piece of ground.

However, typically speaking, the same concepts at FT distances and generally tighter lines would be perceived by most to be harder, and in truth probably are. I do train with an 
FT group occasionally, so I know how tough the stuff can be and how talented a dog has 
to be to realistically be in the running on Sunday on a consistent basis. 

By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, we are still trying to get through JH and SH, so right now an MH test looks like Mt. Everest to us, let alone a Derby or All-age stake.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Generally it is the people that have do not run or train for all age stakes that minimize the difference in difficulty compared to hunt tests. I know many successful hunt test people train on an average of two or three days per week and not on great training grounds. Field trials take a lot more commitment and good training grounds to achieve success. An all age test will likely multiply the number of factors found in a hunt test set up. 

One small example: On a blind, it is a lot more difficult to get a dog on and off a point at 300 yds than it is at 60 yds.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Conversely it is those who run all age stakes that minimize the accomplishments of the hunt test crowd. Some of us train on the grounds we have and achieve the level of success we can. My hobby is training my dogs. To compete in the all age stakes requires more time, money and better grounds than most hunt testers have. 

Playing the game at a level where success is possible is something that should invoke pride. Just as I will never pitch in a major league baseball game, I will probably never step to the line at an open. Doesn't mean I can't throw a curve ball or my dog isn't out of transition. Simply means I am not at that level of proficiency.

Have fun chasing the ribbons whether orange or blue!!


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

I did not mean to belittle the accomplishments of people and dogs that run hunt tests. They are among the elite in retrieverdom. It takes a lot to title a dog at the master level in any of the hunt test venues. I am proud of our dogs that have done so. 

I was just pointing out there is a big jump from a master set up to an all age one.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Russ, 
I didn't think you belittled anyone. There was some other commentary that was less than flattering. I really think training 3 days a week on less than ideal grounds shows the hunt test game is alive and well. It isn't a competition & wasn't meant to be.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

My transition and Lardy's definition are somewhat different. Although I subscribe to Mike's program I have a young dog program I use for my derby dogs over the years that include, hip pockets, in lines, triples, poison birds, decheating, cold blinds, running blinds through scented areas etc., by the time they are about 18 months old. After they derby out and most are doing qualifying work at that age . It is a semantics game of buzz words, haven't watched Lardy tapes for awhile. Atended an advanced seminar of his a few years ago. So I guess some of the things we do in our training group could be considered starting advanced. I do confess we have put five MH titles and two HRCH titles on dogs that were already qualified all-age dogs. Having said all that I am a eight point plus Master judge plus a eight point plus all-age and minor field trial judge, and do appreciate the work of hunt test dogs at an advanced level. Apples and oranges and I do switch gears between the two venues. I hope I didn't offend any hunt testers. My post on the difficulty of field trials vrs hunt tests still stands, field trials with the level of training are more difficult . Thanks for reading.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

A dog that has been through the transition probably could pass most Finished tests, and a quite a few Master tests.

But, that's a dog that is pretty level headed, and has had a VERY thorough set of basics and transition level training. 
And, it won't be running HT very long, before the screws get loose.

In HT, it's all right in your face. 
And the distraction level gets the best of some dogs, that are screwed down pretty tight in training.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Stuck at the house with too much time on my hands.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> .....One thing I find is that hunt testers often accept "good enough" while a field trialer won't accept anything but excellent,......


 I could say the same thing in reverse, about line manners and bird handling.


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I could say the same thing in reverse, about line manners and bird handling.


You can say it, but I don't know how many would agree with this statement. I don't.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

RF2 said:


> You can say it, but I don't know how many would agree with this statement. I don't.


I don't agree with it and I pretty much run an equal amount of both.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

To be perfectly honest, I have seen better line manners at the Q's I have ran than at any of the local hunt tests.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

fishduck said:


> To be perfectly honest, I have seen better line manners at the Q's I have ran than at any of the local hunt tests.


 Think about the degree that the dog's line manners and steadiness are being tested.

They are two different games, with the training emphasis placed on completely different standards. 
What's "good enough" to play in one, isn't nearly good enough to be dependable in the other.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Steve Shaver said:


> I don't agree with it and I pretty much run an equal amount of both.





fishduck said:


> To be perfectly honest, I have seen better line manners at the Q's I have ran than at any of the local hunt tests.


Likewise here. I've run dozens of each. And sat in the judges chair.

Cd, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Maybe kinda like these guys telling you how to fix a helicopter. ;-)

JS


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

JS said:


> Likewise here. I've run dozens of each. And sat in the judges chair.
> JS


I am glad there enough people around with experience in both venues who can dispel these self perpetuating myths about field trials and field trial dogs.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

EdA said:


> I am glad there enough people around with experience in both venues who can dispel these self perpetuating myths about field trials and field trial dogs.


There is little doubt that hunt test judges put a greater emphasis on line manners and steadiness than field trial judges, and at every field trial you will see one of two dogs with terrible line manners, but the huge majority of field trial dogs are very steady with wonderful line manners. 

The reality is that field trial marks are so difficult, that if you don't have a dog that will sit quietly on line and work with his handler, that dog will not get a good look at the birds as they are thrown, and as a result have very diminished success. There have been some notable exceptions Cosmo, Ninja, etc, but other than those one in a thousand dogs, every handler knows that it all starts on line, so we put a lot of emphasis on line manners in our training from a very early age.

In field trials, judges don't feel a need to drop dogs for a big creep as the dog's subsequent work will probably fail the dog anyway.

John


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> There is little doubt that hunt test judges put a greater emphasis on line manners and steadiness than field trial judges, and at every field trial you will see one of two dogs with terrible line manners, but the huge majority of field trial dogs are very steady with wonderful line manners.
> 
> The reality is that field trial marks are so difficult, that if you don't have a dog that will sit quietly on line and work with his handler, that dog will not get a good look at the birds as they are thrown, and as a result have very diminished success. There have been some notable exceptions Cosmo, Ninja, etc, but other than those one in a thousand dogs, every handler knows that it all starts on line, so we put a lot of emphasis on line manners in our training from a very early age.
> 
> ...


Aparently Cosmo didn't get that particular memo.

No generalization (including this one) is worth a damn regards

Bubba


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Bubba said:


> Aparently Cosmo didn't get that particular memo.
> 
> No generalization (including this one) is worth a damn regards
> 
> Bubba


Did you even read the post?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> > Originally Posted by *John Robinson*
> > _There is little doubt that hunt test judges put a greater emphasis on line manners and steadiness than field trial judges, and *at every field trial you will see one of two dogs with terrible line manners*, but the huge majority of field trial dogs are very steady with wonderful line manners.
> >
> > The reality is that field trial marks are so difficult, that if you don't have a dog that will sit quietly on line and work with his handler, that dog will not get a good look at the birds as they are thrown, and as a result have very diminished success. There have been some notable exceptions *Cosmo, Ninja,* etc, but other than those one in a thousand dogs, every handler knows that it all starts on line, so we put a lot of emphasis on line manners in our training from a very early age.
> ...


Getting a little defensive there Bubba?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

John Robinson said:


> There is little doubt that hunt test judges put a greater emphasis on line manners and steadiness than field trial judges, and at every field trial you will see one of two dogs with terrible line manners, but the huge majority of field trial dogs are very steady with wonderful line manners.
> 
> The reality is that field trial marks are so difficult, that if you don't have a dog that will sit quietly on line and work with his handler, that dog will not get a good look at the birds as they are thrown, and as a result have very diminished success. *There have been some notable exceptions Cosmo, Ninja, etc, but other than those one in a thousand dogs*, every handler knows that it all starts on line, so we put a lot of emphasis on line manners in our training from a very early age.
> 
> ...


Plus...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

are we gonna have to tie a porkchop round Bubba's neck so Mr. Robinson will play with him?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> There is little doubt that hunt test judges put a greater emphasis on line manners and steadiness than field trial judges, and at every field trial you will see one of two dogs with terrible line manners, but the huge majority of field trial dogs are very steady with wonderful line manners.
> 
> The reality is that field trial marks are so difficult, that if you don't have a dog that will sit quietly on line and work with his handler, that dog will not get a good look at the birds as they are thrown, and as a result have very diminished success. There have been some notable exceptions Cosmo, Ninja, etc, but other than those one in a thousand dogs, every handler knows that it all starts on line, so we put a lot of emphasis on line manners in our training from a very early age.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Look at this first series at Brazosport. The level of obedience, focus, communication, to pick up a test like that, is extremely high.
I think people that don't run trials don't really understand that.
*







Brazosport RC *Open
Long middle retired bird 27. *Gunner is in line just of right shoulder of flyer station* thrown left to right. Short left retired 55 hard angle back right. *Flyer left to right 50*. *Pick up flyer run blind between left bird a duck and flyer crates *out to 250. All other birds are *pheasants.* All very *tight.* Wind light blowing left to right at this point.​


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

There is absolutely no denying that the talent and training required to finish a FT (even the qualifiying) FAR exceeds that required for even the top levels of HT.

Anybody that would argue that, is a fool.

However, the skills and qualities that separate the dogs in a FT, are not the same as what makes the difference between passing and failing a HT.

They are different games. Completely different games.

It's not like saying that HT is minor league, and FT is major league. That comparison does not fit.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> *
> However, the skills and qualities that separate the dogs in a FT, are not the same as what makes the difference between passing and failing a HT.*
> *They are different games. Completely different games.*
> .


And, you would know this...how??
Wrong. 
Marking is marking, handling is handling.

Last I knew, that is what FTs/HTs are mostly about.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> And, you would know this...how??
> Wrong.
> Marking is marking, handling is handling.
> 
> Last I knew, that is what FTs/HTs are mostly about.


Would you also say that a mark is a mark, and a handle is a handle?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Copterdoc, you make no sense to me. John Robinson and Charlotte Kaiser make a lot of sense.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> However, the skills and qualities that separate the dogs in a FT, are not the same as what makes the difference between passing and failing a HT.
> 
> They are different games. Completely different games.


Really? They both require marking, handling, a good nose, a team player. 

You really need to get out more. Train with more people than Joe. Broaden your horizons and stop posting rhetoric that you have no rational basis to post.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> Copterdoc, you make no sense to me. John Robinson and Charlotte Kaiser make a lot of sense.


If HT wasn't pass/fail, but rather was about establishing placements, the dogs that most consistently placed or won would probably not even be able to finish a FT.

That doesn't mean that HT does not demand a high level of training. But, it sure as hell ain't the same training.

There are bigger differences between HT and FT, than the fact that one is pass/fail and the other is about establishing placements.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Of course it isn't the same training, after basics anyway, but, you said the qualities are not the same. What is different? Marks are marks, handling is handling, steadiness is steadiness. They are judged differently because of the nature of HT and FT, duh, but I think most who've been around know a marking dog when they see it, know a nice handling dog that's a team player, and certainly know a noisy, OOC dog, regardless of venue. So, what qualities are you judging?

I mostly run AKC HT, have a fairly talented QAA bitch that's running a few AA stakes, I run her in HT as well, I train her and the rest of my dogs, to the same standard, regardless of if the gunners are hidden or wearing white coats. Lines are lines, cheating is cheating, not challenging a factor is caving, and staying in AOF of a mark, well, you get the idea. Do I let stuff slide because they are HT and running against a standard instead of other dogs? Shame on me if I do.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Rainmaker said:


> Of course it isn't the same training, after basics anyway, but, you said the qualities are not the same. What is different? Marks are marks, handling is handling, steadiness is steadiness. They are judged differently because of the nature of HT and FT, duh, but I think most who've been around know a marking dog when they see it, know a nice handling dog that's a team player, and certainly know a noisy, OOC dog, regardless of venue. So, what qualities are you judging?


Other than this,


> Marks are marks, handling is handling, steadiness is steadiness.


 I don't disagree a bit.

It's tough to make a 100 yard blind "meaty". But, it can be done.
It's tough to design a triple with no marks longer than 150 yards that gets "answers". But, it can be done.

The dogs that do those tests, are trained and talented.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Why feed it! Just saying.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

Criquetpas said:


> Why feed it! Just saying.


Someone wants to get 10 pages out of this...


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Today is a land mark day. I justed added my first "ignore". I would appreciate it greatly if no one would quote said user too. Thank you in advance.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Criquetpas said:


> Why feed it! Just saying.


Cuz it's cold, snowing, boring and I thought I might get an actual answer that expressed a logical viewpoint, but, that is apparently like wishing for spring around here.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> Cuz it's cold, snowing, boring and I thought I might get an actual answer that expressed a logical viewpoint, but, that is apparently like wishing for spring around here.


Not from that source. woke up to a dusting of snow down here on the Ill/Wisconsin border it's depressing.
Heard from Minoqua. 30 inches of ice and a foot of snow and it ain't April Fools Day.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Duckquilizer said:


> Today is a land mark day. I justed added my first "ignore". I would appreciate it greatly if no one would quote said user too. Thank you in advance.


Running in Middle Tennessee you will certainly get the opportunity to ignore me in person. Have fun not reading this


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> There is absolutely no denying that the talent and training required to finish a FT (even the qualifiying) FAR exceeds that required for even the top levels of HT.
> 
> Anybody that would argue that, is a fool.
> 
> ...


Copterdoc, look at what I bolded. You are just plain flat wrong. I have taken my trial dogs and passed hunt tests with them. Marks are marks and blinds are blinds. 

My little derby dogs pass masters with almost 0 hunt test training. I give them a couple setups of duck calls in the field with hidden guns and a walk up or two and that's it. They pass. We're talking about maybe 2 days of hunt test training in their lives.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FT's are easy. FT people always get defensive when you tell them its easy. I'll never forget watching a AFC qualified for the National AM run its first hunt test. First series when the judges blew the duck call dog turned around stared at the judge and never took his eyes off the judge while all 3 birds went down. FT's are simple compared to that....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Copterdoc, look at what I bolded. You are just plain flat wrong. I have taken my trial dogs and passed hunt tests with them. Marks are marks and blinds are blinds.
> 
> My little derby dogs pass masters with almost 0 hunt test training. I give them a couple setups of duck calls in the field with hidden guns and a walk up or two and that's it. They pass. We're talking about maybe 2 days of hunt test training in their lives.


Ya but that is an Alaska HT. Seriously, how hard can that be...

/Paul


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Ya but that is an Alaska HT. Seriously, how hard can that be...
> 
> /Paul


When you only have 20 some dogs in the opens and amateurs, they're not as hard as most. The hunt tests, from what I've seen, are at least as difficult as what I've seen and heard of in the states.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

The saddest part of this thread, is that it does nothing to encourage anyone to try or train for either HT's or FT's.
There are working amateurs in bth games that find enough success to keep trying.
Anytime you start out with the attitude that you are beat before you get to line....well, you know.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Can you use a choke chain in an open?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Criquetpas said:


> Why feed it! Just saying.


I ended up in this thread babysitting a new litter & a 10 year old boy. My entertainment Saturday involved keeping the runt on the largest nipple, Disney HD on TV and RTF. I was quite offended that a MH was described as a transition level dog. Your definition of transition & mine are vastly different. Normally I would shut up & move along but not yesterday. My apologies if my defense came across as trolling.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Duckquilizer said:


> Today is a land mark day. I justed added my first "ignore". I would appreciate it greatly if no one would quote said user too. Thank you in advance.


Entry Express search. Who runs what? My record is there for your perusal.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

fishduck said:


> Running in Middle Tennessee you will certainly get the opportunity to ignore me in person. Have fun not reading this


Are you being ignored?


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> FT's are easy. FT people always get defensive when you tell them its easy. I'll never forget watching a AFC qualified for the National AM run its first hunt test. First series when the judges blew the duck call dog turned around stared at the judge and never took his eyes off the judge while all 3 birds went down. FT's are simple compared to that....
> 
> /Paul


I think for trolling to be successful, you have to make it a little less obvious.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Ya but that is an Alaska HT. Seriously, how hard can that be...
> 
> /Paul


A lot of FT folks feel that way & then go up there to prove their theory & come home with nothing . I doubt if anyone tries that with a HT dog . 

But you believe what you want, as you've proven you will, but those folks are just as serious & as capable about what they do as any who play the dog games.

The day you have a dog as good as the many Howard has exhibited down here is the day you will have arrived as someone who has something to say .


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> There is absolutely no denying that the talent and training required to finish a FT (even the qualifiying) FAR exceeds that required for even the top levels of HT.
> 
> Anybody that would argue that, is a fool.
> 
> ...


If you stayed with that analogy MH would be single A ball and an Open All Age would be major league.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> A lot of FT folks feel that way & then go up there to prove their theory & come home with nothing . I doubt if anyone tries that with a HT dog .
> 
> But you believe what you want, as you've proven you will, but those folks are just as serious & as capable about what they do as any who play the dog games.
> 
> The day you have a dog as good as the many Howard has exhibited down here is the day you will have arrived as someone who has something to say .


I had the pleasure of judging an Open and amateur up in Fairbanks a few years ago. There were 21 Am and 19 open dogs, the thing is the top six or seven dogs could have competed anywhere in the lower 48. As I recall Howard had two of those dogs, then there was Roy McFall, Jack Volstad brought a couple nice dogs up there, plus a few other guys who have had success down here. And to back up Marvin's point, I know of more than a few who have taken FC-AFC's up there to get that last point to qualify for a national and come away with nothing. It's hard to crack that top five on their own grounds.

John


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

rbr said:


> If you stayed with that analogy MH would be single A ball and an Open All Age would be major league.


I think I would jump MH up to triple A. I think calling HT minor league and field trials major league is a pretty good analysis. As I said I run and enjoy both but I have to say I could take an average dog and make a MH out of him pretty easily but it is tough to make an FC even with an exceptional dog. I am not slamming HT. I think MH is a worthy accomplishment but it is what it is.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Steve Shaver said:


> I think I would jump MH up to triple A. I think calling HT minor league and field trials major league is a pretty good analysis. As I said I run and enjoy both but I have to say I could take an average dog and make a MH out of him pretty easily but it is tough to make an FC even with an exceptional dog. I am not slamming HT. I think MH is a worthy accomplishment but it is what it is.


You can take an average dog and make a master hunter out of him easily? 

I have seen a lot of Hunting Tests and have been to a lot of different training sessions and my opinion is that there are plenty of average dogs that will never see MH. Maybe I would be too tough a judge. Maybe what is average for here is not the same as average for your area. Maybe the Hunting Tests I have seen are more difficult than what you see.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

fishduck said:


> Running in Middle Tennessee you will certainly get the opportunity to ignore me in person. Have fun not reading this


Lol... not you Mark!


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> You can take an average dog and make a master hunter out of him easily?
> 
> I have seen a lot of Hunting Tests and have been to a lot of different training sessions and my opinion is that there are plenty of average dogs that will never see MH. Maybe I would be too tough a judge. Maybe what is average for here is not the same as average for your area. Maybe the Hunting Tests I have seen are more difficult than what you see.


But have you seen alot of field trials? I think you could take most average All Age dogs (not just QAA) that run several series and with just a little exposure training be successful in the HT game. I dont think you can take the average MH and with the same little training be competitive in the All Age stakes. 

Hunt Test are a great venue but to say they require a different skill set is laughable.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

MikeBoley said:


> ......I think you could take most average All Age dogs (not just QAA) that run several series and with just a little exposure training be successful in the HT game.......
> 
> .........Hunt Test are a great venue but to say they require a different skill set is laughable.


These two statements are in conflict.

If the skill sets and training are the same, then you would not have to make ANY adjustments to your training. 
All you would need, is a talented and fully trained dog.

But, you do have to make adjustments. And you have to train to maintain, in order to continue competing in that game.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I don't think that anybody would argue that it's much more difficult to move from HT to FT than vice versa. 
But, there are adjustments to be made, when going either way.

Because, the games are not the same.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> These two statements are in conflict.
> 
> If the skill sets and training are the same, then you would not have to make ANY adjustments to your training.
> All you would need, is a talented and fully trained dog.
> ...


ok dont make any adjustments just go straight from one to the other. I bet the All Age dogs would have a much higher success rate going to MH test than the MH would have running an All Age stake. I guess hunting dogs need to be trained different also. We all know FT dogs cant hunt.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

MikeBoley said:


> ok dont make any adjustments just go straight from one to the other. I bet the All Age dogs would have a much higher success rate going to MH test than the MH would have running an All Age stake.


 I might be pretty stupid. But, I'm not stupid enough to argue that.

If you still can't see the point that I'm trying to make, it's because you are deliberately trying not to.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Did you even read the post? Screw you!


Actually I was trying to agreee with you but obviously that didn't make the generational gap. Prolly the best approach is to wait a couple more years until the last of your dickhead generation fades and then see what is. You ain't big enough to screw this cowboy and thats a fack.

Your knickers are waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too tight and Lord knows NOTHING goes right when yer knickers is too tight regards

Bubba


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

MikeBoley said:


> But have you seen alot of field trials? I think you could take most average All Age dogs (not just QAA) that run several series and with just a little exposure training be successful in the HT game. I dont think you can take the average MH and with the same little training be competitive in the All Age stakes.
> 
> Hunt Test are a great venue but to say they require a different skill set is laughable.


I am certainly not arguing with you. And I have seen plenty of field trials. In fact I have advised training partners (HT people) to get a look at field trials to get a little more exposure. 

Hunting Tests are not the same as Field Trials, I know that. At the same time I will say that I enjoy both.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Bubba and John - you have both had your opportunity to be snippy...now take it to PM land.

FOM
RTF Moderator


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> You can take an average dog and make a master hunter out of him easily?
> 
> I have seen a lot of Hunting Tests and have been to a lot of different training sessions and my opinion is that there are plenty of average dogs that will never see MH. Maybe I would be too tough a judge. Maybe what is average for here is not the same as average for your area. Maybe the Hunting Tests I have seen are more difficult than what you see.


I have seen plenty of good tests and failed my share too. Sorry if it bothers you but I don't think MH is that hard to do. I have titled every dog I have attempted to including my first attempt who is now 11 with a crap pedigree. He is MH and QAA and qualified for the Master National in I believe it was 07. I took the old guy to the club picnic test yesterday. It was a good test set up by experienced people and Petey flat slammed the test. I haven't trained or thrown a bird for that dog in over two years. He is retired from the games and is now just my huntin buddy. What is the purpose of the hunt test game? Its for the average working man to go out and train and play with his huntin buddy on the weekends, a weekend warrior. If you can titled a dog like that how hard can it be? I have run tests in 6 different states and out west that covers some territory. Sorry, although I do have respect for a MH dog I just don't think it is all that hard to do. I have dogs doing master level work by 16 to 18 months old


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Steve Shaver said:


> I have seen plenty of good tests and failed my share too. Sorry if it bothers you but I don't think MH is that hard to do. I have titled every dog I have attempted to including my first attempt who is now 11 with a crap pedigree. He is MH and QAA and qualified for the Master National in I believe it was 07. I took the old guy to the club picnic test yesterday. It was a good test set up by experienced people and Petey flat slammed the test. I haven't trained or thrown a bird for that dog in over two years. He is retired from the games and is now just my huntin buddy. What is the purpose of the hunt test game? Its for the average working man to go out and train and play with his huntin buddy on the weekends, a weekend warrior. If you can titled a dog like that how hard can it be? I have run tests in 6 different states and out west that covers some territory. Sorry, although I do have respect for a MH dog I just don't think it is all that hard to do. I have dogs doing master level work by 16 to 18 months old


It sounds like you have a really good dog and that you are an excellent trainer. Your comment doesn't bother me at all. And I respect what you have accomplished.

By the way, what do you consider a crap pedigree as opposed to an outstanding pedigree?


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

http://www.gooddoginfo.com/gdc/asp/viewpedigree.asp?DogNo=77790 My old guys Crap pedigree http://www.gooddoginfo.com/gdc/asp/viewpedigree.asp?DogNo=98745 Outstanding pedigree , my dog Lucy. Oops sorry. the above pedigree for Pete is what I thought I was buying. At 7 years old I found out that he got switch from a second litter that the breeder had at the same time.






Heres the crap pedigree. I think you can zoom it so you can see it. If not Im at a loss on how to get it here. Luckily Im better with dogs than computers.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

It's not a fair comparison.

If nothing was changed but going from pass/fail to placements, a MH would suddenly become very hard to achieve. 
And not because the tests would suddenly become more difficult, or that the training required suddenly became more in-depth and vastly different.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

this thread reminds me of a HRC trainer i spoke to at the derby. he was there to watch in case clients wanted him to run derbies he'd know what to expect. we were looking at a 300 yard memory mark with AOF between two cedar trees and down a ravine and a 175 yard go bird thrown down a tree line. he said any seasoned (HR) dog could run this setup. i said well i dont know about that. if they've been worked at this distance sure but if your training strictly hunt test game they may never see this distance. and distance just exponetially makes factors more difficult. a 75 yard angle in mark in tall grass with rolling terrain is hard but same factors at 300 yards is far more difficult. more room for the dog to give into factors. most hunt testers dont stretch it out past 150 in my limited experience. just like a 275 yard channel blind isnt seen in hunt tests but is probably pretty common place in FT (maybe not if its considered too easy?)


----------



## jollydog (Jul 10, 2006)

I have run both hunt tests and field trials. I have found both venues
to be very challenging. I feel the knowledge and experience of the judges
make a big difference in both. I have run very difficult FT's where the marks
were NOT long but the birds well placed. Same in a Hunt test. I have competed in 
Hunt test where 1/8 of the field passed. I have run my retired MH golden as test 
dog in 2 Amateur stakes. He did very well in both and the first 18 dogs 
did not do the test in one of them. He is a strong marker. Both are fun and we should support each other in all retriever venues
and appreciate good dog work wherever it is found which I feel most do.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I saw impecable line manners at the Northwest Retriever Club Trial. Far better obedience standards than I've seen elsewhere. The dog who won the Qual which was owner trained and handled just got a perfect 200 score in an obedience trial a few weeks ago. Hmm, I don't know of a single master hunter level dog who has that accomplishment anywhere in my neck of the woods. It raises the level of competition without question. Makes it fun. 

I heard a quote today from a feller standing behind me at the derby. 

"I like to play tennis. Just because I'm not good at it doesn't mean I talk badly about guys who are good at it and can beat me every time I play".


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Steve Shaver said:


> http://www.gooddoginfo.com/gdc/asp/viewpedigree.asp?DogNo=77790 My old guys Crap pedigree http://www.gooddoginfo.com/gdc/asp/viewpedigree.asp?DogNo=98745 Outstanding pedigree , my dog Lucy. Oops sorry. the above pedigree for Pete is what I thought I was buying. At 7 years old I found out that he got switch from a second litter that the breeder had at the same time.
> View attachment 12457
> Heres the crap pedigree. I think you can zoom it so you can see it. If not Im at a loss on how to get it here. Luckily Im better with dogs than computers.


Thanks for taking the time to provide that info. What I got from reading that is that the sire has a strong field background and the dam was bred from show lines and that whoever bred the dam's side was probably breeding for nice looking dogs that were probably not going into field trial homes. Pete's breeding was meant to bring these two together, field and looks.

Petey qualified for the Master National and is QAA. I'll bet he's an outstanding hunting dog. He is certainly not an average dog IMO. And you are a competent trainer. 

The pedigree is not crap. It lacks field titles on the dam's side. But your point is understood.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Oh yeah.... well my Mom can beat up your Mom.... just sayin'....


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> Thanks for taking the time to provide that info. What I got from reading that is that the sire has a strong field background and the dam was bred from show lines and that whoever bred the dam's side was probably breeding for nice looking dogs that were probably not going into field trial homes. Pete's breeding was meant to bring these two together, field and looks.
> 
> Petey qualified for the Master National and is QAA. I'll bet he's an outstanding hunting dog. He is certainly not an average dog IMO. And you are a competent trainer.
> 
> The pedigree is not crap. It lacks field titles on the dam's side. But your point is understood.


First of all thanks for the kind words. Pete is an outstanding dog but I just got lucky with him. He was my first serious HT dog and at the time he was growing up I was working 60 hrs a week and he got trained two and sometimes only one day a week You read the pedigree differently than me. I think it is a crap pedigree. Look at the difference in what I thought I was buying and what I did buy, still I am happy with what I got but I certainly would not have bought him if I had known the real truth. Here's how I read his pedigree. Sire side is ok but I would not call it strong. On the bitch side I see people throwing a couple dogs together that are AKC registered just to make a few bucks on puppies. If they were really concerned about what they were producing there would be more than one CH 5 generations back. With all due respect to the Master title I just don't see it as all that difficult even though I have failed my share and sure I will fail some more.. While I see myself as a competent trainer there is lots of room for improvement. I prefer FT but still very much enjoy HT also


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> A lot of FT folks feel that way & then go up there to prove their theory & come home with nothing . I doubt if anyone tries that with a HT dog .
> 
> But you believe what you want, as you've proven you will, but those folks are just as serious & as capable about what they do as any who play the dog games.
> 
> The day you have a dog as good as the many Howard has exhibited down here is the day you will have arrived as someone who has something to say .


Marvin, you have once again showed you're lack of humor. 

/Paul


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Marvin, you have once again showed you're lack of humor.
> 
> /Paul


I frequent another site where people post sarcasm in a blue font. Sarcasm is so hard to read on an internet forum, it helps to spell it out a bit more. I thought I read a little sarcasm in your post, but wasn't sure.

John


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> I frequent another site where people post sarcasm in a blue font. Sarcasm is so hard to read on an internet forum, it helps to spell it out a bit more. I thought I read a little sarcasm in your post, but wasn't sure.
> 
> John


I just assume sarcasm when /Paul posts as a general rule of thumb.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

jollydog said:


> I have run both hunt tests and field trials. I have found both venues
> to be very challenging. I feel the knowledge and experience of the judges
> make a big difference in both. I have run very difficult FT's where the marks
> were NOT long but the birds well placed. Same in a Hunt test. I have competed in
> ...


Good post Sylvia. Good dog work is a joy to experience no matter the venue.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Mike Tome said:


> Oh yeah.... well my Mom can beat up your Mom.... just sayin'....



..............lol.................

You know what I love about dogs? They WILL humble you no matter what sport you choose to participate in....I, for one, would be pretty careful about claiming how easy a venue may or may not be. 


Karma is a B****, right now I'm not speaking to her.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> It's not a fair comparison.
> 
> If nothing was changed but going from pass/fail to placements, a MH would suddenly become very hard to achieve.
> And not because the tests would suddenly become more difficult, or that the training required suddenly became more in-depth and vastly different.


how about that super retriever tv stuff that had both set ups and a winner? I think they had both field trial folk and hunt test folk winning. didn't that have both trial and hunt test dogs side by eachother? was this even harder, in your opinion?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

friend of mines' mom used to always sunbath in a tiny bikini on their deck. Seemed all the neighborhood boys wanted to go to Josh's house whenever the sun was out. never thougth about mom fights...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Shawn White said:


> I just assume sarcasm when /Paul posts as a general rule of thumb.


If it ain't straight up training advice, thats a pretty good rule of thumb. 

/Paul


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> If it ain't straight up training advice, thats a pretty good rule of thumb.
> 
> /Paul


That what I meant .


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Just for the record... I was being sarcastic too.... I wouldn't want anyone to pick a fight with my Mom....


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Marvin, you have once again showed you're lack of humor.
> 
> /Paul


While I may have once again shown my lack of humor - I see nothing humorous in disparaging the efforts of any particular group of participants in the FT game, the majority of whom are DIYer's, regardless of their location.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> how about that super retriever tv stuff that had both set ups and a winner? I think they had both field trial folk and hunt test folk winning. didn't that have both trial and hunt test dogs side by eachother? was this even harder, in your opinion?


 I don't know.

How many FC/AFC dogs are also SRS titled?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> While I may have once again shown my lack of humor - I see nothing humorous in disparaging the efforts of any particular group of participants in the FT game, the majority of whom are DIYer's, regardless of their location.


You need more vodka in your Geritol...

/Paul


----------



## John Daniels (Jan 1, 2012)

copterdoc said:


> I don't know.
> 
> How many FC/AFC dogs are also SRS titled?


Not sure how many FC/AFC have been successful as most field trialers dont run SRS. 
I do know some of the successful SRS dogs were trained by field trialers for all age and then purchased by SRS competitors.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> how about that super retriever tv stuff that had both set ups and a winner? I think they had both field trial folk and hunt test folk winning. didn't that have both trial and hunt test dogs side by eachother? was this even harder, in your opinion?


I remember a few years back, I think around 03 or 04, that a group started a new HT venue. Help me out with this one Chris. They held a test in Colorado at a really nice place. It was great fun and got to meet many RTF people there like our fearless leader Chris, Uncle Bill, the Pollack and others. Besides the fun and darn good people the testing system I thought was awesome. They had a junior, senior and a master all pretty similar to AKC but they also had an open which was basically a qual level test. I also seem to remember that even though the hunt test was pass or fail but they also awarded a "Field Test" winner to one outstanding dog. I thought it was an outstanding organization and it was one of the best events I have ever been to. Must have died out. Chris what happened with that? I think all the hunt test venues could learn something from that.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Steve Shaver said:


> ........I think all the hunt test venues could learn something from that.


 I do hate that HT doesn't at least recognize the difference between an A+ and a C- performance.

There's some damn nice dogs, that are VERY well trained, playing in the HT game. 
But, they aren't really FT dogs, and the game they play best, is right in line with what their owner needs from a dog.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

JTS said:


> they have a game for that it's called field trials......... why would you want to make hunt tests competitive???
> 
> if you want competition step on up.......


Having run a couple hunt test dogs back in the day, one of them was a field trial washout. I totally get Copterdoc's point, Cody the dog in my avatar was a talented high roller, but would consistently blow up in a field trial. Running Master's he was fantastic, we got lots of comments and compliments about how well he ran marks and blinds. I didn't really hate it that we got the same ribbon as the guy who squeeked by with barely passing scores to get his ribbon, as the comments and obvious recognition of good work by other owners and handlers was enough for me. I do get his point though. BTW after dropping Cody from field trials to Master, he gained confidence and most importantly had the time of his life. After he got his MH we ran him in quals and he was much better, winning one to become QAA, he was never a successful all age dog though.

John


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I don't know.
> 
> How many FC/AFC dogs are also SRS titled?


Dont know but the 1 SRS I ran I got second with my FT dog. He is not titled but does have an AM win and multiple placements. Likes 4 points I think for AFC and Open win for FC. Did not do any different training to run SRS.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

blake_mhoona said:


> this thread reminds me of a HRC trainer i spoke to at the derby. he was there to watch in case clients wanted him to run derbies he'd know what to expect. we were looking at a 300 yard memory mark with AOF between two cedar trees and down a ravine and a 175 yard go bird thrown down a tree line. he said any seasoned (HR) dog could run this setup. i said well i dont know about that. if they've been worked at this distance sure but if your training strictly hunt test game they may never see this distance. and distance just exponetially makes factors more difficult. a 75 yard angle in mark in tall grass with rolling terrain is hard but same factors at 300 yards is far more difficult. more room for the dog to give into factors. most hunt testers dont stretch it out past 150 in my limited experience. just like a 275 yard channel blind isnt seen in hunt tests but is probably pretty common place in FT (maybe not if its considered too easy?)



what do yall think of my response or the original statement of a trainer that any seasoned dog could run a derby?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

blake_mhoona said:


> what do yall think of my response or the original statement of a trainer that any seasoned dog could run a derby?


 I wouldn't expect very many Seasoned level dogs to be able to tackle a set of derby marks without having to handle.

But, a 275 yard channel blind, isn't very difficult. 
It's the first water blind that I'll run cold, after swim by. And it's not at all unusual for a dog to line it the very first time.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Steve Shaver said:


> I remember a few years back, I think around 03 or 04, that a group started a new HT venue. Help me out with this one Chris. They held a test in Colorado at a really nice place. It was great fun and got to meet many RTF people there like our fearless leader Chris, Uncle Bill, the Pollack and others. Besides the fun and darn good people the testing system I thought was awesome. They had a junior, senior and a master all pretty similar to AKC but they also had an open which was basically a qual level test. I also seem to remember that even though the hunt test was pass or fail but they also awarded a "Field Test" winner to one outstanding dog. I thought it was an outstanding organization and it was one of the best events I have ever been to. Must have died out. Chris what happened with that? I think all the hunt test venues could learn something from that.


It was NFRA - I judged one of their events, it was interesting, but just didn't take off...


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

FOM said:


> It was NFRA - I judged one of their events, it was interesting, but just didn't take off...


It does sound interesting.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Ken Bora said:


> how about that super retriever tv stuff that had both set ups and a winner? I think they had both field trial folk and hunt test folk winning. didn't that have both trial and hunt test dogs side by eachother? was this even harder, in your opinion?


Ken, the SRS is a combination (hunt test and field trial) event that leans more toward hunt test scenarios IMO. From my very limited SRS experience, the level of difficulty from one event or even one series to the next varies greatly. I found myself running the 4 member team event last year with Chris Akin, Lyle Steinman, and Richard Mills in Huntsville, AL. The hunt test series proved to be challenging for a few pretty darn good FT dogs as well as those dogs trained for SRS events. The field trial series was a solid Qualifying level test, but not a typical AA level test that you will find at most weekend trials. It was a fun event. Most are when you win. 



copterdoc said:


> I don't know.
> 
> How many FC/AFC dogs are also SRS titled?


Few FC/AFC dogs play the SRS game. The time, money, and effort required to chase the FC and AFC titles typically requires full commitment to the FT game. There are exceptions - Roux is one of them. We didn't train for SRS, but he has spent a lot of his life in a duck blind. It also helped that he lived to retrieve anything that fell from the sky and venue didn't matter.

fp


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> We didn't train for SRS, but he has spent a lot of his life in a duck blind. It also helped that he lived to retrieve anything that fell from the sky and *venue didn't matter*.


It never does to the dogs, birds are birds to them. It's us people that put our silly little rules and opinions on venue into what should be a fun game.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

blake_mhoona said:


> what do yall think of my response or the original statement of a trainer that any seasoned dog could run a derby?


I doubt it. It would take a very special dog and trained different than just to the seasoned level.IMHO Sure would not have run my HR dog in any Derby!


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

blake_mhoona said:


> what do yall think of my response or the original statement of a trainer that any seasoned dog could run a derby?


I ran the derby with 2 different HR titled dogs. Didn't go very well. Went out in the first series with my first dog. The 480 yard flyer was a little much for her. The flyer looked like a flea jumping off a dog at that distance. To say she didn't mark it would be correct. Went out in the second series with my second dog. 

With my second dog I really thought I was prepared. Lots of prep work with stickmen and long guns. The en vogue test at the time was a mark thrown at the base of a tree. We ran tons of those marks. That dog would just run to the base of a tree looking for a duck. I was pleasantly suprised that both marks of the second series were thrown to the base of different small pine trees. Pointed out the guns with complete confidence. Took my time and signalled for the marks. Dog ran a slight curve to the go bird but picked it up with a small hunt. Lined her up for the memory. Dog locked in and was sent. She went behind the gun, past the mark and hunted no less than 40 acres. I can promise no flyaways or wild birds were present anywhere in that field cause she hunted all of it. She picked the bird up coming back in and we returned to hunt tests.

My eyes were opened the weekend of my second derby. First, I was exposed to some very good handlers and trainers. Second I saw technical water that before I didn't know existed. Made it to the fourth series of the Qual and the second of the Derby.

To achieve the level of work I saw placing at the trial I needed the following. 1: More time training 2: More knowledge than I currently had 3: Lots of travel to find tech water. This was going to come at a cost so I performed an in my head cost analysis. Costs were money, time and some damage to my relationship with my wife, son and church family. Serious trial campaigning lost out until I have more free time, money and no small children at home.

I still run some local Quals with marginal sucess and have one more derby planned.


----------



## jollycurl (Mar 4, 2008)

Ok, I'm old. When I first started with retrievers, Hunt Tests didn't exist. The way I found out about Field Trials was to actually go and watch, then later work at the event. I can think of nothing else that will give one an appreciation of the differences between the two venues than actually watching and helping.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I can think of nothing else that will give one an appreciation of the differences between the two venues than actually watching and helping.


You'll see the differences that way, but I don't think you will ever appreciate the differences until you go to the line in each venue several times. They be different with a different mind set.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Howard N said:


> You'll see the differences that way, but I don't think you will ever appreciate the differences until you go to the line in each venue several times. They be different with a different mind set.


To quote Si Robertson, that's a fact Jack. Neither is a spectator sport. In fact watching a field trial is like watching paint dry. Now running a field trial is very much of a rush. I recommend it , win loose or draw. Hunt tests are a little more exciting to watch, but, still can't beat running one, especially at the Master level or even at the HRC finished level.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Criquetpas said:


> Watching a field trial is like watching paint dry. Now running a field trial is very much of a rush. I recommend it , win loose or draw. Hunt tests are a little more exciting to watch, but, still can't beat running one, especially at the Master level or even at the HRC finished level.


X2 on the paint drying comment, but I am one to fully subscribe to throwing a dog in and seeing what happens. When dealing with dogs you just never know. It's foolhearted to be intimidated by any venue, it's just dogs picking up marks and running blinds. I would've never imagined that my black Bit$h, would loves white coats, until I threw her in. Now we'll have to run more of them, I should've been more cautious before allowing her to succumb to another addiction


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I should've been more cautious before allowing her to succumb to another addiction :wink:


Oh sure, blame the dog. :lol:  :lol:


----------



## Jerry S. (May 18, 2009)

Criquetpas said:


> To quote Si Robertson, that's a fact Jack. Neither is a spectator sport. In fact watching a field trial is like watching paint dry. Now running a field trial is very much of a rush. I recommend it , win loose or draw. Hunt tests are a little more exciting to watch, but, still can't beat running one, especially at the Master level or even at the HRC finished level.


Earl, I subscribe to almost everything you say but let me reflect on watching my first FT.
Since I was used to training gun dogs and not really interested in HT's, I knew there must be something else out there. I went to Madison's Open. After looking at the setup and watching the first dog run I was hooked. I said to myself, "That's it. I want to train to that level."
It was almost an epiphany. Watching those dogs run is always exciting to me.
BTW, good luck at WISAM. I may see you there as I am gunning the Qual.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Jerry S. said:


> Earl, I subscribe to almost everything you say but let me reflect on watching my first FT.
> Since I was used to training gun dogs and not really interested in HT's, I knew there must be something else out there. I went to Madison's Open. After looking at the setup and watching the first dog run I was hooked. I said to myself, "That's it. I want to train to that level."
> It was almost an epiphany. Watching those dogs run is always exciting to me.
> BTW, good luck at WISAM. I may see you there as I am gunning the Qual.


I guess since I am older then dirt and watched, run and judged field trials sometimes to me it is more fun to yuk it up in the gallery, then watch. Sometimes especially in the last series of the big dog stakes have to admit , fun to watch, but,
It is more fun to be taking birds off your dog in the last series! Since ice out will only be a few weeks ago at WisAm should be interesting. Thanks we are in the Derby and one in the Open I don't expect much there haven't been doing any water work except he was hunted heavy by my co-owner. Kill them flyers!


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I would say he got his feelings hurt when he saw the setup and wa trying to make himself feel better. If that's not the case then he is an idiot. Seasoned dogs are in seasoned for a reason. I would say less than 10 percent of finished dogs can tackle derby doubles on a regular basis. Just one DA opinion.


blake_mhoona said:


> what do yall think of my response or the original statement of a trainer that any seasoned dog could run a derby?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

He might not be an idiot, just ignorant.

I could be wrong on the idiot part though.


----------



## blake_mhoona (Mar 19, 2012)

claimsadj said:


> I would say he got his feelings hurt when he saw the setup and wa trying to make himself feel better. If that's not the case then he is an idiot. Seasoned dogs are in seasoned for a reason. *I would say less than 10 percent of finished dogs can tackle derby doubles on a regular basis*. Just one DA opinion.


that's what i wanted to say to him but i didnt feel like getting in a debate in the gallery while dogs were running.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

Tell you a story about FT's versus HT's
I once went to a AKC HT with my dad, he's an old time pointer guy. He ran and judged horseback FT'S. 
So we go to the HT at Buckeye retrievers . I was running a dog in masters he was a nice stylish well marking dog. 
Then the BS started. My father started by asking me which dog did I think was the best there. I said my dog of course. My father smiled and said I think that poodle is the best. I said you're crazy he said no the poodle is the best. I told him, he didn't know what he was talking about. So then dad wanted to bet me that the poodle was as good if not better than my golden. I said bet on. So all day the poodle did its job and so did my golden. At the end of the day the Judges passed out ribbons’ and the poodle passed the test and so did my golden. My father looked at me and said pay up. I said my dog did a better job than that poodle that walked every mark and ran tuck tail on the blinds it had no style. My father looked at me and said his poodle got the same orange ribbon my dog got so they did the same. He then said pay up and don't ever tell me how great your dog is until it runs and places at a trial. At the end of the day a master hunter is a master hunter, and a field champion is the best.
Now I still run hunt test, but my dad never ever come with me.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

In field trials said:


> Did you ever see Jim Dorbecks dog Lefty NFCH FC AFC Southpaw Salli. That dog was a marking machine and would creep into the next time zone. There were several times I thought the dog was going to call for a fair catch. I always liked to see him run.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Golden Boy said:


> Did you ever see Jim Dorbecks dog Lefty NFCH FC AFC Southpaw Salli. That dog was a marking machine and would creep into the next time zone. There were several times I thought the dog was going to call for a fair catch. I always liked to see him run.


Sorry to say I never saw him or her, but I ran against Cosmo and Ninja quite a bit. Both dogs had an unbelievable ability to glance out into the field, note where every gun was standing, which direction they were facing and let some weird built-in calculator take it from there, while they crept halfway to the flyer without a glance to the memory birds as they were thrown. Then pin every mark, it was uncanny.

John


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> Sorry to say I never saw him or her, but I ran against Cosmo and Ninja quite a bit. Both dogs had an unbelievable ability to glance out into the field, note where every gun was standing, which direction they were facing and let some weird built-in calculator take it from there, while they crept halfway to the flyer without a glance to the memory birds as they were thrown. Then pin every mark, it was uncanny.
> 
> John


It was exactly the same with Lefty. Always wondered how he did it.


----------

