# hunt test vs field trial



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Can someone explain the difference in the two for me? Do people run both? I got my pup for hunting but would like to start dabbling into the tests a bit when we get a little further along and have no clue which I should get into. Are hunt tests more basic and more geared to hunting scenarios? Thanks for any help guys.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

The basic difference is Field Trials are dog against dog. Hunt test is dog against standard. In a HT everyone can complete the test and get a qualifying score (this rarely happens but can). In FT there is only one really happy winner and most of the time 3 other happy placers per stake.
My advice is dont dabble in either its worse then crack as for being addictive. That said have fun and i'll see you at the line.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Hunt test is for the most part a lot less difficult and you compete against a standard. (You either pass of fail). They tend to have more emphasis on control of the dog at the line and less emphasis on extreme marking concepts. They have various levels (junior, serior & master for AKC & started, seasoned & finished for HRC).

Field trials compete for placements against other dogs (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, reserve JAM, and JAMs). A lot more technical and longer marks and blinds. Different stakes are derby (under 2 years old. Usually big technical doubles), qualifying (any age, but a lessor stake than all-age stakes), amateur all-age (amateur handlers only, triples and or quads for marks and big blinds) and open all-age (open to pros and amateurs triples and or quads for marks and big blinds)

You can do both. Some but not a lot do hunt test and all-age stakes. More do hunt test and qualifying stakes.

Hunt test are more geared towards hunting. They try, but for obvious reasons are not like the real thing.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Another major difference is that in HTs, distance of the retrieve is limited by the rules (I think 125-150 yds max). In FTs there are no such limitations and distances have become ridiculous in some set-ups (600yds+). Also the number of entered dogs in a stake is also not limited in FTs versus 60 in AKC HTs and 30 in HRC (I think).


----------



## Brian Skibicki (Feb 23, 2008)

Hunt tests are judged to a standard and are essentially geared towards identifying and training towards providing a superior hunting companion. Field trials are judged to identify the best dog in the field on that particular day, and as such typically have scenarios which are used to identify particular trained responses, or physical stamina to complete the tasks.


----------



## Lenore (Apr 2, 2010)

All of those things already said, but I feel that the big difference is mainly distance and difficulty. Yes, people can run both, that is my plan. The HT's that I have attended have been fun and as already stated, _very addicting_. I can't wait for the first HT here. But the most important point to make is to HAVE FUN!!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> Another major difference is that in HTs, distance of the retrieve is limited by the rules (I think 125-150 yds max). In FTs there are no such limitations and distances have become ridiculous in some set-ups (600yds+). Also the number of entered dogs in a stake is also not limited in FTs versus 60 in AKC HTs and 30 in HRC (I think).


AKC HT distances for marks/blinds is 100 yds, though you will see longer sometimes. There is no limit for AKC HT entry numbers, there is a "breaking point" where more flights have to be added per number of entries.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Rainmaker said:


> AKC HT distances for marks/blinds is 100 yds, though you will see longer sometimes. There is no limit for AKC HT entry numbers, there is a "breaking point" where more flights have to be added per number of entries.


60 per flt is the limit as I understand it in AKC HTs. An entrant will not run where more than 60 dogs are entered in a particular flt & seeing a particular set of tests under a specified set of judges. The fact that an unlimited number of dogs may enter a particular HT is not really relevant when you won't see more than 60 in your flt. And distances are routinely over 100 yds in the AKC HTs I've seen or been a part of (as few as they may be), notwithstanding the rules with MN & Grand rules even allowing for longer distances I believe.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

When I saw this thread title, I thought, oh oh. We'll see how this plays out.

Remember, it's all just dogs picking stuff up.;-)


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Interesting responses. 

Summary: hunt tests have limited distances & are non-competitive.
Do you think this is what the founders of the “hunt test movement” had in mind when they formulated the concept in the early 80’s?

If not, what was/is the purpose of a hunt test?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Dave Flint said:


> Interesting responses.
> 
> Summary: hunt tests have limited distances & are non-competitive.
> Do you think this is what the founders of the “hunt test movement” had in mind when they formulated the concept in the early 80’s?
> ...


In general, I think this is what the early supporters of HTs had in mind. I'd add that even HTs today don't always simulate an "ordinary day's hunt" but are much closer to that goal than FTs (adding more decoys and judges and handlers blowing duck calls a little more would help). I could do without the silence required by AKC even though my hunting companion is sitting at heal right next to me. In my ordinary day's shoot I am communicating softly & quietly with my hunting companion to "watch", to "sit" if necessary to control his enthusiam, etc and I guess I do prefer the handler "handling" a gun that is shooting poppers to simulate the "ordinary day's hunt". Before someone says well then run HRC events, I have and enjoy them - just wish HRC would add a little distance to their marks. I enjoy AKC HTs too but have little time for either while I attempt to run AKC FTs. Both orgs are close to an ordinary day's hunt in some aspects. AKC seems to put a premium on un-aided steadiness while HRC seems to emphasize the handler and the dog as a team, but limiting distance a little more on the retrieves.

Maybe it's just my shooting but most everyday's duck hunt for me includes both marks (following a strong cripple) and blinds in the 150-200 yd range. I'd like to see that in the HTs at times esp for a blind retrieve, maybe even a long memory bird. JMO...


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> Maybe it's just my shooting but most everyday's duck hunt for me includes both marks (following a strong cripple) and blinds in the 150-200 yd range. I'd like to see that in the HTs at times esp for a blind retrieve, maybe even a long memory bird. JMO...


Agree 100%


----------



## Colin_Aldrich (Jun 30, 2009)

claimsadj said:


> Can someone explain the difference in the two for me? Do people run both? I got my pup for hunting but would like to start dabbling into the tests a bit when we get a little further along and have no clue which I should get into. Are hunt tests more basic and more geared to hunting scenarios? Thanks for any help guys.




Thier is no such thing as dabbling. Once you start you will be addicted. 

Good Luck


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

HT are for the rich, soon to be broke.

FT are for the really rich, soon to be broke.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Judging is for the continually broke.


----------



## Dan Hurst (Nov 30, 2007)

NFL vs. HS


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

I have found that either HT's or FT's are fun and a great way to spend time with the dog. You may find success quicker in the HT's. Look for your local retriever clubs and spend some time training with the folks to see if you enjoy either. Both are addictive when you see the well trained dogs work. No doubt that a dogs at a senior hunter level or higher may impress your friends in a duck blind.


----------



## Terry Britton (Jul 3, 2003)

DMA said:


> I have found that either HT's or FT's are fun and a great way to spend time with the dog. You may find success quicker in the HT's. Look for your local retriever clubs and spend some time training with the folks to see if you enjoy either. Both are addictive when you see the well trained dogs work. No doubt that a dogs at a senior hunter level or higher may impress your friends in a duck blind.


A trained dog will get you a lot more invites for pheasant and duck hunting. For pheasants, it really helps in finding more birds, and reducing the lost birds to nill for a large group.


----------



## swampcollielover (Nov 30, 2012)

For those of us that do Hunt Tests, for me anyway, it is all about getting ready to be a great hunting companion. Where with Field Trials, what bird hunter, needs a dog that can mark a bird out 250-300 yds?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> Interesting responses.
> 
> Summary: hunt tests have limited distances & are non-competitive.
> Do you think this is what the founders of the “hunt test movement” had in mind when they formulated the concept in the early 80’s?
> ...



Nope. AKC HT'S today look nothing like the HT's in the 80's when the venue was created. In the beginning, the dogs were evaluated much differently on scenarios that were much more like hunting. In fact the dogs were tested for some abilities that have since been deleted from the evaluation forms altogether.

Were they better then or now? Depends on who you ask......-Paul


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Justin Allen said:


> Can someone explain the difference in the two for me? Do people run both? I got my pup for hunting but would like to start dabbling into the tests a bit when we get a little further along and have no clue which I should get into. Are hunt tests more basic and more geared to hunting scenarios? Thanks for any help guys.


Justin, I think you swallowed the hook!!!!!!! What did you do with your time & money prior to your retriever addiction?


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

paul young said:


> Nope. AKC HT'S today look nothing like the HT's in the 80's when the venue was created. In the beginning, the dogs were evaluated much differently on scenarios that were much more like hunting. In fact the dogs were tested for some abilities that have since been deleted from the evaluation forms altogether.
> 
> Were they better then or now? Depends on who you ask......-Paul


Like tracking, flushing and the judges carried a gun on the walk-ups. A rod and reel was sometimes used to do a drag. Sometimes multiple honors with several dogs on line. Then then they started to become watered down field trials for a time. There was a period where lots of folks passed. It has evolved into what it is today..In my opinion , like the extreme of a field trial being a days hunt LOL, AKC hunt tests don't really look too much like a days hunt, wooden guns and all. It has evolved into a sport by itself at the Master level with high standards of training and good dogs, the "slop", like field trials, has been taken out for the most part and many dogs are pro-trained. I think it is for the better,but, it is a "sport" pass/fail or not. I usually run, like golf, to beat the numbers for my own satisfaction. I have titled a couple of HRCH dogs and it is much closer to hunting and a lot of fun too. Field trials are field trials, in general have not changed in terms of the principal and the goals over the years. They are just hard and harder now LOL.


----------



## trog (Apr 25, 2004)

First I have been involved in field trials for over 45 years. Second I was all for hunt tests and still am and have seen, in Wisconsin, how hunt tests have allowed clubs to buy property and have grounds for training and holding events. Third, and have at me, I believe that it takes much more training and a much more talented dog to compete in field trials. Yes I have seen some dogs successfully make the cross over from hunt tests to field trials. Yes I support the hunt test game. Just saying that to compete in field trials is much more advanced than hunt tests both in training and in natural ability of the dogs. These are both games and should not be equated to hunting but a well trained dog comes from hunt tests and field trials. Yes I hunt my dogs and have guided pheasant hunters for 18 years during which time 2 field champions would guide in the off season. So enjoy what ever venue you choose. As i write this my three labradors are laying by me. They are highly bred "Field trial dogs" and full time house dogs during the winter and training offseason.
trog


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

100 yds JH/SH
150 yds MH


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

swampcollielover said:


> For those of us that do Hunt Tests, for me anyway, it is all about getting ready to be a great hunting companion. Where with Field Trials, what bird hunter, needs a dog that can mark a bird out 250-300 yds?


It's unusual but over the last two weeks my dog "marked" three different birds that we're hit, then flew quite a ways before crashing down. One bird fell across water and landed in some cat tails about 175 yards, the other two were close to 300 yards. My dog retrieved all three without a handle. I'm sure FT training came in handy there.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

John Robinson said:


> It's unusual but over the last two weeks my dog "marked" three different birds that we're hit, then flew quite a ways before crashing down. One bird fell across water and landed in some cat tails about 175 yards, the other two were close to 300 yards. My dog retrieved all three without a handle. I'm sure FT training came in handy there.


Surely a Golden didn't do that on water marks, John!!! Just kidding as you know! 

Your comment caused me to reflect on field trial and hunt test dogs as a duck dog or gun dog. Your point is that field trial dogs can do an extraordinary day's hunt not just an ordinary day's hunt and sometimes that IS required. Of course many of the great hunt test dogs can do that too because their trainers trained that way. The exceptional retrieves on a cripple in the cattails or across the lake are for me the real value of a gun dog. Dead birds in the decoys are routine for a dog and for me to pick up without a dog. 

I'll bet you remember those three retrieves for the rest of your life. How many 40 yard dead duck retrieves from last year can you remember? Personally, I expect 100% on the routine retrieves on duck hunts. Sometimes hunt tests only test for routine retrieves but add wrinkles and confusion or diversions for difficulty. This doesn't necessarily make a better gun dog Of course, nor does a huge inline triple in field trials.

Blinds with diversions are a key skill in much duck hunting and both venues do a good job at that. Both fail at another critical skill of tracking cripples. However, I have found that my best field trial dogs that have developed great persistence in hunts pick this skill up remarkably easily. I believe superior field trial marking dogs have superior noses in the vast majority of cases. Scent discrimination!!! Field trial dogs are better tested at dealing with factors, many of which do not kick in until after 100 yards. Unfortunately some field trial dogs are noisy in the blind or a little too high energy in canoes and such for some. 

My final comment is that many hunt test dogs are as talented as many field trial dogs but their training and requirements limits what they can do.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

What an old thread. I will say this related to a previous post, I hunted with a group of my friends in Arkansas recently. We killed 38 this particular day, had a big wind at our backs. 2 specks were retrieved at well over 300 and at least a half dozed ducks well over 200 yards, a combination of marks and blinds. Thank goodness juice was with us. We never slave river a single bird.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Justin Allen said:


> What an old thread. I will say this related to a previous post, I hunted with a group of my friends in Arkansas recently. We killed 38 this particular day, had a big wind at our backs. 2 specks were retrieved at well over 300 and at least a half dozed ducks well over 200 yards, a combination of marks and blinds. Thank goodness juice was with us. We never slave river a single bird.


So what would your answer be to your original question today 4 years later?


----------



## zeekster (Jun 15, 2009)

I've run both hunt tests and field trials like them both. Now then anyone who says hunt tests are not competitive has never listen to the griping when some one gets called back that some one else figured wouldn't because they didn't.
In hunting anything is possible from a bird that lands in the blind to 300 yds out. then there are the retrieves where you send the dog across a bit of water knowing full well that bird could be anywhere from 10 to who knows where back in the tullies. You don't see the dog once it enters that cover but it's a wonderful thing when you here that snort that tells you the dog found the bird or he suddenly appears with a bird. but there are some times when he starts back with nothing and you yel go find a bird and off they go again and hopefully find something. 
whats this all boil down to train for the biggest and shortest retrieve your dog could ever make and be happy with there work and run what ever you want, it won't take long to decide what you want to do.

Dave


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Hunt test is a spelling g test, the word list is manageable and everyone can get an A.... The distance limits and expectations are manageable and everyone can conceivably pass.....

Field trials are spelling bees..... Words (marks) get harder and harder to find a winner.


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> ...
> Blinds with diversions are a key skill in much duck hunting and both venues do a good job at that. Both fail at another critical skill of tracking cripples. However, I have found that my best field trial dogs that have developed great persistence in hunts pick this skill up remarkably easily
> ....


NAHRA does include trailing in their field tests. HRC is allowed to, but usually didn't when I was running that.

Trailing is easy to teach and I do so because I find it invaluable in a hunting dog. Most dogs love doing it in training, but they are definitely not all equally good at it. By doing a little training off season, a dog gets right to work during the real thing and on days when scent conditions are difficult, that can mean the difference between lost and found. Many dogs are self trained at all the hunting skills and some of those with lots of desire and exposure become pretty good. In my limited experience, a great hunting dog is a combination of natural ability, some training, and real hunting experience. Without experience, an FC might not be as good as an intermediate level-trained HT dog that does have it on a particular hunt. I train on the basic FT stuff mostly because I enjoy it off season, but a trained retriever with hunting experience IS an asset in the marsh or field. (I don't enjoy the more extreme parts of FTs, but don't object to those who like it. AND learn a lot from the good FT trainers that I find helpful to my interests.)

For a REALLY useful skill see:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=668807963169074&fref=nf


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Keith Stroyan said:


> NAHRA does include trailing in their field tests. HRC is allowed to, but usually didn't when I was running that.
> 
> Trailing is easy to teach and I do so because I find it invaluable in a hunting dog. Most dogs love doing it in training, but they are definitely not all equally good at it. By doing a little training off season, a dog gets right to work during the real thing and on days when scent conditions are difficult, that can mean the difference between lost and found. Many dogs are self trained at all the hunting skills and some of those with lots of desire and exposure become pretty good. In my limited experience, a great hunting dog is a combination of natural ability, some training, and real hunting experience. Without experience, an FC might not be as good as an intermediate level-trained HT dog that does have it on a particular hunt. I train on the basic FT stuff mostly because I enjoy it off season, but a trained retriever with hunting experience IS an asset in the marsh or field. (I don't enjoy the more extreme parts of FTs, but don't object to those who like it. AND learn a lot from the good FT trainers that I find helpful to my interests.)
> 
> ...


Super easy to teach to a birdy dog with a decent nose. It can become the most fun hide and seek game ever, dogs love it. And once you have developed the "find it" cue, or whatever cue you teach, boy is it valuable in the field.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

swampcollielover said:


> what bird hunter, needs a dog that can mark a bird out 250-300 yds?


The bird hunter who has a bird fall at 250-300 yds


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Understand that these are dog games are with infatuation with the owners. Your dog doesn’t care. Your choice in what you decide becomes on your ego and your money and how far that goes. 
So now you have to ask yourself…Do I want a dog who understands my basic needs or do I have the coin to go further beyoung my basic needs?
Money always trumps the norm.


----------

