# Master Hunt Test Concerns



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.

I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!

My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

No. Dogs either do "the work" or not.

If more dogs can do it then all the better


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

dixidawg said:


> No. Dogs either do "the work" or not.
> 
> If more dogs can do it then all the better


Is the Master Hunter title reserved for dogs that only "Do the work?"


----------



## Warren Flynt (Nov 14, 2007)

counciloak said:


> Is the Master Hunter title reserved for dogs that only "Do the work?"


I would hope so.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

counciloak said:


> Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.
> 
> I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!
> 
> My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.


Where are the stastistics recorded that Master Hunt test pass rates are now exceeding 60-80%?


----------



## Travis Wright (Mar 3, 2003)

There are other avenues with steep competition and more difficult setups to run your dogs on. They are called Field Trials.

Hunt Tests are not Field Trials, they are judged on a standard, so yes, if the dog 'just does the work', then they deserve a pass.

Travis


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

frontier said:


> Where are the stastistics recorded that Master Hunt test pass rates are now exceeding 60-80%?


I took the average from 2 recent back issues of the RFTN . I came up with 56%. That is not exactly scientific, but revealing. You will find more and also lower pass rates.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

counciloak said:


> Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.
> 
> I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!
> 
> My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.


What standards would you propose raising?


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

To what purpose?


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

What is your concern? Is it that judges are more lenient, or that dogs are trained better?

I would guess that the situation is the latter. With the development of training programs and more sophisticated training tools, our competitive dogs have become better. Having run hunts in the 90s and then being out for awhile and coming back in 2006, I can tell you that the sophistication of the judges has increased also. Basically, the sport is evolving...

As long as judges stick to the rule books in setting up tests, I see no problem with a 5% pass rate or a 100% pass rate. It depends on the test and the dogs that show up. 

I would hate to see a move to adjust the "standard" to make it "tougher". As stated already, if you want to move the bar up, then start going to field trials. Some judges already set up field trial "wanna-be" tests.

If our dogs are getting better, then that is a good thing... wasn't the original intent of the hunt test program to preserve the hunting qualities in our retrievers? Maybe we're just being successful at the original intent of the hunt test movement.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

counciloak said:


> Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.
> 
> I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing.


Why do you think that the pass rate is a problem? 
1) A person doesn't enter a Hunting Test unless he expects to pass it.
2) If a certain percentage of dogs have met the standard it means that they have qualified, it doesn't mean the standard should be changed. 
3) If one's shooting is so poor that a dog's retrieves are that difficult then one should change the standard for his own dog, not everybody else's dog.
4) What is wrong with the present standard which is based on the qualities needed in a hunting dog and not on passing percentages?
5) It's only natural that as breeding programs improve and training gets better that you will have higher percentages passing. What's wrong with that?
6) If I teach an Honors Physics class I would expect to get 100% passing. My sample is not a randomly selected group just as the dogs entering a Master Test is not a randomly selected group. If you want lower passing percentages test a randomly selected group such as all Labrador Retrievers. Then you will get the percentages you want.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Why do you assume that the rise in pass rates is due to a lowering of sandards? More people are learning how to become more effective trainers and are looking to buy puppy's from more talented breedings.

More well bred dogs+ more well informed trainers = higher pass rates.

Bert


----------



## Mike Smith (Mar 24, 2005)

counciloak said:


> Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.
> 
> I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!
> 
> My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.


If the dog takes the casts and makes progress to the blind where is your problem?? If you want to compete on a different standard go run field trials.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

counciloak said:


> Is the Master Hunter title reserved for dogs that only "Do the work?"




Um, yes......


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

rbr said:


> Why do you assume that the rise in pass rates is due to a lowering of standards? More people are learning how to become more effective trainers and are looking to buy puppy's from more talented breedings.More well bred dogs+ more well informed trainers = higher pass rates.
> 
> Bert


Your points sound good. 
But then there is this ...

I don't run hunt tests, but I attended one recently and had the opportunity to be in the gallery and listen to handlers opinions about judges. Some judges were known to be "hard" judges who set up tough tests so entries under them were smaller than those entries for judges known to be "easy". Word to the wise to clubs: pick easy judges to get higher entries.

I also heard about sort of an unspoken "rule"... you can get by with handles. You can get by with more handles from certain judges. Word to the wise to clubs: pick those certain judges because they are more popular.

Not me speaking... I am just repeating what I heard in the hunt test gallery.

Helen


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

Mike Tome said:


> What is your concern? Is it that judges are more lenient, or that dogs are trained better?
> 
> I would guess that the situation is the latter. With the development of training programs and more sophisticated training tools, our competitive dogs have become better. Having run hunts in the 90s and then being out for awhile and coming back in 2006, I can tell you that the sophistication of the judges has increased also. Basically, the sport is evolving...
> 
> ...


You bring up some excellent points. Training methods are much better today. More dogs are passing. I'm concerned about respect for the title. We as Americans are naturally competitive. Even if it is against a standard. Do you feel the same amount of accomplishment when you proved that you are "Better than Average"?

I'm not proposing a change in the rules, but higher expectations. For example a dog does great in the first series, then in the next series he hunts extensively between the marks of a triple, then trips upon one of the birds. Next the dog has a huge hunt on the last bird. Would you score that series with a "1" or a "ZERO", even though he hasn't handled on a mark.

On blinds, I generally don't count whistles in hunt tests, but isn't 10 too many with all of the information that there is now, on teaching a dog to cary a line, and get a good initial line?

In the future will you feel the need to prove that your dog is in the upper 70 percentile. Don't get me wrong, I would like to pass them all, if all of the work is good.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

counciloak said:


> ...
> 
> In the future will you feel the need to prove that your dog is in the upper 70 percentile. Don't get me wrong, I would like to pass them all, if all of the work is good.


This kind of talk makes folks think you want to compete. If you do, then enter a field trial. If you do, and stay with it, you'll learn to deal with not getting a ribbon very time out.

I do agree that some "easy" judges may not apply all of the rules. The blind scenario you mentioned as an example. If you are stopping the dog every 30 feet, how is that taking and holding a line for a considerable distance? Apply the current rules and if every dog passes, so what.

In the end, if the MH ribbon becomes so easy for you to get that you lose that feeling of accomplishment, step up to a FT. You'll start to consider a call back to the 2nd series a win.


----------



## Mike Smith (Mar 24, 2005)

> In the future will you feel the need to prove that your dog is in the upper 70 percentile


So at what point do you start deciding which dogs are the best and winners and losers. Which is where you are going with this and when you start comparing percentages of dogs that pass and dogs that pass that is exactly what you are doing? Not judging against the standard of the rules of the test! If the judges decide the dog scored well enough of to pass? 
So be it, give the dog a ribbon and let 'em go home. If you want the best dog out there and feel confident they are, go run a field trial. Step up to the plate. If you feel your dog can stomp marks and nail blinds and is better than most of the dogs out there that day, go for it.


----------



## blindfaith (Feb 5, 2006)

My two cents....When the HT program was set up it was to give the ordinary hunter a venue to run his dog and hopefully to improve the breed. If the program really worked then a natural consequence would be improved dog work ( and that's what happened IMHO) and the only way to keep pass rates at some arbitrary number, say 30%, would be to raise the standards or make it more like a field trial which we were supposed to be moving away from. I'll leave it to folks at a higher pay grade than mine to decide what to do in the long run but if we want those ordinary hunters to run AKC hunt tests then we better be careful. 
The first Master I judged had 12 dogs and none were handled by pros and I don't believe any were pro trained...now I've ran an event when 90 per cent were pro trained and/or handled...so I would expect the dog work to be better and I think it is.
Granted there will be some judges that are easier and others that are harder and still others that will succomb to playing some sort of " politics" and that will never change unless we take the judging out of it ( which oddly enough some judges do by being arbitrary about everything) by saying , you must run from that spot, you must go between that rock and that stick, you must not use more than 10 whistles, and so on and so on.
I tend to get upset about some folks who seem to forget, or possibly never knew, the original purpose of the movement and that includes some AKC higher ups.
A last thought. No one ever said that you could only have one, two or any number of handles and the rules cover that in many ways...BUT....not all handles are alike...a dog that leaves the line totally lost but kind of heading toward the mark and then handles is way different to me than one who brings the prior mark back while glancing over its shoulder at the next mark, sits down facing the next mark and takes off with certainty of purpose then gets a handle to avoid some disaster..as good as no handle?..probably not but is the dog a worthy hunting companion, even if it has two of those?...most likely.
I've actually sit and listened to a young pro griping about a dog that passed with two handles but had no problem with a dog passing whose handler had to get in a fight to get the birds from the dog..I know it's a judgement call but I knew which dog, on that day, I would rather hunt with...
That's my take without spending any more training time sitting here pecking away. Thanks for listening.
Bill Butikas
Blindfaith Retrievers


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan Graham believes we need to improve hunt tests by creating a competitive portion.

http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=899924


/Paul


----------



## Lee Jones (Mar 19, 2011)

I have seen in the past and done this in the past, judging against what I consider "my standard"..in other words judging according to what "my" MH can do not against the written standard. I have seen Master judges grade according to what their dog can do and not the standard. In other words "if my MH can do it then yours better be able to it, too" I have fallen into that trap myself...thinking a dog who earns an MH title should be at least as good as mine. But that is not fair, all dogs should be graded against a standard. Has your dog or one of your dogs earned his or her MH title? Maybe if more dogs are passing we as trainers have done a better job.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?

My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard? 
Mark Land


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

fishduck said:


> My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?
> 
> My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard?
> Mark Land


BINGO! I agree with everything Mark said!


----------



## Mike Smith (Mar 24, 2005)

fishduck said:


> My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?
> 
> My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard?
> Mark Land


Bingo +2 and the tests are reflecting their influence. That said, that means I need to train harder.


----------



## Warren Flynt (Nov 14, 2007)

fishduck said:


> My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?
> 
> My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard?
> Mark Land


Well said. I know my dog would be capable *(with a pro)* if the standard keeps getting 'raised'... but you would continue to see fewer and fewer amateurs and amateur trained dogs. If anything, would it behoove the AKC to separate the two classes of handlers, like field trials- an am stake and a 'open' stake?
This is just the reality, as I see it- typing from my desk at work (where I am ALOT more often than in the field, training.)


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

fishduck said:


> My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?


Mark this is EXACTLY what I Was going to say, but I read through to the end of the thread, and you already said it so well!

If we look at the % passing for already-titled MH dogs, it will be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the passing rate for non-MHs. 
Sorta like the "A" vs. "B" classes in AKC obedience.
I have heard it proposed that there should be two Master flights at each test : "A" for non-titled dogs seeking their title and "B" for MH dogs.
Personally I do NOT agree with this as the dog seeking it's title should be judged on the same field (literally) as the others who have already earned it. Equal ribbon for equal work, so to speak.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

As a "trainer" with my first dog who has yet to run a dog in anything, I feel completely qualified to horn in on this subject. 

I agree up to a point with what Mark says, as I usually do. But I must admit that, even given what HT was originally set up to be, which is not competitive field trials, it bothers me a little to hear that MH pass rates seem to be headed up over 50%. And it bothers me in the sense of after all the training and hard work I put in to try and train 2-3 times a week, what have I really accomplished if more than 50% of the dogs pass the test?

The more I think about it, the more I like Furball's idea of classes for those trying to title and for those trying to re-qualify for Master National. I would also consider maybe an Amateur and an Open class as well. Those of us who enjoy gettling humiliated could have that choice.

And Mark, when you get up off the floor from laughing at the very idea that my dog and I are ever going to have to worry about any of this, give me a call and let's train dogs.


----------



## fishnfetch (Jul 30, 2011)

Originally Posted by fishduck 
My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?

My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard? 
Mark Land 



Probably not without making sacrifices that would affect his family adversly. Here in the northeast the game became about the professional trainers and their egos and not really about the dogs.


----------



## Firefighter1 (Aug 15, 2010)

Just a thought, every player in the NBA can "jam". No one ever suggested raising the height of the rim!


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

We've all seen the baby double on the third series in a Master Test on Sunday afternoon. Probably set up because the judges were short on time due to the large number of entries. 

Put up 3 MH level triples and good stout blinds, judge to the standard as provided in the rule book. This may require limiting the number of entries per flight but that's another issue.

How many of the dogs that pass a given weekend hunt test do you think are at a point where they can not afford a handle or a BAH on even one bord in the last series? The pass rate would likely fall a few percentage points just by setting up the third series to be just as difficult as the first.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Firefighter1 said:


> Just a thought, every player in the NBA can "jam". No one ever suggested raising the height of the rim!


Actually it has been suggested.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/337237-height-of-an-nba-basketball-rim/


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

By the way the standard for Master Hunters has been changed this year. The rules now require 2 or more tripples or if a double is thrown it must have at least one more element. 
Also the walk up rules has changed creating more of a breaking test.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

If the standards are raised, you knock out us amaturs. I get to train only on weekends but so far if I pass a master test it is because my girl had done a good job. When you run a flgt of 70 dogs and 33 pass , with only 2 of the 33 being amatur handlers it feels great ,( right Mark, since it was you and I) but should they raise the standards again, I would hope not . The standards have been raised several times amoung the years. The dogs are just getting better.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

counciloak said:


> I took the average from 2 recent back issues of the RFTN . I came up with 56%. That is not exactly scientific, but revealing. You will find more and also lower pass rates.



And if you took the average from the next two issues it could be down.. A horse a piece. This spring in the tests I ran the average was more like 30%. I've found up north the average higher and the tests easier then here in TX and surrounding states. For all the difference it makes???

The weekend warrior will always have success in this venue. So his dog isn't a MH as 2 year old??? Big deal. It's not a race. You title when you title. There's just as much value and merit in a dog that got it's MH at 6 with it's amateur handler as the 2.5 year old that got it with a pro.

Angie


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Evan Graham believes we need to improve hunt tests by creating a competitive portion.
> 
> http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=899924
> 
> ...





http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showpost.php?p=9229066&postcount=65 said:


> Bringing more people and their dogs into the games is good for the games, and helpful for dogs and training to an extent.


If you want more people to play, you don't make the rules harder. Adding a competitive aspect to the game doesn't bring in new people, it keeps the people who have won so much they're bored with it playing.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Any problem (real or perceived) won't be solved by creating more classes or raising the standards. If some judges or clubs have a history of passing 50% or more, so be it.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

This could be sort of a take-off from a earlier thread on the old days of the Hunt Tests.
As someone mentioned most of the dogs of the 1980's and even into the early 1990's were amateur trained. Now adays I would submit at the Master level many dogs are pro-trained. This is good to a point as it did raise the standard of training. There are more and better trained hunt tests dogs now then there were many years ago. Now from a personal perspective, we ran the Master level tests of old and have in recent years have put four MH titles on mostly trained field trial dogs. What I do is try to do the best I can do with my dogs to make the highest standard possible, In other words I compete against myself and my training (all amateur trained dogs) and it does give me satisfaction. If I have a poor performance at a hunt test, then I train harder for the next one. I also judge and like a pleasing eye performance when I see it and reward it by score.

The obedience game started with a minmum score of 170 and a possible top score of 200.
Why not look at the hunt test the same way? There are passes and there are passes, some are satisfied with a marginal score, others with a higher standard, others looking for that 200.

I thnk the Hunt Tests are fine they way they are (AKC) If you like true competition then run retriever Field Trials and we have ,even earning some titles along the way. I still believe if you set "realistic" goals for your dogs the amateur can still run against the pro-trained dogs, even with limited time, family and work commitments. It's all about "priorities" train , don't complain ,even find a good home for a not too good performer.


----------



## P J (Dec 10, 2009)

fishduck said:


> My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly surprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?
> 
> My concern is that a working class amateur with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard?
> Mark Land


I am a person who is training a dog to MH level for the first time, following Evan's SW program and training with a couple other "rookies" some. It is very noticeable when you go to a HT and see only a handful or less people like yourself who own, train and handle their own dogs in a flight of 50 - 70 dogs. I know that if I would allow a pro to train or even just handle my dog at the tests we've run, she would have more passes. 

I don't think separating us from the pro's or raising the standard is a reasonable thing to do. Having separate tests for already titled dogs from those not titled would be more reasonable. That would be the only way to keep the numbers of entries high enough to justify the tests and if numbers were low, leave the option to combine them open. It would be harder on the pros, because it would stretch them out even more at a test.

Just my 2cents from an amateur's perspective (less than 2 years running HT).


----------



## Tom Mouer (Aug 26, 2003)

I am following this thread and wondering if the OP has been running Hunt Tests for a few years,( !0+) , or is relativly new to the sport.
I would remind him that there is a very large difference in a dog that get his /her MH with average scores (7.0) and a dog that qualifies with scores of 8,9,or 10.
6 passes/year to qualify for tge MNHT is 6+ Hunt Test entries. 
The AKC wants as many dogs as possible entered at the MN. The road is "paved with GOLD" for the AKC.
Plus the NMH fees equals $$$ for the AKC.
I have been judging Hunt Test since 1984, and I believe that the MH title is an worthy achievement for the dog/handler.
The NMH, as it is now defined, is "fluff" and not practical for the Average Hunt Test owner/handler.
But a dog with 6 qualifying scores, (7.0) can enter the NMHT. 
But as I stated earlier , there is a very large difference in the dog that qualifies with 7's and the dogs that qualify with 8's, 9's or 10.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Evan Graham believes we need to improve hunt tests by creating a competitive portion.
> 
> http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=899924
> 
> ...


Interested to hear your thoughts on this /paul. While I think you'd have a hard time getting clubs to buy in just because of the extra time and resources involved (though some clubs are running O/H quals at HT's), I think it's an interesting thought. It would require handlers to train to a bit higher standard I think but I'm not sure what the overall value would be since some (many?) would just not bother as they'd be happy with their MH/HRCH title.

.


----------



## Rip Shively (Sep 5, 2007)

Previous posts bring up two important points with regard to pass rates. First, the majority of dogs in Master stakes in this area are being run by pros who have the ability to train 5-7 days a week and train on quality grounds. Second, the increase in popularity of the Master National and now associated titles with passing that event has resulted in more people continuing to campaign already MH titled dogs. Seeing pass rates above 50% does not surprise me nor should it really "bother" anyone. 

Going back to the original post, I get frustrated when I hear negative comments about dogs passing with more than one handle. As one post indicated, not all handles are the same and not all marking tets are the same. What is often lost in this discussion is in the ACK hunt test game is it all comes down to the score that is recorded for marking (and perserverance, trainability, and style). I would love to see the judges sheets and scores for dogs that are dropped simply because they handled on more than one bird over 3 series. When I judge it is my goal to setup (along with my co-judge) 3 quality tests that preferably include 3 solid triples and challenging blinds. If succesful in setting up 3 quality tests I normally find by the end of the weekend the dogs and handlers have sorted themselves out quite nicely and my cojudge and I are only having discussions about a relatively few number of dogs. If for some reason my tests were not as challenging as I had planned there is no logical reason to impose a more stringent scoring standard just to keep pass rates at some predetermined acceptable level.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

counciloak said:


> Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.
> 
> I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. *Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!
> *
> My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.


My question to the OP is how many AKC Masters have you run to see 10-15 whistles on a 100 yard blind?


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

In my mind, the question comes down to “what is the purpose of a hunt test”? If you really want the test to reflect the attributes of a “Master” hunting dog, you don’t need to increase the distances or degree of difficulty, you could dramatically reduce the passing percentage by simply grading harder on line manners, creeping, noise & “mouth”. 

Somehow though I doubt this is the direction the OP would like to see things go.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Once you know the percentage of dogs that pass any test (or combination of tests)= you have a total of ONE data point. Any extrapolation/assumption/prediction/conclusion reached on the basis of ONE data point is invalid.

r squared=zero regards

Bubba


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

I as the original poster noticed several references to, "If you want higher standards, then just run field trials." I'm sorry if I mislead anybody into thinking that was the direction that I'd like to see the Hunt Test game go. Theirs is a different game, It's no better or worse than ours. I've participated in both and will always defend them both. 

With that said, I believe that Rip Shively made some great points, and hit the ball out of the park on every one of them.

As the percentage of dogs that pass increases, I'm seeing the expectations of earning a ribbon also is increasing. I hope that just because a dog hasn't handled yet , that the judges/handlers believe that the dog has high scores in Marking. As far as blind retrieves are concerned, just staying on line doesn't always equate to a high score in trainability.

As far as raising the standard is concerned, on blinds, I believe that just staying on line is not the only criteria for a high score. A dog should be a team member, and flow through the blind. It should cast into the water with one cast, and stay in the water without any flack. It should be willing to get on and off points seamlessly, and arrive at the bird, not 20 off to the side of the bird.

On marking tests are concerned, not handling on marks does not always equate to a high score in marking. I have awarded many qualifying scores to dogs that handled on 2 birds in a hunt test, but you can bet that those dogs showed a habit of going to the area of the fall and demonstrated confidence that he knew where his bird was before needing to be handled back to it.

I don't believe that maintaining a high standard is a disadvantage to amateurs, nor do I believe that we need a separate category for non-titled dogs or pros. When your dog is ready, then the challenge will be there for you.

I never want to see the day that people expect to pass a hunt test.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

counciloak said:


> I never want to see the day that people expect to pass a hunt test.


If you don't expect to pass, you must really like the club putting on the test.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

Dave Flint said:


> In my mind, the question comes down to “what is the purpose of a hunt test”? If you really want the test to reflect the attributes of a “Master” hunting dog, you don’t need to increase the distances or degree of difficulty, you could dramatically reduce the passing percentage by simply grading harder on line manners, creeping, noise & “mouth”.
> 
> Somehow though I doubt this is the direction the OP would like to see things go.


I'll admit that while setting up that I'd like to exceed the 100 yd. guideline, but I know that is not the hunt test game. My goal is to present a difficult challenge, not to arbitrarily reduce the number of dogs that receive qualifying scores. I would never feel pleasure in dropping a dog for creeping or whining, but I sure frown on dogs that show the results of misdirected pressure


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> If you don't expect to pass, you must really like the club putting on the test.


No, that is a misquote. Passes are earned by hard work and dedication, they are not owed to you.


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

counciloak said:


> No, that is a misquote. Passes are earned by hard work and dedication, they are not owed to you.


I work very hard to get the most out of any dog I train. I feel I owe it to the dog and to my clients. I dont run a dog before I feel it's ready. I expect to pass every hunt test. That may not be everyones goal but I would not go if I didnt expect to pass.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.

I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.

My assumptions about hunt tests may not be true. I have only played the games for 5 years so do not have a long term perspective. In the Master stake I see 90+% pro handlers. Of the number of amateurs, I see very few in the 3rd series. It takes a significant personal sacrifice to achieve the standard already in place. For someone training in round cow ponds or parks the standard may already be out of reach.

The field trial game has moved to a level that the "weekend warrior" has very little chance of success. In the short time I have participated in Master tests I feel the bar has been raised. This type of rhetoric is how the standards are changed. If you wish to see excellent dogs at the peak of performance run by the best trainer/handlers in the world then pull up a lawn chair at the Open. Please leave the working class guy a venue where success is possible. No one is looking for a give away but leave the written standard alone.
Mark Land


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Counciloak, who are you and how many Masters have you run? It sure sounds like you want to make HT into FT, and I do both. I don't know how many hunt tests you have judged but they are plenty tough in the upper Midwest. Make them any more difficult and you make it entirely a pro game which it was never intended to be. Curious you show up with this thread just when Evan (see /Pauls link) brings up the same type of thread on the Refuge.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

fishduck said:


> In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.
> 
> I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.
> 
> ...


what he said.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

fishduck said:


> In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.
> 
> I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.
> 
> ...


For someone who's been in this sport only a short time you're pretty sharp.

Angie


----------



## sterregold (May 27, 2005)

fishduck said:


> In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.
> 
> I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.
> 
> ...


Agree whole-heartedly! 

Grading to a standard means that if the work meets the standard it meets the standard. Yes, that standard is open to the interpretation of the judges--so be it--judges are human and there will be some variation. I have seen murderous tests that decimated the field, and easy tests that most dogs sailed through. I have seen dogs dropped that made no sense to me, and seen dogs carried that I would have asked the handlers to pick up! I've been on the receiving end of the both the good and the bad breaks (as have most of us if we run enough dogs in enough tests!)

Assigning passes on a curve is not a solution--in a weak field, weak work will still get through, and in a strong field dogs would be eliminated who have done the work. That is not a direction I want to see hunt tests go.

As others have observed, the number of titled dogs running to gain their qualifying passes for the MN is going to affect pass rates--these are well-trained seasoned dogs who have seen a heck of a lot more scenarios than the amateur trained dog running its 1st, 2nd, 3rd Master test. And when I can get my amateur trained little fluffy through a test that HRCH, MH, *** dogs fail, you bet that I am damned proud that we met that standard on the day!!! If that bothers you, well, too damned bad!!


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Angie B said:


> For someone who's been in this sport only a short time you're pretty sharp.
> 
> Angie


And a fine marshal, club member, committee member, flier shooter, bird thrower, etc...

This thread has been a topic of conversation over the last couple of weeks. It's interesting to know what someone's expectations are, listen to their personal standards, and compare them against the written standard. 

Most people I've met running a master dog expect their dog to pass if it performs the work to the written standard. Does the same dog always meet their personal standard? Probably not, but they know what to work on when they get home. Will they still accept the pass if the dog didn't meet their standards? Yes - Ive yet to get a ribbon with knucklehead's average score wrote on the back of it.

If you want to go run a test where the standards are different than your normal weekend test, go to the Grand twice a year and have fun with Fido. Leave the other 50 weekends alone so that working class stiffs with family obligations can still enjoy the tests and have an outside chance of passing one occasionally.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> My question to the OP is how many AKC Masters have you run to see 10-15 whistles on a 100 yard blind?


I also would like an answere to Nancys question.. I find that very hard to believe that the dog passed..
Whistles mean either cast refusal , not carrying the line that was given with the cast, caving to suction built into blind. Much of that,, wont pass at Senior level.. nevermind Master.


You folks that have Master dogs, have wonderful animals... All 60% of you..
MICHAELBAKER


----------



## Socks (Nov 13, 2008)

fishduck said:


> In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.
> 
> I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Firefighter1 said:


> Just a thought, every player in the NBA can "jam". No one ever suggested raising the height of the rim!


I am an old basketball player, and I think this is precisely what needs to be done.

Even so, now that everybody can dunk, do you really get all that excited about just a dunk? Does it take something really spectacular to get you out of your seat and yelling? It does me.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

I guess what I am saying is that many people seem to think that there is too big a step between HT and FT, and maybe there should be something in the middle for those who want to take advantage of it. Surely we can come up with something to meet that need - assuming there really is a need. If there's not really a need then it would appear that the current system works just fine.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> I guess what I am saying is that many people seem to think that there is too big a step between HT and FT, and maybe there should be something in the middle for those who want to take advantage of it. Surely we can come up with something to meet that need - assuming there really is a need. If there's not really a need then it would appear that the current system works just fine.


Qualifyings work, whether OH or not, if you want to be competitive.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Tom Mouer said:


> I am following this thread and wondering if the OP has been running Hunt Tests for a few years,( !0+) , or is relativly new to the sport.
> I would remind him that there is a very large difference in a dog that get his /her MH with average scores (7.0) and a dog that qualifies with scores of 8,9,or 10.
> But as I stated earlier , there is a very large difference in the dog that qualifies with 7's and the dogs that qualify with 8's, 9's or 10.


I would agree with this, but in the end both dogs will be listed as MH with absolutely no way for anybody else to tell the difference. Think about what this also does to those folks looking for pups - the 7.0 dog and the 10.0 dog are indistinguishable at first glance. And yes, I know that you can't rely on that by any means; I am making a point.

All in all, I would like to see a class for Amateurs and an Open in the HT game. It seems like this would address the concerns of the weekend warriors (like myself) having to compete against pros, which is of course an absolutely valid concern. I would venture to say that this is about all that you could get traction for at this time.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

RookieTrainer said:


> All in all, I would like to see a class for Amateurs and an Open in the HT game. It seems like this would address the concerns of the weekend warriors (like myself) having to compete against pros, which is of course an absolutely valid concern. I would venture to say that this is about all that you could get traction for at this time.


Again, you are not competing against pros. You are testing against a written standard.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Rookie there simply are not enough workers to add a seperate stake at a hunt test. At the current rate you would have one Master stake with 200 entries on the pro side and the Amatuer side would have 20 entries with most of the workers for the entire test in that flight of 20.

I will be coming through Sunday afternoon if you want to train at the ponds. It will be quick but better than no training at all.
Mark Land


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Counciloak,
I do not know you but do have a question. When did you last train a puppy from 8 weeks to MH? My last dog finished her MH title last month and my dogs records are on Entry Express for all to see. If you are campaigning dogs and working a 40 hour week then I applaud you. 
Mark Land


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> I would agree with this, but in the end both dogs will be listed as MH with absolutely no way for anybody else to tell the difference.




You know what they call the guy the finished last in Medical school?


Doctor.

Same applies here. If they meet the standard, they meet the standard....


----------



## sterregold (May 27, 2005)

And for recent dogs you can always log onto EE and look up the dog's pass record--that at least will give you an idea of how many attempts it took for the dog to title and how consistent they are in their work.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

How about a separate competitive (dog vs dog) Master stake using the current standards?
IMHO this could(1)give people a new challenge in the same game once they achieved an MH,(2) relieve high entry pressure on clubs requiring multiple splits, (3) make judging and scoring to the standard more accurate and demanding(4) provide a basis for Master National qualification based on quality of performance.

just a thought

Tim


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

First a disclaimer, I always volunteer to be a Marshall at our Middle Tenn Amateur Retriever Club. I have marshalled the senior and the master. I typically run and judge field trials. My AFC once failed a master hunt first series, and I have owned a Master Hunter.

Here is why the standard for passing needs to be raised for all hunt tests.

Unless you raise the standard for passing you will be endorsing the low performing dog, who is trained by the low performing trainer or handler. I have seen MANY dogs entered in senior and master who were not to the standard. Why? Because their hunt test trainer needed the handling fee.

Why does this hurt the owner. Often times first time dog owners cannot get their dog with a "competitive trainer." They settle for which trainer has an open spot or will take their dog. When they settle they get a low performing trainer, who then takes their low performing dog to the competition. They then get a ribbon and most importantly to some trainers a handling fee is charged to the client.

If you reduce the passing rate, you will increase the training levels of the dog. This then will encourage poor performing trainers to either increase the value of their training or it will encourage them to leave the sport.


----------



## T Farmer (Aug 27, 2008)

I think if I'm not mistaken he owns and trains a very successful FT dog named Dance Hall Gal. He also has judged a master national.


----------



## T Farmer (Aug 27, 2008)

I think he is trying to get good conversation about where your sport is and where its heading in the future. Thats how I read it.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Gawthorpe said:


> First a disclaimer, I always volunteer to be a Marshall at our Middle Tenn Amateur Retriever Club. I have marshalled the senior and the master. I typically run and judge field trials. My AFC once failed a master hunt first series, and I have owned a Master Hunter.
> 
> Here is why the standard for passing needs to be raised for all hunt tests.
> 
> ...



I'm not connecting the dots here..

Wouldn't the poor performing trainers dogs FAIL the tests as they are currently run? I don't understand your idea that standards need to be raised?


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

gawthorpe quote" Here is why the standard for passing needs to be raised for all hunt tests.

Unless you raise the standard for passing you will be endorsing the low performing dog, who is trained by the low performing trainer or handler. I have seen MANY dogs entered in senior and master who were not to the standard. Why? Because their hunt test trainer needed the handling fee.

Why does this hurt the owner. Often times first time dog owners cannot get their dog with a "competitive trainer." They settle for which trainer has an open spot or will take their dog. When they settle they get a low performing trainer, who then takes their low performing dog to the competition. They then get a ribbon and most importantly to some trainers a handling fee is charged to the client.

If you reduce the passing rate, you will increase the training levels of the dog. This then will encourage poor performing trainers to either increase the value of their training or it will encourage them to leave the sport."

I disagree somewhat.The standard is the standard.Unfortunately they raised the standard when the MN came out.A hunt test dog is just that.If a "lower performing" dog does not meet the standard then it should not pass.If it passes then it meets the standard.I quit running hunt tests because it takes the same amount of training for a Qual level dog as MH and I am a weekend warrior with limited time training.Why take a venue that was designed for amateurs to begin with and now make it minnie field trials.As you know if you want the best go to the Open or Am (just ran my first and went out but had fun).

Jeff Gruber


----------



## T Farmer (Aug 27, 2008)

Sorry, He has a full time job and they do 100% of their own training. Ear pinch to open win last month plus 50 plus derby points and am points while in derby. He's trying to be constructive and looking out for the future of the breed. I have not talked to him about this, I just know the guy and he's a good "dog", good for both games.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Rick_C said:


> Interested to hear your thoughts on this /paul. While I think you'd have a hard time getting clubs to buy in just because of the extra time and resources involved (though some clubs are running O/H quals at HT's), I think it's an interesting thought. It would require handlers to train to a bit higher standard I think but I'm not sure what the overall value would be since some (many?) would just not bother as they'd be happy with their MH/HRCH title.
> 
> .


My thought is we already have it. Go run a Qual....

/Paul


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

T Farmer said:


> Sorry, He has a full time job and they do 100% of their own training. Ear pinch to open win last month plus 50 plus derby points and am points while in derby. He's trying to be constructive and looking out for the future of the breed. I have not talked to him about this, I just know the guy and he's a good "dog", good for both games.


Bastard threw me out in Texas :-x

Pretty sure that he thought that the dern dawg refused about a dozen or so OVERS into the water wasn't Master work.

Nobody likes Okies regards

Bubba


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

My MH Pete has only handled on 3 birds in 12 master passes. He's clearly a better MH than everyone else's. 

Now if I can just teach him to sit.....

/Paul


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

RookieTrainer said:


> I guess what I am saying is that many people seem to think that there is too big a step between HT and FT, and maybe there should be something in the middle for those who want to take advantage of it. Surely we can come up with something to meet that need - assuming there really is a need. If there's not really a need then it would appear that the current system works just fine.


It exists. Its called the Qualifying stake.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

T Farmer said:


> Sorry, He has a full time job and they do 100% of their own training. Ear pinch to open win last month plus 50 plus derby points and am points while in derby. He's trying to be constructive and looking out for the future of the breed. I have not talked to him about this, I just know the guy and he's a good "dog", good for both games.


Anyone that can work a full time job and train a dog to win an open is in a different league than I am. He is obviously a better dog person as his record attests. I am simply an individual enjoying the game with a limited amount of success. No illusions that my dogs will ever win an open with me. With the right trainer maybe but my enjoyment comes from training and running my own dogs. 

Of the original crew that I started training with only me and one other are still in the game. His new dog will spend the summer with a pro to avoid the heat and progress faster. Maybe I am misguided but the owner/handler seems to be a dying breed.

I have no doubt that Counciloak is passionate about the game. Otherwise he wouldn't care. I am just as rooted in my belief that raising the standard will cause more amatuer handlers to throw in the towel and find something else to do with their limited spare time.
Mark Land


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

fishduck said:


> Rookie there simply are not enough workers to add a seperate stake at a hunt test. At the current rate you would have one Master stake with 200 entries on the pro side and the Amatuer side would have 20 entries with most of the workers for the entire test in that flight of 20.
> 
> I will be coming through Sunday afternoon if you want to train at the ponds. It will be quick but better than no training at all.
> Mark Land


That's probably the REAL problem with any of this. It looks like clubs are stretched thin as it is, and obviously adding more/different competitions doesn't help that at all.

I'll see what I can do about Sunday.


----------



## Rip Shively (Sep 5, 2007)

I went back a read the original post and believe the OP was trying to initiate discussion and not pass judgement. In that vain, I believe the HT and HT judging communities are well-served to hold judging seminars or advanced seminars where setups and expectations for performance are discussed, then dogs are run through he setups and scored by participants and different viewpoints about performance are discussed. Lastly, it would be beneficial to discuss what could have been done differently or betterwith regard to the various setups.

If speculation is correct as to the identity of the original poster I would agree he is a top notch individual and dog person and someone I would gladly discuss dogs, training, or just about any other subject with.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

GulfCoast said:


> It exists. Its called the Qualifying stake.


I would say for me that the Qual might as well be an FT. That was part of the underlying logic of my post. 

Also, I understand that HT is judged to a standard, but surely the pros out there can get there faster, if not better. And, HT judges all being humans, I would have to guess that the dogs are being compared, at least subconsciously, so there's that too.

Please understand too that I am saying everything I am saying in the abstract and really based on things I have heard several other people say. Right now, a JH pass would make me jump for joy, so I could really care less what is going on in the MH arena. It looks about as close to me right now as Mars does.

Thanks to everyone for the debate. It has been very educational and has changed my views on some things.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

The standards are there for a reason. This way us amaturs can go run a master along with a full flgt of pros and still come out with a pass. Just last weekend, I think out of the fligt of 83 dogs, 45 passed and If I am correct only about 3 of us were ams. If you want more challenge go run field trail.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Gawthorpe said:


> If you reduce the passing rate, you will increase the training levels of the dog. This then will encourage poor performing trainers to either increase the value of their training or it will encourage them to leave the sport.


So buy a better trainer, or quit. Awesome choices there. Why do you want FEWER people in the game?


Has there ever been any thought to making MH a repeatable title? In Obedience you can get multiple UDX's (UDX2, UDX 3, UDX 84 etc) by meeting certain quantification requirements, and in agility MACH is a repeatable title. It would be an easy way to keep people running dogs without adding extra work on the hosting club's behalf.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

One of my main concerns is the massive number of quality Master Hunters that we see every weekend. When I judge I am usually pretty liberal with call backs. I feel that I know what a Master Hunter should be expected to do. If I wanted the pass rate to come down, it would be easy to do, but the results would not be due to marking, and the tests would NOT be one that I would want to run my own dog on. 

Judges tend to set up tests to challenge the entire field of dogs. If the majority of dogs happen to be handled by pros, then have we lost track of our goal? To provide a venue for the working class people to train efficiently maybe 2 weekdays and one weekend day, and still prove that their dog is worthy of earning a Master Hunter Title.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> I would say for me that the Qual might as well be an FT. That was part of the underlying logic of my post.


Q's ARE FT's, at least down here in the south. 300 + yard triple marks with retired gunners and long complex blinds are the norm. 
I have a very nice dog with a derby 3rd, in full time FT training with a credible and successful pro who has yet to finish a Q, but has run some upper level HT's and been the best dog there by far. Big jump from the HT to the Q. Believe me, we don't want the FT mentality dripping down to HT's any more than it already has.
MP


----------



## sterregold (May 27, 2005)

counciloak said:


> One of my main concerns is the massive number of quality Master Hunters that we see every weekend. When I judge I am usually pretty liberal with call backs. I feel that I know what a Master Hunter should be expected to do. If I wanted the pass rate to come down, it would be easy to do, but the results would not be due to marking, and the tests would NOT be one that I would want to run my own dog on.
> 
> Judges tend to set up tests to challenge the entire field of dogs. If the majority of dogs happen to be handled by pros, then have we lost track of our goal? To provide a venue for the working class people to train efficiently maybe 2 weekdays and one weekend day, and still prove that their dog is worthy of earning a Master Hunter Title.


I think it is a good thing that we are seeing lots of quality dogs in the Master every weekend! It also sounds to me like you are setting up and want to run tests which do connect to the standard described in the rulebook. That is also a good thing. 

I also think the influence of pros is being overstated. Are there lots of dogs handled by pros in the Master (or for that matter Senior and Junior stakes) in AKC tests--yes, certainly moreso than we see in Canadian tests in my experience. But I don't think that is necessarily because the pros have a better chance of passing--for many people it comes down to not wanting to learn how to train their own dog or other life factors which do not allow them even those two nights and one day on the weekend! The presence of the pros does not by default make the test less passable for the amateur owner-handler trainer. I got my first MH title on my girl in 7 tests last summer. She is my second dog (I did the major screwing up on the first) and has never been on a pro truck. I work, and have life responsibilities, and I managed to get it done fairly expeditiously--was she perfect, not by any means, but I am still proud of the accomplishment.

I guess I just don't get why so many are so concerned with the numbers who are passing--it seems a testament to the consistently improving quality of training the dogs get and breeding decisions people are making to produce retrievers who are capable of the work, and those are both good things!


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

counciloak said:


> One of my main concerns is the massive number of quality Master Hunters that we see every weekend. When I judge I am usually pretty liberal with call backs. I feel that I know what a Master Hunter should be expected to do. If I wanted the pass rate to come down, it would be easy to do, but the results would not be due to marking, and the tests would NOT be one that I would want to run my own dog on.
> 
> Judges tend to set up tests to challenge the entire field of dogs. If the majority of dogs happen to be handled by pros, then have we lost track of our goal? To provide a venue for the working class people to train efficiently maybe 2 weekdays and one weekend day, and still prove that their dog is worthy of earning a Master Hunter Title.


More double speak.
I can and do compete against the Pros. The game is working as intended, we are building better hunting dogs. Now because it's sucessful we need a change???????? I ran my first HT in 1987. The game has changed some,but not enough to need to have different flights etc. The Pro should a high pass rate,, aren't they Pros???? What's your intent with this post? By my observation 30-40 % of the MH are run by amateurs. One major reason the pass rate at Master is so high is that a hugh number of them continue to run rather than retire,isn't that a good thing? So what if AKC gets more revenue we get to continue to have fun. Get the feeling OP is just pot stirring.


----------



## Donald Flanagan (Mar 17, 2009)

counciloak said:


> One of my main concerns is the massive number of quality Master Hunters that we see every weekend. When I judge I am usually pretty liberal with call backs. I feel that I know what a Master Hunter should be expected to do. If I wanted the pass rate to come down, it would be easy to do, but the results would not be due to marking, and the tests would NOT be one that I would want to run my own dog on.
> 
> Judges tend to set up tests to challenge the entire field of dogs. If the majority of dogs happen to be handled by pros, then have we lost track of our goal? To provide a venue for the working class people to train efficiently maybe 2 weekdays and one weekend day, and still prove that their dog is worthy of earning a Master Hunter Title.


1. Why is it a "concern" that there are a massive number of quality MH's? Isn't that what we want?
2. Why would you WANT the pass rate to come down? And why would you want to set up what you seem to imply are unfair tests, that you wouldn't want to run with your dog, for the purpose of bringing the pass rate down? This is nonsense.
3. You feel that you know what a MH should be expected to do. Does your idea of what they should be able to do line up with the MH standard according to the rule book? If not, then you need to set aside those opinions while judging AKC Master Hunt Tests, and go by the book.
4. Judges should not be setting up tests to challenge the field of dogs, they should set up tests that (A). test the standards set forth in the books, and (B). test the dogs to see if they possess the traits and training that are desired in a hunting retriever.

I wasn't there at the beginning, so I don't know if this is true or not. It seems to me that by reading the rule book, the purpose of the hunt test is to test the dogs to see if the will be good hunting companions. Plain and simple. It is not a competition- that's what field trials are for. It's not a venue "for the weekend warrior" to find out if his dogs are better than someone else's. The standards define those traits and training that are desirable when HUNTING. Have those standards changed? Do people want something more out of their dogs now than they did 25 years ago? If so, then let's change the standard. If not, then leave it alone. The whole pro vs. amateur argument is irrelevant when the context is Hunt Tests. Don't even bring it up. If you want a competition, the venues are available.

If your dog does the work that day, then you should EXPECT a ribbon. Why is this so hard to understand? Why all this talk of raising the bar in order to reduce the numbers of Master Hunters? If you want to see a low pass rate, come to Southern California. I heard the pass rate at the Master level was abyssimal last year.

People also like to bash on HT judges who run dogs in and judge FT's, saying that they set up "mini field trials". They're setting up tests within the standard, and people are whining. And you want to raise the bar??? I don't think it would be wise.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

RookieTrainer said:


> I am an old basketball player, and I think this is precisely what needs to be done.
> 
> Even so, now that everybody can dunk, do you really get all that excited about just a dunk? Does it take something really spectacular to get you out of your seat and yelling? It does me.


Yes but if you make it to the NBA you're not just average. So if 95% of NBA Players can dunk, that doesn't make them average basketball players in any sense.

Similarly, just because 90% of dogs that enter a MH test get a pass (I know it's not that high, but even if it was) that doesn't say anything about how those dogs stack up to dogs in general, and doesn't mean they're average at all.

In my personal experience most JH dogs are better than 75% of the dogs you see out there that are not entered in tests, (I imagine the other hunt test venues are similar) and a MH titled dog is far far above average.

The hunt test is judged against a standard, and as long as that standard defines what a Master Hunting dog should be able to reliably do, there's no reason at all to change it because dogs and trainers are able to achieve it.


----------



## P J (Dec 10, 2009)

sterregold said:


> And for recent dogs you can always log onto EE and look up the dog's pass record--that at least will give you an idea of how many attempts it took for the dog to title and how consistent they are in their work.


The only problem with doing this is that it doesn't always tell the whole story. You don't know if the dog was trained and handled by a full time pro or an amateur who doesn't have the experience or property to train on.

I think the standard is pretty tough as it is and as an amateur it is a challenge I'm trying hard to meet. I've gotten a little discouraged a couple times, but I won't quit trying. My dog loves it and I'm hoping the training and tests will improve her on the dove fields.


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> So buy a better trainer, or quit. Awesome choices there. Why do you want FEWER people in the game?
> 
> 
> Hi Raegan:
> ...


----------



## goldust (May 12, 2005)

Why are percentages of pass/fail even an issue here. Hunt tests were started for the Average Joe, Amateur to have something fun to do with their dogs in the off season. 

Who cares if we have a 100% pass rate at any given test. This is NOT a competition as others have already stated.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

There are more serious problems. Loss of land to train and run hunt tests. Need new and young people to get into this sport. Increasing costs- gas, entry fees, hotels etc.. This should be your concern. When it is cheaper to send your dog to Master nationals with a pro then you running your dog there is a problem with costs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I think it's humorous that we're assuming the higher pass rate are a result of more dogs being "professionally trained". In my area, we're more likely to have an amateurs pass 2-3 dogs for running 3 dogs, than to a pro pass 3-5 and running 10. Odds wise the amateurs usually do better (1 for 1) just takes more of them to add up to the 10. There are very few "pros" who consistently pass all or even a majority of their dogs, those are the ones you pay attention to


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Hunt'emUp

I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gawthorpe said:


> The erosion of high standards that occur with Master Level Passes support the door magnet trainer and the burnout of new people in our game.


Erik

Are you saying that the standard has diminished over time?
Or are you saying that the standard has not diminished, but for other reasons, needs to be elevated?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Counciloak wrote:



> If the majority of dogs happen to be handled by pros, then have we lost track of our goal? To provide a venue for the working class people to train efficiently maybe 2 weekdays and one weekend day, and still prove that their dog is worthy of earning a Master Hunter Title.


I really don't understand this mentality at all. The working man can train his dog 2 days a week if they are determined to run hunt tests. When has it been different? It could take him longer then a pro but he CAN still do it. Prove otherwise??? Pro's running and qualifying dogs at a master test is not relevant to the ability of a amateur qualifying a dog at a master test. They both are more then capable of doing so.. Again what's the gripe???

Nice post Sterrgold, Wojo and Donald Flanagan.

Angie


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

fishduck said:


> My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard?
> Mark Land


Thank you for this comment. I work full time plus and try to train my own dogs. I am fortunate to have a wonderful trainer and mentor that can do force fetch, T work and swim by for me. I would not be where I am with my dogs if not for him.

I CANNOT train as much as I'd like. I travel 2 - 3 nights a week for work. I have a dog working master right now, one junior/senior and one senior. I don't think the master dog will finish because I can't get the marks in he needs and the water setups because of time and lack of ponds. 

I COULD send him and the others to my trainer/mentor and then just handle him myself, but then what would be the point for me? I ENJOY the training and the bond with my dogs. I have bumper boys and a training group. I have 2 or 3 days a week to train and that's it.

I am fairly frustrated....I wonder if I'll ever get that MH on my own dogs. I seriously ponder the question of if the higher level is out of touch for those of us that have to work to support our hobbies.

Sue Puff


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

suepuff said:


> Thank you for this comment. I work full time plus and try to train my own dogs. I am fortunate to have a wonderful trainer and mentor that can do force fetch, T work and swim by for me. I would not be where I am with my dogs if not for him.
> 
> I CANNOT train as much as I'd like. I travel 2 - 3 nights a week for work. I have a dog working master right now, one junior/senior and one senior. I don't think the master dog will finish because I can't get the marks in he needs and the water setups because of time and lack of ponds.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you are frustrated Sue,,, It's always about "Resources", be it time, money, grounds, help, a better dog etc...

You can do it Sue. You may have to work really, really hard and be patient but you can do it. 

There are individuals who qualify that walk in your shoes every weekend. It may take you several weekends and many years but you will get there.

Be patient with yourself and your dog.

Angie


----------



## Steve Hamel (Mar 1, 2004)

Just a few comments.

MH IS achievable to working amateurs. It's difficult. Especially if you are the type of person who has other hobbies as well.

I've always tried to fulfill my wife's need for "Beach time " kids needs for "Sports" time, WORK, and all the other stuff that gets in the way of training time. It can be done by the working amateur. Just do with a little less sleep ! Haha just kidding.

Steve


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

Ted:
Good question and it also makes me analyze the situation more. 
I think anytime you have a pass ratio of greater than 50% you have made that evaluation "common." I don't think that most of the competitors at the Master Level want to consider their dog common. But unless there are tests that eliminate the average, then the Master Hunt Test Title Certificate hanging on my wall is just "common."


----------



## rookie (Sep 22, 2003)

Mike
When the hunt test program started back in 1985 the first people to judge hunt test were field trial judges! They held high standards and expected MH dogs to mark and do blinds with out too many handles. My first Master test if your dog handled you were bleeding! If you needed to handle again you would not get a pass. As the program progressed more H/T people began to judge and the standards began to slip where two handles would get you through. 
I agree with Ang the TX hunt test are judged to a much higher standard than here in the North East. A dog needing 9 handles to do a 100 yd blind really doesn't belong in a MH test! If they pass it is the Judges that hold that standard! If a dog has to handle on two or more marks it would not be fatal but they have a problem with marking. Here again it depends on the marks and the standards of the people judging!! 
I have dogs running both H/T F/Ts and there is no question your work must be very good if you are invited to the next series. Just my opinion the standards for HT have slipped from the early days. I think the MN did the most harm to the program when they made the 5 out of 7 rule or 8 over all. A lot of good judges found they were no longer wanted because they were bad for business where soft judges had their phones ringing off the hook?
I hear a lot of people saying you can't compete with the pro's! Yes here again they have a problem finding tech water and grounds groomed for training. Still if you look around where you live you can for the most part find what you need. The Amateur has one big advantage as he can do more setups and blinds than a pro can devote to one dog. A good training group can be very successful. Problem for most Amateurs is they do not know what to train or how to do it!
Warren price




Mike Perry said:


> Q's ARE FT's, at least down here in the south. 300 + yard triple marks with retired gunners and long complex blinds are the norm.
> I have a very nice dog with a derby 3rd, in full time FT training with a credible and successful pro who has yet to finish a Q, but has run some upper level HT's and been the best dog there by far. Big jump from the HT to the Q. Believe me, we don't want the FT mentality dripping down to HT's any more than it already has.
> MP


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

The majority of those for raising the standard are field trialers. Just an observation. As it now works the weekend warrior can obtain a MH. It requires hard work, dedication, sacrifice, and a lot of time. Change the standard to a moving target based on percentages and that may no longer be the case.

Mark L.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

rookie said:


> Mike
> When the hunt test program started back in 1985 the first people to judge hunt test were field trial judges! They held high standards and expected MH dogs to mark and do blinds with out too many handles. My first Master test if your dog handled you were bleeding! If you needed to handle again you would not get a pass. As the program progressed more H/T people began to judge and the standards began to slip where two handles would get you through.
> I agree with Ang the TX hunt test are judged to a much higher standard than here in the North East. A dog needing 9 handles to do a 100 yd blind really doesn't belong in a MH test! If they pass it is the Judges that hold that standard! If a dog has to handle on two or more marks it would not be fatal but they have a problem with marking. Here again it depends on the marks and the standards of the people judging!!
> I have dogs running both H/T F/Ts and there is no question your work must be very good if you are invited to the next series. Just my opinion the standards for HT have slipped from the early days. I think the MN did the most harm to the program when they made the 5 out of 7 rule or 8 over all. A lot of good judges found they were no longer wanted because they were bad for business where soft judges had their phones ringing off the hook?
> ...


Did the standards begin to slip or did the HT people bring the standard to where it should be (and not the FT standards some FT judges used back then)?

Kinda condecending, don't ya think?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

fishduck said:


> The majority of those for raising the standard are field trialers.
> Mark L.


I find this statement curious. I don't know of many FT who also run HT.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

rookie said:


> Mike
> When the hunt test program started back in 1985 the first people to judge hunt test were field trial judges! .....
> Warren price


Never knew Richard & Ohmar & Ned were field trial judges.;-)
But they may have been, heck by '85 AKC had already stole NAHRA's rulebook and Ohmar had run off to court ukc. While the first hunt test was put to paper, "I"'s crossed and "T"'s dotted, at an after party of a field trial in Vermont. It is quite a leap to say all the first judges were field trial judges. Some may have been.



.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I find this statement curious. I don't know of many FT who also run HT.


I also find this statement curious. The original poster apparently runs trials. Eric also runs trials not tests. They are certainly entitled to an opinion but as outsiders that opinion is based on % numbers not IMHO an intimate knowledge of the game.

I would suggest the same amount of skepticism of my opinions involving field trials.

Respectfully
Mark Land


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

fishduck said:


> I also find this statement curious. The original poster apparently runs trials. Eric also runs trials not tests. They are certainly entitled to an opinion but as outsiders that opinion is based on % numbers not IMHO an intimate knowledge of the game.
> 
> I would suggest the same amount of skepticism of my opinions involving field trials.
> 
> ...


Two people is a majority?


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

11 pages ok now 12 pages thanks to me about concerns in the master WOW, I have been in this game a while and yes I see a lot of really good dogs out there and yes more titled MHs running every weekend so the pass rate will be higher. but I too have judged my share of Masters and I try to set up challenging tests with my co judge but I also am not afraid to throw in a double (as a well placed double will get answers )if my co judge agrees 
the (Game) is evolving whether we like it or not. My wife and I talk about when we only had the one dog $35 entry fees and traveled around how much fun we had meeting new people who have now become great friends. To now where the 
game is so costly to play with $75 entry fees and travel, it is still enjoyable but not as much fun as it was. As the handler in me I like to see a good challenging test but judged fairly. And as A judge I hope that is what I do for other handlers. 
David Jansma


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

counciloak said:


> ...
> 
> As the percentage of dogs that pass increases, I'm seeing the expectations of earning a ribbon also is increasing.


As a person who has kept and examined the statistics of the AKC hunt test for the last 20 years, I must interject some data and history with regard to pass rate. In 1992 there were 202 hunt tests with a total of 4585 dogs running master. This produced 213 Master Hunter titles (about 4x the number of FC titles). In 2010 there were 388 hunt tests with 15374 dogs running master. This produced 597 Master Hunter titles (about 9x the number of FC titles). So in 18 years, the number of tests have nearly doubled, the number of dogs running has increased 4 fold, and the number of dogs titling has increased ~280%. So the number of dogs titling has actually decreased as a percentage of the dogs running 4.1% vs 3.8% due in large part to the number of titled dogs that are now continuing to run the hunt tests. As was mentioned, in the early 90's there were very few titled dogs entered in the master tests. As the Master National became more attractive, the number of titled dogs running has increased dramatically, and now with the new MNH title over 50% of the entry at most of the local (NorCal) tests are titled dogs. And even more telling, a goodly percentage of the entry are MNH titled dogs. If you stop and consider what it takes in order to earn the MNH title, it shouldn't be surprising that these dogs do consistently well at the weekend tests. 

To get a more accurate view of where the hunt test game has gone, it would be more accurate to compare the pass rate of the non-titled dogs as a percentage to the total of non-titled dogs running. If you do,you will note that the pass rate is pretty consistent to what it was 20 years ago or about 30%.

T.Mac


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> As a person who has kept and examined the statistics of the AKC hunt test for the last 20 years, I must interject some data and history with regard to pass rate. In 1992 there were 202 hunt tests with a total of 4585 dogs running master. This produced 213 Master Hunter titles (about 4x the number of FC titles). In 2010 there were 388 hunt tests with 15374 dogs running master. This produced 597 Master Hunter titles (about 9x the number of FC titles). So in 18 years, the number of tests have nearly doubled, the number of dogs running has increased 4 fold, and the number of dogs titling has increased ~280%. So the number of dogs titling has actually decreased as a percentage of the dogs running 4.1% vs 3.8% due in large part to the number of titled dogs that are now continuing to run the hunt tests. As was mentioned, in the early 90's there were very few titled dogs entered in the master tests. As the Master National became more attractive, the number of titled dogs running has increased dramatically, and now with the new MNH title over 50% of the entry at most of the local (NorCal) tests are titled dogs. And even more telling, a goodly percentage of the entry are MNH titled dogs. If you stop and consider what it takes in order to earn the MNH title, it shouldn't be surprising that these dogs do consistently well at the weekend tests.
> 
> To get a more accurate view of where the hunt test game has gone, it would be more accurate to compare the pass rate of the non-titled dogs as a percentage to the total of non-titled dogs running. If you do,you will note that the pass rate is pretty consistent to what it was 20 years ago or about 30%.
> 
> T.Mac


T.Mac it would also be super if retrieverresults.com added a report feature for Master level pass rates...you can currently review passes per hunt test like entry express, but there doesn't seem to be any reporting feature to gather those total pass stats either weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

frontier said:


> T.Mac it would also be super if retrieverresults.com added a report feature to track pass rate stats at the Master level.


AKC has always provided the raw data. Here is the link to last years if you want to crunch the most recent numbers. Warning, it is a big document that contains a lot of other AKC numbers.\ that you need to weed through to get what you want.

http://images.akc.org/pdf/events/2011AnnualStatistics.pdf

T. Mac


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

Gawthorpe said:


> Ted:
> Good question and it also makes me analyze the situation more.
> I think anytime you have a pass ratio of greater than 50% you have made that evaluation "common." I don't think that most of the competitors at the Master Level want to consider their dog common. But unless there are tests that eliminate the average, then the Master Hunt Test Title Certificate hanging on my wall is just "common."


This post weighs heavily on my mind. I dis agree with that logic. The reason for starting this thread was a concern that one day that may be the case. It is NOT the case now, and after reading other peoples posts, it will not be the case in the future. 

Lassons learned:

1) Don't start such a controversial thread!

2) There is no reason to raise the standard. The step from a Senior Hunter Title to the Master hunter title is already plenty.

3) It is resoundingly clear that a large percentage of Master Hunter dogs passing each weekend is not only a good thing, but also proves that the sport is healthy and thriving. (Many of the dogs are trying to re-qualify for the next Master National)

4) You don't need a pro to train a dog to the Master Hunter level, and it also won't happen unless you get out there and train!

5) The Master Hunter title will continue to be respected


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

counciloak said:


> This post weighs heavily on my mind. I dis agree with that logic. The reason for starting this thread was a concern that one day that may be the case. It is NOT the case now, and after reading other peoples posts, it will not be the case in the future.
> 
> Lassons learned:
> 
> ...



WELL SAID!!!! I will now return to lurking a lot and posting a little.
Mark Land


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> AKC has always provided the raw data. Here is the link to last years if you want to crunch the most recent numbers. Warning, it is a big document that contains a lot of other AKC numbers.\ that you need to weed through to get what you want.
> 
> http://images.akc.org/pdf/events/2011AnnualStatistics.pdf
> 
> T. Mac


I emailed retrieverresults last night.... response stated, "they're on it"...so hopefully we will be able to have easy access to Master Hunt test statistics soon

They have done a great job with reporting the field trial side of things


----------



## Jeff Huntington (Feb 11, 2007)

Didn't read through 12 total pages but is there some consideration with the new NMH title availability that more experienced trainers (amatuers and pros) are running to qualify for Master National compared to past history.


If the composite of handlers has skewed to a more experienced handler and dog (already have MH title) then the pass rate would increase.

Give it to AKC to develop a way to increase cash flow (qualify every year) to obtain the NMH title.


----------



## sterregold (May 27, 2005)

counciloak said:


> This post weighs heavily on my mind. I dis agree with that logic. The reason for starting this thread was a concern that one day that may be the case. It is NOT the case now, and after reading other peoples posts, it will not be the case in the future.
> 
> Lassons learned:
> 
> ...


Agree with everything but #1--this has been a worthwhile discussion!


----------



## sterregold (May 27, 2005)

suepuff said:


> Thank you for this comment. I work full time plus and try to train my own dogs. I am fortunate to have a wonderful trainer and mentor that can do force fetch, T work and swim by for me. I would not be where I am with my dogs if not for him.
> 
> I CANNOT train as much as I'd like. I travel 2 - 3 nights a week for work. I have a dog working master right now, one junior/senior and one senior. I don't think the master dog will finish because I can't get the marks in he needs and the water setups because of time and lack of ponds.
> 
> ...


It is possible if your dogs have the inherent material to work with. Get on Google Earth and scout for ponds--some of the cachement ponds in subdivisions and warehouse areas actually have excellent technical aspects to them that you can use to teach your dogs lots of things! Be deliberate in your training--generate a list of skills and concepts (you can build one from the Lardy stuff etc), make it into a tracking chart, and keep track of what you are sequentially teaching the dog and how they do on it, so you know what to keep working on and when to move on. Make sure your training setups are designed to teach the dog something. Schedule your sessions, and commit to them. Sometimes you need to do a bit of "commando training" too, to fit it in--not an all afternoon group session--just you and your dogs and your launchers when you have a hour to hammer something out.

I teach full time, have commitments with my breed club, show my dogs, have pups on the ground right now, and am a test secretary, but I schedule in that time so that my dogs get their work. Are you going to have a 2yo MH? Not likely. But I managed to have one at 5yo who had also had two litters of pups in there, on whom I did the basics with guidance and mentorship. I have multiple friends who have also managed it (and not just the retired ones who can go south for the winter!) So you CAN do it, but if you give up you will never know!!!


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Jerry Beil said:


> Yes but if you make it to the NBA you're not just average. So if 95% of NBA Players can dunk, that doesn't make them average basketball players in any sense.
> 
> Very true, if compared to the general population. My comments assume that we are comparing NBA players to NBA players, though. To bring it close to home for you, Jerry Stackhouse is still an elite BB player compared to the rest of the world, but surely not compared to his competition in the NBA.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that this whole debate is determined by what you think HT is or should be. If you think it is sort of the last refuge for the amateur trainer, which I myself am trying to rise to the level of being, then I would agree that it shouldn't be changed one iota. And there's nothing wrong with that. I personally think there is much more right about this position than not.

However, I cannot just reject out-of-hand arguments like the one Eric made about pass rates over 50% (if that is true) turning the MH designation into a common one. This still doesn't make sense (and in fact it shoudn't matter, as many have said) if you look at the HT game as described above, but it is at least worth considering going forward. In any event, I wouldn't think any of us want to turn the MH designation into a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

RookieTrainer said:


> It seems to me that this whole debate is determined by what you think HT is or should be. If you think it is sort of the last refuge for the amateur trainer, which I myself am trying to rise to the level of being, then I would agree that it shouldn't be changed one iota. And there's nothing wrong with that. I personally think there is much more right about this position than not.
> 
> However, I cannot just reject out-of-hand arguments like the one Eric made about pass rates over 50% (if that is true) turning the MH designation into a common one. This still doesn't make sense (and in fact it shoudn't matter, as many have said) if you look at the HT game as described above, but it is at least worth considering going forward. In any event, I wouldn't think any of us want to turn the MH designation into a distinction without a difference.


So I guess I'm not sure how you would determine the pool we're considering when determining what is elite vs. common. You can't use the pool of all dogs entered in a MH test because that's going to be pretty much limited to dogs that the owner/trainer thinks can pass. If you want some kind of elite classification above MH, then I think it already exists in several forms - Master National, FT etc.

If you want to add some kind of elite designation, it could be an attachment to the MH to indicate that the dog passed on it's first 6 entries with an average score of 9 or higher. But then the unavoidable subjectivity of judges would have an ever greater impact.


----------



## rookie (Sep 22, 2003)

Thomas
F/T judges were to only pool of AKC judges available when the H/T program first started! As far as the standards go it is the standard of the people judging on that day! Do I think the standards have slipped! Oh yes I do and for the most part it is the fault of the MN and the 5 out of seven rule voted in at the California MN! People avoided the Judges that held high standards and the clubs suffered because of lack of entries and $$$$. 
" Kinda condescending, don't ya think"

I'm surprised at your comment! If you know the history of the the H/T program you would also know the standards have slipped. No I don't think the standards are where they should be, but I know many will disagree! Easy is always better Right! Mediocre is good enough Right! I paid my entry I deserve a Rosette Right! Just my humble opinion but I believe that every time you run a H/T or F/T you are showing everyone there what your standards are. If you accept mediocre as your standard do you expect the judges to accept the same?

I train most every day because I expect my dog to do well. That said we all know some days our charges will be just dogs! Rather than except that I will pick my dog up. I hold a high standard for my dogs that's why I train almost every day. If they are not good enough I don't run them or find a good hunting owner for them.

The MN is in trouble right now with the high number of entries. it will not be long before the MN will have a hard time finding grounds and accommodations for all the people as well as workers. Just my thoughts but I think the AKC will soon come out with a new program "Master Hunter Excellent" and that will be the level for the MN! If not then there will be two master Nationals because of the number of entries.

Warren Price




Thomas D said:


> Did the standards begin to slip or did the HT people bring the standard to where it should be (and not the FT standards some FT judges used back then)?
> 
> Kinda condecending, don't ya think?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

rookie said:


> Thomas
> F/T judges were to only pool of AKC judges available when the H/T program first started! As far as the standards go it is the standard of the people judging on that day! Do I think the standards have slipped! Oh yes I do and for the most part it is the fault of the MN and the 5 out of seven rule voted in at the California MN! People avoided the Judges that held high standards and the clubs suffered because of lack of entries and $$$$.
> " Kinda condescending, don't ya think"
> 
> ...


You're a lot older than I am, so you obviously have intimate knowledge of the early days.

My condecenting remark was directed at the following comment you made about ams.
"Problem for most Amateurs is they do not know what to train or how to do it!"

Many of us have been in that position at one time or another in our lives.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Gawthorpe said:


> The erosion of high standards that occur with Master Level Passes support the door magnet trainer and the burnout of new people in our game.


Door magnet trainer--I love that one and know several to whom it applies. I am going to have to use it.


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

I would love to see where or how you compiled your data. Is this data you personally collected and put together in a spread sheet or is it available on line from another source. 

If such data does exist I suppose we could sort by region, judges, pros, etc...

Regardless of the pass rate, I believe we should see a higher pass rate due to the evaluation of our dogs and training techniques. 

Hunt tests are judged on standards, if the dog and handler does what is expected then they earn a pass. 

In regards to whistles, I have personally spoke to several(hunt test) judges and they're reply has been pretty unanimous, "if a whistle is blown and the dog takes the cast they don't care how many whistles it takes". In fact several judges have told me they prefer to see a few whistles as opposed to lining the blind.


----------



## WhisperingHills (Mar 29, 2012)

counciloak said:


> Note: ... Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!
> 
> My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.


Some judges are more strict about challenging a blind than others, and would prefer more whistles if the result is a true line. There is no maximum number of whistles on a blind - only that the dog responds/complies with all the commands. 10-15 whistles on a 100-yard blind probably means the dog had a number of refusals - but that's for the judges to decide. 

Multiple whistles to maintain a diffucult line shows much better training and handling work than a big arc or a hunt while the handler stands quietly watching...


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

This thread has taken a turn for "whose is the mostest right or who is the rightest" .
At one time the males of the retriever world dominated the game. The bitches were not campaigned, much and they were used mainly for brood. Then more bitches started to be campaigned and offered a quality gene pool of proven genes , quality talent, titles for a variety of reasons. Could it be in the hunt test game and the field trial game the dogs are just better? Could it be the Hunt Test game has developed into a venue of itself devoid of field trial influence? Also, how many posters have owned and/or trained, campaigned a titled field champion or amateur field champion and have owned and/or trained campaigned a Master Hunt Test dog and/or Master National HT dog or been a finalist owned/trained a National Open finalist or a National Amateur finalist? One can speculate, think tank it, or been in the trenches doing it, but, if you haven't experienced it in the trenches both ways well it is speculation isn't it ? fun thread though. Stats are just another calculator!
Also, the above pertains to those who judge all or some of the aforementioned too, being in the trenches.


----------



## WhisperingHills (Mar 29, 2012)

Gawthorpe said:


> Here is why the standard for passing needs to be raised for all hunt tests.
> 
> Unless you raise the standard for passing you will be endorsing the low performing dog, who is trained by the low performing trainer or handler. I have seen MANY dogs entered in senior and master who were not to the standard. Why? Because their hunt test trainer needed the handling fee.
> 
> ...


Gotta' challenge this one...

True, at any test you'll see dogs that aren't ready to be there. But there are reasons for that and they aren't about trying to rip-off a client for a handling fee. The dogs that aren't ready are typically trained and handled by owners that aren't ready. Rarely - RARELY will a pro run a dog that he isn't confident in. _Maybe_ if the dog is unknown to him - someone asked him to run their dog. He would only get away with it a few times before his clients were gone. It would be business suicide to charge an owner a handling fee to run a dog that the pro _knew_ would perform poorly or marginally - especially if he were the dog's trainer. Pros live and die by their reputation. If you don't believe it, look at how few manage to stay in business over the long haul, and how even fewer make a decent living. Pros know they are being watched constantly and judged by the gallery every time they take a dog to the line.

Next time you watch the field, pick out a dog that in your opinion shouldn't be there. Then check to see if a pro is handling that dog, and if that pro is the dog's trainer. If what you're saying is true, then watch how fast that trainer disappears from the game.

Your 2nd paragraph ("Why does this hurt the owner...") is just -- speculation. How do you know that to be true? Have you done it yourself?

As is argued throughout this thread, raising the standard will hurt the ameteurs - not the pro. It might result in fewer MH titles, but an even greater majority will be pro trained and handled, very few will come from owner/trainers.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Since when is anyone "Competing" against anything when running Hunt Test??????????????????????
Last time I looked you were completeing the requirements set up that day by a set of judges.
The Hunt Test Program HAS gotten better over the yrs. Better breedings, better training etc........
And to the average Joe/Josephine you still can train your puppy any number of days a week and still make a Master Hunter if that is what you want. There "IS" no time restraint on getting your Master Hunter title.
If 50 dogs enter my Master and you all do the work then you all get ribbons. So what.
And if my blind is a ball buster and it takes you 300 whistles to get there but your puppy is on line and making progress toward my blind so be it.
This is NOT a competition sport.
If you want competition enter a licensed trial.
1 Winner lots of quality competition. Pros. and non-pros.
Sue


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue Kiefer said:


> Since when is anyone "Competing" against anything when running Hunt Test??????????????????????
> Last time I looked you were completeing the requirements set up that day by a set of judges.
> The Hunt Test Program HAS gotten better over the yrs. Better breedings, better training etc........
> And to the average Joe/Josephine you still can train your puppy any number of days a week and still make a Master Hunter if that is what you want. There "IS" no time restraint on getting your Master Hunter title.
> ...




Sue, I see your comment about 300 whistles on a blind ...This is just one area where I believe we see the judges difference in acceptable work for a MH, the so called standard or level of performance expected by each one...Until we get all judges on the same page of acceptable behavior there will be issues of performance...It is not just the sit and turn but also the results of that command that must be weighed too..Would you consider that kind of performance to be pleasing to the eye?....Steve S


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

I started this thread, but wouldn't mind seeing it euthanized! 

Several people are wondering who I am so here is the short story. I bought my first Lab in 1992. After failing my first 10 consecutive Master tests, I finally got it together and passed my first MN in 1998. I bred that dog to Chavez in Alaska when Len Ferucci still had him on Chavez's 2nd birthday. I kept a puppy and she made a Master Hunter too. All together I passed 3 of the 4 MNs that I entered. My good friend and training partner since the beginning was making a Field Champion while I stayed in Hunt Tests. After his dog titled, he gave him to me, and I ran him in some trials and in a Master National. In 2003 I had 3 retired dogs around the house. I judges some, but didn't have any competitive dogs to run until 2008 when the old dogs died off and I bought a new puppy. My goal was to get a bunch of derby points, then go back to Hunt Tests. We got the bunch of Derby points, but I realized that her success was not without a huge commitment of my training partner, so I decided to co-own her with him. He being more dog savvy and a better handler, he started to handle her in Amateurs while she was still able to run Derbys. One weekend we left Oklahoma to run a Derby in Kentucky on Friday, where we placed 3rd, then headed to Nebraska where she won the Derby and placed 4th in the Amateur on Sat. and Sun. She's 3 and a half years old now and needs one point to qualify for each national

I'm single, my friend has a family, we both have separate rent houses that we help each other with. We both work 40 hours per week. We train almost every day all year round. A few times each winter we drive 10 hours to way south Texas to train in warm water. We leave Friday and are back to work on Monday. 20 hours of driving for 20 marks for 3 dogs.

I wouldn't expect any working class person do what we do to entertain a dog, but to each his own

Now it's time to start a new thread!

Joe O'Brien


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

That's one sweet dog you have Joe!! I've had the pleasure of seeing her run more then a few times...

Angie


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Let me throw this in for discussion. The original intent as I understand it was to give the give a non-competitive venue to an owner to evaluate the proficiency of his dog's training. I know I participate mainly because I enjoy having a well trained and conditioned dog to go hunting with. Hunting with a well trained dog in the field requires teamwork between the hunter and the dog. 

While I would not take a position to exclude pro from training HT dogs, I think that having a pro handle a dog through all the legs up to a MH level is counterproductive to the goal of having a good hunter/dog team. In the World of Worlds, I would like to see three of the legs for MH handled by the majority owner of the dog.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

While Steve I understand your concerns about my judging a "300 whistle Blind"?
My whole comments were pointed out to the *NON-COMPETITIVE* aspect of Hunt Tests.
Would I personally sit and watch a poor guy struggle to get his puppy to a blind that takes him 300+ whistles and 20 min. 
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But I do thing that that would be under the *"Common Sense"* aspect of judging.
I don't count whistles. I do count cast refusals and whistle refusals
Sue


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Sue Kiefer said:


> While Steve I understand your concerns about my judging a "300 whistle Blind"?
> My whole comments were pointed out to the *NON-COMPETITIVE* aspect of Hunt Tests.
> Would I personally sit and watch a poor guy struggle to get his puppy to a blind that takes him 300+ whistles and 20 min.
> No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


Sue, wasn't pointing a finger at you at all...I do believe there are some judges that will except just about any level of work as long as the dog brings back the bird though...because that is what a hunting dog does...
Steve S


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> For what it's worth:
> I just saw some figures that show in 1994, 47% of the dogs entered in the Master stake received a qualifying score. So that leads me to believe that there were some 30% pass rates and maybe some 60% pass rates.



Tom,

Back in '04 I went through AKC's event history and captured the data for an entire years worth of test, nationwide. At that time the national average pass rate for the master test was 42% (range 11% - 96%) . 44% of those passing already had their MH title. (If anyone is really interested, I can give the URL for the Excell workbook of the data)

T. Mac


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

As an outsider looking in, I think that this thread raises a number of interesting questions. However, like many threads, it has diverted in a number of different directions from what the original poster intended.

I started in hunt tests many years ago (1985?), and was one of the founders of the Platte Valley Hunting Retriever Club, which I understand is well and thriving. In 1999, I began competing in Field Trials, and have not been to a hunt test in many years.

After reading the many posts on this thread, my questions - as an outsider looking in - are:

1.	Do people believe that judges are judging to the standard? Or do they think that judges, overall, have gotten more lax or stringent in their judging?
2.	Are passing rates increasing or decreasing? What is the reason for the change? Judging? The quality of the dog performance? 
3.	Should the standard be changed? If so, why?
4.	What is the role in the Master National in all of this?

As a general principle, I think that Hunt Tests should be judged to a standard. Otherwise, they become a variant of Field Trials. To me, the characteristic of Hunt Tests that make them unique is that they are judged to a standard, and that there is no need to find a winner. I would hate to see that go by the wayside. There needs to be a place for the person, who is not interested in competition, to participate and belong, and to measure the competency of his/her animal against an objective standard. 

However, I think it is very difficult for each of us to set aside the competitive aspect of human nature. So, people want to brag about their dog being the youngest to earn the ___ title, the one with the most ___ passes, Master National passes, the first dog in this or that breed to ___etc. etc. I think it is that competitive aspect that leads people to want more exclusivity for ___, so that ___ means more. I don’t know how you resolve that quandry.

When it is all said and done, I think we all need to remember that whatever venue we select as the one that we pursue - be that hunting, hunt tests, field trials, agility, tracking, obedience, or a combination of the above - that the vast majority of us participate because we love dogs; that the dogs thrive on working with us; and that a trained animal is a wonderful thing.

I really dislike it when someone wants to promote one venue, or one breed, or one whatever, over another. When it comes down to it, much of these debates are about taste. Who am I to tell you that you must prefer chocolate ice cream over strawberry? 

Finally, a word about Joe O’Brien. I first met Joe over ten years ago. Over the years, I have found Joe to be a generous and kind soul, who has always pitched in, even though he may not have had a dog to run himself. I have always appreciated the friendship that Joe shares with James Roberts. I admire the work that both men have put into Dance Hall Girl and the results of their efforts. Knowing Joe as I do, I am certain that he did not mean to demean or denigrate anyone with his starting post.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Ted,

Excellent post. Look fwd to meeting you some day.

Bob Swift


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Good question Joe but I suspect we all know the answer.

It comes back to human nature, I believe.

The successful will either like the standard where it is or want it raised to just below the relative ability of their dogs, while the unsuccessful will want it relaxed a bit.

People just want to feel good about what they are doing and they feel good by passing consistently, for the most part.

This would be the chief reason why people pick their judges on any given weekend instead of just showing up and running whatever is thrown at them.

It would also account for most of the bitching you hear in the gallery.

I know some who would say "it was a damned hard test and we failed, but it was fair", but those are fewer and further between than I would like.

For any of those reading my response, it does not refer to you.


----------



## RockyDog (Nov 18, 2008)

zeus3925 said:


> Let me throw this in for discussion. The original intent as I understand it was to give the give a non-competitive venue to an owner to evaluate the proficiency of his dog's training. I know I participate mainly because I enjoy having a well trained and conditioned dog to go hunting with. Hunting with a well trained dog in the field requires teamwork between the hunter and the dog.
> 
> While I would not take a position to exclude pro from training HT dogs, I think that having a pro handle a dog through all the legs up to a MH level is counterproductive to the goal of having a good hunter/dog team. In the World of Worlds, I would like to see three of the legs for MH handled by the majority owner of the dog.


I agree with you, but I'd advocate taking it a step further and making it an amateur only event. I don't care who trains the dog, but I'd like to see the owners step up and run their dogs at all levels of hunt tests.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> While I would not take a position to exclude pro from training HT dogs, I think that having a pro handle a dog through all the legs up to a MH level is counterproductive to the goal of having a good hunter/dog team. In the World of Worlds, I would like to see three of the legs for MH handled by the majority owner of the dog.


If it's supposed to be a venue for Amatuers, then amateurs should be required to handle at least 1 or 2 legs. I believe this was considered a few years ago and then voted down. Raising the bar will only favor the pro run dogs. I don't see any reason why the owners aren't required to run the dog for the title and qualifying for the MN. You can't have it both ways. That or separate the pros from the amateurs for the MN.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Seems to me something similar was brought up at the MN meeting as it would relate to the MN qualifications. It was voted down.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> If a greater percentage of pro trained dogs failed tests (due to being amateur handled in tests), wouldn't you then speculate that over time there would be fewer pros interested in training hunt test dogs? From the pro's perspective, there is no definate way to demonstrate that the dog is truly prepared for a test other than to run him in the test.
> 
> Some owners don't have the "personal tools" to ever be good handlers or good trainers. A pro could do an excellent job of training, and still watch that dog fail repeatedly due to poor handling. Then of course, many owners would blame the trainer for not doing an adequate job with the dog. Eventually, pros might want nothing to do with hunt test training, resulting in fewer well trained dogs, titles with diminished value, hunters with a lower level of training...... The whole concept is self-defeating.


The concept of an owner running his own dog is self-defeating? I don't think so. Owners know that it's not the pros fault they aren't as good at handling-they have to work at being good handlers. You get out there and learn to do it. First of all, the pros aren't going away, at least not the good ones. They have to become teaching pros-no different than the FT pros.


----------



## dgreenwell (Apr 16, 2010)

This is a game just like any other. The rules are the rules. Some judges interpret them different than others. If a judge tells you to "challenge" the blind or strongly encourages you to hit a pot of water or split two trees, you have to do what you got to do...that may take ten whistles. Sometimes you have to play a hook others a slice. 

I am an amateur handler, and I like running with the pros...I learn a lot from watching and interacting with them. 

I have two of those MH that are qualifying with 7.0s. The way i see it ...what do you call a doctor that made C's in school...Doctor.


----------



## Prairie Hill's (Sep 23, 2007)

counciloak said:


> This post weighs heavily on my mind. I dis agree with that logic. The reason for starting this thread was a concern that one day that may be the case. It is NOT the case now, and after reading other peoples posts, it will not be the case in the future.
> 
> Lassons learned:
> 
> ...


You're a Good Man my friend....


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

WhisperingHills said:


> To your question; If the logic behind requiring amateurs to run the tests instead of pros is to compel them to become better handlers, then in my opinion, _yes_, that would be a self-defeating requirement.
> 
> To your statement; Some owners know it isn't the pro's fault, *some*. But there are plenty who don't. If they were able to identify the differences between the way they handle a dog versus the way a pro handles a dog, they would quickly be just as good as the pro. *When you say people know it isn't the pro's fault - you're just speculating - I can tell you first hand, that's not true.
> *
> ...


 Really, you can tell I'm speculating? Well, I ran my and my dogs first Open when my pro said the dog would run better for me, than her, with me around, and off she went. You learn when you make mistakes. I am always learning and studying handling, and who is talking about clients becoming experts? I don't think you have to be an expert handler to run a Master. I'm not talking about eliminating pros, I'm just saying the owner should be able to run a leg or two. I can tell you I think I have a little more experience than you do after viewing your record on Entry Express. According to your website you are a pro, correct?


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

fishnfetch said:


> Here in the northeast the game became about the professional trainers and their egos and not really about the dogs.



Care to comment some more on that? I haven't found that at all.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

dixidawg said:


> Care to comment some more on that? I haven't found that at all.


I've found it very prevalent in our sport. Not just in the northeast,,,

Angie


----------



## Jim Spagna (Apr 21, 2008)

counciloak said:


> Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.
> 
> I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!
> 
> My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.


The important part is that the dog/handler team is held to a Master Hunter *"standard"*. If the level of accomplishment of dogs is increasing, in general, then the pass rate should increase as well. A dog that achieves a MH title in 2012 should meet the same standard as the on who was titled in 2002...and the one who will be titled in 2022. If 100% are passing, so be it. Don't raise the standard to achieve a lower % rate. If you want the dogs to meet a higher standard, create another title which requires a higher standard.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

The Standard was just changed this year. The minimum requirements for a Master were changed from a tripple and two doubles to 2 tripples and 1 double with an added component. The standard for the Walk up was changed as well. The "free" handle in Junior was also removed. 
So now the minimum test is a bit harder.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

However, I suspect most of us posting in this thread have not seen Master tests comprised of "2 doubles and a triple" often, if ever.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Good article in the latest Retriever News about the future of hunt tests. While I don't agree with everything the author writes, he does make some excellent points.


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Good article in the latest Retriever News about the future of hunt tests. While I don't agree with everything the author writes, he does make some excellent points.


How do I find that artical?


----------



## captain2560 (Jan 23, 2007)

I have very limited experience with hunt tests, but my concerns are as follows. Why are holding blinds for gunners not brushed and wrapped so the dog does not recognize them as a throwing station? In the few tests i have run, why is more thought not given to bird placement and more thought not given to the dogs position relative to each other on honor stations? I was dissapointed with the holding blind situation as a dog that has any experience can recognize an unbrushed blind as a throwing station. Why just not have the guy standing out there like in a field trial?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I guess subscribe to Retriever News or maybe you know someone who does.


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

GulfCoast said:


> However, I suspect most of us posting in this thread have not seen Master tests comprised of "2 doubles and a triple" often, if ever.


I have ran a triple and 2 doubles and it was the hardest test I have ran and failed. About 60 dogs entered and 18 passed. 
About 20 dropped on the triple double blind and honor in the first and another 20 dropped on the water blind in the second before they even ran the first double. 

I just loved the test with hen phesants in March.


----------



## Dan Boerboon (May 30, 2009)

Very simple answer to why there are more passing - the economy. If a handler is not very sure their dog will pass they don't enter. Those with a little more expendable cash and a desire to run a maybe dog on a week end can and do. Those the economy has hit harder wait until they are confident. But still a dog is a dog and anything can happen on any given week end.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

counciloak said:


> I started this thread, but wouldn't mind seeing it euthanized!
> 
> Several people are wondering who I am so here is the short story. I bought my first Lab in 1992. After failing my first 10 consecutive Master tests, I finally got it together and passed my first MN in 1998. I bred that dog to Chavez in Alaska when Len Ferucci still had him on Chavez's 2nd birthday. I kept a puppy and she made a Master Hunter too. All together I passed 3 of the 4 MNs that I entered. My good friend and training partner since the beginning was making a Field Champion while I stayed in Hunt Tests. After his dog titled, he gave him to me, and I ran him in some trials and in a Master National. In 2003 I had 3 retired dogs around the house. I judges some, but didn't have any competitive dogs to run until 2008 when the old dogs died off and I bought a new puppy. My goal was to get a bunch of derby points, then go back to Hunt Tests. We got the bunch of Derby points, but I realized that her success was not without a huge commitment of my training partner, so I decided to co-own her with him. He being more dog savvy and a better handler, he started to handle her in Amateurs while she was still able to run Derbys. One weekend we left Oklahoma to run a Derby in Kentucky on Friday, where we placed 3rd, then headed to Nebraska where she won the Derby and placed 4th in the Amateur on Sat. and Sun. She's 3 and a half years old now and needs one point to qualify for each national
> 
> ...


Great post, I admire your dedication and your level headedness. When this thread could have headed south, you stayed rational, reasonable and open minded.

John


----------

