# Evolving Hunt Test standards...



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

From reading post on this forum and looking at diagrams that have been posted, it appears to me that AKC Master Hunt Test have dramatically changed over the years. Where as field trials are judged dog against dog, judges there have had to develop harder and harder test within the rules in order to achieve separation of the better dogs we see with each advancement in training.

I thought the original intent of the hunt test program was to define what a Junior, Senior and Master Hunter were, and develop a standard way to test dogs against that standard regardless of advancing training. It seems like there is a new way of evaluating master dogs to a new standard. That standard being an expectation of a Master Hunter being the elite of the elite. My question is this, would a 1990s Master Hunter be able to obtain that title in todays test? In other words, are modern Master Hunters better dogs than earlier era Master Hunters, and if so, should judges adjust their judging to a higher standard than the original intent?


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> From reading post on this forum and looking at diagrams that have been posted, it appears to me that AKC Master Hunt Test have dramatically changed over the years. Where as field trials are judged dog against dog, judges there have had to develop harder and harder test within the rules in order to achieve separation of the better dogs we see with each advancement in training.
> 
> I thought the original intent of the hunt test program was to define what a Junior, Senior and Master Hunter were, and develop a standard way to test dogs against that standard regardless of advancing training. It seems like there is a new way of evaluating master dogs to a new standard. That standard being an expectation of a Master Hunter being the elite of the elite. My question is this, would a 1990s Master Hunter be able to obtain that title in todays test? In other words, are modern Master Hunters better dogs than earlier era Master Hunters, and if so, should judges adjust their judging to a higher standard than the original intent?


Cream should always rise to the top. How one (or any body of people) determines that cream will get others licking it .
Best ones to answer would be them that achieved it over the years and still doing it ;-)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Probably now dogs are better trained. Dogs were allowed to actually "hunt" in the old days (without a handle) and to have a "good hunt" now with the required marking numbers scheme, their marking must be much tighter, generated mostly from AKC's "cream of the crop" statement and qualifying for the master national. The blinds run were handled much worse back then, but then there were only a few pros and mostly all amateurs that trained their dogs themselves. I remember thinking instead of tighter grading on marks, all they needed to do was lengthen the blinds a little and put more factors in.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

The dogs were probably just as good. the handlers maybe not so ...in general ....But ,with Training and or selling/coaching there is more who get to the same standard and achieving .


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

polmaise said:


> Cream should always rise to the top. How one (or any body of people) determines that cream will get others licking it .
> Best ones to answer would be them that achieved it over the years and still doing it ;-)


That's just the point, in the hunt test system, it isn't dog against dog, so there is no top. There is a standard that is set in the rulebook, if your dog meets the standard that day, it passes. My issue is that I believe as dogs have improved with better training, judges are compensating by adjusting their standards arbitrarily. I'm an "originalist" regarding the constitution and AKC rulebook. If you want to change the standards, change the rule book. I wouldn't judge a Master stake on a curve, if I set up a solid Master test and 80% of the entry passed, then 80% get ribbons.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> Probably now dogs are better trained. Dogs were allowed to actually "hunt" in the old days (without a handle) and to have a "good hunt" now with the required marking numbers scheme, their marking must be much tighter, generated mostly from AKC's "cream of the crop" statement and qualifying for the master national. The blinds run were handled much worse back then, but then there were only a few pros and mostly all amateurs that trained their dogs themselves. I remember thinking instead of tighter grading on marks, all they needed to do was lengthen the blinds a little and put more factors in.





Well Said.....


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> That's just the point,* in the hunt test system, it isn't dog against dog, so there is no top. There is a standard that is set in the rulebook, if your dog meets the standard that day, it passes. *My issue is that I believe as dogs have improved with better training, judges are compensating by adjusting their standards arbitrarily. I'm an "originalist" regarding the constitution and AKC rulebook. If you want to change the standards, change the rule book. I wouldn't judge a Master stake on a curve, if I set up a solid Master test and 80% of the entry passed, then 80% get ribbons.



This is the best post that has been posted on RTF for a LONG LONG time...

I don't think the STANDARD has evolved.. I agree that JUDGES cute interpretations of how they PERSONALLY feel the correct way to test to it is what has evolved..

I do not think it right to make the STANDARD anything more than what it is..

Statements like "the cream will rise to the top" (I can pass a *test *in school with a "C" where folks that are the cream at the top,,pass with an "A" we BOTH passed..)
A weekend tested master dog is just "Typical"
You run a "Test of mine",,and we will see if YOUR dog meets what I feel is a Master Hunter.
"My job is to make dogs better when I set these tests up"
"Gooser,, whether you like it or not,,a Hunt test IS a competition" (They gloat THEIR dog was the best that day...Mis the point at to the culture of hunt tests..)
"Master tests are too easy for me" (Fine,, go run something else)

All comments like this is why I no longer have an interest in running them..

People have forgotten like John said, is the "constitution" and why the HT program was started in the first place..


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> That's just the point, in the hunt test system, it isn't dog against dog, so there is no top


It may not be dog vs dog but owner vs owner is growing. In the original concept there was no plan for "a top dog" but have those involved created one?
ie .you can now have a MH title with your number of passes, MN eligibility has been linked to your "batting average", MNH and HOF status, etc. FTs started to establish bragging rights and HTs are evolving to my MH is better than your MH. It's human nature.

JMO

Tim


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> It may not be dog vs dog but owner vs owner is growing. In the original concept there was no plan for "a top dog" but have those involved created one?
> ie .you can now have a MH title with your number of passes, MN eligibility has been linked to your "batting average", MNH and HOF status, etc. FTs started to establish bragging rights and HTs are evolving to my MH is better than your MH. It's human nature.
> 
> JMO
> ...


Yes!!! My MH is considered "Typical" cause she hasn't earned a place setting for four.. She's still eatin off "Paper"

You all have fun..


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I wouldn't know if the standard has changed, I only have been running since 09ish. Thus my concept of what is standard, is those tests that I have ran, and what was required for dogs to pass-earn a ribbon. There's a definite pattern in what is required, a definite standard you must be to basically the same 70% that is required by the rulebook. It's each individual set of judges that determine, if setup are tougher, more technical etc. but they still grade using the same math. Some judges can judge dogs in a parking lot and get answers, some judges are more challenging than others, but you also have those that are more basic than others. Since I've started I've had a couple of judges where only 4-5 dogs passed, they were usually historically FT type judges; and it was earlier in my running career; haven't seen those type of judges in a long time. Recently it's been more of a if the dog earns it and the math adds up in the end the dog passes; the standard for a MH level dog is pretty level through all the different hunt test venues. Now would an old timey MH still be an MH today; of course they would, people would just train to what was expected of them. I will say the training methods and in general dogs have gotten better, more tractable team-players, which makes MH etc. more attainable for the layman; which IMO is what running hunt test is really about. I actually think many of the hunt-tests today are easier, and judges are oftentimes more tolerant; than those I ran initially (this includes the MNH which prior to "official" title a 20+% pass-rate was unheard of). The dogs haven't gotten that much better. then again I'm a better trainer and handler than I was initially, so maybe my vision is skewed.


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

From my outside view, which is hopefully to be changed as my dog becomes ready to run MH soon, I think the shift in MH hunt tests started with the creation of the Master National event. Pointing dogs have brought up the discussion of adding a master national several times, and it usually gets pushed down pretty quickly with most citing what has happened to entries and judging in retriever MH tests. That said, I think the actual judging of the MH level varies with pointing dog judges just as much. A judge that judges trials mostly, will penalize dogs on style and intensity if they flag their tail or drop their tail before the honor dogs retrieve. Some will drop the dog over on or two steps to turn and mark the bird, etc. Even in SH (pointing test) I had a judge seriously challenge me on some obedience that is not stated in the rules or requirements anywhere in AKC. What she wanted was a NAVHDA requirement for UT and she was carrying those expectations with her. SO it happens everywhere. In the end it's a game. And expensive game, but a game and if the judge says no pass, then there you go. I really prefer judges who I feel are rooting for the dogs they judge. Not trying to fail everyone.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Since I've started I've had a couple of judges where only 4-5 dogs passed, they were usually historically FT type judges;


Actually when I ran HT, the field trialers and some long time pros set up the best "Hunting tests". That IS the name of the testing, is Hunting. They knew bird and blind placement and I never was afraid to run under them. I kept hearing HT are being judged like FT if they were difficult, which wasn't really true. What made the Hunting tests to be judged more like FT was the numeric grading. There are also "rules made up" by some HT judges. That's why the judges had to start taking tests and go to seminars. There were people judging tests around here that had pro trained dogs and never passed a Master themselves but they got judging assignments because they were always available. I started in FT and went back to them.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

The OP has a great point and my view is some different. The ht sport has a standard however let several read the standard and you'll get different view points. What works in one portion of the US may not fly in the other corner. Immediately you say but it's a standard. So I'll ask what number of cast refusals do you allow- is it 1 or say 47. On a water blind is it necessary to get in the water. On noise is a whine enough or is it barking non stop. My point is the standard is clear and we apply it differently. I actually like the diversity of judging . One event over the top tough and the next not so tough.
It's a sport with many variables and for you that judge you nod your head. 

My thoughts come from being in the sport, with many ribbons awarded, with several of those HoF dogs, with numerous judging experiences, and doing every job at the event countless times. 

Get out there, run your dog and try to adopt an attitude of my team against the test. Likely you want away each time with items to work on 
Just my thoughts 
Dk


----------



## Bucwilson (Feb 7, 2015)

Think this has trickled down to HRC also. 

My 2 cents>>>>I only have a personal meat dog and run a few tests a year...mostly dove and duck hunt and dog is mostly a pet/ sleeps in the house/ hunts a lot....and I have only ran HRC.....I am signed up AKC senior test coming up...so shall see how AKC is ..BLF 26 months old...has HR title in HRC and one finshed pass 

I think it has gotten a lot A LOT harder on the HRC level as well in the 15 years since I have ran a test.

....I trained/handled/ my last hunting dog to HRCH with no failures back in 2002 titled at 3 years old. We would train at club days, and I had three young sons (birdboys) we mostly trained in parks / local ponds...sports fields that kinda thing. We kept pigons in a cage, bumpers, and froze a few ducks. Now you almost have to have technical water/ land with features...wingers...etc. 

, we never ran a test after titling. Hunted a lot and I was raising three sons that played every sport it seemed. We hunted a lot of doves and ducks and everyone we ever hunted with thought my dog was amazing...most meat dogs handle with rocks if at all ...and few are force fetched/steady He passed on in 2013 and I have a new puppy now.

last spring 16 month old pup..went thru the Seasoned level easily last spring 4 for 5 (she broke hard once no argument there) , but I noticed other dogs being dropped for things that were OK or overlooked or maybe not judged as harshly 15 years ago. An over to pick up a bird on a blind---out ....a long hunt, a switch, allowing dog to hunt on blinds too much...that kind of thing....dogs were dropped. 


This spring...we have only passed one out of three finished tests entered. Mostly my fault as a handler and trainer. But setups are a lot harder and judged stricter than 15 years ago. 

Blinds are a lot tougher than I remembered from years ago.....and you better stay on line to the blind. Marks are also tougher....out of order---more features, features. longer and shorter ... and a lot of the shorter marks are set up to entice the dog to break (splashes,,,,andgles in toward dog etc). I have a lot to learn as a handler also...it has been a while and I am a DAH...heck, I even made a thread about it . 

did not seem to be as many Pros running HRC tests back then....I have no beef with pros. I think it is great...I love to ask them questions and have daytrained with pro's....but years ago it was mostly Guy with one maybe 2 dogs in back of pickup....hunting guys with a copy of waterdog...few frozen ducks from hunting season and bucket of dummies. 

The finished flights I have been in have only been maybe 3 ams with one/2 dog in truck. 

Reasons why it has gotten harder in 15 years since I have ran a test :

1. Breeding-----used to be really good marking dogs were rare at the tests I saw , and I had one. ...Now with the HT sorting them out...usually only see titled dogs bred.---Rarely see a dog that does not mark decvent at least...or not love the water or no goes . Years ago I feel like it was harder for Joe duckhunter to get/ find a good puppy to start with---I got lucky with a newspaper dog. 
2. Pro trainer: Most PRO trainers I know are more than willing to help an amateur if you will throw birds or whatever. They also associate themselves with retriever clubs and allow the club and ams to use their tech water / land for training and for tests ---this is HUGGGEEE. maybe should be # 1 
3. Internet : access to training info / dvds / you tubes RTF etc.

the dogs/ handlers/ trainers got better---so naturally the tests had to evolve. 

I think the dogs are better and the breeds are better for it in the end. 

I am not complaining...I am training. We are going to get better and title. In the end, we will both benefit (except my bank account).

I also think it has made the title mean a lot more.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Wow Buc, that was very well written and thoughtful. I think you nailed it!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I hadn't thought of it before you mentioned it, but I think the norm back then was to quit running your dog once it got its title. With some dogs you tried moving up to field trials, some shifted to hunting while you concentrated on a younger pup. There were a few career master hunter- NAHRA grand masters, but they were rare.

The popularity of the Master National has changed all that. I remember qualifying for both NAHRA and AKC Nationals one year, at that time it didn't seem like a big deal to me, certainly not worth taking time off work. Now it is a big deal.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> 1. Breeding-----used to be really good marking dogs were rare at the tests I saw , and I had one. ...Now with the HT sorting them out...usually only see titled dogs bred.---Rarely see a dog that does not mark decvent at least...or not love the water or no goes . Years ago I feel like it was harder for Joe duckhunter to get/ find a good puppy to start with---I got lucky with a newspaper dog.


Yes I agree, and a very important point. Lots of dogs in the beginning were not from titled dogs judging from sires and dams listed. Then there was a period of time of time a small segment of the participants wanted HT only sires and dams, marketing that field champions were too hyper. Eventually you saw more dogs being run sired by titled Field Champions or QAA with field or HT titled dams but still from heavily stacked field trial pedigrees. I think that makes a big difference in trainability.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

John Robinson said:


> Wow Buc, that was very well written and thoughtful. I think you nailed it!


I had a big response typed out. but decided against it. 
I agree.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Erin is correct IMO. Those of us who started as demanding hunters and went FIRST into the FTs and paid our dues and went into HTs as a way to encourage club membership/FT participation . You can NOT do easily what you DO NOT know. Look @ RTF questions/debates.From 1985 on ,HTs based on geographic region , grounds, judge quality differs. I have seen/HTested a bunch of varied "realities." Once HTs got going they called us FTers the "white coats" but still bought our pups.  We FTers supported the HTs altho some thought it was going to ruin the FT sport. They (HT_) are at least training dogs to my satisfaction which is better than watching hunting dudes either " rocking/beating: dogs. Only worse these days they got themselves "electric" and dog/man has no clue how to use it. Germany has hunting rules requiring "demonstrated trained dogs" and "hunters." Out in the field I am VERY elitist as to who I hunt my dogs with and me. Not sorry.


----------



## Bucwilson (Feb 7, 2015)

John Robinson said:


> Wow Buc, that was very well written and thoughtful. I think you nailed it!


off topic...but : 
Thank you Mr. Robinson. I only know you from here, but I read a lot of things you post. I learn a lot from you and can tell you love the dogs , the sport and hunting. Thank you for sharing that with me/us.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Out in the field I am VERY elitist as to who I hunt my dogs with and me. Not sorry.


I wonder if that comes with age. Every year I get more particular also.

MP


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

Hey John...Saw a video of a National FT in CA many many years ago, no trucks just station wagons and cars, Andy Divine was the moderator, could have been in the 50's....watched the 2016 National in Bonham Texas and well, yes, things have evolved...Tests are more difficult, dogs are better bred and handlers and trainers are far superior, judges have sharper pencils and everyone is in a truck!


----------



## Bucwilson (Feb 7, 2015)

15 years ago ...the dog food bags from Purina were a lot bigger also...maybe 25 or 40 lb.....now it's like a 1 lb bag ...


and kids stay off my lawn


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Terry Marshall said:


> Hey John...Saw a video of a National FT in CA many many years ago, no trucks just station wagons and cars, Andy Divine was the moderator, could have been in the 50's....watched the 2016 National in Bonham Texas and well, yes, things have evolved...Tests are more difficult, dogs are better bred and handlers and trainers are far superior, judges have sharper pencils and everyone is in a truck!


I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, but I think you are missing my point. My point is hunt test were originally conceived due to the perception that the average Joe working guy could no longer compete in field trials, and that field trials no longer resembled anything close to a normal days hunt. So the original motivation of the HT founders was to create a new system where dogs weren't competing, they were demonstrating proficiency by testing against a standard.

I believe it's a slippery slope if we allow HT's to evolve, even slowly the way FT's did. Like I said earlier, I believe a 1990s MH was a heck of a good hunting dog, I know because I had two, who my hunting partner talks about to this day. If the hunt test program developed a system by which 100% of well bred dogs could be trained to MH level and a high percentage passed test, my takeaway is a bunch more really good hunting dogs out in the field and marsh, that we needed to increase the difficulty of weekend test.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> I realize I'm tilting at windmills here, but I think you are missing my point. My point is hunt test were originally conceived due to the perception that the average Joe working guy could no longer compete in field trials, and that field trials no longer resembled anything close to a normal days hunt. So the original motivation of the HT founders was to create a new system where dogs weren't competing, they were demonstrating proficiency by testing against a standard.
> 
> I believe it's a slippery slope if we allow HT's to evolve, even slowly the way FT's did. Like I said earlier, I believe a 1990s MH was a heck of a good hunting dog, I know because I had two, who my hunting partner talks about to this day. If the hunt test program developed a system by which 100% of well bred dogs could be trained to MH level and a high percentage passed test, my takeaway is a bunch more really good hunting dogs out in the field and marsh, that we needed to increase the difficulty of weekend test.


John Robinson

If you have a chance and it is not too difficult for you, visit a hunt test. To quote an old timer and one of the founders "...the people have changed." And it is these people who have caused the change. 

The hunt test is no longer (IMO) for the hunter who can train his dogs on the weekend, as you suggested was the situation at the start.


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

How can you stop the evolution with the Master National feeding the lion.


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I believe it's a slippery slope if we allow HT's to evolve, even slowly the way FT's did. Like I said earlier, I believe a 1990s MH was a heck of a good hunting dog, I know because I had two, who my hunting partner talks about to this day. If the hunt test program developed a system by which 100% of well bred dogs could be trained to MH level and a high percentage passed test, my takeaway is a bunch more really good hunting dogs out in the field and marsh, that we needed to increase the difficulty of weekend test.


John, I couldn't agree more with you. Both of us have changed venues for stiffer competition, but I do still play the HT game a bit, at least in my own club. Actually, I'm thinking of taking Carson and Bridger and Carson's boy Davy on the road to run a few HT this year just for fun, but a standard is a standard. Anyway, hunting ducks hasn't changed that much. I really think the evolution of these master tests has messed up the program. I personally think my club should drop the affiliation with the Master National, but I'm not sure that is a popular opinion amongst our ranks. Anyway, if you want to run a stout test, I'd rather run a qual or an all age trial. 

(I know Glenda has run MH tests with her retired FCs, and I think Carson will really enjoy the work)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Terry Marshall said:


> How can you stop the evolution with the Master National feeding the lion.


You're probably right. Like I said, I'm tilting at windmills. I think the Master National is at the root of this.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

dr_dog_guy said:


> John, I couldn't agree more with you. Both of us have changed venues for stiffer competition, but I do still play the HT game a bit, at least in my own club. Actually, I'm thinking of taking Carson and Bridger and Carson's boy Davy on the road to run a few HT this year just for fun, but a standard is a standard. Anyway, hunting ducks hasn't changed that much. I really think the evolution of these master tests has messed up the program. I personally think my club should drop the affiliation with the Master National, but I'm not sure that is a popular opinion amongst our ranks. Anyway, if you want to run a stout test, I'd rather run a qual or an all age trial.
> 
> (I know Glenda has run MH tests with her retired FCs, and I think Carson will really enjoy the work)


Carson is going to love it! My first field trial dog was great in training, but struggled in field trials. Rather than throw in the towel we switched to hunt test, OMG did he come alive. This was like Disneyland to him. Everywhere he turned there was a bird to pick up. Cody, my avatar dog, went six for six, then promptly earned a Qual win to become QAA. Carson doesn't have the issues Cody did, but they both coming from a FT environment the HT game is super fun.


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> You're probably right. Like I said, I'm tilting at windmills. I think the Master National is at the root of this.


Yeah, I believe you are exactly right. I'm thinking he will too. He sure loved the pheasant and quail hunting we did this year.

I've been letting Cheryl and another lady run him in training - they have to stop lining blinds with him because they make me look bad.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Here are some highlighst that I copied from the AKC rulebook..

I think these are some of the areas that have little consideration today.. The "Evolution"

*“The purpose of a Hunting Test for Retrievers is to test the merits of, and evaluate the abilities of Retrievers in the field in order to determine their suitability and *
*ability as hunting companions. Hunting Tests must, therefore, simulate as nearly as possible the conditions met in a true hunting situation.”*

*Hunting Tests provide a mechanism for identifying, through the evaluation of the abilities of Retrievers, those dogs that possess abilities that set them apart as **accomplished hunting companions.**Planning Hunting Situations. This is one of the most important responsibilities of the Judges. With natural hunting situations, it is much easier to score the abilities of a dog than would be true with situations that are very easy, or with situations that are too difficult and time-consuming, or too tricky. Of primary importance is the simulation of natural hunting conditions in as realistic a manner as possible, while keeping in mind the fact that retrieves should not normally exceed 100 yards for Junior and Senior level tests and 150 yards for the Master level test.

**Tests shall never be overly complex or elaborate or anything other than reasonable (but imaginative and natural) situations.*

*Ingenuity on the part of the Judges is always encouraged not only in planning natural hunting situations, but also in devising some that are unusual, while practical and realistic and that would be encountered “in a true hunting situation.” These situations might take the form of a type of hunting unique to the region that the event is held, but remember, complicated or unnatural tests very often prove nothing and consume great amounts of time and expense.

**Planning Hunting Situations. This is one of the most important responsibilities of the Judges. With natural hunting situations, it is much easier to score the abilities of a dog than would be true with situations that are very easy, or with situations that are too difficult and time-consuming, or too tricky. Of primary importance is the simulation of natural hunting conditions in as realistic a manner as possible, while keeping in mind the fact that retrieves should not normally exceed 100 yards for Junior and Senior level tests and 150 yards for the Master level test.*

*Tests must be set up to evaluate the abilities of dogs.Judges should not feel that if most dogs do well on the first test, the next test must be more difficult — elimination is not the point of testing.*

*All birds shot for a dog in a blind do not have to be seen by the dog while it is in the blind. All birds should be within gun range so the Judges will be able to see and evaluate the dogs under normal hunting conditions.*

*The evaluation of a dog’s abilities can never be precise; it is not an exact science. However, the primary purpose of a Retriever is to get the birds to hand as quickly as possible in a pleasing, obedient manner*

*A dog’s abilities are scored against an established standard. The Judge observes and records in what respects and to what degrees the abilities have either exceeded or fallen short of that established standard.*


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

ANNNND!!

there are MANY people (Like myself) that either don't hunt at all,,or very little, (me) that run OR JUDGE these tests..

Also,, there are Many people that have never REALLY trained a dog of their own,,and run or JUDGE these tests...

How can they have a good under standing of the Culture or the philosophy of a HUNT test program??


Again....Just my grumpy opinion...


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I also didnt see in that rule book,,any mention of a dog (master) being required to pick up a triple clean..(No handles)

Where did that come from?Was that an opinion inserted by some BODY at a seminar??


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

One thing in the rulebiok that stands out and Gooser had it above: elimination is not the point of testing.

Some need to reread that. It's maddening to hear about how many dogs you DIDN'T pass in a test.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

AKC Hunt Tests will never be about hunting again. That ship sailed about 20 years ago. If a pair of judges set up tests based on hunting scenarios which were also designed to satisfy the testing criteria for Marking, Trainability, Perseverance and Style, they would be tarred and feathered because"That's not what/how we train". When nose was eliminated as a trait to be judged, that was the start of it, in my opinion. Of course that was even earlier than the time frame I just referenced.

On the positive side, most dogs which can consistently turn in good to excellent performances on AKC Master tests could be trained and campaigned in Field Trials at the Qualifying level and possibly beyond. The only thing holding them back is their owner's reluctance to compete rather than participate.

HRC tests are slowly moving in the same direction. They are much different and also judged differently than when I started running them in 2000. 

I judge both, but I'm not going "rogue"- I'm allergic to Tar and Feathers!  -Paul


----------



## mountaindogs (Dec 13, 2010)

paul young said:


> ... When nose was eliminated as a trait to be judged, that was the start of it, in my opinion.


This part is the most frustrating to my hunting side. My dog hunts way more than we run tests. He uses his nose like a champ and I will NEVER train that away. He should listen and stop and handle away on command, yes. But more often than not in the duck blind, I didn't see that duck do something that he can smell, and giving him some leeway to use his nose gets the bird. I just won't train it out. sorrynotsorry. If I fail a test over it someday, so be it. I will be annoyed but it has brought so many ducks to the table that I value it too highly.


----------



## cubdriver (Jan 1, 2006)

Personally, I don't like the changes which are evolving in the hunt tests. They were first established so that an amateur could train their own dog and have success running in the dog game. Now, while experienced amateurs can still train their own dogs, many are trained and run by pros. Although it isn't a problem in AK, I understand that in the lower '48 that events are filled up by pros almost immediately, so that many amateurs cannot even enter. IMO, the pros should stick to FT's and let the amateurs at least run, if not also train, their own dogs in HT's. The current situation defeats the original purpose of HT's IMO.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

If pros are part of the problem... what impact do you think the Master Invitational will have on this evolution of standards?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> When nose was eliminated as a trait to be judged, that was the start of it, in my opinion.


I agree completely, which discouraged any kind of hunting. 
The question becomes, as breeding for hunters, would you rather have a dog that marked a 9 or 10 or one that had a good nose and could dig them out??


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

1. I continue to hunt and want a dog with " nose" and can "trail."
2. You can "teach" a dog to use their nose and hope you got a good marker and encourage.
3. I no longer do HT but have made several MHs.
4. A ribbon costs pennies. How much do the ducks, geese,pheasants , snipe, woodcock cost. Chicken/turkey can be bought for 69 cents a pound, easy choice..
5. I have placed or won FTs due to my dog's nose.
6. Your dog, your time, your money and your choice of the "game." I do everything for myself and what my dogs enjoy.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

cubdriver said:


> Personally, I don't like the changes which are evolving in the hunt tests. _*They were first established so that an amateur could train their own dog and have success running in the dog game. *_ Now, while experienced amateurs can still train their own dogs, many are trained and run by pros. Although it isn't a problem in AK, I understand that in the lower '48 that events are filled up by pros almost immediately, so that many amateurs cannot even enter. IMO, the pros should stick to FT's and let the amateurs at least run, if not also train, their own dogs in HT's. The current situation defeats the original purpose of HT's IMO.


Add to that, Alaskans have a very tough situation when it comes to water training - lack of technical ponds and long winters.(I think there are two technical/groomed ponds in my area, but neither is available for training by most trainers - although if you are in 'THE' group you certainly can get access). So it seems like judges of the early tests (June) would put on more straight forward tests for their water series. Don't have to be easy, but certainly don't have to knock the dogs out of the 'water', either.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Hi John

I have been running MH tests since early 90s. My first MH was in 1996. I am currently running 2 dogs in MH. One has 4 legs, the other will start running this year. They will be my 7th and 8th dogs to run in MH. There is no doubt in my mind that the tests are being judged differently today than they were 10-15 years ago. Tighter and tighter marks. Judges don't want o see a dog hunt for very long, even in the AOF. They frequently penalize a dog that drifts downwind to use their nose to find a mark. Many want laser lines to all marks. Many blinds you can't see your dog while running or especially when they are picking up the bird. Really poor use of flyers. Allowing horrible line manners and delivery of birds to go unpenalized. Not really promoting a high standard for obedience or manners.

I have also been an AKC HT judge since the mid 1990 and have become somewhat disallussioned with the program. 

Hope to see you at the National this year.

Dawn


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

I love hunting with my dogs. I also love the summer hoopla with tests and lately trials. I ran my first AKC test in 2000 and my first HRC test in 2002. I became disillusioned with AKC tests early in my career mainly because I thought dogs were being penalized for valuable hunting traits. I formed the impression, right or wrong, that many of the participants running and judging dogs were dog trainers first, hunters second, if at all. I resented (and to a degree still do) having non hunters decide the traits valuable to a hunting dog. I felt much the same way when show people attempt to define and influence the characteristics valuable to a hunting dog. Back then I remember witnessing crazy scenarios at all levels - the 140 yard Junior channel mark with dogs dropped for running the bank on the way back - Two converging marks with 50 yds between them with a blind down the middle, marks as poison birds, followed by a flier as another poison bird with a blind run under the arc of the flier before any of the marks could be picked up! AS an amateur whose time and ability couldn't play at this level( not that I would ever admit it mind you) I gave my energy to HRC. 

Initially I found judges and participants who were dedicated to helping anyone and everyone develop a better hunting dog. The emphasis was on training and hunting rather than testing and breeding. While there were a few pros, not nearly (at least in the midwest) as many as today. And generally they would have fewer dogs. I can remember a test in Iowa when a very well respected pro was disqualified and the surprising thing was the fact he was running eight dogs (at that time the max allowed) as much as the DQ itself.

I have been an HRC judge since 2004 and have judged at all levels including upland. Initially we were encouraged to think outside the box. Given a crappy piece of water on which to run a finished test, we could come up with something weird to determine the dogs' suitability as a hunting companion. You used to see all sorts of things - two birds in the air at once; two participants calling, shooting 3 or more times, nothing falling, repeating before marks went down. Weird walk ups, tests where you needed a dance card to remember what came next. I remember very, very few complaints and many compliments.

Over the years, I noticed the emphasis starting to change. More people began aiming to attend the Grand. You see them running their own dog for a year or two, then the dog would be handled by a pro. As this was happening, the field reps started to pressure judges to avoid "creative" tests. At the same time, a different group of people began to encourage and campaign for different emphasis in tests. You started to see "cheaty" tests, blinds run over old falls etc - factors passed down from trialers trying to separate dogs, not hunters testing their dogs. These tests have now become the norm. The tests I judged came to be dominated by pros. I judged one 30 dog finished test with 5 handlers. Two guys with 1 dog each and the rest handled by 3 pros. More than once I was told these weekend tests are nothing but a rehearsal for the Grand.

Imagine my surprise when I entered a MH event in 2012 and found a test nothing like those I had left 10 years prior - technical, but straightforward with every effort given for the dog and handler to be successful. I have found this to be more the norm than the exception.

While I would like to see the HRC return to its roots, I still enjoy both venues. I think both venues have for the most part (perhaps unintentionally) pushed the hunter/casual trainer to the sideline - the high bar has obscured the value of a titled dog to the hunter. I also fear if the testing programs continue in the same direction the tests will become less and less about hunting and more and more about titles and breeding, much like the field trial program and the show dog program before that.

Perhaps if we stop using field trial mechanics and field trial evaluation criteria and develop new mechanics and relevant criteria the test program can again become more relevant to hunters. And by new mechanics I don't just mean wearing camo and handling a real gun!

Sorry about the rant, but I do believe John Robinson's OP to be timely and very interesting.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

red devil #43. Interesting and cogent overview, Now why do you think all these ribbon folks turn their dogs over to pros and do the brag but are unwilling, generally speaking to run FIELDS TRIALS?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I remember being out in the marsh during opening day crowds years ago. You would see guys with their clueless, untrained labs along. It was a circus of screaming at the dog, throwing dirt clods into the water trying to get the dog to swim out, or on the other hand, breaking for a bird dropped across the pond by another hunter.

Since then, I believe due to the hunt test program, it seems like the average Joe hunting dog is actually trained. That is the great success of all the hunt test venues, I hope average Joe and Jane stay involved as the foundation of our sport.


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

swliszka said:


> red devil #43. Interesting and cogent overview, Now why do you think all these ribbon folks turn their dogs over to pros and do the brag but are unwilling, generally speaking to run FIELDS TRIALS?


Not sure....not even sure I agree with your premise about all the ribbon folks and the brag. I think some of these folks (deep pocketed) do put their dogs on FT pros trucks. I suspect the dogs on HT trucks are on there for more varied reasons than just bragging. I'd be interested in your thoughts


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Red Devil , mostlygold made several of my historical concerns. Going back to 1984 and fighting for the HTs to be accepted making several MHs I am sorry to see where it has ended up. So since 2002 I gave up judging and have run no HTs altho I have worked them. I will remain a FTer and allow RTF and you folks to go your own way.Your game no longer mine.Times are a changing and clearly have changed. My lips are sealed. Never more.


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

If you really want to know why AKC started a HT program in the 90's, it was because UKC was eating their lunch in a way that registrations and interest had turned that way sharply. Get on BOARD or DROWN


----------



## Sophie Gundog (Apr 28, 2010)

My 2 cents worth.
I like the feeling of going to the line and feeling like we can do this, sometime it doesn't work out but I like the feeling that we got the tools to do it.
I enjoy training way more than testing . Testing is more for measuring our progress to date. I think the draw is the partnership with the dog. Next is the friendship development that happens and the environment we train and test in.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Terry Marshall said:


> If you really want to know why AKC started a HT program in the 90's, it was because UKC was eating their lunch in a way that registrations and interest had turned that way sharply. Get on BOARD or DROWN


I don't think that's accurate at all. It was started in the mid-80's by people that couldn't compete in FT that wanted a different program that was for the average working guy. I was invited to one of the first organizational meetings in the midwest. There were no UKC clubs around here at all.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Red Devil , mostlygold made several of my historical concerns. Going back to 1984 and fighting for the HTs to be accepted making several MHs I am sorry to see where it has ended up. So since 2002 I gave up judging and have run no HTs altho I have worked them. I will remain a FTer and allow RTF and you folks to go your own way.Your game no longer mine.Times are a changing and clearly have changed. My lips are sealed. Never more.


I too gave up hunt tests because of the way it was going, especially after the Master National came out. I do disagree that hunt test are using field trial mechanics as stated by someone. Some of the tests mentioned with super tight triples and then an under the arc of the flyer poison bird are not marking tests but tricks to eliminate dogs which are supposed to be judged on an individual performance ,pass/fail.


----------



## kevinj (Jun 16, 2014)

Everything changes.

So to answer the OP question (with my opinion) - 
same dogs now as in 1990 (although it is easier to find well breed dogs now thanks to the internet), the training and methods have improved over the last 27 years (again thanks in part to the internet bringing us instant access to a wealth of shared knowledge (like RTF), and the tests have evolved also (because everything changes)
Could MHs from 1990 pass a Master test now ? some could, some could not - but (still in my opinion) some of the current MH dogs would not pass a 1990 Master test because of line manners

United States of America was created because people where upset with changes in British policies.
If you don't like the current "climate" create something you do like, instead of wasting time/energy complaining and blaming other people about why something changed.

Hell I wish I could still buy a new truck for $11,500 and run it on $0.97/gal gas like I did in 1990 (not that I want to give up my smooth ride in heated/cooled seats)


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

kevinj said:


> Everything changes.
> 
> So to answer the OP question (with my opinion) -
> same dogs now as in 1990 (although it is easier to find well breed dogs now thanks to the internet), the training and methods have improved over the last 27 years (again thanks in part to the internet bringing us instant access to a wealth of shared knowledge (like RTF), and the tests have evolved also (because everything changes)
> ...



Comparing 1990's dogs to todays,and asking if they could pass. That's a different topic.... This discussion is Has the written STANDARD changed? Maybe some subtle changes, but I believe the STANFARD is pretty much the same... What has happened is convenient, colorful,interpretations to justify overly complicated,and difficult tests, because ,like what you stated dogs, and training methods have gotten better....

IHMO,,, the WRITTEN STANDARD needs to change by Vote of the B.O.D. to keep the testing coherent.. 

Again.... How can people that don't HUNT,,, intelligently participate and Judge in a program that tests HUNTING dogs? the acceptance of poor line manners, dogs that wont deliver to hand(Stick) or really noisey personality, is undesirable...... IF YOU HUNT!!!!!

If you go back in the thread a bit and read highlighted quotes from the rules... They specifically state tests should not be overly complicated or tricky. It also mentions something about keeping birds in "GUN RANGE".... They talk about the dog disturbing the hunt... They state the main object of the game is to retrieve birds from the field in a quick ,obedient manner..

Why make the WRITTEN standard MORE than what it is.... Either CHANGE it,,, or Take your dog, and move on to a different game..

When you hear guys state,,when they have run hundreds of Master tests with their dogs,and have been successful, when you hear them state, that they are "Bored" with the "typical" Master dog,and tests,and they encourage difficult ,creative,,unusual tests that push the envelope,,, I think that person is wrong! I think they should move on to venues that will fill their desires.... But DONT go to a HUNT TEST,, where there is a field of 60 dogs,,,and 3, 5,7,or 9 pass,,, and then gloat that YOUR dog was one of them.... Instead,,, maybe analyze WHY the field that included many TITLED dogs didn't.. Really analyze the reason.. Those are sad, poor tests in my humble opinion.... NOT ALL OF THEM<<<<but MOST..

If dogs and training methods have gotten better,,and the written standard hasn't changed by vote,,,,then Yes ...MAYBE the pass rates will approach 60 or 70 percent.... so be it.... If you don't like it,,, or think it degrades what a Modern master HUNTING dog is,,,, then push to have the standard changed by VOTE.... NOT by how you single handedly JUDGE IT>>


JMHO


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

It hasn't been that many years ago at an AKC seminar that an AKC rep stated that "if you're passing more than 50% of the dogs in a MH test, your tests are too easy".
Right or wrong that kid of stuff gets around and the +50% judges are classified as "easy".


----------



## Dazed (Apr 7, 2013)

I was told by a well known AKC rep that no more than 25% of the dogs should pass a weekend master test. Good or bad, Right or wrong, I was glad for the information, and try to train to that outcome. Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the Bug.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

There are 2 polar opposite schools of thought on the evolution of hunt tests. One school states that the tests are overly complicated, contrived and too hard. These guys will be in the gallery raising hell about the unfairness of the current test. The other school considers tests too easy and believes the standard has become watered down. This group is more likely to be sitting in the judges chair and the seminar is taught by one that shares that opinion.

To institute change, the group complaining will have to step up and agree to judge. Regardless of your opinion on the subject, more judges is good for the game!!!!


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Again.... How can people that don't HUNT,,, intelligently participate and Judge in a program that tests HUNTING dogs? the acceptance of poor line manners, dogs that wont deliver to hand(Stick) or really noisey personality, is undesirable...... IF YOU HUNT!!!!!
> 
> JMHO


Just to answer your question... non-hunters try to understand the game by training regularly with hunters who have really high standards for their dogs.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

AKC reps don't run HT. It is the same story about those that sit in the office telling those that actually do the work how things should run. Also, back when I started running MH, 25-30% pass rate was normal. But again, most of those dogs were running for their title and being run by their owners. Now 70% or more of the dogs entered in MH test already have their titles, many of them have been running for years at the MH level and it would be very difficult to set up a test that they could not pass. Add to that the number of dogs being run by pros and you not only could but should get 50% or higher pass rates. If you break it down by dogs with MH titles passing and dogs that are running for their titles passing, you will see s big difference in the pass rates. I have done this by taking data from EE. Dogs running for their title still pass about 30% of the time.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Dazed said:


> I was told by a well known AKC rep that no more than 25% of the dogs should pass a weekend master test. Good or bad, Right or wrong, I was glad for the information, and try to train to that outcome. Sometimes we are the windshield, sometimes we are the Bug.


That's the whole point I was trying to make. I remember the start of the school year way back when, some teachers graded on a curve (field trials), others were confident in their curricular and said on the first day, everybody in class was starting with and A, and your final score was going to be solely based on accumulated test scores coupled with a weighted final exam. If by some miracle, the class was filled with overachieving genius's and everybody aced every test, the whole class would get an A. Of course it always worked out to pretty much match the other teachers bell curve.

I think the same thing in hunt test, if the standard is consistent and the field that particular day is comprised of nothing but experienced master hunters, I would expect a very high percentage to pass. It's all about the quality of entrants, now with more and more people running dogs after they title, I would expect the field in most modern hunt test to be better qualified overall than the dogs I ran with back in 95.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

kevinj said:


> Everything changes.
> 
> So to answer the OP question (with my opinion) -
> same dogs now as in 1990 (although it is easier to find well breed dogs now thanks to the internet), the training and methods have improved over the last 27 years (again thanks in part to the internet bringing us instant access to a wealth of shared knowledge (like RTF), and the tests have evolved also (because everything changes)
> ...


I hope I don't come across as blaming or complaining. Like Gooser, I'm just making an observation that it's perfectly ok for HT to evolve over time, but the written standard should be changed to reflect that change. I might be the wrong one to bring this up as I moved on to field trials a long time ago, with a very occasional hunt test every 4-5 years. I am very involved in the retriever games, president of our Retriever Club, judge a bunch and work at our trial, so I'm not just standing by and bitching about it.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> I think the same thing in hunt test, if the standard is consistent and the field that particular day is comprised of nothing but experienced master hunters, I would expect a very high percentage to pass. It's all about the quality of entrants, now with more and more people running dogs after they title, I would expect the field in most modern hunt test to be better qualified overall than the dogs I ran with back in 95.


Would expect higher pass rates with more experienced dog yes, however dogs are still dogs, a well designed test will loose good dogs on an off day. Just my observations but a 50% pass rate, for a well designed, executed and judged test is rather high, 30-40% being more on par. Of course with the I want to challenge them judges who are a 5-10% pass rate, there's also I want "will get" at least a 50% pass rate "so I can judge the MNH" category. There are surprisingly few dogs that can obtain pass after pass (an experienced amateur is usually better at such); might explain why pros have to hit so many tests to get their 6 passes to go to the MNH, even with dogs that do it year after year. Not saying that every once in awhile there is not a test where all the star aligns and you get a well designed and judged test 50-60% perhaps higher pass-rate but they are rare; at least in my experience.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

My last MH was around 2000, running the Idaho-Montana circuit. My dog was basically a qual level FT dog, after a little specialized training he went six for six to get his title before moving back to field trials. That HT experience gave him a lot of confidence, put fun back in the game for him, and he was a much better FT dog after that summer. I didn't consider him a super dog by any means.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I hope I don't come across as blaming or complaining, like Gooser, I'm just making an observation that it's perfectly ok for HT to evolve over time, but the written standard should be changed to reflect that change. I might be the wrong one to bring this up as I moved on to field trials a long time ago, with a very occasional hunt test every 4-5 years. I am very involved in the retriever games, president of our Retriever Club, judge a bunch and work at our trial, so I'm not just standing by and bitching about it.




HAHAHAHA!!!!! I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to either accuse me of sour grapes or be a Whiner or complainer... I am surprised it was YOU Robinson!  I have only stated the same thing you have,, but you don't want to be labled a complainer... YOU started the thread...  Don't play innocent.. 

Look.. I have an opinion just like anyone else...

worked hard to train this dog I have... We went to 5 Senior tests ,and passed em all.... then went to 7 masters to pass 5.. Went 7 straight in HRC Finished.. not to gloat,, just sayin..
I never complained.. hardly even had conversations with folks there..Most tests I was asked to go out and throw birds before I got to run...

I just ran the tests..

My OPINION has been the way it is,for quite some time...

Like many of you in this thread.... you stated you too became dis illusioned at the HT venue,,and moved on to FT... Did folks say you was a Blamer and complainer???

I just stated my opinion,,,and showed quotes from the rules to support it... If I was like others here,, I would tell Robinson to "Go Pound Sand" but I think to much of him..


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

The easiest solution is to remove the words 'hunt' and 'hunting' from the regulations and titles. 

Master Retriever
Senior Retriever 
Junior Retriever

AKC Retriever Test
Or
AKC Working Retriever Test
Remove language regarding any reference to Simulated Hunting Scenarios. 


Same for the other venues,.perhaps.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> HAHAHAHA!!!!! I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to either accuse me of sour grapes or be a Whiner or complainer... I am surprised it was YOU Robinson!  I have only stated the same thing you have,, but you don't want to be labled a complainer... YOU started the thread...  Don't play innocent..
> 
> Look.. I have an opinion just like anyone else...
> 
> ...


Woops, I missed a comma. I was agreeing with you. Meant to say, like Gooser, I believe such and such, not complaining like Gooser. Sorry about, I'm on your side on this one.

Gooser, please reread my edited post, I switched a comma to a period, makes a world of difference.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Woops, I missed a comma. I was agreeing with you. Meant to say, like Gooser, I believe such and such, not complaining like Gooser. Sorry about, I'm on your side on this one.
> 
> Gooser, please reread my edited post, I switched a comma to a period, makes a world of difference.


NO problem!!! More fun the udder way!!! I'm use to it!!! 

Go pound sand anyways!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> NO problem!!! More fun the udder way!!! I'm use to it!!!
> 
> Go pound sand anyways!


I will...


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

HEHEHEHEHE!!!!!!

Got caught up on my monthly Blood pressure meds,,, annnnnd I finally got to Gloat a bit on my success record..


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Told T Pines to but out Too!


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

I think many have over rated the relevance of their opinions. Sit in the chair and share the knowledge of the rules, set up tests the follow the rules. Share with the retriever community your skill and knowledge.
We used to run off platforms,out of boats,stations were brushed,loaded the field with decoys, ran from layout blinds etc. Going to open a bottle of wine that I'm sure is a better vintage than the wine here.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

swliszka said:


> red devil #43. Interesting and cogent overview, Now why do you think all these ribbon folks turn their dogs over to pros and do the brag but are unwilling, generally speaking to run FIELDS TRIALS?


The average person cant handle the win/loss ratio of FT.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Thomas D said:


> It hasn't been that many years ago at an AKC seminar that an AKC rep stated that "if you're passing more than 50% of the dogs in a MH test, your tests are too easy".
> Right or wrong that kid of stuff gets around and the +50% judges are classified as "easy".


I know a guy with a database of pass rates for various judges and you'd be surprised (or not) how consistent the percentages seem to be for most of those people Tom. Makes you wonder - are they adjusting the test or the pencil to the field on any given week. 

I once caught an employee stealing because his performance numbers were much too consistent...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Tobias said:


> The easiest solution is to remove the words 'hunt' and 'hunting' from the regulations and titles.
> 
> Master Retriever
> Senior Retriever
> ...


 You do realize that this whole thing, both field trials and hunting tests started with HUNTING DOGS - right? Hahahahaha You're the Democratic party of dog games (don't take that too seriously).


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

wojo said:


> I think many have over rated the relevance of their opinions. Sit in the chair and share the knowledge of the rules, set up tests the follow the rules. Share with the retriever community your skill and knowledge.
> We used to run off platforms,out of boats,stations were brushed,loaded the field with decoys, ran from layout blinds etc. Going to open a bottle of wine that I'm sure is a better vintage than the wine here.


Dang Ed - that hurt. I'll say this though - I think the people you say are whining are potential or existing customers of the business called hunting tests. It pays to listen to customers, unless, of course, you don't want more business, which I am very sure a lot of clubs really don't.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

DarrinGreene said:


> You do realize that this whole thing, both field trials and hunting tests started with HUNTING DOGS - right? Hahahahaha You're the Democratic party of dog games (don't take that too seriously).



Most assuredly Darrin, I do.  And as far as I know, NAHRA still tries to hold true to that, more so than AKC. Can't speak for HRC, since we don't have a club up here anymore. 

Democrat party of dog games. LOL


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

What I find most worrisome in the evolving nature of hunt tests is the dwindling numbers of entries for the JR and SR levels. Looking back at an old catalogue from 1989 and the entries were: 22 master entries (2 scratches, 13 passed) ; 33 senior entries( 1 scratch, 5 passed); 2 flights of junior dogs: A- 52 entered(5 scratches, 23 passed) B- 51 entered (4 scratches, 29 passed).

Compare this to the entry for this weekends test 90 master entries, Sat SR 15 entries, Sun SR 9 entries, Sat JR 28 entries, Sun JR 26 entries.

Only 1/4th the number of dogs in JR, and about 1/3 the number of SR dogs. with 4x the master entry only because the entry was capped at 90!.

Also looking at this data, 65% of the running master dogs passed. The only field titles listed for the master entry are 2 QAA dogs and 1 SH. 

Comparing this to our first test of the year: 113 master entries

flight A: 56 dogs entered 1 scratch: 23 dogs passed 19 were MH titled dogs. 10 MH titled dogs failed. (does not include the QAA): pass rate 34% --- 52% of starting dogs were MH titled
flight B: 57 dogs entered 9 scratch: 24 dogs passed 20 were MH titled dogs. (does not include the FC/AFC) 10 MH titled dogs failed: pass rate 50%--- 63% of starting dogs were MH titled

The 1989 test master stake was judged by Grant Ornbaum & Steve Limas


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

T. Mac , I think part of the reason why the junior/senior entries are lower-is that many people are skipping the lower stakes anymore,and going right to the master. Thats only part of the equation of course,but I think a factor.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I started this crazy sport by buying a backyard bred Golden in late spring 1992. I had used Richard Wolters book ten years before, so started with that. Met a couple guys to train with. Turned out I was lucky to have one of those rare back yard bred dogs with actual talent. We didn't even know hunt test existed until my training partner thought my dog was actually pretty good, so he talked us into entering a NAHRA test. Back then you could get a Started Title with two passes, so we drove home that first weekend with a titled dog and huge smiles on our faces.

We had gobs of fun learning more and more and becoming a team with my dog, as we worked our way, step by step up through the ranks of NAHRA and AKC, Started-Junior, Intermediate Working Retriever-Senior Hunter, final AKC Master. I had a little pro help here and there, but 90% of this process was all amateur after work-weekend training. 

I'm not anti-pro in the least, I have a lot of pros who are my best friends, I can also see how a busy working guy or gal, wouldn't have the time to run a distant circuit, but back in the day there weren't that many pros in hunt test. At least not here, I'd say less than half the dogs were pro run.

Regardless my beef isn't a pro dominated circuit, it's a slippery slope of changing standards without really changing the "standard" as written in the book. That original backyard meat dog I wrote about was a true master hunter in the field, if I could clone him and hunt with him today, he'd be the same awesome hunter he was back in the mid 90's, hunting hasn't changed, but I think hunt test have.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Billie said:


> T. Mac , I think part of the reason why the junior/senior entries are lower-is that many people are skipping the lower stakes anymore,and going right to the master. Thats only part of the equation of course,but I think a factor.


I think that's true. I worked my way up through the ranks with my first dog as much for me as him. I had to learn this sport as a handler, no way I could have run Master even with a well trained dog. Now I think most good handlers have a shot at Master with a talented, well balanced dog right out of transition.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Billie said:


> T. Mac , I think part of the reason why the junior/senior entries are lower-is that many people are skipping the lower stakes anymore,and going right to the master. Thats only part of the equation of course,but I think a factor.


Don't think the entry shows that. 
in MR A 20 dogs had lower titles (SH or JH) or 49 of 55 dogs having a hunt test title. 89%
in MR B 12 dogs had lower titles (SH or JH) or 42 of 48 dogs having a hunt test title. 88%

Looking at the '89 data only 1 dog had a SH. While there were several pros running, none had more than 2 dogs. 
As the game was just getting going, the pool of titled dogs was undoubtedly pretty shallow, but by '89 you should have had a few more titled dogs than the one SH.
There were 13 JHs running SR.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

$1200 in entry fees + travel n lodging _ you could almost pay a pro to do basics on a dog - I think people are just skipping the minor stakes


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> $1200 in entry fees + travel n lodging _ you could almost pay a pro to do basics on a dog - I think people are just skipping the minor stakes


Depends on whether you're in it for the journey, destination or both.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> Depends on whether you're in it for the journey, destination or both.


 I think as younger generations of hunters are coming up with everything more or less at their finger tips instantly - we are going to see less and less people in it for the journey John. It's unfortunate.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> I think as younger generations of hunters are coming up with everything more or less at their finger tips instantly - we are going to see less and less people in it for the journey John. It's unfortunate.


I think you're probably right, that's why I started the thread on why people ran hunt test. For me it started out as a way to validate my dog to me, then I got hooked on the pure fun and comoradorie of hunt test. Along the way my dog and I became a wonderful team in the blind or upland. So journey and destination. I wouldn't care to pay a pro to title my dog, though I'll take any points a pro puts on my dog if I can't be there.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> I think you're probably right, that's why I started the thread on why people ran hunt test. For me it started out as a way to validate my dog to me, then I got hooked on the pure fun and comoradorie of hunt test. Along the way my dog and I became a wonderful team in the blind or upland. So journey and destination. I wouldn't care to pay a pro to title my dog, though I'll take any points a pro puts on my dog if I can't be there.


 Was the same for me - darned Baitenger and Willie got me hooked (among a few others) when I showed up for help with my meat dog. 13 years later I train dogs for a living... I guess I caught the bug. I'd still compete if I had time to train but luckily for me I have too many paying obedience clients to take a day a week for training group.


----------



## Wayne Nissen (Dec 31, 2009)

Agree: Isn't the idea of hunting still utilized in the conversation between judges ?


John Robinson said:


> That's just the point, in the hunt test system, it isn't dog against dog, so there is no top. There is a standard that is set in the rulebook, if your dog meets the standard that day, it passes. My issue is that I believe as dogs have improved with better training, judges are compensating by adjusting their standards arbitrarily. I'm an "originalist" regarding the constitution and AKC rulebook. If you want to change the standards, change the rule book. I wouldn't judge a Master stake on a curve, if I set up a solid Master test and 80% of the entry passed, then 80% get ribbons.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

In these discussions in RTF based on HT and FT too many folks are speaking in different languages. Many have never been to a FT and some have never been to a HT. A whole bunch appear not to hunt or hunt in limited venues. So we have a fair amount of gobble-speak. Suggest if you want to hunt, HT or FT pick your preference , do your basic obediance training and go see what you are interested in running. Playing baseball is not playing soccer. Never handled a gun over a dog learn to do so so. Get the picture.?I understand this is a public forum with people coming and going and suggest as many do read old threads. Join a club. Opinions vary here and may not agree and thus can confuse. Take my remarks in the same vein.


----------



## Cooper (Jul 9, 2012)

Dogs are better trained today? Take them out hunting with a hunter who hunts everyday with his lowly self trained gun dog and see how they compare.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Cooper said:


> Dogs are better trained today? Take them out hunting with a hunter who hunts everyday with his lowly self trained gun dog and see how they compare.


I can't tell from you post if you are agreeing or disagreeing the statement that retrievers overall are better trained today, than say, 30 years ago before the widespread hunt test program. I remember seeing average Joe hunter bringing his, apparently untrained Lab out duck hunting, lots of shouting, throwing rocks and much commotion without much actual retrieving. Since hunt test and associated training has become so popular, I see much better trained dogs out in the field.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

I'm curious. With all the talk of evolving standards... the MN, the Grand... HT vs FT... What are the opinions of posters here of someone who pursues the 500/1000+ point UKC HRC recognition. Does it carry any weight? The dogs seem to like it. Going and passing a wide variety of weekend tests in different locales under different judges would seem to be worthy of some recognition... Your thoughts?


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

JDogger said:


> What are the opinions of posters here of someone who pursues the 500/1000+ point UKC HRC recognition. Does it carry any weight? The dogs seem to like it. Going and passing a wide variety of weekend tests in different locales under different judges would seem to be worthy of some recognition... Your thoughts?


Being a hunter who has only hunt tested four young dogs in the HRC system largely as a means to hold his own training feet to the fire and found in both the Judges and Handlers Seminars he attended when beginning three of those and in the tests, themselves, that the HRC had remained true to its stated purpose and my needs, I felt no great compunction to be among the posters you're querying. But I do feel compelled to respond to your question, anyway.

My thought on those pursuing the point awards and all of the other good folks who've caught the retrieving game bug and are keeping the HRC up and running so that we less stricken souls may enjoy what it offers us is a most sincere and hearty "Thank you."


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I liked the old AKC Hunting Tests goals and attitudes. I very much enjoy HRC events.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

JDogger said:


> I'm curious. With all the talk of evolving standards... the MN, the Grand... HT vs FT... What are the opinions of posters here of someone who pursues the 500/1000+ point UKC HRC recognition. Does it carry any weight? The dogs seem to like it. Going and passing a wide variety of weekend tests in different locales under different judges would seem to be worthy of some recognition... Your thoughts?


 I think Its great they pursue the point accumulation challenge.. I think they DO get recognition by the venue setting the milestones of 500/ 1000..

Here's what leaves a bad taste in my mouth... Nothing to do with the venue itself..

You attain a HRC with a very respectable successful pass rate.. During casual conversation,, you hear of people saying,, "Ya, but that dog is only a 120 point dog.... doesn't tell you much"

SOME of the people involved, get to caught up with the ego, and competition thing,,, that they loos sight of WHY the venue was started in the first place..

You will also hear casual conversation, about said dog that goes to a different venue,to try to achieve a different title,to show its variety of talent, and the ability to achieve recognition under a different judging mindset, in that casual conversation.you will hearof how that other venues philosophy is silly, or that title doesn't mean anything to them, because of incorrect assumptions about it... They do this strickly through hearsay..

I for one appreciate the different venues standards, the people who took the time to give me the opportunity to be judged to that standard... I am VERY proud of the titles...


other than that,,, I have grown a cold thick skin as to what anyone else thinks.... Just my newfound grumpy ways!

Hope everyone enjoys time spent with dogs... any of that time is valuable.... the dogs arnt with us long enough..


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I have personally listened to some petty, derogatory, comments, about Flinch's HRCH..

If I didn't know better, I might think my feelings got hurt... but I walk around too medicated to have that happen..


----------



## C Brown (Dec 27, 2013)

As an amateur trainer,long time meat dog owner, I am very proud of my first hunt test dog. Amateur trained & handled by me. Took her thru jh,sh,&mh. I don't take these titles lightly.


----------

