# Playing with a gun in Master or Senior



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

I normally don't tell anyone they are stupid, instead I use silly.

After many, many years of waterfowling as well as other hunting I have observed some gosh awful gun handling at the line of AKC tests. So much so that it gives me pause to think about the requirement of guns or fake guns on the line at all. So I ask for history from those who might know how this all came about and if it is time for a change.

1. Many handlers are not well oriented to gun use. As made obvious by the way they mount and point the guns in an attempt to point their dogs. Safety of handling or even a facsimile thereof is not a primary consideration. 

Question; why are we forcing by rule this practice? Seems silly.

2. Very few of the birds that I have seen at tests are truly shootable by the handler. Example the 150 yard rule or even the walkup "presented from 35 to 45 yards" rule. Neither of these birds are high probability shots for anyone except the true "expert shooter" certainly not me or anyone I have hunted with in 60 plus years of waterfowling. I do give you the "golden BB" that we all have had, but that is no claim to excellence every shot. Add in the over your sholder from behind flop in front of you at 10 yards to cause the dog to break bird. 

Question; why are we making handlers even have the gun if it is not a true hunting situation? Seems silly.

3. As a matter of practice for me, when working a young dog I rarely shoot. Instead I have a partner in the blind do the shooting so I can pay strict attention to calling and dog management. 

Question; In most cases why would a handler be required to have a gun to point at a hunt test? I suspect many hunter/dog handlers feel the same. Rule Seems silly.

*The handler gun carry/point rule in AKC should be gone!*

I have made my points and will follow this discussion until it crashes with BS but probably will not comment further, rather try to have my mind changed or at least modified somewhat. So don't jump on me when I don't turn this into an argument.

Thank you for your thoughts!


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

If you don't want to carry a gun, run a FT...unfortunately, there are many running "hunt" tests that don't hunt....poor gun safety should be grounds for elimination in my book...


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Rover is layin' on the kitchen floor. walk over and pick up the shotgun behind the screen door and see what he does.
Fang is sniffin' tires at a boat access, take the shotgun under the back seat of the truck out and see what he does.
A gun, a real gun, is a factor. Just like any other factor you can add to a test. However, yes giving the junior handler a gun is "silly" (I like that word) just as giving a master handler a painted plywood cutout is "silly". The use of the gun has been "silly-ed" up to the max in my opinion. Hunt test games have branched off from the original way back one and even judge the handlers use of the gun. But they all like that game so I say let um play what they like. If you want to use the gun as the factor it was made to be, be it akc, nahra or hrc, have it be real, freshly oiled and maybe even shot that a.m. so it is smelly like a good gun should be. And then watch ol' Fang and Rover dance to the line with glee.
I think more than a few akc judges have lost the thought that the gun itself is a factor, and others never had it to start with.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Labs said:


> If you don't want to carry a gun, run a FT...unfortunately, there are many running "hunt" tests that don't hunt....poor gun safety should be grounds for elimination in my book...


I agree, it's not rocket science and reasonable to have an understanding of gun handling. If for no other reason than there are often guns 'around' a hunt test. It is, after all, a 'Hunt test'. Let's not make it even less realistic than it is already in terms of a hunting retriever test.


----------



## Huff (Feb 11, 2008)

Why don't they require a real gun at the line and the handler shoot one of the primer only load at the bird as its in the air. Not the popper that they shoot at the station but a quieter primer load. I have them and they are not loud at all. A gun that is not handed to the judges in a safe manner, action open, safety on, and pointed in a safe direction is automatic failure. 

But then again its not like these tests are true hunting scenarios so just get rid of the gun and let the dog work be the thing judged.

Russell


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

John I think everything you say is correct. But it is a hunt test and not a hunting simulation . You want it to be a hunting situation go hunting. Oh yeah more important than the gun is our thermos.


----------



## RetrieverNation (Jul 15, 2012)

I agree with you that observing the gun safety at these tests can be very disappointing but would also hate to see the same test turn into a "dog test" instead of a hunt test. I would push for education and leadership to continue to embrace the gun and put it in the spotlight instead of brushing under the table. Once there are enough non-gun types running these tests I would think that other standards such as real ducks would be next on the chopping block.

On another note, one of the more positive things of the HRC program is that almost all who participate will gain improved gun handling and gun safety skills due mostly to the amount of talking points gun safety gets and also the elimination factor if you are not safe.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Interesting timing for me. First off, I am not a hunter. Though I like target shooting pistols, I have never been comfortable or capable with a long gun. I do like dog training and handling. My husband who does hunt, is not really into the tests. So we each support the other in our interests. That being said, if we are really evaluating dog work, why bring the gun into it? I know that when I ran an AKC SH test last week, I would have been dropped on the walk up with my young dog if it had been HRC. As it was his first time to the line at this level, my entire being was focused on him, not the fake gun in my hands. As we came out of the holding blind, I had my eyes screwed down on the dog and I dropped the barrel of the gun down towards people. A quick shout of "gun safety" and I immediately snapped it back to my shoulder. But why do this? Since I am not at ease with shotguns, why is it necessary to split my concentration between dog and gun? I am not complaining and will work on all skills necessary. But like the OP, why? It certainly had no effect on the dog.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

As I see it if we are simulating a hunt, then we should cary a gun. Not a 2 X 4 painted orange! I can't respect for a board the same way as I can a shotgun.

We are given rules in this game, and I will abide by them as long as they are in effect, but in my opinion shouldering the shotgun in the direction of my hunting buddies is a perfect example of what gun safety is not! It is a negative habit transfer that could cary over to a real hunting situation.

Joe O


----------



## Robert (Feb 28, 2006)

What? Do away with the wood gun!? Blasphemy!! What would we handlers do without that training aid going to the line


----------



## Socks (Nov 13, 2008)

2tall said:


> Interesting timing for me. First off, I am not a hunter. Though I like target shooting pistols, I have never been comfortable or capable with a long gun. I do like dog training and handling. My husband who does hunt, is not really into the tests. So we each support the other in our interests. That being said, if we are really evaluating dog work, why bring the gun into it? I know that when I ran an AKC SH test last week, I would have been dropped on the walk up with my young dog if it had been HRC. As it was his first time to the line at this level, my entire being was focused on him, not the fake gun in my hands. As we came out of the holding blind, I had my eyes screwed down on the dog and I dropped the barrel of the gun down towards people. A quick shout of "gun safety" and I immediately snapped it back to my shoulder. But why do this? Since I am not at ease with shotguns, why is it necessary to split my concentration between dog and gun? I am not complaining and will work on all skills necessary. But like the OP, why? It certainly had no effect on the dog.


The short answer is that you're training a hunting dog, not an agility dog regardless of whether or not you use the dog for hunting. I understand where you're coming from, but my dog goes silly when I get a real gun out and this makes the line manners at a HRC test more difficult vs his line manners at a AKC test. He can tell the difference between plywood and steel. No I'm not comparing AKC VS HRC before anyone thinks that.


----------



## Mark Teahan (Apr 1, 2012)

A real hunting dog knows what a gun is, and what it means. The excitement level goes thru the roof. 
When trap sees me pick up a gun he starts dancing, and gets to whining, and is all giddy.
IMO, it's more than just a controlled environment "let's watch our dogs retrieve dead ducks" show.

Hunt tests are a simulated hunt, and should have all factors involved.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Carol, I guess being a hunter before being in the games ,I see the opposite side of the coin. You are at the test to evaluate the dogs ability in a hunting situation. Maybe you need to add a gun to your setups to become more comfortable handling one ,maybe even take a state certified hunters safety course. We spend far more time on other aspects of training. 

I can tell you that any true hunting dog, when they see a gun is has an effect on them,like Ken stated it is a factor. I would think that gun safety should be addressed at the handlers meeting and pour gunmanship should count against the team. Just like our dogs having trained responses through repetition ,safe gun handling will a trained response with proper training and repetition. (I am training my 10 year old son on these aspects now)

I think HT's are far enough away from true hunting situations now and by continuously taking out hunting scenario factors you only take away from the test.


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

If I'm out manning a gun station I do not want a real shot gun pointed in my direction, and if you intend to point it my way and pull the trigger you can find a new thrower. 

Simulated guns are just fine. They accomplish the same thing SAFELY.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

The whole "gun gets my dog excited" thing I don't buy. Yes at home, the camp, the launch they will get a little amped up knowing whats associated with the gun and what it will lead to. But, when you get to the blind and pull the gun out do they start jumping in excitment? Mine don't, their eyes are glued to the sky. I have never seen a dog get more excited at the line when you pick up the gun. They are usually scanning the field looking for whats coming next. I have judged and watched many dogs in Qualifying stakes coming from HT that got pretty excited without a gun anywhere around. They are there for the birds and the retieve not the shooting. I think they would get just as excited if you were using a sling shot if birds are falling out of the sky.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

rboudet said:


> The whole "gun gets my dog excited" thing I don't buy. Yes at home, the camp, the launch they will get a little amped up knowing whats associated with the gun and what it will lead to. But, when you get to the blind and pull the gun out do they start jumping in excitment? Mine don't, their eyes are glued to the sky. I have never seen a dog get more excited at the line when you pick up the gun. They are usually scanning the field looking for whats coming next. I have judged and watched many dogs in Qualifying stakes coming from HT that got pretty excited without a gun anywhere around. They are there for the birds and the retieve not the shooting. I think they would get just as excited if you were using a sling shot if birds are falling out of the sky.


All that may be true, as I don't think my dog has any added excitement because of the gun. But what about the potential breaking factor on the shot itself? I would think most dogs that get to the line have made the connection that gunshot = bird.

Now the question may be whether it is more appropriate to deliver that shot from the gunner station than from the line with a shotgun, and I might agree to a point. But if you move the shot to the gunner station, how do you then simulate the shot on the diversion bird?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

I think we should remove treats from the show ring. Improper treat handling is no reason to fail.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

For me, the fake gun is a factor - but it only effects ME, not my dog. Like was said earlier, when you're new to senior tests, with the nerves on edge, it's hard to divide your attention between the gun handling and the test. I got a tongue lashing at my last one for swinging the fake barrel in front of the judges as I was walking to the line and focusing on my dog's position and whether I put the leash in my pocket. One judge dropped to the ground in a panic. Guess he forgot it was fake. I was just thinking of it as a prop and that i wasn't on stage yet. At 43, I'm not very good at playing "pretend". But it was a good lesson I'll never forget. 

Trust me, when I'm carrying a real gun while hunting, it's usually loaded and I'm very focused on where it's pointing and if the safety is on or not! If hunt tests made us carry a real break action gun with a popper load, I'd be paying a lot more attention to that and so would the dog. Then it would be a real factor.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

RookieTrainer said:


> All that may be true, as I don't think my dog has any added excitement because of the gun. But what about the potential breaking factor on the shot itself? I would think most dogs that get to the line have made the connection that gunshot = bird.
> 
> Now the question may be whether it is more appropriate to deliver that shot from the gunner station than from the line with a shotgun, and I might agree to a point. But if you move the shot to the gunner station, how do you then simulate the shot on the diversion bird?


Dogs break on shots in the field all the time.

On the above post. I would not want my dog to focus on the gun in my hand. The action is in the field.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Jennifer Henion said:


> For me, the fake gun is a factor - but it only effects ME, not my dog. Like was said earlier, when you're new to senior tests, with the nerves on edge, it's hard to divide your attention between the gun handling and the test. I got a tongue lashing at my last one for swinging the fake barrel in front of the judges as I was walking to the line and focusing on my dog's position and whether I put the leash in my pocket. One judge dropped to the ground in a panic. Guess he forgot it was fake. I was just thinking of it as a prop and that i wasn't on stage yet. At 43, I'm not very good at playing "pretend". But it was a good lesson I'll never forget.
> 
> Trust me, when I'm carrying a real gun while hunting, it's usually loaded and I'm very focused on where it's pointing and if the safety is on or not! If hunt tests made us carry a real break action gun with a popper load, I'd be paying a lot more attention to that and so would the dog. Then it would be a real factor.


Hi lited = exactly my experience. Only change 43 to 58 and I'm even less good at pretending. Make no mistake, I will never forget the lesson for ME! So we are not complaining about the way the tests are run, but I do not think carrying a gun makes a test any more (or less) valid for judging dogs' abilities to a standard. For those of you that prefer it, there is always HRC where gun safety is a big part of the test. I can find plenty of other ways to fail without the drama.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

rboudet said:


> Dogs break on shots in the field all the time.
> 
> On the above post. I would not want my dog to focus on the gun in my hand. The action is in the field.


My point exactly. One of the things being tested is trainability, and part of that is steadiness. The gunshot is part of that. I'm sure your dog is like mine in that he can be looking out for the mark and still hear the shot at the line. 

If it's not clear, I am referring to HRC events where you do actually shoot a popper load. I sort of agree with the OP about the boat paddle used in AKC events.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

2tall said:


> Hi lited = exactly my experience. Only change 43 to 58 and I'm even less good at pretending. Make no mistake, I will never forget the lesson for ME! So we are not complaining about the way the tests are run, but I do not think carrying a gun makes a test any more (or less) valid for judging dogs' abilities to a standard. For those of you that prefer it, there is always HRC where gun safety is a big part of the test. I can find plenty of other ways to fail without the drama.


I have been saying this since the gun was introduced...I'm there to judge the dogs abilities as a hunting companion not the handler...Steve S


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

RookieTrainer said:


> My point exactly. One of the things being tested is trainability, and part of that is steadiness. The gunshot is part of that. I'm sure your dog is like mine in that he can be looking out for the mark and still hear the shot at the line.
> 
> If it's not clear, I am referring to HRC events where you do actually shoot a popper load. I sort of agree with the OP about the boat paddle used in AKC events.


If they want to test for steadiness. Add a flyer at 10-20 yards. Heck put it a 100 yards. 

I don't think it is the pop of the gun at the line that they are breaking on.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Sorry I am commenting even though I said I wouldn't. Rook said "I sort of agree with the OP about the boat paddle used in AKC events. " and I was not aware that Rem 870s were required online......BSEG and then 
Steve said "I'm there to judge the dogs abilities as a hunting companion not the handler...Steve S" which is the way I feel. Handler only comes in on blinds and manners and JR where they hold on for dear life.

Glad to see all the thought processes kicking in. I may not agree with all of them but I sure defend your right to---- No wait I defended that a long time ago when Uncle Sam pushed gun safety. Again I smile!


----------



## Wade Scroggins (Mar 7, 2013)

I am only a novice in the dog games but must say that my transition into the game was to enhance the training of my hunting dog and have something to fill in the off season. As they were called HUNT TEST i would never have expected anything but a gun to be involved at all levels, was surprised to find out AKC doesn't. As a hunter new to hunt test it already seems to me that the AKC has it wrong, and that they continue to push it more to a non hunting related exercise. Yes I know it isn't hunting, but is that because that wasn't the intent, or is it because there isn't a practical way to run a hunt test in a true hunting situation. I wasn't there when they invented the hunt test game but they must have intended it to represent a hunting simulation or it wouldn't be called a hunt test, maybe a "dog test". I thought that they had FIELD TRIALS just to test dog and handler skills, with no effort to make it even remotely simulate a hunting situation.

When reading comments here it seems there are 3 lines of thought, 1 that guns are a must to actually simulate hunting situations, 2 that don't seem to feel strongly either way, and the 3rd group feel inconvenienced and want them eliminated to serve THEIR needs. So why does everything always have to evolve to the lower level of expectations, such as the do we really need guns, simulated guns etc because they make it harder, or require some of my skills and attention?

Well for the 3rd group they already have what they are looking for in field trials, so why campaign to change a HUNT TEST and make it more like the FIELD TRIALS. Yes I know trials are harder, not a test to a standard, so maybe too tough for everyone (me included) so they want to change hunt test. There is already a compromise with the use of toy guns to ensure safety of all parties involved, while still teaching, and re-enforcing safe gun handling.

What do you gain from gun handling elimination for the sport, not just for the few but for everyone involved? Just a question from a newbie coming from a hunting perspective.

Hope my grammar and spelling isn't to terrible.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Last time I checked, this hunt test thing is about the dog AND the handler...I hear it all the time from judges..."we are looking for teamwork on the the part of the handler and the dog"...if the handler that can't multi-task and handle a gun and a dog, they have no business stepping to the line....now, if we are talking camo clothing, that's a whole nother topic...


----------



## krazybronco2 (Jan 31, 2013)

not to be rude but i have seen well trained dogs that know what sit means (steady) break on the crack of the popper normally it has been a good while since they have seen/heard it but it does add that factor in. also watch alot of young dogs with out a gun going off over them they are steady but add the gun on the next them and they gone. mine is this away rock steady with no gun but add the gun and she starts to get alot more excited as birds are being thrown same with walk ups and diversions add the gun to the mix and things can go out the window quickely. but put a gunner out with a primer pistol or a primer in the winger she is not nearly as excited as the gun next to her doesnt matter if im sitting or standing. seen it with quite a few dogs in all ages. 

and to the people that dont think you can hit a bird at 100-150 yards not it wont be hit at that distance but if you ever wing a bird and it sales for a long distance the dog still has to mark out to those distances if not farther. as the guys that use thier dogs on a snow goose hunt marking birds out to 200 yards and running 400yard blinds they see this quite a bit. so i dont see why a handler shouldnt use a gun at the line. but we could get into how you would hunt but in my opinion a hunt test should resemble a hunt as much as it can with camo guns and real birds.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I agree that using it is silly. It is even sillier to pretend it is a real gun. I usually remember to put it to my shoulder like they want and even sometimes put two hands on it. As far as safety, I try not to drop it on the judges foot.

No matter how many dumb scenarios you come up with it is not hunting but testing the dogs on skills they would use while hunting. The AKC should drop it. There is a venue for folks who want to play make believe


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Wade Scroggins said:


> I am only a novice in the dog games but must say that my transition into the game was to enhance the training of my hunting dog and have something to fill in the off season. As they were called HUNT TEST i would never have expected anything but a gun to be involved at all levels, was surprised to find out AKC doesn't. As a hunter new to hunt test it already seems to me that the AKC has it wrong, and that they continue to push it more to a non hunting related exercise. Yes I know it isn't hunting, but is that because that wasn't the intent, or is it because there isn't a practical way to run a hunt test in a true hunting situation. I wasn't there when they invented the hunt test game but they must have intended it to represent a hunting simulation or it wouldn't be called a hunt test, maybe a "dog test". I thought that they had FIELD TRIALS just to test dog and handler skills, with no effort to make it even remotely simulate a hunting situation.
> 
> When reading comments here it seems there are 3 lines of thought, 1 that guns are a must to actually simulate hunting situations, 2 that don't seem to feel strongly either way, and the 3rd group feel inconvenienced and want them eliminated to serve THEIR needs. So why does everything always have to evolve to the lower level of expectations, such as the do we really need guns, simulated guns etc because they make it harder, or require some of my skills and attention?
> 
> ...


Good post. I sometimes think there are those that think anything related to a 'hunting' scenario are offended by hunters who participate in Hunt Tests.

No reason to find another reason to keep the Field Monkeys dis-interested in the sport. Unless, of course, that's what you want to do.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

rboudet said:


> If they want to test for steadiness. Add a flyer at 10-20 yards. Heck put it a 100 yards.
> 
> I don't think it is the pop of the gun at the line that they are breaking on.


The last sentence seems to conflict with post #19, where you said "Dogs break on shots in the field all the time." I would strongly prefer that mine not do that, since it is a great way to get shot, and I suspect that this is part of it as well. I will admit that it would be fairly difficult to square that logic with a shot on a diversion bird, which would definitionally be a shot while the dog is still out retrieving. I don't allow that as a condition of my dog being in the blind, because I don't want to have to make that phone call, but that is a personal preference. I wouldn't shoot if a person was out there either. 

And I agree about the flyer being a sterner test, but for some dogs that doesn't mean that the gun going off at the line is not still a test in and of itself.


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

Hunting without a gun is called bird watching. Don't need a dog to do that.

A "HUNT TEST" is to measure the dog's ability to be part of a successful team using a hunting scenerio as a venue. A gun at the line loaded with a .209 primer should be required. In JH have someone next to the handler shoot the gun.

It is not hard to learn to handle a gun safely and concentrate on the dog. For goodness sake the birds are dead already! You are not going to miss! Shoulder the gun, point in a safe direction all the while looking down at your dog.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

What other rule would you like change next to make the entire hunting scenario easier? lets take out the decoys,camo blinds,real birds. I think it is "sillie" that people who sign up for a HUNT test feel they shouldnt need to handle an unloaded gun.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Winner. Winner. Winner. The "if it can't be perfect I don't wanna do it" logic has never made sense to me. I like a hunting dog to swing with the gun. Its REALLY hard to test that without some kinda gun, steel or PVC.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

One interesting thought. Those that don't hunt, and don't use guns around the dog end up having dogs that don't get amped up around guns. Those that do end up with dogs that are more likely to get amped up when the gun comes out, or comes up. Seems like it disadvantages those that actually hunt with their dogs.

Personally, I think it's a hunt test, and there should be guns, and they should be required to be handled safely. I agree that having a handler at the line with a real working gun would make me nervous at a gun station. But there's no reason you couldn't have a prop gun at the line with a noisemaker barrage (or even a popper or primer) at the line to simulate guns being shot from the blind like it would in an actual hunting situation.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Welp just got back from opener dove hunt, I can tell you by the second dove my junior dog now knows what a gun is, and she was dancing to go by the second day. I can tell you we'll be training for a bit more control, but over all she did great, made a few phenomenal retrieves, and learned how to use her nose, for the first time. I can tell you while dove hunting you have a bunch of hunters real close hunting in the same area. I can tell you that you do not shoot directly at them but you do shoot up, and you have the same or less separation as you would have in an AKC hunt test. I can tell you that a few over-zealous hunters definitely need to have more gun instruction, some need to be down-right beaten with their shot-gun, for absolute stupidity. These are the type that pick up a gun, once a year, to go hunt and thank god they don't hunt with dogs. We are training a dog to hunt, we are training handlers to use a gun and hunt with a dog safely, otherwise their apt to kill their own dog. We are also trying to train a dog to be steady enough; to stay despite many guns going off, birds falling, pandemonium, and to not get shot by idiot hunters who come out once a year, and need to be beaten with his own gun. You can't do that without a gun, you can't do that with out live-flyers. AKC should be beaten for allowing sticks to be used as shotguns, but these test are designed to train & proof a hunting dog, so I can take him out know he's less likely to get hurt-killed, and I'm not going to be the one who will hurt-kill him, because I know how to use a gun with dogs. If you can't run & test a dog safely with a stick,You definitely cannot handle a dog and real shotgun.

At a test a judge can fail you for not being safe with your stick or gun or whatever the heck your carrying. You fail a test, you WHINE (significantly in some cases) but you pay more attention next test, just maybe you pay more attention when you actually go out hunting (oh wait most of these dogs actually go hunt!!?). Out in a real world hunting scenario, with a real gun and ammo, you rarely get a gun warning that doesn't end badly for someone involved. After seeing one tragic event and a few near misses with shot-guns and dogs, You better handle your stick with all the intensity and care you would a real gun, if you run under me YOU WILL BE FAILED for it, because while it is just a test, that failure just might save that dog or that person a bunch of heartbreak later on. If I can have a hand in stopping a single event like that, I've actually done something as a judge, besides give out ribbons.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Nothing like firearm safety! Nothing like pointing a real gun which is often in the hands of a novice who is nervous. With that novice gun handler, they likely can't delifferetiate between a live round and a popper round. Often pulling the trigger pointing at a gun station with a kid pulling the rip cord on a winger at 40 yards.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

RookieTrainer said:


> The last sentence seems to conflict with post #19, where you said "Dogs break on shots in the field all the time." I would strongly prefer that mine not do that, since it is a great way to get shot, and I suspect that this is part of it as well. I will admit that it would be fairly difficult to square that logic with a shot on a diversion bird, which would definitionally be a shot while the dog is still out retrieving. I don't allow that as a condition of my dog being in the blind, because I don't want to have to make that phone call, but that is a personal preference. I wouldn't shoot if a person was out there either.
> 
> And I agree about the flyer being a sterner test, but for some dogs that doesn't mean that the gun going off at the line is not still a test in and of itself.


What I meant was it is the anticipation of the retrieve not the gun.

Do you think more dogs break in HRC because there is a gun shot at the line, than in AKC with no shot at the line. I bet its pretty even.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

rboudet said:


> What I meant was it is the anticipation of the retrieve not the gun.
> 
> Do you think more dogs break in HRC because there is a gun shot at the line, than in AKC with no shot at the line. I bet its pretty even.


My money is on AKC because a higher % use of fliers per test. Many of the poppers I've seen/heard in HRC are about as loud as a good spat in a brass spittoon in a spaghetti western.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

You guys carry on; I'm going for more popcorn. 

And I'm really glad to see that this thread is slowly morphing into the same old "my game is better than your game".-Paul


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

GulfCoast said:


> Winner. Winner. Winner. The "if it can't be perfect I don't wanna do it" logic has never made sense to me. I like a hunting dog to swing with the gun. Its REALLY hard to test that without some kinda gun, steel or PVC.


That gets to the really stupid part of the while thing. While you have to carry the gun, it "shall not be used as a pointing device to direct the dog's attention to the bird". Why make you use the pointer if you are not supposed to point? How the heck is a judge supposed to know whether the pointing device directed the dog's attention when the handler turned or whether it was the handler turning or whether it was all those duck calls that go off before the bird is thrown. Every dog will learn to swing with the gun even the ones that run hunt tests. I have never seen anyone dropped for this or even warned (although I have seen it for not shouldering it or only using one hand). Heck even the guys who kneel beside the dog don't get in trouble.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

paul young said:


> You guys carry on; I'm going for more popcorn.
> 
> And I'm really glad to see that this thread is slowly morphing into the same old "my game is better than your game".-Paul


I tried to do my part, but my bait must not what they are looking for


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

Our dogs get more amped with a gun...and they know the difference between hunt test and hunting. Had a MH that wouldn't break at test, would hunting. Same dog, same clothes, sometimes same gun (usually take gun with us due to shooting fliers). 

Have a dog in training, gets excited to pick up anything...gunshots from primer pistol make him more excited...even just doing yard work. His opening day was spent in the pasture sitting, gun in hubby's hands. Could hear gunshota from down the road. IF the doves had flown over as they usually do at some point in the day, he may or may not have gotten a retrieve of a "real" bird. None came, so he did eventually get a pigeon from the coop since he did sit and behave dispite the shots heard and even a few shots over him. He has come a long way, but still has a way to go.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Look at the handler photos at last years MN. Some real interesting gun handling.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Nothing like firearm safety! Nothing like pointing a real gun which is often in the hands of a novice who is nervous. With that novice gun handler, they likely can't delifferetiate between a live round and a popper round. Often pulling the trigger pointing at a gun station with a kid pulling the rip cord on a winger at 40 yards.


We'll agree to disagree on this, but I'd rather have that novice out learning with his dog and gun for the first time in a controlled testing situation, where guns and ammo are checked, and the possibility of harm to the handler, his (judges) hunting buddies, his dog, his hunting buddy's (honor) Dog and even those kids out hunting in the blind next to him is greatly reduced. Than a nervous novice handler out with his dog and gun in a first hunting situation where absolutely nothing is controlled, and there are much higher stakes. But perhaps that's just me


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

moscowitz said:


> John I think everything you say is correct. But it is a hunt test and not a hunting simulation . You want it to be a hunting situation go hunting. Oh yeah more important than the gun is our thermos.


I went all the way through the AKC hunt test program back in the early 90s, Junior Hunter in six straight passes, Senior four straight passes and Master passed about six out of twelve, all back. I don't remember ever holding a real gun and only a couple times with a plywood gun, I hunt a lot during hunting season and I don't believe my MH lacked any real world hunting retriever skill due to lack of a gun in the hunt test he ran. If I was required to carry a gun in a hunt test it wouldn't bother me, but I really don't see how it adds anything to the test. I also think the way people use the gun to point out gun stations by pointing it over the head of the dog is a fake crutch that doesn't reflect reality, and would be unsafe if it did.

I guess it all depends on what you think the hunt test program is about, if you are trying to improve the breed, help regular working guys develop great hunting dogs I don't see the need, but if you are just trying to simulate real hunting in an out of season, get together atmosphere, have at it.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Wow, I posted above without reading all the responses to the first post, I had no idea people felt so strongly about the need to carry a gun in a hunt test. I also ran NAHRA back in the day and don't remember holding a gun on line, are we only talking HRC here or have the rules and customs changed in AKC and NAHRA since I last ran hunt test?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> Wow, I posted above without reading all the responses to the first post, I had no idea people felt so strongly about the need to carry a gun in a hunt test. I also ran NAHRA back in the day and don't remember holding a gun on line, are we only talking HRC here or have the rules and customs changed in AKC and NAHRA since I last ran hunt test?


HRC & NAHRA you will always carry a gun, HRC is Real gun real poppers, NAHRA could be a stick but often time people run with real Guns (checked by judges) no poppers. AKC last 2-3 year, Reps have put significant pressure for clubs-judges to use guns in SH & MH, every series, and to be used correctly shouldered etc. There's been inconsistency with it, people do not like change, which is why we get these threads  Still this year they are also suggesting clubs replace sticks guns with real guns (disabled so they cannot fire), all our master stakes have clearly marked and disabled guns.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Ken Bora said:


> If you want to use the gun as the factor it was made to be, be it akc, nahra or hrc, have it be real, freshly oiled and maybe even shot that a.m. so it is smelly like a good gun should be. And then watch ol' Fang and Rover dance to the line with glee.
> I think more than a few akc judges have lost the thought that the gun itself is a factor, and others never had it to start with.


Excellent. Could not have said it better meself.
My rant is directed at judges who don't understand nor enforce the requirement for proper and safe gun handling and clubs that continue to use silly (perfect word here) toy guns. I expect it's cause those judges, like many handlers, have never handled a shotgun in a hunting situation and have to be reminded which end is the business end.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

What I find stupid, err silly is calling something silly when you really view it as stupid. I find it silly that in akc they use a stick to shoot live birds and in hrc the use a real gun to shoot dead ones. I find it silly that people still think a dog swinging with the gun is the key to good marking as of the dog staring at the gun barrel really shows he where the bird is. I find it silly that people will read a Betty Crocker cookie recipe and try to pawn those of as grandmas home made cookies.

/Paul


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> What I find stupid, err silly is calling something silly when you really view it as stupid. I find it silly that in akc they use a stick to shoot live birds and in hrc the use a real gun to shoot dead ones. I find it silly that people still think a dog swinging with the gun is the key to good marking as of the dog staring at the gun barrel really shows he where the bird is. I find it silly that people will read a Betty Crocker cookie recipe and try to pawn those of as grandmas home made cookies.
> 
> /Paul


Too funny, but I have to agree.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Isn't silly a nice word? Great thoughts being shared here, THANK YOU ALL.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

jacduck said:


> Isn't silly a nice word? Great thoughts being shared here, THANK YOU ALL.


 it does have a more humorous ring to it for sure


/Paul


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Speaking of silly, how do you get wild greenheads to quack loudly before you shoot them so the dog knows where to look?


----------



## Mark Teahan (Apr 1, 2012)

Running HUNT tests without a gun, is like playing fantasy football.
I know nothing about it, cept what I see on commercial, but it sure seems silly.


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

I think it's silly to become interested in a new game (hunt test of any kind) and immediately start wanting to change the rules. Silly or not, they were in place when you first saw the event and decided you wanted to play.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Pam Spears said:


> I think it's silly to become interested in a new game (hunt test of any kind) and immediately start wanting to change the rules. Silly or not, they were in place when you first saw the event and decided you wanted to play.


I'm wondering how many people with their strong opinions have actually run an AKC senior or master test. 

Since the gun is not fired, it seems like a ridiculous prop to me. But I'm new, too...


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

I think it's silly to talk about handling the pretend gun safely when the handler is required to point the gun at the blinds. Unless the goal is to simulate a hunt with Dick Cheney.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

PalouseDogs said:


> I think it's silly to talk about handling the pretend gun safely when the handler is required to point the gun at the blinds. Unless the goal is to simulate a hunt with Dick Cheney.


Well, see, there's the problem. You're supposed to point the gun at the bird at the top of the arc, as though it flew, you shot at it and it was hit and then fell to the ground. If you're pointing the gun at the blinds where the throwers are, you are simulating shooting at birds on the ground, AKA "ground swatting", which is something a real hunter wouldn't do. It's not safe and it's not ethical. I know, I know, there's that pesky hunting thing again......-Paul


----------



## Rob Paye (Jul 22, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> That gets to the really stupid part of the while thing. While you have to carry the gun, it "shall not be used as a pointing device to direct the dog's attention to the bird". Why make you use the pointer if you are not supposed to point? How the heck is a judge supposed to know whether the pointing device directed the dog's attention when the handler turned or whether it was the handler turning or whether it was all those duck calls that go off before the bird is thrown. Every dog will learn to swing with the gun even the ones that run hunt tests. I have never seen anyone dropped for this or even warned (although I have seen it for not shouldering it or only using one hand). Heck even the guys who kneel beside the dog don't get in trouble.


I personally like the gun in tests, fake or not. You cannot point out the marks to the dog, BEFORE you call for your birds. Once you call for the birds IMO the gun becomes a helpful tool because we have trained our dogs to swing with the barrel.


----------



## MDowney (Mar 22, 2008)

Have run master tests where they had a bubba gunner in the general area of the line shooting all the birds going down with the calling from behind the line and being answered in the field. Don't see it too often but it is there if the judges want to use it.


----------



## Darin Westphal (Feb 24, 2005)

Mark Teahan said:


> ... HUNT tests...


Does it change the game by capitalizing a certain word? Is hunt tests the same as HUNT tests or hunt TESTS?

In the end, isn't that what this argument is all about? Which word YOU view as more important between those two?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Pam Spears said:


> I think it's silly to become interested in a new game (hunt test of any kind) and immediately start wanting to change the rules. Silly or not, they were in place when you first saw the event and decided you wanted to play.


I think HRC used a real gun from the beginning, but AKC and NAHRA added the fake gun later, now it sounds like all three venues are heading toward real guns. I brought two dogs up through AKC Master, NAHRA intermediate and a few NAHRA Senior test, I was only required to carry a stick gun a couple times in NAHRA, no real guns in either venue, so the rules have changed since I came in the game.


----------



## Wade Scroggins (Mar 7, 2013)

As i used the same capitalization in my post I will comment.

I think that it does emphasis what kind of tests you are referring to, as the word test or tests does not convey any meaning of the topic you are testing. So maybe you might confuse it with a Psychology test test or something like that. But in my instance I was refering to a HUNT test.

 insert humor here.




Darin Westphal said:


> Does it change the game by capitalizing a certain word? Is hunt tests the same as HUNT tests or hunt TESTS?
> 
> In the end, isn't that what this argument is all about? Which word YOU view as more important between those two?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I think Darren's point is a good one, from what I read the two schools of thought are those _hunt TESTERs _who believe the system should lead toward the most completely trained hunting retriever and don't see how having the handler hold a real gun in this contrived situation adds anything to that goal, versus those who want to simulate a "real" hunting situation as closely as possible in the _HUNT test_.

John


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

I would think some who don't handle guns or hunt their hunting retriever might balk at what a gun means and its relative role and importance in any hunting situation be it real or fake. I'd have no issue real gun (unloaded) or fake gun, that's not the point. The point is guns, like dogs, are a part of hunting a dog. The further we get away from what might considered pretty-friggin-basic components of testing a gun dog (i.e. gun) the sadder and further away I feel we get from a 'hunt test'.

A handler can fail a test. It's not just a dog failure. And that's how it should be - its team work. Ain't all that hard to learn and practice gun safety. Seems appropriate in general. And one might assume if you can't handle a gun, safely - while doing something else too... you probably aren't able to work a gun station either.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

If a gun is used, it should be handled as if it were loaded...fake gun or not...and safe handling should factor into the game. 

As for eliminating the gun, fake or otherwise: 

Since these are supposed to be hunt tests for hunting dogs, if we eliminate the guns, how about also eliminating real birds? Think of the money the clubs would save.

(said tongue-in-cheek...I am not in favor of eliminating birds or guns)


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Last I heard, the purpose of the AKC hunt tests is to test hunting ability of the dog, not the handler. It is the dog that gets the ribbons and the title, not the handler. The handler can be anyone. 

So my question is, does the handler holding a fake gun influence the dog's ability to mark the birds in the senior or master tests? And: Does the requirement that we pretend to shoot, not just hold the gun, add an additional factor? 

The handler picks up the gun at or on the way to the line. Does the dog even notice? I hope not. He's supposed to be looking for birds and heeling obediently at his handler's side.

I like the idea of a shooter by the handler, that way you know that the dog is not gunshy.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> I would think some who don't handle guns or hunt their hunting retriever might balk at what a gun means and its relative role and importance in any hunting situation be it real or fake. I'd have no issue real gun (unloaded) or fake gun, that's not the point. The point is guns, like dogs, are a part of hunting a dog. The further we get away from what might considered pretty-friggin-basic components of testing a gun dog (i.e. gun) the sadder and further away I feel we get from a 'hunt test'.
> 
> A handler can fail a test. It's not just a dog failure. And that's how it should be - its team work. Ain't all that hard to learn and practice gun safety. Seems appropriate in general. And one might assume if you can't handle a gun, safely - while doing something else too... you probably aren't able to work a gun station either.


Personally I don't care if there is a gun or not, I'm used to using a gun when I hunt and would be comfortable carrying one on line, I just don't see what it adds to the test. When I first heard of a hunt test, I assumed I would be carrying a gun and actually shooting live birds as they were thrown over my head by some kind of winger, or launched into the air in an upland scenario, I was quite disappointed to find out that the marks were mostly dead birds thrown out in the field, landing in unrealistic from my hunting experience, locations. It took me a while to get behind the idea that the purpose of hunt test was to test and advancing retriever skills to the point that the dog would be a real asset in real hunting, and that these contrived situations were a valuable tool in working toward that goal.

Keep the gun if you feel it's important, it isn't to me, but no big deal either way.

John


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

PalouseDogs said:


> I think it's silly to talk about handling the pretend gun safely when the handler is required to point the gun at the blinds. Unless the goal is to simulate a hunt with Dick Cheney.





paul young said:


> Well, see, there's the problem. You're supposed to point the gun at the bird at the top of the arc, as though it flew, you shot at it and it was hit and then fell to the ground. If you're pointing the gun at the blinds where the throwers are, you are simulating shooting at birds on the ground, AKA "ground swatting", which is something a real hunter wouldn't do. It's not safe and it's not ethical. I know, I know, there's that pesky hunting thing again......-Paul



as a worker in the field I hate, hate, HATE!!
Those handlers who, instead of raising and lowering the shotgun 3 times to shot the bird at top of arc. The proper way.
Point the shotgun right at me throwing the first long memory, right at me, and signal with the other hand for the birds.
I have always wanted to ask (now my chance ay?) the judges but am always 100+yards away. Why don't you slap those dill holes in the head and say "why are you pointing your shotgun at that fat bald guy?"


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> I would think some who don't handle guns or hunt their hunting retriever might balk at what a gun means and its relative role and importance in any hunting situation be it real or fake. I'd have no issue real gun (unloaded) or fake gun, that's not the point. The point is guns, like dogs, are a part of hunting a dog. The further we get away from what might considered pretty-friggin-basic components of testing a gun dog (i.e. gun) the sadder and further away I feel we get from a 'hunt test'.
> 
> A handler can fail a test. It's not just a dog failure. And that's how it should be - its team work. Ain't all that hard to learn and practice gun safety. Seems appropriate in general. And one might assume if you can't handle a gun, safely - while doing something else too... you probably aren't able to work a gun station either.



I joined the HRC when it first began. I think my membership number was in the low 300's. It was important to us that our tests represented hunting, and that meant that gun safety was important. I have gotten out of the HRC and hunt tests, and now only participate in field trials. But, I shoot a lot and I find that gun safety is not what it should be. In fact, the way that some people handle guns scares me. It surprises me that so many participants in HT consider the safe handling of a firearm as an afterthought or nuisance.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Darin Westphal said:


> Does it change the game by capitalizing a certain word? Is hunt tests the same as HUNT tests or hunt TESTS?
> 
> In the end, isn't that what this argument is all about? Which word YOU view as more important between those two?


What about the most important word: RETRIEVER

A Retriever Hunt Test is supposed to be about dog work.
A hunting test might need to evaluate decoy spreads, calling, marksmanship....

IMHO carrying the gun is great. You can be eliminated for breaking but you are mandated to carry a big heeling stick.


Tim


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Ted Shih said:


> I joined the HRC when it first began. I think my membership number was in the low 300's. It was important to us that our tests represented hunting, and that meant that gun safety was important. I have gotten out of the HRC and hunt tests, and now only participate in field trials. But, I shoot a lot and I find that gun safety is not what it should be. In fact, the way that some people handle guns scares me. *It surprises me that so many participants in HT consider the safe handling of a firearm as an afterthought or nuisance. *


Which HT participants have said or intimated that they consider safe handling of a FIREARM as an afterthought or nuisance? I didn't notice anyone saying that. If they did, they shouldn't be allowed to own or handle a FIREARM. What is a nuisance is being asked to pretend that a stick is a real Firearm. I know it's a stick, the judge knows it's a stick, the gallery knows it's a stick. If you want to test firearm handling and add the element of firearm to the test, then provide a real firearm. 

I hunt with a real firearm and consider it's safe handling of supreme importance.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> I think Darren's point is a good one, from what I read the two schools of thought are those _hunt TESTERs _who believe the system should lead toward the most completely trained hunting retriever and don't see how having the handler hold a real gun in this contrived situation adds anything to that goal, versus those who want to simulate a "real" hunting situation as closely as possible in the _HUNT test_.
> 
> John


I agree .....Has anyone ever seen a dog cower on a walk-up because the handler moves the gun barrel around in front of the dogs face...? Don't take away my heeling stick that was used in training with electric attachments on the barrel so my dog will not get out front....If the exposed lead is considered a training aid how in the world can you think anything different of the gun....? P18 objectives..."greater uniformity in evaluating the abilities and characteristics of Retrievers "....I'm in the hunt TESTERS group..NON slip Retriever meant something long ago...Now we talk to our dogs on the honor because they do when they hunt ...How much longer is it going to be until we can talk to the dog while the birds are going down..? Because they do it while hunting...The game is evolving ..back to work , feel much better after a little vent...Steve S


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I joined the HRC when it first began. I think my membership number was in the low 300's. It was important to us that our tests represented hunting, and that meant that gun safety was important. I have gotten out of the HRC and hunt tests, and now only participate in field trials. But, I shoot a lot and I find that gun safety is not what it should be. In fact, the way that some people handle guns scares me. It surprises me that so many participants in HT consider the safe handling of a firearm as an afterthought or nuisance.


I agree. And, as someone who does quite a bit of upland guiding, let me tell you that I am hyper-aware of gun safety. Everyone gets the gun safety lecture before we start, and if someone is unsafe, their hunt is over at that moment. Funny how well I can hear the click of a safety going off at fifty yards away.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Ted, I think this quote sums up exactly what you are talking about....Why would anyone need to differentiate between a live round or a popper. Have any of you seen what a popper can do at close range? Firearm safety is firearm safety, regardless of what the said gun is loaded with....The AKC already has made the hunt test game pretty sterile....no remote sits, no lay out blinds, no dog blinds, etc...so folks want to sterilize it some more? I guess, just go pick up a few chickens, run a couple of blinds and go home...does that make a "hunting retriever"? There's a little more to a hunting retriever than that, IMHO...



Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Nothing like firearm safety! Nothing like pointing a real gun which is often in the hands of a novice who is nervous. With that novice gun handler, *they likely can't delifferetiate between a live round and a popper round. *Often pulling the trigger pointing at a gun station with a kid pulling the rip cord on a winger at 40 yards.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Which HT participants have said or intimated that they consider safe handling of a FIREARM as an afterthought or nuisance? I didn't notice anyone saying that. If they did, they shouldn't be allowed to own or handle a FIREARM. *What is a nuisance is being asked to pretend that a stick is a real Firearm. I know it's a stick, the judge knows it's a stick, the gallery knows it's a stick.* If you want to test firearm handling and add the element of firearm to the test, then provide a real firearm.
> 
> I hunt with a real firearm and consider it's safe handling of supreme importance.


Wooden gun or not, you had best treat it with the respect of a firearm or I will drop you like a rock. Not all clubs have the luxury of being able to have a shotgun available as a handlers gun. We have a few single shot shotguns that cannot be repaire which we us as handlers guns, but do not have enough at times. I will caution handlers to treat it, regardless of it's makeup, like a functioning firearm. Sweep me and you will be dropped.

If one cannot be bothered to try to follow the guidelines and rules in the spirit they are written, go bowling. It will never be hunting, and bitching about it won't make it so. Make the best of what we have and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

These games started out as HUNT TESTS, a different type of dog game from field trials for the handler who couldn't afford field trials and also a way to maintain the hunt and retrieve in retrievers so it was not diluted by breeding for pet-only owners. Recall that some of the retriever breeds were becoming extremely popular and breed enthusiasts did not want the retriever breeds to go the way of the Irish Setter or the Cocker Spaniel.

So, then more and more folks got involved in the hunt test game and different venues evolved. Some folks hunt, others do not, but all still like to play the hunt test game. But, then some decided that they didn't want to wear camo... black is good.... maybe tan.... maybe lighter tan.... what difference does the clothes on the handler make?

Then some didn't want to carry a gun. What difference does a gun make, even though in some hunting situations, you may not only have to carry a gun, you may have to handle your dog to a blind while holding a gun.. don't say it doesn't happen!!

Its been suggested here that decoys aren't important to hunt tests... ever see a dog attempt a retrieve that hasn't been exposed to decoys? We use decoys in NAHRA all the time and as a judge I can tell the dogs that haven't been exposed to decoys.

What's next? Why do you even need a gun shot, or a duck call. Just yell to get their attention. Oh, and why kill all these birds????? Bumpers or dokkens work just as well!!! (Isn't that discussion that took even more clubs away from NAHRA???)

Do you see where I"m going with this? The more hunt stuff we take out of hunt tests, the more distance we add to our marks and blinds, the more we allow clothes that are more visable than camo.... the closer we are getting to the game that hunt tests were started to allow the average Joe to have a venue to test his hunting retriever. The more we remove hunting culture from hunt tests, the closer we come to a retriever game that all of a sudden doesn't seem like hunting at all..... Why do we need marshes and adequate cover? Let's just go out to a big field and throw some black bumpers and see if our dogs will bring them back.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Mike Tome said:


> These games started out as HUNT TESTS, a different type of dog game from field trials .


Mike!!! You of all people! You are killing me!! They started out at "Field Tests" 
what game do we play?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

for people groovin' to the name / word thing. the history, as I know it. First, Field Trials. Then some trials had gun dog stakes. Then nahra was formed and was patner with AKC and made the first "Field Test" rule book. Then AKC broke away, stole the rule book and started running "Hunt Tests" Bill Watson I think, has typed he still has one of those original regulations and guidelines that is all NAHRA text on the inside. And at the same time of the AKC break Ohmar and the gang of six went to the UKC and formed HRC and I believe they run "HRC Hunts" So Field Trial, Field Test, Hunt Test and Hunt.
its all dogs picking up ___ , or not.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> Last I heard, the purpose of the AKC hunt tests is to test hunting ability of the dog, not the handler. It is the dog that gets the ribbons and the title, not the handler. The handler can be anyone.


Try touching your dog at the line and tell me it's the dogs fail.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Golddogs said:


> Wooden gun or not, you had best treat it with the respect of a firearm or I will drop you like a rock. Not all clubs have the luxury of being able to have a shotgun available as a handlers gun. We have a few single shot shotguns that cannot be repaire which we us as handlers guns, but do not have enough at times. I will caution handlers to treat it, regardless of it's makeup, like a functioning firearm. Sweep me and you will be dropped.
> 
> If one cannot be bothered to try to follow the guidelines and rules in the spirit they are written, go bowling. It will never be hunting, and bitching about it won't make it so. Make the best of what we have and enjoy the ride.


Oh I will! It's way too fun not to learn my lesson and quit pointing sticks at judges' heads!! 

Not gonna bitch no more, regards,


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> Personally I don't care if there is a gun or not, I'm used to using a gun when I hunt and would be comfortable carrying one on line, I just don't see what it adds to the test.


Pretty much sums up my thoughts. In fact, if I am running a hunt test, I most likely just came in during the last rebird from the flyer station where I was using a real gun and handling it safely.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Try touching your dog at the line and tell me it's the dogs fail.


I'm not saying the handler can't screw up up the test for the dog. I can see lots of ways in which the handler's actions interfere with a judge's ability to evaluate the dog, and touching the dog is one of them. 

If the addition of the gun helps judge the dog's abilities then I am for it. If shouldering the gun and fake shooting the marks helps judge the dog's abilities I'm for it. Otherwise it seems pointless to me.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> I'm not saying the handler can't screw up up the test for the dog. I can see lots of ways in which the handler's actions interfere with a judge's ability to evaluate the dog, and touching the dog is one of them.
> 
> If the addition of the gun helps judge the dog's abilities then I am for it. If shouldering the gun and fake shooting the marks helps judge the dog's abilities I'm for it. Otherwise it seems pointless to me.


Teamwork and handling skills should be a part of the test, and it is. Gun handling is one of many components. Fake, real, doesn't matter. Whether the judge instructs you point and shoot falls, I don't care personally. As a handler, basic gun handling skills have value to the test and experience of owning and running a hunting retriever. In a hunt test. Eliminating serve no purpose, keeping it can have many.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Teamwork and handling skills should be a part of the test, and it is. Gun handling is one of many components. Fake, real, doesn't matter. Whether the judge instructs you point and shoot falls, I don't care personally. As a handler, basic gun handling skills have value to the test and experience of owning and running a hunting retriever. In a hunt test. Eliminating serve no purpose, keeping it can have many.


The AKC's stated purpose of the test is to evaluate the dog, not the dog's owner. You don't even have to run your own dog. If, say, a pro runs the dog the owner's gun handling skills are irrelevant. If you are thinking about whether you want to bring Fido out hunting with you (and you can leave his clueless owner at home), does the fact that a fake gun was fake fired while he was picking up marks influence your decision? Does it tell you whether or not Fido has what it takes?

Edit: does the fake gun tell you if the dog is a team player?


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Ken Bora said:


> for people groovin' to the name / word thing. the history, as I know it. First, Field Trials. Then some trials had gun dog stakes. Then nahra was formed and was patner with AKC and made the first "Field Test" rule book. Then AKC broke away, stole the rule book and started running "Hunt Tests" Bill Watson I think, has typed he still has one of those original regulations and guidelines that is all NAHRA text on the inside. And at the same time of the AKC break Ohmar and the gang of six went to the UKC and formed HRC and I believe they run "HRC Hunts" So Field Trial, Field Test, Hunt Test and Hunt.
> its all dogs picking up ___ , or not.


Ken, This was the original letter sent out to clubs at the time. I also have the rule book but having a hard time posting it. (it's in PDF format)

You'll have to click the image then click again to magnify it.

Edit: I guess you don't have to magnify it.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> The AKC's stated purpose of the test is to evaluate the dog, not the dog's owner. You don't even have to run your own dog. If, say, a pro runs the dog the owner's gun handling skills are irrelevant. If you are thinking about whether you want to bring Fido out hunting with you (and you can leave his clueless owner at home), does the fact that a fake gun was fake fired while he was picking up marks influence your decision? Does it tell you whether or not Fido has what it takes?
> 
> Edit: does the fake gun tell you if the dog is a team player?


Have you handled a gun at a test?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Try touching your dog at the line and tell me it's the dogs fail.


Hmm I've never seen a dog handle itself on a blind either, if these are dog games and handlers shouldn't screw the dogs up... Maybe we should get rid of the Blinds as well, Straight up marking test no other factors, and we'll know 

Another fact I just put out 30 decoys in a setup to be ran through, they screwed with 50% of the field and failed some (a lot of WHINE), and now I'll have them in every test...when a dog will pick up plastic over a real bird, not a hunting dog. When a handler doesn't have enough confidence in his dog to multitask and handle a gun...not a hunting handler; perhaps not an upper level hunting dog. I need a (will-work with me hunting dog) not a TESTING dog, If the hunt test can no-longer produce a Hunting dog, the titles loose all value, the duck-club set (testing is stupid-no testing ever) is right; and I'll have to find my dogs else where.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Have you handled a gun at a test?


Yes. I've also been a shooter at a gun station for club picnics; I'm not very good yet. 

Although I am new to the sport I have worked or participated in maybe a dozen hunt tests. I have watch many more.

You don't seem to have an answer to my questions, now you are asking one of me. I've answered it, your turn.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

mitty said:


> Yes. I've also been a shooter at a gun station for club picnics; I'm not very good yet.
> 
> Although I am new to the sport I have worked or participated in maybe a dozen hunt tests. I have watch many more.
> 
> You don't seem to have an answer to my questions, now you are asking one of me. I've answered it, your turn.


OK Mitty, I'll give it a try. AKC only.

At the Junior level, we are looking for 80% natural dog talent and 20% trained ability. ( hold the bird till instructed, somewhat tractable to the line, sort of listento the handler.) Makes no nevermind who the handler is, owner or other,dog is supposed to do the heavy lifting.

Senior and Master it becomes a 50-50 partnership. Now you are looking at more of a partnership to accomplish the task at hand. Here, it does matter how the handler interacts with the dog. A good dog can be screwed up by poor handling and good handling can bail out a dog. See how a handler becomes important?

You have chosen to play this game, best learn to accept the warts that come along with it.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

steve schreiner said:


> I agree .....Has anyone ever seen a dog cower on a walk-up because the handler moves the gun barrel around in front of the dogs face...? Don't take away my heeling stick that was used in training with electric attachments on the barrel so my dog will not get out front....If the exposed lead is considered a training aid how in the world can you think anything different of the gun....? P18 objectives..."greater uniformity in evaluating the abilities and characteristics of Retrievers "....I'm in the hunt TESTERS group..NON slip Retriever meant something long ago...Now we talk to our dogs on the honor because they do when they hunt ...How much longer is it going to be until we can talk to the dog while the birds are going down..? Because they do it while hunting...The game is evolving ..back to work , feel much better after a little vent...Steve S


When I do, that handler is disqualified for intimidation. The dog is clearly intimidated and there is no justification for allowing the handler to continue the test.

And if someone was training with me and used the gun as a heeling stick, that would be the last time we trained together. What a load of B.S.!!!-Paul


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Time to cut to the chase boys and girls. The reality whether we like it or not, is that the board of directors of the American Kennel Club are not going to allow a handler to carry a real firearm and fire it at the line. That is simply more liability than they are willing to take on, so the fake gun or stick is what we are left with. It's a PROP in this venue, nothing more, and the result is handlers treat it as the prop that it is. (Handlers are more aware of safety if they're carrying a non functioning real gun but it still isn't the same.) Face it everybody knows it's not a real gun including the dogs. There are an increasing number of dogs that react to the "big heeling stick" when the handler picks up the fake gun. 

The AKC isn't going to allow the handler to actually shoot so get rid of the prop (training aid for those of you that are using it as a heeling stick).


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Time to cut to the chase boys and girls. The reality whether we like it or not, is that the board of directors of the American Kennel Club are not going to allow a handler to carry a real firearm and fire it at the line. That is simply more liability than they are willing to take on, so the fake gun or stick is what we are left with. It's a PROP in this venue, nothing more, and the result is handlers treat it as the prop that it is. (Handlers are more aware of safety if they're carrying a real gun but it still isn't the same.) Face it everybody knows it's not a real gun including the dogs. There are an increasing number of dogs that react to the "big heeling stick" when the handler picks up the fake gun.
> 
> The AKC isn't going to allow the handler to actually shoot so get rid of the prop (training aid for those of you that are using it as a heeling stick).


There is already a venue you just described.....

White coat, 400 yd marks on mowed grass regards - 

(not that there is anything wrong with that, or HRC or NAHRA) I don't agree with the craziness around camo clothing in HRC, but if I am going to try that venue, I will abide by the rules...regardless of the intent...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Which HT participants have said or intimated that they consider safe handling of a FIREARM as an afterthought or nuisance? I didn't notice anyone saying that. If they did, they shouldn't be allowed to own or handle a FIREARM. What is a nuisance is being asked to pretend that a stick is a real Firearm. I know it's a stick, the judge knows it's a stick, the gallery knows it's a stick. If you want to test firearm handling and add the element of firearm to the test, then provide a real firearm.
> 
> I hunt with a real firearm and consider it's safe handling of supreme importance.



see post 8 for an example of someone who would rather not be bothered with gun handling.

As for not taking a stick seriously, I believe safe gun handling comes from good habits. To that end, I don't like stick guns, toy guns or real guns pointed at things that you are not prepared to kill. I treat guns replicas or real with respect


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Labs said:


> There is already a venue you just described.....
> 
> White coat, 400 yd marks on mowed grass regards -


You're right!

To the board of the AKC both Retriever Hunting Tests and Field Trials are both Field Events. They look at Field Trials that have been around a very very long time and the handlers don't need and have never needed to shoot a real gun. Then they look at Hunting Tests, the mechanics and proximity of judges, handlers, dogs, throwers and gallery and the prospect of putting a handler with a real gun into that mix is very scary. They come away with the conclusion that Field Trials have existed now for almost a century and they've never had a requirement for handlers to shoot at the line so Hunting Tests can just find a way to do it as well.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

paul young said:


> When I do, that handler is disqualified for intimidation. The dog is clearly intimidated and there is no justification for allowing the handler to continue the test.
> 
> And if someone was training with me and used the gun as a heeling stick, that would be the last time we trained together. What a load of B.S.!!!-Paul


 One must be careful as not to assume that because the dog cowers that it has been beaten. I am guilty of not using a gun enough in training and when getting my current dog ready for Senior, she was initially afraid of it. This may have been because I do not use a crop to train her after stick-fetch.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Golddogs said:


> OK Mitty, I'll give it a try. AKC only.
> 
> At the Junior level, we are looking for 80% natural dog talent and 20% trained ability. ( hold the bird till instructed, somewhat tractable to the line, sort of listento the handler.) Makes no nevermind who the handler is, owner or other,dog is supposed to do the heavy lifting.
> 
> ...


Do you judge AKC senior or master? (I have never judged.) We're required to shoulder the gun and not supposed to use the gun as a pointing device, but is there otherwise a place where the gun influences the dog's score on the judges sheets?


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Tom Lehr said:


> One must be careful as not to assume that because the dog cowers that it has been beaten. I am guilty of not using a gun enough in training and when getting my current dog ready for Senior, she was initially afraid of it. This may have been because I do not use a crop to train her after stick-fetch.


Well here's an example in which the presence of a gun says something about the dog's preparedness for hunting!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Add to the OP's list of stuff that doesn't make sense...what about quads? I understand we are not allowed to have more than 3 rounds in our shotguns when hunting ducks, yet we are sometimes asked to fake shoot 4 birds?

I had never thought about the gun issue before, I just went with the flow...hmmmm.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

mitty said:


> Well here's an example in which the presence of a gun says something about the dog's preparedness for hunting!


At this point in her life I have only upland hunted with her. When my older dog can no longer waterfowl hunt, she will get the call.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Tom Lehr said:


> At this point in her life I have only upland hunted with her. When my older dog can no longer waterfowl hunt, she will get the call.


I guess I didn't understand. I thought you were saying your dog was afraid of guns!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> Add to the OP's list of stuff that doesn't make sense...what about quads? I understand we are not allowed to have more than 3 rounds in our shotguns when hunting ducks, yet we are sometimes asked to fake shoot 4 birds?
> 
> I had never thought about the gun issue before, I just went with the flow...hmmmm.


Pretend you are Quail hunting with your retriever.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> You don't seem to have an answer to my questions, now you are asking one of me. I've answered it, your turn.


Mitty, I am not arguing to argue as I suspect you are. I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense or apply. Nor can I accept the dog is the only factor in the test. Further, that the handler doesn't play a role in success or failure (pass/fail) of the test. Given it's a hunting scenario, handling a gun may or may not affect a dog, or a pass, or a fail. Scenarios abound. Removing it does nothing for the sport. Keeping it retains an element of merit i.e. handling a gun. 

Handlers should be groomed to adjust and factor at the line. I see nothing wrong, silly, or inadequate about the handler being an active participant in the simulated hunt test set-up. I don't blame the HRC contingent for use of camo.

Nobody is gonna lose an eye keeping a little tradition in the sport.


----------



## bakbay (May 20, 2003)

Swampcollie said:


> You're right!
> 
> To the board of the AKC both Retriever Hunting Tests and Field Trials are both Field Events. They look at Field Trials that have been around a very very long time and the handlers don't need and have never needed to shoot a real gun. Then they look at Hunting Tests, the mechanics and proximity of judges, handlers, dogs, throwers and gallery and the prospect of putting a handler with a real gun into that mix is very scary. They come away with the conclusion that Field Trials have existed now for almost a century and they've never had a requirement for handlers to shoot at the line so Hunting Tests can just find a way to do it as well.


Without getting involved in the discussion as to whether HTs should or should not require handlers to actually handle a gun or gun replica, I must correct the statement above. Field trials did, in the past, occasionally require the handler of the working dog to actually shoot during events. That is certainly not the case now, but if you review (certainly worth the purchase) the video available from Retriever News showing highlights from the 1957 National Amateur (the first one), you'll see the handlers shoot as a live, shackled bird is thrown to splash about 10 yards (NOT a misprint) from the line. Having only been around field trials since the early 80's, I can't say when the decision was made to remove the gun from handlers, but it is not correct to say there has never been a requirement for handlers to shoot.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I agree that the fake gun is pretty silly. 
But, there's lots of silly in HT.

It's silly that you can't talk to the working dog, while the marks are being thrown. 
You can't snap your fingers, clear your throat, or pat your leg. But, it's okay to drag your foot across the ground.

It's silly that while you can't talk to the working dog, you can talk to the honor dog.

It's silly that if your dog overruns a mark, you can handle it back into the AOF with a beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep-beep with the whistle. But, if you say one single "here", the Judges are probably going to fold your sheet.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Labs said:


> Ted, I think this quote sums up exactly what you are talking about....Why would anyone need to differentiate between a live round or a popper. Have any of you seen what a popper can do at close range? Firearm safety is firearm safety, regardless of what the said gun is loaded with....The AKC already has made the hunt test game pretty sterile....no remote sits, no lay out blinds, no dog blinds, etc...so folks want to sterilize it some more? I guess, just go pick up a few chickens, run a couple of blinds and go home...does that make a "hunting retriever"? There's a little more to a hunting retriever than that, IMHO...


I've had a long day and haven't had my beer yet, but could you please reference the HT rulebook in regards to the bolded portion of your post?

Thanks.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Mitty, I am not arguing to argue as I suspect you are. I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense or apply. Nor can I accept the dog is the only factor in the test. Further, that the handler doesn't play a role in success or failure (pass/fail) of the test. Given it's a hunting scenario, handling a gun may or may not affect a dog, or a pass, or a fail. Scenarios abound. Removing it does nothing for the sport. Keeping it retains an element of merit i.e. handling a gun.
> 
> Handlers should be groomed to adjust and factor at the line. I see nothing wrong, silly, or inadequate about the handler being an active participant in the simulated hunt test set-up. I don't blame the HRC contingent for use of camo.
> 
> Nobody is gonna lose an eye keeping a little tradition in the sport.


Well my question seems obvious to me. Oh well.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> Well my question seems obvious to me. Oh well.


It's just the answers that don't.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

It's simply a matter of your understanding of what it takes to be a hunting retriever. HPW


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Rnd said:


> View attachment 14902
> 
> 
> Ken, This was the original letter sent out to clubs at the time. I also have the rule book but having a hard time posting it. (it's in PDF format)
> .


that is a cool slice of history. Thank you. a "hunting retriever field test" 
edit, the Vermont po box in swanton, we still run tests on Ned's property.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> I've had a long day and haven't had my beer yet, but could you please reference the HT rulebook in regards to the bolded portion of your post?
> 
> Thanks.


You are right, TD, it isn't in the rulebook that I am aware of...but you will be hard pressed to see a judge use any of these things in an AKC hunt test....


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

bakbay said:


> Without getting involved in the discussion as to whether HTs should or should not require handlers to actually handle a gun or gun replica, I must correct the statement above. Field trials did, in the past, occasionally require the handler of the working dog to actually shoot during events. That is certainly not the case now, but if you review (certainly worth the purchase) the video available from Retriever News showing highlights from the 1957 National Amateur (the first one), you'll see the handlers shoot as a live, shackled bird is thrown to splash about 10 yards (NOT a misprint) from the line. Having only been around field trials since the early 80's, I can't say when the decision was made to remove the gun from handlers, but it is not correct to say there has never been a requirement for handlers to shoot.[/QUOTE}
> 
> Having the handler shoot was allowed (not mandated) in FTs until the late '60s/ early 70's. It was not the norm then and really only used in breaking test. A major difference between handlers having a gun then was that we always shot a live or popper load. The gun was a not a prop.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> bakbay said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO the use of the gun as a prop has promoted poor gun handling.
> ...


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

mitty said:


> Add to the OP's list of stuff that doesn't make sense...what about quads? I understand we are not allowed to have more than 3 rounds in our shotguns when hunting ducks, yet we are sometimes asked to fake shoot 4 birds?
> 
> I had never thought about the gun issue before, I just went with the flow...hmmmm.


MItty,

How many people hunt alone, with only their dog? I would say more times than not, there are more than one person in the hunting party, and there may only be one dog. Although you may actually point your gun at the 4th bird in the series, you do not shoot because you are out of shells, but your hunting buddy is not, and takes it down.

Thus, the need for a 4th pickup.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

mitty said:


> I'm not saying the handler can't screw up up the test for the dog. I can see lots of ways in which the handler's actions interfere with a judge's ability to evaluate the dog, and touching the dog is one of them.
> 
> If the addition of the gun helps judge the dog's abilities then I am for it. If shouldering the gun and fake shooting the marks helps judge the dog's abilities I'm for it. Otherwise it seems pointless to me.


The gun is a very important part of hunting, this the requirement that one hold/handle it within the simulated hunt (whether we as contestants view the test that the judges set up as realistic or not). The idea of hunt tests, IN MY OPINION, is to get your dog ready for hunting season, and if you have trained your dog to an advanced level (senior or Master), you will have a dog that is much better trained than someone who just trains to hunt. This includes the act of holding and handling a gun in all situations.

Does the gun offer any added value to the simulated hunt (hunt test game). Absolutely not. As has been pointed out, you are not allowed to point the guns out with the gun (actually use the gun to point them out prior to calling for the birds), BUT, if you train regularly with a gun, you can train your dog to swing with the gun, as you move it to the next bird that is falling. 

In that scenario, does the gun offer something valuable? Most definitely. Swinging with the gun is a very important part of hunting, and if trained properly, can assist you and your dog when playing the game. Since you are not allowed to tap your leg, talk, etc, if you can get them to swing with the gun, you have just increased your chances of your dog seeing a bird falling.

As a judge, will I fail a handler who does not have proper gun handling? Most likely not, unless they turn around and point the gun directly at me, or someone else around the line. 

I have not read the entire thread, but I hope has given you an answer of how the gun can actually help, and why it is valuable in the hunt tests.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> And is that because the judges have not encouraged good gun handling - or discouraged poor gun handling - or what?


HA! I'd agree both ways - the prop has lowered expectations. That said - was running behind a well known individual a few years ago. Whilst the judges went on and on at the handlers meeting about gun safety - somehow were so engaged in said person at the line that they ignored the butt of the (real) gun resting on his boot and the muzzle covered by his thumb. ;-)


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Ken Bora said:


> that is a cool slice of history. Thank you. a "hunting retriever field test"
> edit, the Vermont po box in swanton, we still run tests on Ned's property.


Omar also has the letter from the AKC saying "There is no general interest in having a field test for hunting retrievers other than field trials. If there was, the AKC would be holding them." Saw it myself at the HRC National "history table" several years ago and had an epic chuckle.


----------



## David McCracken (May 24, 2009)

Huff said:


> Why don't they require a real gun at the line and the handler shoot one of the primer only load at the bird as its in the air. Not the popper that they shoot at the station but a quieter primer load. I have them and they are not loud at all. A gun that is not handed to the judges in a safe manner, action open, safety on, and pointed in a safe direction is automatic failure.
> 
> But then again its not like these tests are true hunting scenarios so just get rid of the gun and let the dog work be the thing judged.
> 
> ...


They do in HRC.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Tim Carrion said:
> 
> 
> > And is that because the judges have not encouraged good gun handling - or discouraged poor gun handling - or what?
> ...


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I've been waiting for one of the Aussies to chime in on this thread, but they haven't. 

In their FIELD TRIALS the handler fires a real gun with poppers at the marks.-Paul


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

mitty said:


> Add to the OP's list of stuff that doesn't make sense...what about quads? I understand we are not allowed to have more than 3 rounds in our shotguns when hunting ducks, yet we are sometimes asked to fake shoot 4 birds?


I like this question so I will answer it. . When will you shoot a quad? When Your hunting with more than one hunter, or when your shooting in a state or hunting a game-animal that doesn't have a plug or 3 shells gun rule. Ex. many Indian reservations don't stipulate, 3 shells per gun. A Shotgun usually can carry 5 shots, so technically you could shoot a pent. 2 hunters could shoot 6. We've had a single dog at the club do a pretty good job at a pent, one bird we didn't even remember but the dog did . You get more birds than 5 and your probably going to be running a few blinds. A new type of MH hunt test series? Shoot all your birds one series, dog picks up what he remembers you handle to the rest, judges judge it. And we all get out of there by 2pm Sat.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Zman1001 said:


> MItty,
> 
> How many people hunt alone, with only their dog? I would say more times than not, there are more than one person in the hunting party, and there may only be one dog. Although you may actually point your gun at the 4th bird in the series, you do not shoot because you are out of shells, but your hunting buddy is not, and takes it down.
> 
> Thus, the need for a 4th pickup.





Hunt'EmUp said:


> I like this question so I will answer it. . When will you shoot a quad? When Your hunting with more than one hunter, or when your shooting in a state or hunting a game-animal that doesn't have a plug or 3 shells gun rule. Ex. many Indian reservations don't stipulate, 3 shells per gun. A Shotgun usually can carry 5 shots, so technically you could shoot a pent. 2 hunters could shoot 6. We've had a single dog at the club do a pretty good job at a pent, one bird we didn't even remember but the dog did . You get more birds than 5 and your probably going to be running a few blinds. A new type of MH hunt test series? Shoot all your birds one series, dog picks up what he remembers you handle to the rest, judges judge it. And we all get out of there by 2pm Sat.


The scenario was a duck hunt, so I'm not liking the pretend pheasant hunt idea.

Meanwhile...I read through the rules and see that we are required to merely shoulder the gun; I thought we were also supposed to pretend to shoot. So I thought we were being asked to fake break the law. But I get what you are saying, I shoulder the gun and prepare to shoot them all, but my hunting buds are taking some of the shots. Voila! I get it!

I thought the 3 shell limit was a federal reg. Where exactly can you shoot more than 3 (and not have the other two plugged)?

Thanks!


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

mitty said:


> *The scenario was a duck hunt, so I'm not liking the pretend pheasant hunt idea.
> 
> *Meanwhile...I read through the rules and see that we are required to merely shoulder the gun; I thought we were also supposed to pretend to shoot. So I thought we were being asked to fake break the law. But I get what you are saying, I shoulder the gun and prepare to shoot them all, but my hunting buds are taking some of the shots. Voila! I get it!
> 
> ...


Mitty, many of the people I hunt with do not own retrievers. It is not uncommon for us to drop more than 3 birds at a time. Some of them geese. Sometimes we pit hunt with up to 10 and not all of us bring a dog. 

Perhaps agility might be a better outlet for you. No pesky guns or whistles to deal with and there the dog does all the work. You just need to run along side and not trip.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

mitty said:


> The scenario was a duck hunt, so I'm not liking the pretend pheasant hunt idea.
> 
> Meanwhile...I read through the rules and see that we are required to merely shoulder the gun; I thought we were also supposed to pretend to shoot. So I thought we were being asked to fake break the law. But I get what you are saying, I shoulder the gun and prepare to shoot them all, but my hunting buds are taking some of the shots. Voila! I get it!
> 
> ...


It depends on the State, but the Federal law only applies to migratory waterfowl, depending on the State and their game laws, I imagine you could use an unplugged gun upland hunting. As for carrying a gun in hunt test, I personally don't see the need, but _when in Rome_, if the people who run that sport feel it's important I'm not going to try and buck the tide.

John


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Its not uncommon for 2 guys hunting with one dog to have one guy shoot 3 times kill 2 ducks, the other guy shoot 3 times, kill a duck, and have a winged bird trying to swim out. Do you let it go, do a buncha poison bird handling while more birds might be trying to work, or does one of you rack another (4th shell) and choot 'em, then release the dog? I know what I do...even with dogs proficient on poison birds.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Or snow goose hunt in Missouri ,no plugs and many people buy extended magazines. 4 guys might kill 12-15 birds from one volley. That will make a dogs head spin !


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

mitty said:


> I thought the 3 shell limit was a federal reg. Where exactly can you shoot more than 3 (and not have the other two plugged)?


Indian Reservations are "Sovereign Nations", Federal Law not applicable there. Just as it not applicable in Mexico; or any other country. Although I believe if the bird is not considered federally regulated, aka federal waterfowl stamp; the states make their own laws, on procession limits, shell limits-type, plugs, etc. Many upland game species including pheasant don't fall under the 3 shot umbrella. SD didn't have a limit that you could only have 3 shells in a gun for pheasant last time I checked


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Sounds like somebody needs to try hunting to better understand a hunt test.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

mitty said:


> The scenario was a duck hunt, so I'm not liking the pretend pheasant hunt idea.
> 
> 
> Thanks!


My scenario never said anything about pheasants. I was specifically talking about duck hunting. The three shell limit is per gun, not hunting group. Just an FYI.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Zman1001 said:


> My scenario never said anything about pheasants. I was specifically talking about duck hunting. The three shell limit is per gun, not hunting group. Just an FYI.


Right. A bunch of people responded to my query and I was trying to acknowledge that I had read your post by grouping it with the other. I know I left some folks out....thanks to all who responded to my questions! 

Basically I had misconstrued the HT rules about shouldering the gun---somehow I got it in my head that we were also pretending to shoot at ALL the ducks, so the explanation about my hunting buddies also taking some of the shots didn't make sense. I thought that the handlers were having to pretend to take 4 shots when legally they could only take 3.

Edit: Once I realized that I misconstrued the rules, the hunting scenario suddenly made sense.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> It depends on the State, but the Federal law only applies to migratory waterfowl, depending on the State and their game laws, I imagine you could use an unplugged gun upland hunting. As for carrying a gun in hunt test, I personally don't see the need, but _when in Rome_, if the people who run that sport feel it's important I'm not going to try and buck the tide.
> 
> John


Thanks, John. I was specifically asking about ducks, as that was the hunting scenario.

I was actually going to PM you, but since you've opened the door I'll ask here: How long ago was it that you ran AKC hunt tests? (Trying to grasp when the rules changed.)

You wrote that you don't remember using a gun when you ran HTs, so if your memory is correct razz the gun requirement is relatively new. 

Basically I am wondering when AKC added the shouldering-the-gun requirement. Also, was hunting attire always required? So the rule changed sometime between when you last ran and when I got involved about 3 summers ago.

Just curious. 

I know there a many RTFers that have these answers. GDGNCY where are you? Criquetpas?

Thank you!

Edit: Sorry, I reread and thought I sounded mean! So I edited and I hope I patched things up!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Indian Reservations are "Sovereign Nations", Federal Law not applicable there. Just as it not applicable in Mexico; or any other country. Although I believe if the bird is not considered federally regulated, aka federal waterfowl stamp; the states make their own laws, on procession limits, shell limits-type, plugs, etc. Many upland game species including pheasant don't fall under the 3 shot umbrella. SD didn't have a limit that you could only have 3 shells in a gun for pheasant last time I checked


I thought your original point about the Indian Reservations was great. I got curious and started looking around, and I couldn't find any info, one way or the other, about rules on the reservations. I asked a couple people who have hunted the Jicarilla and Fort Hall reservations but they didn't know/remember.

I find the HT stuff a hoot, a lot of fun. 

Thank you all for indulging me by answering my questions!


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

If the fact that you have a gun or not is going to affect the outcome the gun is going to be the least of your problems. You play the game you follow the rules if you don't like the rules you don't play the game. My dogs could give a hoot where the gun is pointed up down all around my hunting buddies it is a different story. You are seeing more and more folks that play the game that have no clue what a real hunt consist of. I do think it is a good idea to keep the gun in hunt tests it reminds those folks what the intent of the sport is hunting with a well trained retriever.


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

Its really pretty simple to me:

If you are handling a dog in a hunt test and you have a real gun, a fake gun, or a stick and pretending that it is a gun, THEN PRACTICE GUN SAFETY! Pretend that it is a real gun and that it is loaded! If you will point a fake gun at someone at a hunt test then it is conceivable that you would point a real gun at someone while hunting. Practice makes perfect, that goes for dogs AND handlers. 

Some may think its silly to use a fake gun, or throw dead ducks into the air and pretend that we are shooting them, or perhaps sitting on a 5 gallon bucket in 90 degree heat in a hay field in Alabama in August and pretending that we are killing ducks! My dog certainly knows the difference between a hunt test and real hunting. At a hunt test he hears three shots and he picks up 5 ducks! In a real hunt he hears 30 shots and he picks up one duck!

Lonnie Spann


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Just my thoughts....In a real hunting situation when you are dealing with youths every year for their first year at hunting, I make a really hugh effort on my part to tell them what the rules are....My number one rule for them....When a dog is in the water....NO SHOOTING, if birds come in....No exceptions...You do not pass Go and you do not collect 200 dollars....Fail that and I am in their face and maybe have them for an invite later. They know that they miss up when I jump in their face and I mean in their face. Gun safety is ingrain to any hunter whether the gun is real or not. A mishap will not bring back a dog that you loved or a person....It just doesn't work that way. Instill that folks or dogs don't come back, because of the impulse....


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

mitty said:


> Thanks, John. I was specifically asking about ducks, as that was the hunting scenario.
> 
> I was actually going to PM you, but since you've opened the door I'll ask here: How long ago was it that you ran AKC hunt tests? (Trying to grasp when the rules changed.)
> 
> ...


Renee,

I started running hunt test in 1993, the first two were Started NAHRA in Spokane, no gun in Started. That same year I switched to AKC and went six straight in Junior. The next year I did AKC Senior and NAHRA Intermediate, I remember carrying a fake gun one time in NAHRA, never in AKC. The year after that I got another dog and switched to field trials. Then in the late 90's I ran two dogs in AKC Master, I don't remember carrying a gun, but there might have been the odd one here or there. I ran my last AKC hunt test around 2000 or 2001. Late in my FT dog's career I ran a couple NAHRA Seniors (Master), don't remember a gun there, around 2007 or so.

As for hunting attire, AKC has always called for muted or drab colors, I can't remember the exact term, even back in the day some people pushed it by wearing a black hoody. NAHRA people typically wore camo, I sometimes wore a drab green or brown shirt and nobody said anything.

John


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

If there is ONE thing Gooser has learned along the way it is this:

There is a HUGE responsibility by the handler to handle a dog,

To be required to hold a prop,, or worry about how many you need to load and when,, then when to shoot twice at ducks that are already dead, remind yourself to put the gun in the rack, and let the judge know its safe,, takes away from the learning process MOST ALL OF US would profit from experiencing, of learning the nuances of handling and working with a dog as a team member..

I believe most ALL of us would do ourselves a favor,, and put the gun down, and learn how to work with/ Handel your dog..

The Gun, in my opinion, distracts from that..

I do hunt,, I have shot guns since I was a kid,, but I am really enjoying trying to learn how to handle a dog..


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

MooseGooser said:


> If there is ONE thing Gooser has learned along the way it is this:
> 
> There is a HUGE responsibility by the handler to handle a dog,
> 
> ...


What is the point?????Understanding what a shotgun can do or understanding the whole principle....You miss the point...In order for a dog to retrieve, one must kill game...Am I killing game or am I training the dog????The dog knows what to do......Do You????/


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

BJGatley said:


> What is the point?????Understanding what a shotgun can do or understanding the whole principle....You miss the point...In order for a dog to retrieve, one must kill game...Am I killing game or am I training the dog????The dog knows what to do......Do You????/


I know there is really no point in arguing the point other than to let you know where we are coming from, I understand where you stand and am not trying to eliminate the rule about carrying a gun. The folks on my side of the argument believe developing a fully trained hunting retriever is the ultimate goal of the hunt test program, and believe further that once a dog is trained to a high level, with or without a gun, that dog is ready to hunt, and after a few hunts will be a great asset in the field or blind. We really think forcing a handler to mess with a gun on line is just window dressing, but you guys obviously feel strongly otherwise, so we just agree to disagree.

John


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

John Robinson said:


> I know there is really no point in arguing the point other than to let you know where we are coming from, I understand where you stand and am not trying to eliminate the rule about carrying a gun. The folks on my side of the argument believe developing a fully trained hunting retriever is the ultimate goal of the hunt test program, and believe further that once a dog is trained to a high level, with or without a gun, that dog is ready to hunt, and after a few hunts will be a great asset in the field or blind. We really think forcing a handler to mess with a gun on line is just window dressing, but you guys obviously feel strongly otherwise, so we just agree to disagree.
> 
> John


OK...I understand what is being said....to adults yes...to the youth...NO...We hopefully as adults do have a responsibility to show that gun safety is.....well the right thing to do.....
We can at times take things for granted and not think of it at times, but to those who are trying the hunt stuff, would it not be to our advantage to show that we are serious in what we do?....


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

BJGatley said:


> OK...I understand what is being said....to adults yes...to the youth...NO...We hopefully as adults do have a responsibility to show that gun safety is.....well the right thing to do.....
> We can at times take things for granted and not think of it at times, but to those who are trying the hunt stuff, would it not be to our advantage to show that we are serious in what we do?....


Again,,Just MY opinion.

I learned to handle guns...by handling guns.. I learned all about that specific responsibility. That included safety,etiquette, mechanics and care..
I hunted with them,,learned how to be safe with them from my Dad, LONG before I had a dog. 

I have had dogs in HT's since about 1984.
Mostly just what folks here call Meat dogs. Did it for fun during the time hunting seasons were not open..
First AKC, only running Junior tests, and some Senior. Never progressed to master level.

I Have run Dogs In HRC, owning 1 HRCH.

I think I am JUST NOW learning how little I know about the responsibility of handling a dog. I am 60 years old.

I believe the HT game is more about handeling and training a dog to a very high level.. a MUCH higher level thatn MOST folks need to go out a few times during a season and "Pot" a few ducks. How many times have you heard guys say after a Hunting season, They have to re-program the dog to run the games again,, to get rid of some bad habits allowed during Hunting season..

I think Guns and what HT'S have sadly become SHOULD be kept separate.
Like it or not,, they,,,, Hunting and TESTING,,, are two very different entities..

Huntings main focus is on the pursuit of the desired game animal or bird, and the gun , in most circumstance the gun is the main tool.
You can hunt without a dog..many do successfully.

Hunt TESTING is about the TRAINING of the DOG to a standard. a Standard thats pretty specific.

Set the gun down,, and focus on THAT! The level of training! and how good a handler you are.
Then Once your Goal is achieved,, take that the dog hunting...

DOG Hunt testing ,In MY OPINION shouldnt be about teaching ANYONE about guns and their safe use.

Its about dogs, and their level of training.. Not guns, clothing, socials, 10 hole trailers ect...just dogs.

JMHO


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Hunting 

Need to learn how the use and care for a weapon. Shotgun, rifle, Bow ect
You need to be proficient with it.

Need to learn about the habits of the bird or animal you are chasing.
Where they live, what they eat, all about them.
You may need to learn how to call them. What works, what doesnt.
You may need to learn about ways to decoy them.

If you learn these things well.. you will prolly be successful.

Notice that I dont necessarily include needing a dog. You can be successful with the above without a dog.

Dog Hunt testing is about TRAINING a DOG to a written levels standard.
Other people can do the shooting, the calling ect.. You just handle a dog, and a Judge critiques your skills as it applies to that written standard.

I absolutely believe that a person who has NEVER hunted, NEVER shot a gun,, BUT,, has trained, and Owns a dog trained to a very high level, COULD come along on a Hunt with people that DONT have dogs,, and be a real convenient asset to their day afield.. Their value is that they have a very well trained dog, and along with that, are very capable of handling that animal to retrieve game..
Why are we so narrow minded to think they have to HUNT OR Shoot guns for them to be a valuable addition to a day hunting?

Just answer me that! That ONE question.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Sorry,,double post.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

If there is one thing that makes me cringe, its when some folks here get into a debate,, and things get heated,, and some Bubba says,,

"Do YOU EVEN HUNT"???

Whats THAT got to do with anything???

Gooser


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

All of the posts here are in reference to Akc HT. I have run CKC WCX and found it was a joke holding a wooden gun. Many were carrying the "GUN" any old way. So I think the gun should be gone unless it is held and used correctly even if it is wooden or symbolic. In HRC gun safety is very important. Proper use has to be ongoing education whenever the gun is in use. The use of a gun in Ontario used to include years ago Hunter Safety education program. For our gun licence we had to do a simple practical and written test. Any use of a gun fake or real; in a test or not; with or without dogs needs to be taken seriously for everyone's safety including the dogs. JMO


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

MooseGooser said:


> If there is one thing that makes me cringe, its when some folks here get into a debate,, and things get heated,, and some Bubba says,,
> 
> "Do YOU EVEN HUNT"???
> 
> ...



Because I have hunted with dogs that have achieved the MH title that have no clue how to hunt, or have never hunted...you can pick them out of a crowd every time....


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Labs said:


> Because I have hunted with dogs that have achieved the MH title that have no clue how to hunt, or have never hunted...you can pick them out of a crowd every time....


HA! You can. Albeit we know numbers would be much lower in tests, clubs, and meeting some good people if we didn't have the non-hunting crowd. 

That said - sometimes you wonder about the statement "the water is too cold for my dog" and it would be fun (in a non-evil way) to see if that non-hunting MH dog would stick with bringing its first Canada back, etc. or training that release-to-hunt in a 'real situation' hunting blind. 

But it is a test to a standard so they aren't the same. While not the same, actual understanding of both seems of merit to me. One puts the other in a better context, or at least a more informed one.


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

MooseGooser said:


> If there is ONE thing Gooser has learned along the way it is this:
> 
> There is a HUGE responsibility by the handler to handle a dog,
> 
> ...


Gooser,

Your statement reminds me of a statement made by one of my law school professors. One day a student was called on to brief a case and it was obvious that she hadn't read and wasn't prepared to be called on. So the professor starts raking her over the coals for not being prepared for class. In an attempt to defend herself she say's "sir I am a full-time student and I also have a job, I have to read over 300 pages per day and do lots of research..." After her rather lengthy attempt to save face, the professor said "*well Rebecca, it ain't for everybody*". 

And so, the same theory can be applied to dog training and running hunt tests. if you can't walk and chew gum at the same time then you more than likely can't handle a gun and a dog at the same time. 

On a brighter note, you do some really nice wood work.

Lonnie Spann


----------



## Darin Westphal (Feb 24, 2005)

If the argument being made is that a gun (wooden or other) is used with the intention to more closely mimic a real hunting scenario, then why do you also not see the use of other hunting gear at AKC HTs? Why is it just a handful of decoys and this fake gun is used the majority of the time? The rules allow for boats, layout blinds etc... Why aren't any of those also used? And I know the obvious answer is that the rules specifically call on the gun to be used and not the others.....but I have yet to see a test (other then NAHRA) use other hunting gear. Now I know that as judges, you'd have to be very careful to ensure that the use of this gear doesn't hinder the dogs ability to mark etc...but it's never used that I've seen. Why?


"Judges shall design and enhance hunting situations by
utilizing, as naturally as possible, the equipment that
would be found in a true upland game or waterfowl hunting
situation. Strategic placement of numerous decoys, use of
camouflaged blinds to conceal guns and throwers, duck
boats, duck and goose calls, etc., are necessary adjuncts to
Hunting Tests for Retrievers"


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> HA! You can. Albeit we know numbers would be much lower in tests, clubs, and meeting some good people if we didn't have the non-hunting crowd.
> 
> That said - sometimes you wonder about the statement "the water is too cold for my dog" and it would be fun (in a non-evil way) to see if that non-hunting MH dog would stick with bringing its first Canada back, etc. or training that release-to-hunt in a 'real situation' hunting blind.
> 
> But it is a test to a standard so they aren't the same. While not the same, actual understanding of both seems of merit to me. One puts the other in a better context, or at least a more informed one.


Just to be clear...I wasn't insinuating that the non-hunting crowd be excluded from this game...but the non-hunting crowd must also accept that fact that they are participating in a game that is intended to make a better hunting retriever...I mean, hell, as stated before, if the AKC board caved to the gun, where does it end? Dokkens instead of real ducks, because Fluffy won't pick up a freshly killed flyer, all in the name of "My dog doesn't hunt nor do I, so why shouldn't they get a pass for marking and running a blind"...All these "props" are added to hopefully develop a well rounded hunting retriever that can function in a variety of situations, whether hunting flooded timber in AR, snows in TX, or ducks in a field in NoDak. All these "things" are also in place for the handler, as they may encounter these situations with their dog on these hunts. 

For those that don't want to play "dress up" put on the white coat and call it a day. 

Let's say "Jane" a non-hunter wins a guided trip in a raffle. All of a sudden, her SH/MH dog and her are on the road to hunt snows out of a layout blind...accidently sweeps the guide with her shotgun, because she never had to mind her dog while handling a gun, or get into a layout blind with her gun. Wouldn't you guys want to promote gun safety, prop or not, to all involved and welcome more people to the sport of hunting instead of simply telling "Jane" she should send someone else on her trip because she can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Only because she was never exposed to the situation or had to train for it.....

Labs


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Darin Westphal said:


> If the argument being made is that a gun (wooden or other) is used with the intention to more closely mimic a real hunting scenario, then why do you also not see the use of other hunting gear at AKC HTs? Why is it just a handful of decoys and this fake gun is used the majority of the time? The rules allow for boats, layout blinds etc... Why aren't any of those also used? And I know the obvious answer is that the rules specifically call on the gun to be used and not the others.....but I have yet to see a test (other then NAHRA) use other hunting gear. Now I know that as judges, you'd have to be very careful to ensure that the use of this gear doesn't hinder the dogs ability to mark etc...but it's never used that I've seen. Why?
> 
> 
> "Judges shall design and enhance hunting situations by
> ...


Because judges want to be asked back to judge. If these thing are pulled out at one of your AKC tests, the groaning from the gallery would be heard all the way over here, Darin....=)

I would also hazard a guess that time management and help, are also a factor. Would be hard to put out 200 snow goose decoys and try to get through a flight of 90 dogs...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Labs said:


> Because judges want to be asked back to judge. If these thing are pulled out at one of your AKC tests, the groaning from the gallery would be heard all the way over here, Darin....=)
> 
> I would also hazard a guess that time management and help, are also a factor. Would be hard to put out 200 snow goose decoys and try to get through a flight of 90 dogs...


I ran a Master hunt test under Rich Larsen, the flyer was placed through about 60 snow goose decoys, many dogs were freaked out by the large decoys and flared off their hunt. I don't know if he's been asked back to judge or not. No gun in that test BTW.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I ran a Master hunt test under Rich Larsen, the flyer was placed through about 60 snow goose decoys, many dogs were freaked out by the large decoys and flared off their hunt. I don't know if he's been asked back to judge or not. No gun in that test BTW.


Were you in a layout blind or sitting on a bucket? =)


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Labs said:


> Just to be clear...I wasn't insinuating that the non-hunting crowd be excluded from this game...but the non-hunting crowd must also accept that fact that they are participating in a game that is intended to make a better hunting retriever...I mean, hell, as stated before, if the AKC board caved to the gun, where does it end? Dokkens instead of real ducks, because Fluffy won't pick up a freshly killed flyer, all in the name of "My dog doesn't hunt nor do I, so why shouldn't they get a pass for marking and running a blind"...All these "props" are added to hopefully develop a well rounded hunting retriever that can function in a variety of situations, whether hunting flooded timber in AR, snows in TX, or ducks in a field in NoDak. All these "things" are also in place for the handler, as they may encounter these situations with their dog on these hunts.


I know you weren't and know what you mean. ;-)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Labs said:


> Were you in a layout blind or sitting on a bucket? =)


Rich lives for hunting geese out of a layout blind with his dog in a little hut next to him, I'm surprised he didn't make us do that.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Labs said:


> Because I have hunted with dogs that have achieved the MH title that have no clue how to hunt, or have never hunted...you can pick them out of a crowd every time....


You make it sound as if the training ruined the dog for hunting! Do you think those dogs you speak of would have been better hunters their first time out if they had not had the MH training?

At some point the dog needs on-the-job experience to be a good hunting retriever. I personally would rather my dog learn how to do the work for hunting after it has some solid training.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> Renee,
> 
> I started running hunt test in 1993, the first two were Started NAHRA in Spokane, no gun in Started. That same year I switched to AKC and went six straight in Junior. The next year I did AKC Senior and NAHRA Intermediate, I remember carrying a fake gun one time in NAHRA, never in AKC. The year after that I got another dog and switched to field trials. Then in the late 90's I ran two dogs in AKC Master, I don't remember carrying a gun, but there might have been the odd one here or there. I ran my last AKC hunt test around 2000 or 2001. Late in my FT dog's career I ran a couple NAHRA Seniors (Master), don't remember a gun there, around 2007 or so.
> 
> ...


Thank you, John.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Darin Westphal said:


> If the argument being made is that a gun (wooden or other) is used with the intention to more closely mimic a real hunting scenario, then why do you also not see the use of other hunting gear at AKC HTs? Why is it just a handful of decoys and this fake gun is used the majority of the time? The rules allow for boats, layout blinds etc... Why aren't any of those also used? And I know the obvious answer is that the rules specifically call on the gun to be used and not the others.....but I have yet to see a test (other then NAHRA) use other hunting gear. Now I know that as judges, you'd have to be very careful to ensure that the use of this gear doesn't hinder the dogs ability to mark etc...but it's never used that I've seen. Why?
> 
> 
> "


I bring my own decoys when I judge if a club doesn't have any. I attempt to find testing areas I would set up to hunt. Decoys are not always required if you choose your place well. Running 40-50 Senior dogs precludes the amount of accesories you can logically put out and still give the dogs a good evaluation. AKC #'s are, here, quite a bit higher than NAHRA so you can have more window dressing at a field test than a hunting test. Same with UKC.
Having 40-50 people in and out of a layout blind is just plain silly, not to mention a waste of time.

I feel less time should be spent debating the use of decoys and layout blinds and more spent on bird placement and giving the handlers a quality evaluation. No matter how you spin it, it, a Hunting Test or Field Test will never be hunting. They are attempts at evaluating dogs as suitable hunting companions, based on a standard. If you decide to hunt your dog,everything they have learned in formal training will help them be better hunting dogs. But even with all that formal training, you stillneed to school them in real world hunting. 2 completely different disiplines using like skills.

Don't forget it's about the dogs Regards


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

I really don't care whether I have to carry the fake gun or sit on a bucket, or blow a duck call, or whatever someone wants to add to attempt to make the test more realistic. (Beyond some initial notice the first time my dog sees any novelty, she takes them in stride for ever after. Compared to the expectation of ducks falling from the sky, the window dressing pales in significance.) Howver, there are a couple of things that bother me about the fake gun. The first is pointing it in the direction of the bird boys. Sure, you can make an effort to aim it upward and to the side, but you're still pointing it too closely at people for my comfort. I don't think it sends a good message to the youth handlers. 

The second is holding a gun and sitting on the bucket with the dog right next to you, which means the gun is very close to the dog's ears. I know some people have no qualms about shooting so close to the dog, but I'd never shoot so close with a real gun. I want my dog to keep her hearing as long as possible. When I go hunting, I'm the dog handler and my husband is the shooter. The dog is either next to me, several yards away and parallel to my husband or out several yards on a pheasant.

And, to play the devil's advocate, no one has yet mentioned that a large proportion of dogs in senior and master are being handled by a pro, who wouldn't normally be the person hunting with the dog. As far as I know, not many people want to pay a pro to take their dog hunting. Furthermore, most people consider the dogs with field championships to be "better" than MH dogs, and field tests are much less realistic than hunt tests. Which, it seems to me, indicates that most people consider field and hunt tests to be a test of the dog's potential ability, and not a realistc hunt scenario. 

But, like I said, if it makes someone happy to have the handler handle a fake gun, fine by more. I show in obedience, too, and love obedience, and Lord knows, obedience tests are about as artificial a situation as they come.


----------



## Darin Westphal (Feb 24, 2005)

Golddogs said:


> Don't forget it's about the dogs Regards



ahhhhhh...your right, so remind me again why we're 16 pages in and still talking about a gun? 

I bring my own decoys as well GD and typically have about 2 dz FB geese. I despise shells at tests as all they do is sit low in the grass and they're not visible till Fido runs into one at mach 3 and it scares the crap out of him...and seriously...if the grass is to tall for decoys to be visable, then my "we're hunting ducks today" scenario is lame. I've also brought my layout blinds (both for handler and dog) to tests and simply had the dogs sit in front of "their blind" while the handler does the same. I'd love to one day make handlers get into them...but as Labs says....I'd like to get invited back at some point as I really do enjoy judging. So it's all about finding that line between giving it a hunting feel...while not being consumed with it.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> You make it sound as if the training ruined the dog for hunting! Do you think those dogs you speak of would have been better hunters their first time out if they had not had the MH training?
> 
> At some point the dog needs on-the-job experience to be a good hunting retriever. I personally would rather my dog learn how to do the work for hunting after it has some solid training.


Labs is a big boy so he can answer but can't resist understanding your logic.

What percentage of non-hunting folks do you think put a MH on a dog and then start regularly hunting as a sport?


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Lonnie Spann said:


> Its really pretty simple to me:
> 
> If you are handling a dog in a hunt test and you have a real gun, a fake gun, or a stick and pretending that it is a gun, THEN PRACTICE GUN SAFETY! Pretend that it is a real gun and that it is loaded! If you will point a fake gun at someone at a hunt test then it is conceivable that you would point a real gun at someone while hunting. Practice makes perfect, that goes for dogs AND handlers.
> 
> ...


But you are asking for gun safety and not to point the gun (real or otherwise) at anyone in the test. Yet you are also asking for realistic gun handling during the marks. This is mutually exclusive. The marks originate with throwers in the field. These throwers are “downrange” and in no instance would I be pointing a real gun with real ammo anywhere in their direction. The handler at the line with a gun has judges behind and throwers in front. Straight up and down, with the action open is the only safe direction in that situation. 

So either gun safety matters or it doesn’t. 
I don’t care but don’t be diving off your chair because my stick is pointed wrong. I just waved it at three youngsters because you told me to and they survived.


----------



## RetrieverNation (Jul 15, 2012)

So after 16 pages it is becoming quite clear to me how we get so far off the original intent as the OP predicted.

Typical hunt test attitude #1: "there is no way I am going to embarrass myself by handling the gun poorly so I will do whatever it takes to not make gun handling mistakes and even train with a gun so I am proficient as possible" and "well I have not trained to run through 200 oversize snow geese but heck I will train for it and pass that darn test next time".

Typical hunt test attitude #2: "I dont know why we have to use a fake gun. I wish we could get rid of it. This is not fair to non-hunters. I dont even have a gun I can train with. Who do I complain to about this!" and "200 Snow geese! I have not trained for this, this is silly and a waste of my money. I am going to let someone know I have been wronged! Look how long this test is taking!".

How I will handle the subject of the gun and any other challenging hunting scenario set up.

"Mr. or Mrs. Judge, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to use a gun, review gun safety and set up a challenging test that includes a mock hunting situation."

I also found it amusing to do a google search on "hunter shoots dog" and after looking through several pages of search results it becomes quite evident that there are not any results where a hunter shoots his own dog. The most popular result was where the dog shot the hunter because the hunter left a live round in the gun with the safety off and the dog either knocked the gun over or stepped on it!

Obviously I am for keeping the gun and I think more would as well if they were not also observing the high degree of poor/disrespectful gun handling at tests.


----------



## RetrieverNation (Jul 15, 2012)

brian breuer said:


> But you are asking for gun safety and not to point the gun (real or otherwise) at anyone in the test. Yet you are also asking for realistic gun handling during the marks. This is mutually exclusive. The marks originate with throwers in the field. These throwers are “downrange” and in no instance would I be pointing a real gun with real ammo anywhere in their direction. The handler at the line with a gun has judges behind and throwers in front. Straight up and down, with the action open is the only safe direction in that situation.
> 
> So either gun safety matters or it doesn’t.
> I don’t care but don’t be diving off your chair because my stick is pointed wrong. I just waved it at three youngsters because you told me to and they survived.


At some point people need to be responsible for there own actions. Nobody's fault but yours for pointing the gun where it shouldn't be. I dont buy "the Judge told me" or the "everybody else is doing it approach". This is where poor gun handling starts and its all just a bunch of excuses.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Labs is a big boy so he can answer but can't resist understanding your logic.
> 
> What percentage of non-hunting folks do you think put a MH on a dog and then start regularly hunting as a sport?


I have no idea what your talking about. Who said anything about nonhunting folks suddenly taking up regular hunting? 

Labs was making fun of MH dogs that were out hunting and didn't know what to do. I don't understand why you would ridicule someone's dog simply because it has an MH title but hasn't hunted much. It is really none of your business what someone wants to do with his dog, as long as he takes care of the dog. If he wants to hunt it, great, if he doesn't fine. His dog, his choice, not yours.


----------



## Gatzby (Dec 16, 2010)

So If someone has the ability, time, and dedication to train a MH but learning to handle a gun safely is to much. What part of gun safety did I miss? By the way I don't care either way but am often troubled by the proximity to bird boys that I must point a gun, fake or real. 

The worst gun handling I have seen was at a HRC event when the judge was giving the safety lecture and his apprentice judge swept the handlers and more less stuck the muzzle in the Marshall's ear. To top it off at the same test when we had to "shoot the blind" with a popper load the blind planter was stationed directly behind the blind in a canoe.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> I have no idea what your talking about. Who said anything about nonhunting folks suddenly taking up regular hunting?
> 
> Labs was making fun of MH dogs that were out hunting and didn't know what to do. I don't understand why you would ridicule someone's dog simply because it has an MH title but hasn't hunted much. It is really none of your business what someone wants to do with his dog, as long as he takes care of the dog. If he wants to hunt it, great, if he doesn't fine. His dog, his choice, not yours.


You might have read his comment as ridicule. I read it as pointing out the obvious. Assuming - you know what's obvious.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> I have no idea what your talking about. Who said anything about nonhunting folks suddenly taking up regular hunting?


Given you responded to his non-hunting dog comment in the manner you did - certainly seemed a safe assumption on my part.



mitty said:


> You make it sound as if the training ruined the dog for hunting! Do you think those dogs you speak of would have been better hunters their first time out if they had not had the MH training?
> 
> At some point the dog needs on-the-job experience to be a good hunting retriever. I personally would rather my dog learn how to do the work for hunting after it has some solid training.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> You might have read his comment as ridicule. I read it as pointing out the obvious. Assuming - you know what's obvious.


Who are you HNTFSH? You keep insulting me while hiding behind a screen name. Pretty tacky.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

mitty said:


> Who are you HNTFSH? You keep insulting me while hiding behind a screen name. Pretty tacky.


Mitty - I am not insulting you. If you're mad, I suspect it's because you don't like my perspective. If my responding to your posts in a purposeful way insults you I am sorry. 

Let's net it out. I THINK GUNS IN A HT SERVE A PURPOSE. A good one. My perspective is from being a guy that hunts a dog with a gun and also runs a hunt test. That 'experience' (not meaning 'expert - cause this ain't an expert topic) gives me a perspective.

You are welcome to offer a different one. My question would be is that coming from one or both sides of the proverbial fence.

It doesn't sound as if it does - but I may be misreading your posts.


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

RetrieverNation said:


> At some point people need to be responsible for there own actions. Nobody's fault but yours for pointing the gun where it shouldn't be. I dont buy "the Judge told me" or the "everybody else is doing it approach". This is where poor gun handling starts and its all just a bunch of excuses.


But how do you do a test then? If I am truly to handle the “gun” in a safe manner, my only option is to hold it straight up and down. Remember: Judges in back, bird boys in front. Then, I am not following the rules for realistic gun handling. Realistic gun handling doesn’t involve bird throwers. 

It isn’t about person responsibility. It is not possible to have both “safe gun handling” and “shouldering the gun in the direction of the marks” These are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I like the idea of guns in hunt tests. Why? Because hunt tests are supposed to be a test of a dog's hunting skills...and that includes both gunfire at close range/beside the dog and marking off the gun barrel. Hunt tests also tell us a little about the dog's trainability and talent, because the breeds that play are supposed to be hunting breeds.

Hunt tests are not supposed to be just another way to tack on a few letters at the end of a bunch of other letters at the end of a dog's name just to impress people. Unfortunately, those tend to be the folks that don't want guns to be part of the test, because they have more interest in adding initials than in actually doing what the dogs were bred for. 

Keep the guns. And safe gun handling should be part of the test, whether real or wood guns are used. If you can get failed for saying "No, here" (which is in no way unsafe or dangerous) why should you not fail because you were playing baton twirl with a fake gun?

If guns aren't necessary, then why are we still using real birds?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John; You are right, a few years ago very few SH or MH were ran with a gun. The Rule is clearly stated in the AKC hand book, that line guns will be use in SH and MH stakes, it has always been in the rulebook book, but up until ~ 2-3 years ago, it was consider a choice. Just as the use of decoys and other hunting gear while clearly outlined in the handbook, are hard to find and any level of AKC tests. 5 years ago; I rarely ran an upper level test where the gun was required, many clubs didn't even have them available, they were broken and thrown around, when they were used terrible gun practices were considered "No big deal" people wouldn't even aim them, just carry them around pointing any which way. It was so bad , I took to carrying one around with me, (and the looks I'd get ) but it's nice to have a gun when you need to swing 180 for birds. You can't talk to a dog. A gun-dog moves with a gun, nice to have every advantage you can to ensure the dogs see the marks. 

2-3 year ago, the AKC Reps started to address the No line-guns trend, they issued an ultimatum a gun MUST be used and it must be shouldered, basically enforcing the rule that was already there. Thus they are now in every upper level series. My last judging seminar was in Aug. the reps are now pushing for disabled guns not wood, and also for the use of hunting decoys, blinds etc. Stating it's a hunt test these things should be available and used. So I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years we're running out of boats and off dog stand, btw decoys etc. We add into this the new rules about judging, and actually handling a dog with-in a time period, I wonder if they'll start looking into hunting status of judges as "that's also in the rulebook". The hunting direction seems to be the way the AKC is pushing, right now. Some would say it's about time, others don't see the point 

I believe that a "fully trained hunting Retriever" needs to be able to hunt. This means you need to take a dog hunting, however many many titles are earned these days without a dog ever seeing a real gun, a real decoy spread, or sitting still and quite for hours in a duck blind because, these dog have never and probably won't ever hunt. How can one argue they have developed a "fully trained hunting retriever", with AKC titles if that is the case? and then These dogs that are never tested for real hunting ability, and running tests with no hunting components are used as our breeding stock, sold to people who really do hunt as good hunting dogs because they got titles to prove it.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

brian breuer said:


> But how do you do a test then? If I am truly to handle the “gun” in a safe manner, my only option is to hold it straight up and down. Remember: Judges in back, bird boys in front. Then, I am not following the rules for realistic gun handling. Realistic gun handling doesn’t involve bird throwers.
> 
> It isn’t about person responsibility. It is not possible to have both “safe gun handling” and “shouldering the gun in the direction of the marks” These are mutually exclusive.


Brian - this is one reason that I don't oppose fake guns. Or at least, checked, unloaded real ones in AKC. Especially given the proportion of non-gun-savvy folks who run in it. 

My impression is you're swinging on the bird at the arc of the fall. Technically (theoretically) there is no guy behind a holding blind launching the rogue, wild duck being shot at. One might also assume the gallery and judges behind you are hunting partners therefore they are in play. 

If the judges say "Mr. Handler...we are real people in your party and here's your plastic gun - there are no humans or dogs in the field in this set-up" I would think one could feel 'safe' in pointing said toy gun afield without breaching even the hardest of coded safe gun handling skills.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> John; You are right, a few years ago very few SH or MH were ran with a gun. The Rule is clearly stated in the AKC hand book, that line guns will be use in SH and MH stakes, it has always been in the rulebook book, but up until ~ 2-3 years ago, it was consider a choice. Just as the use of decoys and other hunting gear while clearly outlined in the handbook, are hard to find and any level of AKC tests. 5 years ago; I rarely ran an upper level test where the gun was required, many clubs didn't even have them available, they were broken and thrown around, when they were used terrible gun practices were considered "No big deal" people wouldn't even aim them, just carry them around pointing any which way. It was so bad , I took to carrying mine one around with me, (and the looks I'd get ) but it's nice to have a gun when you need to swing 180 for birds. You can't talk to a dog. A gun-dog moves with a gun, nice to have every advantage you can to ensure the dogs see the marks.
> 
> 2-3 year ago, the AKC Reps started to address the No line-guns trend, they issued an ultimatum a gun MUST be used, basically enforcing the rule that was already there. Thus they are now in every upper level series. My last judging seminar was in Aug. the reps are now pushing for disabled guns not wood, and also for the use of hunting decoys, blinds etc. Stating it's a hunt test these things should be available and used. So I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years we're running out of boats and off dog stand, btw decoys etc. We add into this the new rules about judging, and actually handling a dog with-in a time period, I wonder if they'll start looking into hunting status of judges as "that's also in the rulebook". The hunting direction seems to be the way the AKC is pushing, right now. Some would say it's about time, others don't see the point


Good post. You wonder if they feel AKC is losing mind share of the hunting community to HRC.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Good post. You wonder if they feel AKC is losing mind share of the hunting community to HRC.


I doubt if either venue is worried about what the other is doing.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

I am still digesting all the valuable comments. 

I train with a bunch of non-hunters who are working their collective butts off to be better trainers and handlers. In discussions they recognize that their dogs are for the most part better trained retrievers than my 9 y/o YLF "meat dog" who has thousands of retrieves in the field but does not do well either in training or HT above the JR level because they watch us work together in training. There are Labs, Goldens, Flatcoats, Poodles who are all MH or so close they quiver in this group. Several have multiple invites to the MNHT. So hunter or non-hunter should not raise it's ugly head in this discussion. FYI I hunt around 130 days a year for waterfowl only so I feel I can make this comment freely.

Many of us are older (me, I taught Moses when he was a corporal) and things like layout blinds, boats, buckets and so on even though they are an integral part of the hunting scenario for many of us are way beyond what is safe or needed in a hunt test IMHO as well as "playing" with a fake or disabled gun. These folks are as much a part of the HT community as the Pros and mostly we hunters are outnumber if truth were told.

Oh did I mention that most of the people I train with allow me the only male in the group of many to participate and learn from them. They also volunteer, marshal, judge and generally keep clubs on an even keel. Thank you gals for being you and being addicted to this dog thing.

I too take decoys to HTs. I own handcarved decoys so they go to tests that I judge so folks can brag their JR hunter worked over a special rig of decoys. I also like to set my own decoy spread to both help and hinder the testees just like they would in a hunting situation. Now don't get me started about using duck calls to signal for the birds or as an attention getter for a thrown bird because duck calls are not handled right by non trained users.......BSEG!

As mentioned it is about the dogs.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Certainly been an interesting read, doesn't suprise me even in the hunt test game the number of people that don't feel a gun is important, sit and watch a master all weekend and it will be clear alot of people don't hunt nor do there dogs.. Hunt test are supposed to be about hunting dogs, last I checked birds don't fall from the sky unless there shot, keep the gun, if you don't like it run FT's.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

jacduck said:


> So hunter or non-hunter should not raise it's ugly head in this discussion. FYI I hunt around 130 days a year for waterfowl only so I feel I can make this comment freely.


jacduck - I'd contend the better trained retriever is the one hunting Ducks, Geese, Pheasant and running Master. Not just because they hunt and not just because they run master. They can do both. It's a cross and sometimes counter in disciplines. That, to me, is an impressively trained dog as far as HT venues go. 

Save the gun - you've posed no valid reason to eliminate it.

Be well.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Todd Caswell said:


> Certainly been an interesting read, doesn't suprise me even in the hunt test game the number of people that don't feel a gun is important, sit and watch a master all weekend and it will be clear alot of people don't hunt nor do there dogs..* Hunt test are supposed to be about hunting dogs, last I checked birds don't fall from the sky unless there shot, keep the gun, if you don't like it run FT's.*


Who says it has to be the handler doing the shooting for it to replicate a realistic hunting situation?

Why cant Gooser just tag along with you bunch a BuBBas and just handle the dog? 

Gooser


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

You really good shots shoot the birds,, and expert Dog handlers ,like Gooser,)) will do a stellar job makin sure the game gets retrieved,


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

brian breuer said:


> It isn’t about person responsibility. It is not possible to have both “safe gun handling” and “shouldering the gun in the direction of the marks” These are mutually exclusive.


I very much do not agree!!!!
and I have tossed maybe 100's (for real) of birds at tests and trials and also duck hunted and upland hunted 100's (for real) of days.
How do you do it at a test?
The same way you do it in a duck blind with 2 fellers to your left and two more to your right!!!
So your handed a shotgun at a test. You hold it in hand. You have the muzzle ether straight up to the sky or straight down pointed a foot or two in front of your feet. You walk to the mat. You ask your dog to sit. You tell the judges you are all set. The first bird is tossed. You ever so quickly raise and sholder your shotgun pointing it for a split second at the duck at the top of the arc and then lower it. Next bird you do the same, and again. Shotgun goes up and down for each mark. 
No pointing and shouldering afore the marks are called. 
No keeping it raised for all three and swinging. 
No pointing at the bird boy. 
Just a simple up and down and up again. As if "Oh I got this one (BANG) oh, somebody else shot it."
Haven't you ever pulled up on a bird and had your buddy shoot it, and so you lower your shotgun????????????
and yes it is very easy to point out at tests both the dogs and the handlers who have never hunted. 
Should they be allowed to play? YES. 
Should they learn how and why we do what we do? YES


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I ran some AKC flushing spaniel tests (master) last weekend.
The handler was required to handle a real (breaking style) gun, which the marshall made sure was not loaded. When the judges are ready for you to run, you are handed the gun, safely broken open. They tell you the field is yours, at which time you close the gun and send your dog. 
When the dog flushes a bird, you must shoulder the gun and follow the path of the bird. When the dog is sent to retrieve, you must break open the gun and you may hand it to the judge or marshall if you desire.
They do fail a dog/handler team based on gun safety.
I was told that the spaniel tests will soon all be using real guns in a similar fashion (not junior level).
Also, I was told that if you are shouldering a gun and *pretending* to shoot, you are distracted from the dog, which helps to judge whether or not he is truly steady.
Even though I was very nervous about the gun handling, I found it to be a rather fun part of the test. Made me feel like I was really out hunting with my dog.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> I very much do not agree!!!!
> and I have tossed maybe 100's (for real) of birds at tests and trials and also duck hunted and upland hunted 100's (for real) of days.
> How do you do it at a test?
> The same way you do it in a duck blind with 2 fellers to your left and two more to your right!!!
> ...


No matter how you parce it , pointing a gun *in the direction *of others is not safe gun handling.........

john


----------

