# My take on new MH test rules



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

First, let me state that I am NOT in favor of the new rule allowing judges to go out 150yds with marks/blinds. I see no point in that distance for a HT and although many judges would not abuse this, I am certain some will. The RAC states that this change to the MH rules puts it in line with what they have at the MN. I fail to see what a National event has to do with the weekend tests. Will they start requiring 5-6 series for the MH stake next to make it sync with the MN??

Putting all that aside, my take on this change is that once again AKC is putting money before dogs. It has nothing to do with limiting the number of dogs running the MN. If they truly wanted to do that, they would have stayed with the 5 of 7 rule (which I felt sent the most consistently performing dogs to the MN). Instead they changed the rule to "you have to qualify 6 times". By staying with the 5 of 7 rule, they would have limited handlers to 7 tries to obtain their goal, so $560 in entries versus, oh $800 or $900 or even more. Some handlers will run 10, 12 or 15 tests to get those 6 passes. So much more money for the AKC and more entries for the MN, which brings even in even more money. By increasing the difficulty of the weekend tests, it also makes it much harder for the newer, inexperienced dogs to get through, so they too will have to run more tests to even get their title. Again more money for AKC. 

At the last hunt test I ran, there were 55 dogs entered. 25 already had MH title and 30 did not. Of those dogs, 18 of the 25 passed and 8 of the 30 passed. The dogs who had more experience would of course be more likely to pass. As they make the requirements tougher, these figures will drop in both categories. Instead of averaging 8-10 tests to get an MH, it could be more like 12-15. Nearly double the revenue. 

This policy will favor those will more financial resources, but will start to impact on those that don't. Many of the "don't" are the backbone of the clubs that put on these tests and as they are pushed out or drop out in disgust, the clubs will have increasingly difficult time running tests. They will be forced to hire help which will cause some clubs to stop hosting tests and others to raise entry fees even further, thus perpetuating the problem.

This of course is just my take on the issue.

Dawn


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Thanks Dawn, I agree with your statement too. I've run the last three or four weekends in a row. I thought they were fun and hard tests. We saw a lot of short, tight triples and doubles. They were NOT easy. And bird placement was challenging too. Someone made a comment in the other thread about their concern that those of us that have only farm ponds to train in are at a disadvantage now. I think that's right also. I know that not all judges will go the 150, but I know those that automatically will because the rules let them. To me it goes back to closely resembling hunting. We can't really duplicate it, but we can get somewhat close...

Your point and some others points in the last thread about financial resources is correct too. I have to work to do this. I train as often as I can get in, much of my spare time, but I drive at least an hour and a half to get to any technical ponds to do fancy stuff. It's been getting frustrating to go up to the line and see something I can not recreate or train for. 

I do use a pro to get my dogs through FF, CC, T work and swim by. I will never do enough dogs with FF to be good at it or get it done in a timely fashion or do it right the FIRST time. And no consistent stretch of time to do the rest or place to do swim by. I don't have the money to send my guys off for months to train and then have them be run by pros. And running them yourselves when they've been running for a pro in practice for months is a challenge. Besides....I want the dogs with me....not on a truck all year.

Just sending the dogs away for someone else to do the work is NOT the POINT. I want to do this myself because its fun, the dogs love it and I love the relationship that develops with my dogs. Though not as competitive as those of you that run FT, i still also like those ribbons. I guess it's just going to take me forever to get my dogs titled because I have to do so much learning at tests....or divorce my husband and marry someone independently wealthy so I can quit my job!

Not quitting....just trying to figure how out the heck to get it done....

Sue Puff


----------



## Jeff Atkinson (Jul 30, 2010)

Is there a summary of the rule changes posted on the RTF?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Here is what the RHTAC has submitted to AKC.

http://masternational.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/retriever-hunting-test-advisory-committee-report/

I would have liked to see the figures on clubs for/against the proposals. Not names, just i.e. 85 For 25 Against.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

I still don't see what the big deal 150 yards is. Just train for it.

Bert


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Here is what the RHTAC has submitted to AKC.
> 
> http://masternational.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/retriever-hunting-test-advisory-committee-report/
> 
> I would have liked to see the figures on clubs for/against the proposals. Not names, just i.e. 85 For 25 Against.


You won't see the figures on how many club voted for or against because there was no a vote taken, this was just presented to those in attendence at the Master National meeting.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> You won't see the figures on how many club voted for or against because there was no a vote taken, this was just presented to those in attendence at the Master National meeting.


I'm painfully aware of that, as I was in attendance. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that the recommendations were sent to each club for comment prior to sending to AKC.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

rbr said:


> I still don't see what the big deal 150 yards is. Just train for it.
> 
> Bert


Then why stop at 150? Make it 450 and just train for it!


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

rbr said:


> I still don't see what the big deal 150 yards is. Just train for it.
> 
> Bert


See the previous thread Bert.....they reasons are multiple. Including leaving the weekend tests alone. There were 10+ pages of comments for or against...if I wanted to do something similar to Field Trials ( notice I said SIMILAR) I would be doing them....I don't. And this has nothing to do with 'train, don't complain'. I'm an advocate for that myself.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?90625-Hunt-test-distance-change-for-master


Sue Puff


----------



## mmoe (May 9, 2011)

I agree with Bert..No Big Deal


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> I'm painfully aware of that, as I was in attendance. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that the recommendations were sent to each club for comment prior to sending to AKC.


To my knowledge my club never got anything on it and therefore couldn't comment.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

mmoe said:


> I agree with Bert..No Big Deal


-Glad to hear you feel that way!

Coming soon to a test near you; bird one thrown left to right at 145 yds lands in a shallow depression at the base of a tree, bird 2 thrown right to left at 130 yds lands in a ditch, bird 3 (flier) thrown out of test at 30 yards left to right. 5 degrees of angle seperation between birds 1 and 2 and wind is angling in from right to left. 

Have fun!-Paul


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> -Glad to hear you feel that way!
> 
> Coming soon to a test near you; bird one thrown left to right at 145 yds lands in a shallow depression at the base of a tree, bird 2 thrown right to left at 130 yds lands in a ditch, bird 3 (flier) thrown out of test at 30 yards left to right. 5 degrees of angle seperation between birds 1 and 2 and wind is angling in from right to left.
> 
> Have fun!-Paul


I'll go get my dog.

It ain't fun if it ain't skeery regards

Bubba


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

I belong to 2 clubs and neither one got anything in regards to this. Nothing that could be commented on, discussed or voted on. If we had received something, we certainly would have made our thoughts known to the Advisory Committee.

For those 2 individuals who stated "just train for the distance", you will perhaps note that at least 2 of my dogs have placed in FT stakes. In addition to HT, I do train for and run FT so 150 yds is not a long way for me or my dogs. At least not when the gunners and the handlers are dressed in white, out in the fields where the dogs can pick them up easily and at least know where the mark is coming from. So different from a bird thrown out of a dark tree clump with the thrower blowing a duck call that can't be heard; with the gun being shot at the "arc" of the bird so by the time the dog hears the gun and turns toward the sound the bird is already on the ground. Or running a blind in dark colored clothing against a dark background while the judges, marshals and other handlers mill around behind you; fat chance your dog can see you at 150yd. 

I have been running field events for 22 yrs. I am not worried about tough tests. I am not concerned or upset when my dogs fails tests because they did not understand the concept, where not "on their game" or their handler screwed up (more likely than the dog). I do however become irate when my dogs fail tests because they can't see the birds, can't tell where the birds are coming from, I can't see my dog or my dog can't see me. Such simple things that judges often overlook made much worse by another 50 yds. 

I too work full time. I have limited resources, financial and training grounds wise. I can't afford nor do I wish to send my dogs off to a pro. I train the best I can with the time and grounds available to me. It is bad enough that so many of the tests have become technical nightmares because judges don't understand bird placement and how to use terrain/wind to achieve a challenging test. Give those same judges 150 yds and watch the epic disasters that occur. Don't tell me that you can train for stupid.

Dawn


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Go get 'em Dawn!


----------



## Rob Paye (Jul 22, 2009)

You really think an extra fifty yards makes that big of a dif. What if the flyer takes a hard right when thrown. I say suck it up buttercup!!


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

While I partially get the point of those against the rule changes, I don't understand so much angst over an additional 50 yards. For the vast majority of you, you are way more worked up about it than your dog will be. I also don't get why it will require more financial resources or why those training on farm ponds will be at a disadvantage. The tests are still going to be held at the same places they are now. Your dog just has to run another 50 yds to pick up the bird. Those with young, inexperienced dogs can choose to train until the dog is ready to be underwhelmed under the new rules rather than running 10 or 12 tests to pass rather than 6 or 7. Maybe fewer dogs are MH at 2 yrs old but is that really such a bad thing?

I know a lot of people just don't like change in general and I would guess that's what part of this is, but really, I don't understand why theres the amount of complaint there is about the rule changes.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't think anyone ever answered the question I had in the other thread.

What problem is this change trying to solve?


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

I thought the point of the tests and titles was to improve the breed, not pass as many dogs as possible?


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Daren Galloway said:


> I thought the point of the tests and titles was to improve the breed, not pass as many dogs as possible?


I thought that the purpose is to test your dog against a standard. An additional outcome is for the hunter to keep training his dog year round and provide a dog event for the hunter that does not have the wherewithal to train for field trials.

What's wrong with the rules that they need changing?


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

dixidawg said:


> I don't think anyone ever answered the question I had in the other thread.
> 
> What problem is this change trying to solve?



Now that's a good question.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

And exactly my point. Why make changes to the rules that have no point except to put more money in AKC's pockets. And if you don't think an additional 50 yds makes a difference, try throwing a hen mallard against a dark background at 100 yds and again at 150 yds and tell me your dog can see the bird just as well. You can't train a dog to mark a bird it can't see. That is my point. Going the distance is not a problem for a dog trained to run marks at twice that distance. And for the nitwit whose comment was "suck it up buttercup", apparently you did not read or perhaps can't be bothered to read my previous post. I train for FT, therefore my dogs run marks at twice that distance, but I don't try to send my dogs for birds that aren't visible. Tends to erode their confidence. I normally run blinds 200-300 yds, so again not a problem with distance, but I wear white when I am handling to be certain my dog can see me. 

What purpose does this change have?? How does this "improve" the breed(s)?? 

Dawn


----------



## shootermac (Mar 6, 2012)

rbr said:


> I still don't see what the big deal 150 yards is. Just train for it.
> 
> Bert


Where does it stop. Yes, we all can train for it. But remember this is a HUNT test not a field trial. Also, the AKC hunt test already are not as nearly closely related to hunting as the UKC. Agreed, BAD move AKC.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Much ado about nothing, in that the word "should" is used in this rule, and the modification; as such judges are free to ignore the rule.

I would venture to say that in way more than 50% of the MH tests Ive run in the past few years that there have been marks in excess of the 100yds currently in the rule book


----------



## justin300mag (May 28, 2010)

using the phrasing "Should not normally exceed 100 yards" gives the judges flexibility. I have already run tests with marks and blinds out to 150 yards. And have heard A judge telling me about a test they put on where they had a blind past 200 yards. Does this mean I may now encounter tests out to 200 yards maybe even 250? If they used the wording "should not exceed 150 yards" I would be good with that.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

The extra 50 yards is less of a concern to me because I already run a venue where 150 yards is the limit. Master tests already have marks that far and farther. The difference is, in the other venue, my dogs are taught & are expected to swing & follow my gun. They typically mark the bird on the way up and follow the entire arc. This requires me to kneel at my dogs side. If the rules trickle down from the MN then this type of handling will not be allowed. It is considered pointing out the guns. It will certainly make it harder. Marking is not of primary importance when marks are not seen.

My concern is more the increasing technical nature of the game. I don't hunt on technical ponds. I have never received a phone call stating the birds are "thick as flies" on my tech pond. The nearest tech pond is an hour & a half drive. Training set ups do not often make for good tests.

I read the test description. A mark thrown at the base of a tree in a depression & a mark landing in a ditch. Both of these scenerios are very difficult marks & will get answers. Why must these marks be thrown 5 degrees apart. My premise is with this calibre of marks, the gimmicks & increasing tightness is not needed. Then we are testing marking.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Good god, get over it. The rules are here, shut up and run the dogs. 

Boo F'ing Hooo


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

I am not really a big fan of increased distance but not really all that upset about it either. Fish Duck makes a good point about well placed marks and a marking test. The test I dont care for are the ones that use a dogs training against it. I like a good marking test, to me thats what a HT should be. If the judge wants to throw a training test and thats the best they can come up with then thats okay too. I have seen TO MANY test that are CONTRARY to GOOD training and leave a dog to do something they are trained NOT to do. The kind of test that if you trained on it you would NEVER be able to make the dog understand what it did wrong we he/she messed it up. My opinion is that there are 3 kinds of test, Marking, Training and Stupid. I wish stupid would go away.


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

rbr said:


> I still don't see what the big deal 150 yards is. Just train for it.
> 
> Bert


Field trial distance for sure.

If you go back to the original hunt test program rules and set ups you will see how it was suppose to be
JMOP


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Jerry and Freya said:


> Field trial distance for sure.
> 
> If you go back to the original hunt test program rules and set ups you will see how it was suppose to be
> JMOP


Serious? Double or even triple that and you have some FT blind distances...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I frankly don't see this rule changing anything about the way I set up a test when I judge except giving me options to create better separation between birds 

/Paul


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I am not really qualified to post on this tipic. I havent run a HT in years,, but it would seem to me,, that the concern of the dogs not seeing birds because of them being thrown against bad backgrounds ,against tree rows ect, would be of concern at 100 yrds. 

Tests that are set up that Judges dont think of backgrounds, and the dogs given a chance to see the birds, show themselves quickly. Those tests turn into handeling extravaganzas, and taks a TOn of time to get a field of dogs through..

I would think a GOOD judge will avoid that like a plaque.

It will, in my opinion show which Judges understand what a dogs needs are to TRUELY Mark!!
It will show what Judges even care about that,, or just have the EGO in their thinking,, that "Well.. They SHOULD have seen it"

JMHDAO.

Gooser

Just a question... How many of your master level dogs, that didnt mark a particular mark,,have blown right past the AOF, and hunted many yards deep?


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

There has been instances at ht I've ran and/or judged that the extra distance would have helped. Good judges will use the new rule to make their
tests better. The judged that don't have a clue will use it to show you once again why you don't like running under them.


----------



## schb02 (Feb 21, 2010)

paul young said:


> -Glad to hear you feel that way!
> 
> Coming soon to a test near you; bird one thrown left to right at 145 yds lands in a shallow depression at the base of a tree, bird 2 thrown right to left at 130 yds lands in a ditch, bird 3 (flier) thrown out of test at 30 yards left to right. 5 degrees of angle seperation between birds 1 and 2 and wind is angling in from right to left.
> 
> Have fun!-Paul


Bring it!!! I am not scared!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I mean if you think about it,,
We Hide the Guns,,, 
We camo the BB's
We really dont do MUCH to draw the dogs attention to the gun.
Many times the timing is really fast between marks
We throw a dark colored object against a cluttered background,,

Then our rules say

"Marking is of Primary Importance"


How in the He!! are we judging that?

Gooser


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

If these changes came directly from the PED at the AKC, I would agree it is all about $, since the AKC doesn't do anything unless it makes more $. Even though I can't see how the AKC makes any more if folks are griping about a mark shooting on their range finders at 101 yards vs 151 yards, if the AKC does it, there must be more money in it for the AKC somewhere.

However, as I read it these were submissions from retriever folks to the RHTAC, which then debated on it and decided it was worthwhile. So, it looks like AKC may have said 'cool, more $ for us' if in fact this makes them more money but the proposals came from the grass roots. Probably from judges with grounds that don't have a lot of natural factors so the slight increase to distance is helpful.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I frankly don't see this rule changing anything about the way I set up a test when I judge except giving me options to create better separation between birds
> 
> /Paul


That is and will remain my hope!!!! If that is the prevailing attitude this will be a positive change.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> I mean if you think about it,,
> We Hide the Guns,,,
> We camo the BB's
> We really dont do MUCH to draw the dogs attention to the gun.
> ...



You could always put a white ribbon on the birds' feet to help.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

DEDEYE said:


> Serious? Double or even triple that and you have some FT blind distances...


I think that you ignored "original hunt test program rules and setups" part of the post. My experience with talking to the veterans who were in on the formation of the hunting test program is that most are not happy with a lot that has developed since its inception. I know quite a few veteransand have had conversations with them.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

Dawn & Paul,

I agree 100%.....It bothers me that decisions are made without the AKC seeking any input from the people who run their tests. Another point to remember in all of this is that in the area where i test, the water is mostly technical. The water tests can now have the possibility of added factors. It is getting harder and harder for the Am. trainer to bring out his hunting dog to run technical water tests.

Tom


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Tom Lehr said:


> Dawn & Paul,
> * It is getting harder and harder for the Am. trainer to bring out his hunting dog to run technical water tests.
> *
> Tom


My whole point, the distance isn't really the whole issue. I guess those hunting dogs aren't good enough for HTs. So I guess I will take my one day a week training on my farm ponds and "train don't complain". In fact, at some point, I guess I will have to give up because my poor working self can't get it done. What a way to keep young people in the sport. Didn't we just have this discussion about not enough new people? I'd like to hear from the people that got HTs started and see what the intent was....

But I guess I'm done commenting. Will just send my thoughts to whoever it is that needs to see them. Be it whoever my committee rep is or the person at the AKC.

Sue Puff


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

suepuff said:


> My whole point, the distance isn't really the whole issue. I guess those hunting dogs aren't good enough for HTs. So I guess I will take my one day a week training on my farm ponds and "train don't complain". In fact, at some point, I guess I will have to give up because my poor working self can't get it done. What a way to keep young people in the sport. Didn't we just have this discussion about not enough new people? I'd like to hear from the people that got HTs started and see what the intent was....
> 
> 
> Sue Puff


Some of those people who were there at the beginning are posting on this thread.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Tim Doane has the best classification system I have seen. Marking tests are my favorite and pass or fail, I love to run them. The Training tests are not my cup of tea but I know I will see them. The Stupid tests deserve no comment.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Tom Lehr said:


> I agree 100%.....It bothers me that decisions are made without the AKC seeking any input from the people who run their tests.


The change was suggested by people who run the tests to the RHTAC, which noodled on it and suggested it to the AKC PED, which agreed and it was adopted by the BOD. People who run the tests certainly had input--perhaps not as much as you would like, but the whole idea originally came from the folks who run tests. It may not be a perfect system or even a very good one but it certainly was not a decision by the AKC without input from folks who run tests.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

I think too much is being said about distance....While I am not in favor of turning HT's into FT's by any stretch...IMO bird placement should be the key issue judges strive for regarding all types of tests and trials...distance is only one additional factor. Setting up a test that is based on good bird placement for a HT may sometimes require a distance over 100 yds, depending on the land available. I would prefer a little more distance to get better separation, better bird placement, than I would tight, contrary marks simply because they had to adhere to 100 yds. Contrary marks that go against good training, even if they are short, are much harder and detrimental to finding good answers than distance often is. I hear people returning from HT weekends saying the marks and blinds for their tests were as long as 200 yds; but in actuality, they very rarely are - I for one have never experienced marks that long in HT and only on a rare occasion a blind exceeding 150. People's perception of distance seems to be different than actuality. At MN this year, I believe there was only one series with several marks and one blind over 100 yds; but trust me IMO, distance was not the issue on this series (Double Trouble).....placement, factors and wind were!!!! I have failed and passed my share of Master tests, and I can tell you that distance was never the issue of passing or failing.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

My response has little to do with the distances being debated but to clarify some assumptions that have been expressed. The HTRAC is an official affiliate group of HT enthusiasts who provide advice to the AKC performance division regarding rules and some other things (& they should be seeking input from HT enthusiasts & their clubs). The RAC is not the AKC. I don't think the AKC is particularly concerned about the distance of the the marks. They leave that to the hunt test enthusiasts. The RAC provides the mechanism. I think the AKC is concerned that the MNH title has some meaning beyond that of the MH. And when the AKC sees 800-900 dogs qualify to run for the MNH title, the AKC likely thinks that such numbers dilutes the value of the title. And while the AKC won't say they are money driven, money certainly plays a large role in their decisions, IMO. So when the RAC folks make attempts to make the weekend test more challenging to reduce the qualifiers to the MN, the AKC will support those efforts, both to make the MNH title more challenging to obtain and also because increased challenge to qualify will mean more revenue going to the AKC. Making the qualification process more difficult, makes the qualification a higher honor & increases revenue. At the same time, the MN org loves the numbers and associated revenue but wants to make sure the AKC continues to support the resulting title for those who pass, so the MN org will continue to strive to reduce those successful to some acceptable percentage of the qualifed field (I'm not sure what that is but likely less than it is now). So it's a narrow path that decision makers walk...make the MN event more challenging while keeping the level of interest high while increasing revenues. Not an easy task, but if you have an opinion that doesn't maximize those 3 things (reduced passes by increasing the challenge, increase level of interest & increase revenues for the AKC) you will continue to be frustrated. Of course this is my opinion - and I'm a dog enthusiast who runs very few HT events.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> The change was suggested by people who run the tests to the RHTAC, which noodled on it and suggested it to the AKC PED, which agreed and it was adopted by the BOD. People who run the tests certainly had input--perhaps not as much as you would like, but the whole idea originally came from the folks who run tests. It may not be a perfect system or even a very good one but it certainly was not a decision by the AKC without input from folks who run tests.




Out of curiosity, how many people here were asked for or provided input on these changes through their club? Seems like a lot of people have already stated that their club was not aware of this and am wondering how widespread this may be?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

dixidawg said:


> I don't think anyone ever answered the question I had in the other thread.
> 
> What problem is this change trying to solve?


That is a very good question. I run field trials now, but I came up through the hunt test ranks, I felt the hunt test program is just about right the way it was. I don't have an issue with the 150 yards in and of itself, I just don't see the need for it, and I don't like the mission creep to the original standard.

John

edit: After reading David's post about how they have to find a balance between too many qualifyers for the Master National, I can see that the Master national is way bigger deal than it was when I was running hunt test. I guess I qualified to dogs for it back then, but I didn't think it was a big deal, so had no interest in attending. Back then it was something around a hundred dogs that qualified, at least that's what I remember. It was usually a fair distance so it didn't interest me. Now I can see there is an extra title involved and there seems to be much more interest.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I have run both FT and HT. I have 2 MH's which are QAA. But, I do have a question about dog physiology, namely eyesight. I read some where that a dog's perfect eyesight is about 20/75. If that is true then a 150 yard mark is equivalent to a 560yd bird for a human. Are we overunning the capability of the species??


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

zeus3925 said:


> I have run both FT and HT. I have 2 MH's which are QAA. But, I do have a question about dog physiology, namely eyesight. I read some where that a dog's perfect eyesight is about 20/75. If that is true then a 150 yard mark is equivalent to a 560yd bird for a human. *Are we overunning the capability of the species??[/*QUOTE]
> 
> If you have two QAA dogs, you know the answer to that question. All I know, despite scientific studies to the contrary, my field trial dogs routinely see marks out past 400 yards, as do most of the dogs I compete against. On some distant marks I can actually watch my dog's nose go uo over and down as he watches the bird arc to the ground.Now I have seen a few 500 yard+ marks that I don't believe any dog could make out, and even 300 yard marks can be impossible to see if it is a poor background or we are looking directly into the sun.
> 
> ...


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> edit: After reading David's post about how they have to find a balance between too many qualifyers for the Master National, I can see that the Master national is way bigger deal than it was when I was running hunt test. I guess I qualified to dogs for it back then, but I didn't think it was a big deal, so had no interest in attending. Back then it was something around a hundred dogs that qualified, at least that's what I remember. It was usually a fair distance so it didn't interest me. Now I can see there is an extra title involved and there seems to be much more interest.



And that MN tail should not be wagging the weekend test dog.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

dixidawg said:


> Out of curiosity, how many people here were asked for or provided input on these changes through their club? Seems like a lot of people have already stated that their club was not aware of this and am wondering how widespread this may be?


Don't ask me. Ask your club--post a poll--I have no idea. 

I don't think, though that the RHTAC does a lot of asking for opinions. They respond to grass roots folks making suggestions, make their own or provide insight if AKC asked their opinions. In the case we are talking about, it was suggested by someone (probably more than one someone) that the rule should be changed. They got together, figured it couldn't hurt and recommended to the AKC, which approved that change. I am sure that you or anyone else could contact your regional RHTAC member and propose anything you wanted (in this case, 19 suggestions were made, 5 were sent to the AKC.

I really fail to see what the big deal is. It is not like before this rule change that the judges could not use 150 yard marks and it is not like this is now a minimum. The only difference I see is now, little Ronnie Rangefinder will have to wait until a mark is 151 yards to bitch and moan in the gallery instead of doing it at 101 yards.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Don't forget, these changes can originate at the RHTAC level also.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Don't forget, these changes can originate at the RHTAC level also.


Yes, that is true. They can also be originated by the AKC, which is the final decision maker regardless of where the idea originates. 

At the end of the day the AKC BOD/PED pretty much can do what it wants with regard to the rules. It makes me wonder why anyone would want to be on the RHTAC. Sounds like a lot of headaches but I am glad that there are folks who actually run the things involved, even if the AKC doesn't always listen.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> zeus3925 said:
> 
> 
> > *Are we overunning the capability of the species??[/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

My wife and I along with a select few hunting associates have been hunting since Oct 1 if I exclude early teal and I have not kept track of birds killed but certainly over the 100 mark and maybe closer to the 150 mark. As of yet we have not seen a retrieve over 75 yards and few of those. We have hunted ND, MI and now TX. Now the name is HUNT TEST so why go beyond the actuality of the hunting scenario? My take is AKC is going beyond and more folks will move on over to other "hunting tests". AKC's loss I guess.

In summary I hope HT judges will set up hunting scenarios which I suspect the hunting judges will and the testing judges will go the 150 cause they don't know any better.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

The test description I posted is a great example of a "stupid test". the bird placement is excellent, but the seperation of the converging birds is absurdly tight. So far, 2 people have said "bring it on". Must have been right after they asked their buddy to hold their beer. 

If this was a land test, I would expect less than 50% of the dogs could recover (note that i didn't say MARK) all 3 birds without handling. Probably 25% would be eliminated for switching and the rest would handle on one or both birds. Make it a land-water combo or water test and the sucess rate would plummet further. And the judges still wouldn't know which dogs could mark and remember 3 falls.

My point was that the judges that set up this type of test (you know who you are) will now be able to set up tests THAT ARE EVEN MORE STUPID!

We don't need 150+ yards to find out which dogs are suitable hunting companions, but Mr. Ego trumps that, I guess....-Paul


----------



## Buster Brown (Oct 29, 2007)

dixidawg said:


> Then why stop at 150? Make it 450 and just train for it!


Dixiedawg:

No disrespect but 450 is way out there. It would eliminate most dogs from even entering or making it past the first series. That would be ridiculous and entries would stop. Test would take 30 minutes a dog. Hunt tests should not equal the National Open. 

Bert was saying training for 150 yards is reasonable. If you aren't letting your dog see those then maybe you should. As far as limiting MN participants. I doubt it will change much. If you think distance is what will eliminate your dog then you aren't letting your dog see those distances. As far as 150 yards making the test harder. I'll bet I could fall within the AKC old guidelines and make it where 95% of the field of Master National Qualifiers will not pass...but to what end. There are several factors at play here. 

One is a judge wants to finish a 60 - 65 dog field in 3 days. Too many overly complicated LONG marks mean 10 to 12 to even 20 minutes a dog. Which calculates out to a VERY long weekend for everyone and quite often the club not inviting the judge back. 

Two the judges that are good and even not so good are just setting up hunting situations to evaluate a retrievers ability.

Three as I stated if a judge has an evil streak in him or her distance will not be your enemy. 

I think 150 yards is fine by me. If everyone is playing by the same rules I train at big distances at times for a lot of reasons. Throw me a 150 yard mark test Mr. Judge and I've read the rule book I'm ready now are your ready to watch 60 dogs swim a 150 yard mark? If so I am too and I'll hang in there with you till you drop me. Heck we'll run this 2 days test out 5 days if you'd like. Judges aren't like that. The host clubs aren't able to support it and it would quikly become a money drain people would be cutting out. The AKC knows this and they are just allowing a judge to set up a 150 yard mark. Nothing in the old book limited the marks to 100 yards by the way. Have you read it?

IMHO.


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

As a judge, I can guarantee that I never try to max out my distances. On occasion we will have to, on one or two of a triple, in order to deliver a quality test to both the handler and the dog. These times are fewer than believed, but depending on the grounds we have to work with, are necessary. There have been occasions that I wished we could go further, especially on the blind, to make better use of cover or suction that would allow us a greater evaluation of the dog/handler team. I know there are judges that no one wishes to run under for one reason or another, and I hope I am not one, but if the fear of this rule change is because of poor set ups due to unqualified judges... then the blame falls on the co-judge and the hunt test committee (in my oppinion). If a judge has an understaning of dogs/concepts that are, lets say questionable, then it falls on the committee to pair them with a co-judge that has a great understanding and can help ward off any impropper set ups. Any co-judge that would allow these types of set ups is just as guilty. And it should be the committees responsibility to "police" its judges to make sure tests are not only legal, but fair to the dog and handler. I judge HRC hunt tests and have also served as chairman of the hunt test committee on several occasions, and have had to request that judges make adjustments to their tests prior to approving them. I have also had the displeasure of sharing the chair with a judge that wished to incorporate an excessive amount of "trickery" into a test. This is where your people skills are put to the test. I can guarantee that another 50 yards is not exceeding the limits of these fine animals that we enjoy, and I would caution against only training to the maximum test distances, as you may be setting yourself and your companion up for failure. I'm not saying throw 300yrd tripples, but a 200 yarder on occasion wouldnt kill anyone.


----------



## Buster Brown (Oct 29, 2007)

birdboy said:


> As a judge, I can guarantee that I never try to max out my distances.  On occasion we will have to, on one or two of a triple, in order to deliver a quality test to both the handler and the dog. These times are fewer than believed, but depending on the grounds we have to work with, are necessary. There have been occasions that I wished we could go further, especially on the blind, to make better use of cover or suction that would allow us a greater evaluation of the dog/handler team. I know there are judges that no one wishes to run under for one reason or another, and I hope I am not one, but if the fear of this rule change is because of poor set ups due to unqualified judges... then the blame falls on the co-judge and the hunt test committee (in my oppinion). If a judge has an understaning of dogs/concepts that are, lets say questionable, then it falls on the committee to pair them with a co-judge that has a great understanding and can help ward off any impropper set ups. Any co-judge that would allow these types of set ups is just as guilty. And it should be the committees responsibility to "police" its judges to make sure tests are not only legal, but fair to the dog and handler. I judge HRC hunt tests and have also served as chairman of the hunt test committee on several occasions, and have had to request that judges make adjustments to their tests prior to approving them. I have also had the displeasure of sharing the chair with a judge that wished to incorporate an excessive amount of "trickery" into a test. This is where your people skills are put to the test. I can guarantee that another 50 yards is not exceeding the limits of these fine animals that we enjoy, and I would caution against only training to the maximum test distances, as you may be setting yourself and your companion up for failure. I'm not saying throw 300yrd tripples, but a 200 yarder on occasion wouldnt kill anyone.


Well put. 150 yards isn't going to hurt anyone.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Buster Brown said:


> Dixiedawg:
> 
> No disrespect but 450 is way out there. It would eliminate most dogs from even entering or making it past the first series. That would be ridiculous and entries would stop. Test would take 30 minutes a dog. Hunt tests should not equal the National Open.
> 
> ...



My dogs have no problems with 150 yards plus marks. That is NOT the issue. As Paul said, you do NOT need 150 yards to evaluate hunting dogs. 

Again I ask:

What problem is this change trying to solve?

What problems do current MH's have that this change would produce better hunting companions?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

dixidawg said:


> my dogs have no problems with 150 yards plus marks. That is not the issue. As paul said, you do not need 150 yards to evaluate hunting dogs.
> 
> Again i ask:
> 
> ...




exactly!!!!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

birdboy said:


> As a judge, I can guarantee that I never try to max out my distances. On occasion we will have to, on one or two of a triple, in order to deliver a quality test to both the handler and the dog. These times are fewer than believed, but depending on the grounds we have to work with, are necessary. There have been occasions that I wished we could go further, especially on the blind, to make better use of cover or suction that would allow us a greater evaluation of the dog/handler team. I know there are judges that no one wishes to run under for one reason or another, and I hope I am not one, but if the fear of this rule change is because of poor set ups due to unqualified judges... then the blame falls on the co-judge and the hunt test committee (in my oppinion). If a judge has an understaning of dogs/concepts that are, lets say questionable, then it falls on the committee to pair them with a co-judge that has a great understanding and can help ward off any impropper set ups. Any co-judge that would allow these types of set ups is just as guilty. And it should be the committees responsibility to "police" its judges to make sure tests are not only legal, but fair to the dog and handler. I judge HRC hunt tests and have also served as chairman of the hunt test committee on several occasions, and have had to request that judges make adjustments to their tests prior to approving them. I have also had the displeasure of sharing the chair with a judge that wished to incorporate an excessive amount of "trickery" into a test. This is where your people skills are put to the test. I can guarantee that another 50 yards is not exceeding the limits of these fine animals that we enjoy, and I would caution against only training to the maximum test distances, as you may be setting yourself and your companion up for failure. I'm not saying throw 300yrd tripples, but a 200 yarder on occasion wouldnt kill anyone.


The HT committee "approving" the test is the difference between HRC and AKC. In AKC I have only seen the committee get involved in legal/safety issues, never "fair to the dog and handler" issues.


----------



## schb02 (Feb 21, 2010)

No matter if you have the extra yardage or not you are going to have some judge that will set up a "stupid test". You are not going to get away from that. Do your research a pick your judges accordingly. I go up to North Dakota once a year to hunt ducks and geese and at least once in each trip I have had a goose float out to 100+ yards. So if you hunt fields there is at least a small chance you will have a 150 yard retrieve.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

As I have indicated this not the Hunt Test of the "framers". I ran my first AKC Hunt Test around 1986 and made a Master Hunter with the dog a short time later. The Pro's right wrong or different changed the standard mainly under demand by thier clients. The same thing happened in Field Trials. It's not the Pro's fault, but, the bar has been raised from the original intent of the "framers" of the AKC Hunt Tests, perhaps unwritten, but let the Amateurs play, train thier own dogs and have fun. In the 1980's there were very few Pros in the AKC HT game, now everyone is a Pro train a dog or two and through some magic dust you become a Pro. Now having said that there a number of excellent Pro Hunt Test trainers, although I train my own dogs , would certainly send my dog to them if need be. The framers and the AKC in my opinion never thought the AKC Hunt Tests would evolve with the numbers that they have today and at the Master National Level. Changing the rules will not take us back to the good old days. I was taught as a judge both FT and HT one long swim if you can stand to watch ,will get you all the answers you need, but, is that the quality of a test. Bird placement, good use of flyers and a hunting background of sorts in judges will get you all the so-called answers you need. Too many judges today HT and FT, will set up tests that they last saw thier Pro set-up in training without regard to the whys they are doing it. My two cents.


----------



## runnindawgz (Oct 3, 2007)

Off topic - but not.... 

I have wondered for such a long time ... WHY don’t they just make hunt tests competitive? ... Not as a field trial - but like obedience? In OB you qualify or you don’t ... but, if you score high enough you place. Points toward a championship: ?CMH? 

It can be STILL be Pass/Fail but with placements... judges are already “scoring” based on the criteria (0 - 10 scale) and I am sure there are dogs scoring higher than others. Maybe its time for a change ... I don’t think an adjustment in distance is solving whatever problems are underlying. If dog skills are improving, then just make it competitive. You can still earn that MH title right now based on current or past rules/regulations. Go back to judging marks and blinds together and call it a test. Those with the highest scores. Place.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Danielle, that is too logical. We'd rather be emotional & refuse to face current issues. And maybe even more important, if you aren't part of the "club" your opinions won't be considered.


----------



## runnindawgz (Oct 3, 2007)

HA HA .... Me? Too Logical? 

Seriously, why not? I am proud to say I just finished a MH title this past weekend with my 2 year old. Now, where to? 

I have ZERO desire to move on the to Master National. I have her title and most likely will run her more times in MH ... just to run her. Her dam just picked up her 11th pass ... why? well, she is 6 and not ready to retire! 

We will do our best in the Q - but let’s face it; I can’t beat The “Arthurs” etc... etc... I just don’t have access to the water, time and money to travel etc... Getting a dog to the open level is a pipe dream - I _WILL_ do it when I win the lotto. 

I am lucky that I have found other sports to be fun and rewarding - so we will compete in agility as well... But if the AKC wants me to keep spending money on hunt tests ... make it competitive and I’ll have a reason.. over and over until I earn my hunt test points and get to my hunt test championship. Get it? 

It would’t make people strive to “pass” it would encourage folks to pay attention to more precise handling, to run straighter blinds, to bring stylish yet under control dog to run tests... and place. 

Heck, I’ll champion a petition. Anyone with me?


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

gdgnyc said:


> I think that you ignored "original hunt test program rules and setups" part of the post. My experience with talking to the veterans who were in on the formation of the hunting test program is that most are not happy with a lot that has developed since its inception. I know quite a few veteransand have had conversations with them.


This keeps up maybe I should just do field trials?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

runnindawgz said:


> HA HA .... Me? Too Logical?
> 
> Seriously, why not? I am proud to say I just finished a MH title this past weekend with my 2 year old. Now, where to?
> 
> ...


And both passed with style! And we had fun while freezing our butts off.....Yup to the petition! Someone needs to come up with a viable alternative.

Sue Puff


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

suepuff said:


> exactly!!!!


Any one have a copy of the original rule book for hunting tests?


----------



## J Connolly (Aug 16, 2007)

I have read this thread with interest. I happened to spend 20 years in the duck blind with one of the "framers of AKC hunt Test" , we even judged a few test together. He told me from the get go that eventually the hunt tests would become a sort of water down field trial dominated by pro handlers and getting away from the original purpose of testing hunting dogs. He even foresaw the "National Master". The game has evolved into what it is, the dog work is better, but at what cost? Not complaining, just stating an observation. I had more fun when they were fewer dogs and more owner/handlers.


----------



## cpmm665 (Jan 6, 2009)

Folks have lost sight of Dawn's opening statement and that is the RHTAC making a recommended rules and regs. change to AKC in order to make the weekend HT more in-line with MN. 

I'm not as opposed to 150 yrds. as I am to bringing the weekend HT "in-line" with the MN. The Master National is/was a prestigious event to qualify for and run in. The test (s) are suppose to be "different" than what see on the weekend. It's the "best of the best" in the AKC HT game right?

Not all weekend HT game players aspire to running at the Master National. Why are all being penalized, to be in-line with what a few might see at a MN test?

Greed, yes I believe greed is a factor here. If the "best of the best" is to be a prestigious event, why has it become easier to qualify for? I agree with Dawn's point that if from date A to date B, handler X could qualify for the MN if handler X passed 5 out of the first 7. That to me shows consistency in talent. Now I have an entire year to enter tests, maybe pass 50% and qualify for the MN. That to me does not speak to "best of the best". It does speak to the wallet. 

Most of the weekend HT'ers I know, test regionally. I live in New England. I have run tests on the same grounds for the past 5 years. Run enough times on the same grounds and you will see similar tests. North/south orientation doesn't change. Terrain doesn't change (usually), maybe 50 more yards creates a new picture but the time management of weekend HT doesn't change unless a Club has made room for a three day Master. Once again, I feel it in the wallet as a competitor and I take one for the team as a worker.

What if MN member Clubs agreed to hosting a Master National qualifying Master HT? That's the only test offered that weekend and MN HT rules apply? The 5 out of 7 rules are in place, where are you going to qualify for the MN? If you REALLY want to qualify for the MN, you are going to that test. 

From the New and Improved AKC website: Discover, Learn, Connect-sharing more than 125 years of passion for dogs. You know one of the definitions of passion 
*:* the state or capacity of being acted on by external agents or forces 

I love the HT game like I love Toby Keith's "I love this bar", for diversity. Greed is a noun; excessive desire for wealth and/or power. Extort, a verb,
to obtain from another by coercion or intimidation. Let's look at not-for-profit HT Clubs, the backbone. If the Master National Club wishes to survive, they pay US for putting on a Qualifying test. Discover, Learn, Connect, that's AKC's new motto. That's AKC doing business, 125 years of passion for dogs.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

mjh345 said:


> John Robinson said:
> 
> 
> > We are bumping up against the capacity of the species as regards FT distances
> ...


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

I think "what's broke" is the Master National and some people are trying to use the weekend tests to fix it. I think that is so wrong-headed I can barely believe it. Sure 50 yards doesn't make _that _much difference, but the tail is wagging the dog. For my part, I'd love to cut off that particular tail. It is far removed from the concept of testing against a standard. Thank heavens for HRC.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

dr_dog_guy said:


> I think "what's broke" is the Master National and some people are trying to use the weekend tests to fix it. I think that is so wrong-headed I can barely believe it. Sure 50 yards doesn't make _that _much difference, but the tail is wagging the dog. For my part, I'd love to cut off that particular tail. It is far removed from the concept of testing against a standard. Thank heavens for HRC.





This bears repeating....


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Jerry and Freya said:


> This keeps up maybe I should just do field trials?


You might have to.


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

Great post...



dr_dog_guy said:


> I think "what's broke" is the Master National and some people are trying to use the weekend tests to fix it. I think that is so wrong-headed I can barely believe it. Sure 50 yards doesn't make _that _much difference, but the tail is wagging the dog. For my part, I'd love to cut off that particular tail. It is far removed from the concept of testing against a standard. Thank heavens for HRC.


----------



## cpmm665 (Jan 6, 2009)

dr_dog_guy said:


> I think "what's broke" is the Master National and some people are trying to use the weekend tests to fix it. I think that is so wrong-headed I can barely believe it. Sure 50 yards doesn't make _that _much difference, but the tail is wagging the dog. For my part, I'd love to cut off that particular tail. It is far removed from the concept of testing against a standard. Thank heavens for HRC.



Dr. Dog can still be Dr. Advocate, yes, HRC can help AKC Hunt Tests How?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I have run across trainers who say the dogs aren't really seeing the birds at extreme field trial distances. Therefore, they are training the dogs to run straight lines out to a mark.


Sarge, were any of those trainers successful field trialers. I've seen dogs do some incredible marks. The good dogs do it to often for me to think it's an accident of lining.

How many times are you going to be able to line a blind 300+ yards out across multiple factors and the dog is able to go right to the area and dig it out?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

dr_dog_guy said:


> I think "what's broke" is the Master National and some people are trying to use the weekend tests to fix it. I think that is so wrong-headed I can barely believe it. Sure 50 yards doesn't make _that _much difference, but the tail is wagging the dog. For my part, I'd love to cut off that particular tail. It is far removed from the concept of testing against a standard. Thank heavens for HRC.


It may be "broke" from your prospective, but when you have 800-900 dogs qualifying for the event, the majority (especially the decision-makers) say it's not broke at all, but a great success. Again, I think there are 3 priorities that will have to be met (in th eyes of decision-makers), 1) reduce the number of dogs obtaining a MN pass to make the title MNH have value, 2) make the weekend master stakes more challenging to reduce the overall % of passes/entries (to aid item #1), & 3) insure in the process of 1 & 2, that the interest in the game is increased or at least not diminished - with the overall selling point to the AKC that revenues are increasing. That's the HT game as it exists, IMO, like it or not. And any opinions or desires that don't coincide with those objectives will not be considered...JMO.

And really the HRC is the same way but HRC just doesn't try to limit the number of dogs qualifying to run the Grand, they just make the Grand & its std a much bigger step-up in terms of a performance std compared to the weekend event & they have 2 Grand event per year to accommodate the demand.

Have to admit, I like Danielle's idea..you can get your passes & a MH title under the existing rules & points toward the MN & its title as a competition. I think such an idea could satisfy a lot of folks concerns, provide a competitive element but maintain a std. But unless, the "decision-makers" want it, it won't happen.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Sarge, were any of those trainers successful field trialers. I've seen dogs do some incredible marks. The good dogs do it to often for me to think it's an accident of lining.
> 
> How many times are you going to be able to line a blind 300+ yards out across multiple factors and the dog is able to go right to the area and dig it out?



I have had dog that could pick out guns at 500-600 yards and that I swore saw the bird across the sky. I have also had dogs that could do neither. I have dogs that could dig out those big marks on a reliable basis. I have not had dogs that I could line to those birds reliably. I know what the "experts" say. But, it does not comport with my personal observations


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

The obedience example is not new. It has been proposed many times in the past and of course went on deaf ears. I haven't run any obedience trials in many, many years. The minimal score was 170 as I remember and would progress to 200. If you recieved a score/title with a average of 195 or higher you qualified for "The Dog World Judy Award" as it was called. This was of course before the OTCH title. As you worked through the chairs, Novice, Open, Utility, you had HIT or High In Trial, plus placements at the various levels. This might have all changed now? I had a Field Trial Golden with 9 points at the time, he got his CD, CDX and of course failed the Utility UD degree because on the articles he would snatch the first one as he was taught with force to the pile. His sire AFC Wildfire of Riverview CDX had the same issue. Anyway I think it is a grand idea too, but, I am sure one would recieve much, much, nays by those who think Hunt Tests should be against the standard. In HRC once you make your HRCH you are qualified forever for the Grand unless the rules have changed.
There were different rules for the Grand Vrs the Finished test too, again I have not run for for a few years and the rules may have changed. Lots of great ideas on the thread NOW try to get the other side to listen. I don't have any quick answers and can only offer insight through years of playing these dog games.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Sarge, were any of those trainers successful field trialers. I've seen dogs do some incredible marks. The good dogs do it to often for me to think it's an accident of lining.
> 
> How many times are you going to be able to line a blind 300+ yards out across multiple factors and the dog is able to go right to the area and dig it out?


I don't know, Howard. The trainers were Canadians. 

The literature on canine eyesight indicates the *best * eyesight is 20/75 human equivalent. But, while dogs aren't as good as humans on focusing on detail at distance, evidently, dogs do better at perceiving motion. In FT there are white coats for a dog to line up on. There may be some form of terrain recognition at work as well.


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

Criquetpas said:


> As I have indicated this not the Hunt Test of the "framers". I ran my first AKC Hunt Test around 1986 and made a Master Hunter with the dog a short time later. The Pro's right wrong or different changed the standard mainly under demand by thier clients. The same thing happened in Field Trials. It's not the Pro's fault, but, the bar has been raised from the original intent of the "framers" of the AKC Hunt Tests, perhaps unwritten, but let the Amateurs play, train thier own dogs and have fun. In the 1980's there were very few Pros in the AKC HT game, now everyone is a Pro train a dog or two and through some magic dust you become a Pro. Now having said that there a number of excellent Pro Hunt Test trainers, although I train my own dogs , would certainly send my dog to them if need be. The framers and the AKC in my opinion never thought the AKC Hunt Tests would evolve with the numbers that they have today and at the Master National Level. Changing the rules will not take us back to the good old days. I was taught as a judge both FT and HT one long swim if you can stand to watch ,will get you all the answers you need, but, is that the quality of a test. Bird placement, good use of flyers and a hunting background of sorts in judges will get you all the so-called answers you need. Too many judges today HT and FT, will set up tests that they last saw thier Pro set-up in training without regard to the whys they are doing it. My two cents.


Again, where or who has the original rule book for the hunt test program?
i will ask one of the original people if he has one.


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

You would have a better option going back to the original idea of the A.K.C. hunt test program.


cpmm665 said:


> Dr. Dog can still be Dr. Advocate, yes, HRC can help AKC Hunt Tests How?


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

cpmm665 said:


> Dr. Dog can still be Dr. Advocate, yes, HRC can help AKC Hunt Tests How?


??? I don't understand the question. If you think I'm advocating everyone move to HRC, think again.

HRC has maintained a pretty similar standard and their Grand hasn't affected the weekend test is my point. It can only help the AKC tests by example. 

I'm the president of an AKC retriever club and run a heck of a lot more AKC tests than HRC (though more FT than HT lately) - I simply admire their adherence to their standard. And obviously I'm no fan of the MN.

And I do think its badly broke. Just my opinion.


----------



## Erik Nilsson (Jan 16, 2011)

HRC Finished
The maximum land test distance will not exceed
one hundred-fifty (150) yards, but may be shorter. The
maximum water test distance will not exceed one hundred
twenty-five (125) yards, but may be shorter. The
blind retrieve maximum test distance will not exceed one
hundred (100) yards

HRC Grand
The land maximum test distance will not exceed
two hundred (200) yards, but may be shorter. The water
maximum test distance will not exceed one hundred-fifty
(150) yards, but may be shorter. The blind retrieve maximum
test distance for both land and water shall not
exceed one hundred-fifty (150) yards.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Erik Nilsson said:


> HRC Finished
> The maximum land test distance will not exceed
> one hundred-fifty (150) yards, but may be shorter. The
> maximum water test distance will not exceed one hundred
> ...


Interesting. Reading this, it sounds like the AKC may be changing the distance to make it more like HRC and so, by definition, exactly like real hunting


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

zeus3925 said:


> I don't know, Howard. The trainers were Canadians.
> 
> The literature on canine eyesight indicates the *best *eyesight is 20/75 human equivalent. But, while dogs aren't as good as humans on focusing on detail at distance, evidently, dogs do better at perceiving motion. In FT there are white coats for a dog to line up on. There may be some form of terrain recognition at work as well.


Articles I have read indicate canines can recognize motionless objects at approx. 300 yds reliably where the objects offer sufficient contrast with the surroundings. Where canines excel is in their ability to see movement at much greater distances. Combine that ability with white coats and it is reasonable that canines see birdboy movement reliably at FT distances (300+ - 450yds) in good lighting. Distances of 500 yds or more are excessive under most all circumstances and even 400+ yds can be excessive except with ideal lighting, if the intent is for the dogs to actually see the marks. But there are set-ups where it seems the intent is that dogs won't see the marks consistently........;-)


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> Articles I have read indicate canines can recognize motionless objects at approx. 300 yds reliably where the objects offer sufficient contrast with the surroundings. Where canines excel is in their ability to see movement at much greater distances. Combine that ability with white coats and it is reasonable that canines see birdboy movement reliably at FT distances (300+ - 450yds) in good lighting. Distances of 500 yds or more are excessive under most all circumstances and even 400+ yds can be excessive except with ideal lighting, if the intent is for the dogs to actually see the marks. But there are set-ups where it seems the intent is that dogs won't see the marks consistently........;-)


That is why it is important to make sure you have to be at another stake at all times until the conditions are perfect for your dog to run.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I think I mentioned once that I dont like the MN's effect on weekend tests. Course with the RHTAC and most club presidents heavily involved in the MN, its going to effect it. All those weekend HT's that don't want to see this need to get into those positions and maintain the sport they love.

/Paul


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I think I mentioned once that I dont like the MN's effect on weekend tests. Course with the RHTAC and most club presidents heavily involved in the MN, its going to effect it. All those weekend HT's that don't want to see this need to get into those positions and maintain the sport they love.
> 
> /Paul


I think many would agree.


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I think I mentioned once that I dont like the MN's effect on weekend tests. Course with the RHTAC and most club presidents heavily involved in the MN, its going to effect it. All those weekend HT's that don't want to see this need to get into those positions and maintain the sport they love.
> 
> /Paul


Hard to argue with


----------



## RJG (Feb 18, 2005)

I kind of like Danielle's idea also. 

I've handled my dog(s) in the last 2 Master Nationals and - despite maybe it "being broke" - enjoyed both events. I think that the MN is a challenging event and was a great experience. However, it is an expensive event what with the training costs, fuel, lodging, meals, etc. So I am pretty darn sure I can't afford to go to Kansas City and certainly not California. 

So what will my goal be? I love the challenges of different test set-ups and enjoy handling my dogs. So I decided that I would just try to qualify them for the MN even though we couldn't go. But it would be fun IMO not to take away the pass/fail against a standard yet add the option to make it simultaneously competitive too.

Again - just my thoughts as I read this thread.


----------



## Buster Brown (Oct 29, 2007)

RJG said:


> I kind of like Danielle's idea also.
> 
> I've handled my dog(s) in the last 2 Master Nationals and - despite maybe it "being broke" - enjoyed both events. I think that the MN is a challenging event and was a great experience. However, it is an expensive event what with the training costs, fuel, lodging, meals, etc. So I am pretty darn sure I can't afford to go to Kansas City and certainly not California.
> 
> ...


I think if you start ranking dogs in HT's you WILL end up with those 150 yard marks...and beyond and tests becoming more and more complicated to the point where you eliminate a lot of folks all together from the game. 

Competition is what has made Field trials have these mongo 350 yd go birds with retired 450 yard marks and quads and more complication than the weekend trainer can prepare for. The dogs can do it but training effort and regimen becomes exponentially arduous...and expensive. So a lot of amatuers and weekend trainers would drop out. How does that better the retriever breeds? 

I like it just the way it is. If you have topped out in HTs with an MH and want something more competitive run a Qual or an owner handler qual or an open or the Master National. Believe me there is nothing easy about the Master National. I was there. We qualified but I promise you it isn't a gimme. only I think 25 - 29% of the dogs entered finished.

I believe the retrieving breeds benefit from the training and breeding brought on by HT's.

IMHO.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Honest questions, because I don't know:

How many judges in OB?
How many dogs entered in OB trial?
Are OB trials limited?

Are there different "classes" at the OB competitions?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Honest questions, because I don't know:
> 
> How many judges in OB?
> How many dogs entered in OB trial?
> ...


1 judge per class. 3 legs for the basic 3 titles. Have to be under at least 2 different judges. For advanced titles, points and wins are required.

As many dogs as can enter. Some trials are limited due to space, time, etc. our club limits out fall trial. 

Basic classes are Novice (CD), open (CDX) and Utility (UD). Now there are some new additions this year that used to not be non-titling classes, pre-novice, etc, but the first three are the foundation. Advanced titles are UDX (utility dog excellent, requires 10 Qs in both open and utility in the same entry/show) and OTCH (obedience trial champion, requires 100 points (numbers based on entries and placing) and have to have a certain number of first place scores.). Again, some newer advanced titles added the last two years.

Points, as Danielle was referring to, is based on number of dogs entered and actually competed that day. Scoring is based on 200, must have a 170 to Q. It is definitely competitive.

Sue Puff


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

So let's say hunt tests change to this competitive format.

Coming into the 3rd series, a bunch of dogs are really close at the top.

Do the judges change the 3rd series setup to try to get separation at the top?


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

dixidawg said:


> So let's say hunt tests change to this competitive format.
> 
> Coming into the 3rd series, a bunch of dogs are really close at the top.
> 
> Do the judges change the 3rd series setup to try to get separation at the top?


This was not what the original hunt test program was suppose to be about...separation of dogs at the top of anything.
That is what a field trial is all about
Hunt tests are suppose to be to a standard as in "hunting".


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

I understand that they never were meant to be competitive but the suggestion had been floated to make it "like" obedience where there are top placements along with pass fail.

I'm wondering if that suggestion gains momentum, what would happen in the above scenario.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

OT Run off for the top spot after the 3rd is done, with tail-gate gambling-calcuta, and pot-luck of course  If you watch many a hunt test, you'll observe that there's usually a top dog without having OT, at most 2-3 dogs, I'm sure the judges can setup a quick set of marks or blind to stack the deck, everyone might as well have a good time with make some $$$


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Buster Brown said:


> I think if you start ranking dogs in HT's you WILL end up with those 150 yard marks...and beyond and tests becoming more and more complicated to the point where you eliminate a lot of folks all together from the game.
> 
> Competition is what has made Field trials have these mongo 350 yd go birds with retired 450 yard marks and quads and more complication than the weekend trainer can prepare for. The dogs can do it but training effort and regimen becomes exponentially arduous...and expensive. So a lot of amatuers and weekend trainers would drop out. How does that better the retriever breeds?
> 
> ...





Jerry and Freya said:


> This was not what the original hunt test program was suppose to be about...separation of dogs at the top of anything.
> That is what a field trial is all about
> Hunt tests are suppose to be to a standard as in "hunting".


Very true. There is nothing wrong with evaluating a dog without placements. For the record, I like Hunting Tests and and I like Field Trials. I would also like them to be different.


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Jerry and Freya said:


> Again, where or who has the original rule book for the hunt test program?
> i will ask one of the original people if he has one.











I'm having a hard time posting the front cover, but this is the inside cover of the "Original Rule Book" Notice it says "Sanctioned". There where no "Licensed" tests that first year.

You may also be surprised what was written for rules. 

For one: The original rules for "Senior" (Master today) stated. "Maximum test distance on land shall not normally exceed 150 yards.

I scanned some pages in PDF format and the files are too large to upload to this site. If I can get them uploaded I'll post some of the pages as well as a letter from the AKC.



There Is a whole other discussion on the verb age and intent of this early rule book. As well as the law suites that followed.


Randy


----------



## mbcorsini (Sep 25, 2005)

I have to agree with Cindy. We have lost of Dawn's orginial post. As president of our retriever club, I was never asked for input of this new rule change and why the AKC thought it was needed. As for the person that thought that Dawn needed to put her big girl panties on has obviously never met her or her dogs. She is a tireless worker and an important member to the clubs that she belongs to. She is acutally one of the few women who actually hunts with her dogs. Yes, her dogs will have no prolems with the new marks. Like she said, what was wrong with the old rules.

Mary Beth


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

I ended up taking pictures of a few pages, and letters from AKC.

As you can see this is from the "Framing" days. AKC and NAHRA working together. That's where it started. HRC also had a hand in there as well.

NAHRA and HRC were hunters looking for a hunting dog venue for hunters. It was not about trialers or show/Ob ring people looking for another title for there dogs. They already had a place to play.


P.S. I don't have a dog in this fight..... Somebody asked about the original rule book.

Thank you, Randy


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

*150 yards...*

From that same rule book.

Notice Section 8 from the Senior (Master today) regs. Also Section 10 is interesting as well











Randy


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

dixidawg said:


> I understand that they never were meant to be competitive but the suggestion had been floated to make it "like" obedience where there are top placements along with pass fail.
> 
> I'm wondering if that suggestion gains momentum, what would happen in the above scenario.


You have answered your own question.
It was not set up "like" obedience
And should not be so set up

Why suggest or even make all these changes after so many years?
The hunt test program as it now stands has been working rather well all these years


JMOP


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

Rnd said:


> View attachment 9739
> View attachment 9740
> View attachment 9741
> 
> ...


Too small for me to read the pages posted.
However I hope to have an orig rule book copy next week..fingers crossed it is found


----------



## Rick Vaughan (Sep 4, 2012)

*I'll sign the petition...I like you idea Danielle...it makes sense and gives you something to strive for after 5 MH passes.

Rick*


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Jerry and Freya said:


> Too small for me to read the pages posted.
> However I hope to have an orig rule book copy next week..fingers crossed it is found


Click the picture 3 times. once wait, twice, wait, 3rd. time it will take up most of your monitor.

I'm older than dirt, blind in one eye and can't see out of the other one. And I can still read it after 3 clicks.

Not rocket regards. 




P.S. I have a few of those rule books. If it would help with an historical view I could get one to the Janitor. ( To put in some type of readable format and post somewhere......That would be his decision)

P.S.S. The rule book that may be the most helpful would be the 1985 or 1986 book.

There were many revisions to this rough draft. Trailing dropped, quartering dropped, stone throwing, delivery to hand .....the list goes on. But it may help some if they knew where it all started.

Thank you, Randy


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Rnd said:


> Click the picture 3 times. once wait, twice, wait, 3rd. time it will take up most of your monitor.
> 
> I'm older than dirt, blind in one eye and can't see out of the other one. And I can still read it after 3 clicks.
> 
> ...


I do have the 1985 rule book. Quartering is recommended I think but not required. Look, you seem like an old timer, you still have the original rule book. I suspect that you don't like the direction the Hunting Tests have gone in. I raised this issue a year ago.Theoretically there is input from clubs. I must thank junbe for giving me information about the role of AKC delegates in the matter.


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

You're right I'm not happy with the way the gun dog program has gone. NAHRA or AKC...... Each for different reasons.

After the split it didn't take long for the AKC program to move away from hunters and their dogs.

After the Split of NAHRA and AKC I judged a "Sanctioned Test" in Ohio and latter entered a few dogs. 

What I noticed at that time was a large group of OB and show people loading up the Junior Stake just to try and get a new title, JH on their dog.

It didn't take much more time and the Master stake turned into a mini field trial in camo. No trailing, quartering, flushing, use of real shotguns etc. etc.

I could go on but this thread has drifted far enough from the OP's original post.

Maybe start a new thread "Gun dog tests history and their future"




I stopped running gundogs and turned to the field trial game.

Thank yoyu, Randy


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Rnd said:


> From that same rule book.
> 
> Notice Section 8 from the Senior (Master today) regs. Also Section 10 is interesting as well
> 
> ...


Interesting. I have a copy of the 1987 regs (1985 amended to January 1, 1987) and the distances for jr-master are "should not normally exceed 100 yds." So pretty early in the ht formation they must have decided that 150 yds were to much and backed it up to 100.

My copy of the '87 regs has an orange cover and is 40 pages of 4"x6-1/2" format.

I can scan it to a pdf file and put it on my website if anyone is interested.

T. Mac


----------



## Noah (Apr 6, 2003)

paul young said:


> The test description I posted is a great example of a "stupid test". the bird placement is excellent, but the seperation of the converging birds is absurdly tight. So far, 2 people have said "bring it on". Must have been right after they asked their buddy to hold their beer.
> 
> If this was a land test, I would expect less than 50% of the dogs could recover (note that i didn't say MARK) all 3 birds without handling. Probably 25% would be eliminated for switching and the rest would handle on one or both birds. Make it a land-water combo or water test and the sucess rate would plummet further. And the judges still wouldn't know which dogs could mark and remember 3 falls.
> 
> ...


I hope that wouldn't be the case..the optimist in me says AKC judges would use that distance to more realistically test marking and not what I refer as a trained marking, ie.. 3 birds in the air simultaneously, which land in-line...seriously??? & you FT purist that think your dogs mark 400 plus yards..if that were the case..retired guns wouldn't exist.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

I agree entirely. It adds many more options for the judges during the set up, resulting in a much cleaner test. I like the fact that the tests will not be so congested, yet I'm uneasy about the change taking some of the hunt out of the Hunt Test. I'm concerned that the training for Hunt Tests will look more like training for a Field Trial rather than training for an average days hunt.

"He who resists change is destined to fail."

J.O



Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I frankly don't see this rule changing anything about the way I set up a test when I judge except giving me options to create better separation between birds
> 
> /Paul


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

gdgnyc said:


> I do have the 1985 rule book. Quartering is recommended I think but not required. Look, you seem like an old timer, you still have the original rule book. I suspect that you don't like the direction the Hunting Tests have gone in. I raised this issue a year ago.Theoretically there is input from clubs. I must thank junbe for giving me information about the role of AKC delegates in the matter.


You have the orig rule book? Great?
Please put in car so I can see it next time you are out our way.
Thanks,
Freya


----------



## Flying Dutchman (May 1, 2009)

dr_dog_guy said:


> ??? I don't understand the question. If you think I'm advocating everyone move to HRC, think again.
> 
> HRC has maintained a pretty similar standard and their Grand hasn't affected the weekend test is my point. It can only help the AKC tests by example.
> 
> ...


I don't know how much this is going to add to this discussion as I have not yet run an AKC hunt test and the OP's question seems to have been more about input into rule changes than about the rule changes themselves, but as an HRC guy (handler, judge, club president), I wanted to comment on your assertion that the Grand hasn't impacted the weekend tests. It is great news that that is the perspective, but know that it has taken incredible effort on the part of handlers, judges, etc. to ensure that this is the case. As recently as one or two years ago, it was common to hear comments at a weekend Finished test from the judges setting them up that sounded like, "We made this test tough because a lot of these dogs are going to be running the Grand in a couple of weeks and we have to get them ready." Or, "This is the kind of thing you're going to see at the Grand, so you might as well get used to it." 

Now, those comments have been strongly discouraged and I'd say that in most areas, so have those tests that were set with that in mind. Rule changes have been presented, though, in each of the last three cycles (Rule change proposals are presented, vetted, and voted on every two years - see below.) that would have raised the standard in some way at some level from what it was when I joined HRC in 2001. Some of these have passed, the majority have failed. I think that HRC would have to say that we, too, have experienced or are experiencing the same "mission creep" that was mentioned here and are having some of the same growing pains. 

Perhaps this is the tie back to OP's question. In HRC, rule changes can be proposed by anyone. There is an official form that must be filled out that asks for current rule book language, proposed language, and a justification for why you see a need for a change. These proposals are submitted to a Running Rules Representative from your Region who ensures that they are filled out completely and correctly and then sends them to the Running Rules Committee Chairman. He compiles them and sends them out to each club via the Running Rules Rep as one big packet. Each club then gets a chance to submit a vote on each rule change proposal. Suggested changes that either pass or fail by a 2/3 majority of the voting clubs are decided that way. Suggested changes that fall somewhere between 2/3 for and 2/3 against are then brought back up at the National Convention on even numbered years for a discussion and vote on the floor. At the National Convention, only a simple majority is required to pass or fail. The end result is that the average weekend hunt tester who is active in his/her club has a say on what happens to our rulebook. I can't say that this has kept there from being mission creep or the infusion of "Grand Thinking" into our weekend rules for Finished, but there is at least a forum for people to participate. It sounds to this HRC guy like the AKC HT game rules are (or at least theoretically could be) decided upon by someone other than the folks playing the game. Not my place to say whether that's wrong or a problem, just an observation.

It's a tough place to say that as our dogs are getting better and "plain old" Finished tests are being passed by higher and higher percentages of dogs, that our tests shouldn't get any tougher...unless you recall that our tests were created to determine whether and to what degree your dog was qualified to hunt in the marsh/field. If the goal remains to identify dogs you'd want to hunt with on a normal day hunting, there's no need to raise the standard - even if every dog who enters, passes. I, for one, would prefer to keep looking at it that way and fear that adding placements, winners, losers, points, etc. to the existing hunt test game would cause the tests to get harder than hunting is in order to "get separation." I'd rather strive to "get answers" about whether a dog can perform specific tasks required in hunting rather than "get separation" between the best and lesser hunting dogs. If separation, ranking, and winners are the goal, I believe that there are already several avenues for that. And, while Field Trials may not be accessible avenues for many HT folks - certainly not for me - isn't that kind of where SRS came from? I believe there are others, too, but I can't name them. 

Just my thoughts from an HRC perspective, but I was "activated" by the, I think, misperception that the Grand had had no affect on our weekend Finished tests!

Chad Miller


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Chad, my apologies. I'm mostly outside looking in regarding HRC and I obviously spoke in ignorance. I'm sorry to hear that you too are experiencing the same thing in terms of changing standards. 

In the few finished tests I've run over the years, I hadn't noticed that, but that obviously speaks more to my lack of deep involvement with HRC tests. So I withdraw my comment about the lack of effect. I do know enough about HRC (I'm a member of an HRC club but rarely participate - not from a lack of interest but because of from distance and schedule reasons) to really appreciate the difference in rule change procedures. Our local HRC club religiously sends emails asking for member comments when rule change issues. 

As an aside, I did notice in finished that my "dog that never breaks" will break while standing belly deep in water rather than sitting or walking at heel


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I like many others am of the bring it on set. After you run a dog and title out, if you enjoy the sport you still want to run and challenge both yourself and the dog, and You still need something to do when you can't go shoot real game . I know everyone says oh go to FT's, but I want my hunting dog to be tested on hunting set-ups, white coats to ensure my dogs see the marks, running off of mounds-pallets and me not-shooting and wearing white so the dog can see me will not make my dog a better hunter. I hazard to say in some cases it takes away from the skill set, I want in my hunting dog. I want camo, I want a bunch of birds (multiple flyers?), I want hard to see marks, (long-short whatever). I also want boats/tree stands/mojos. I want my dogs to be challenged with technics and rewarded for not only marking, but also perseverance, instinct, teamwork, and nose. I love to run a challenging test, as hard as the judges can make it because pass or fail, it's the experience I care about. So when I see things like rule changes to 150 yrds, from my point of view, I see 50 yds extra Why Not?

Still While I prefer challenge it's more important to me and the sport to keep a standard at the weekend test that reflects a nice polished gun-dog, that amateur can train, work, and enjoy, without having to be a dog training maniac or enlisting a pro. I still remember running those first master tests with a dog that was on the transition level btw SH-and a finished MH, ready to run-hunt but both me and the dog needing more experience. It would be very disheartening to only run those tests that very experienced MH dogs have trouble with, only marks @ 150yard, because an unimaginative judge wants a "hard test" and that's what's in the rule book. You don't need yardage to make a test hard, and the rule book doesn't need to give suggestions to judges on marking distance. If you look They're are many inventive judges that can put on BallBust test @ 100 yard, sometimes under 60, not the most popular of judges but they can be found . Want to cut the MNH entries 5 out of 7, shows consistency, gives a 2 test failure window and is harder to obtain than just 6; or maximum of 9 (so you can still buy in if you want). The MNH had this as standard but changed it back, their choice, theirs to deal with.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

zeus3925 said:


> I don't know, Howard. The trainers were Canadians.
> 
> The literature on canine eyesight indicates the *best * eyesight is 20/75 human equivalent. But, while dogs aren't as good as humans on focusing on detail at distance, evidently, dogs do better at perceiving motion. In FT there are white coats for a dog to line up on. There may be some form of terrain recognition at work as well.


Rarely in training ,and especially at trials is the long NOR the short bird thrower still there when the dog is send for the retrieve.The dog MUST mark the bird,and remember pretty much exactly where it is to be competitive.Therefore the focus,pair of eyes,and confidence enables them to do extreme distance without problems.


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

It is interesting to read replies stating the extra distance is no problem for their dog. I agree distance is not a big factor to the dogs. The change will be the additional factors that come into play with the extra distance. Not many HT are run in a parking lot. Anyone that trains their own dog is very aware of this with the wind, ditches, cuts, side hills, sloughs, points, channels, brush, decoys, cover, trees, hay bales, etc, etc. It will make a difference, judges have more to work with. Can the dogs do it, absolutely...but not always. 

The change in HT I see today is the majority of dogs go out for blind work, in local HTs and at the MN. 12 years ago that wasn't the case. Marking has taken a back seat to running blinds for qualification. Maybe with the extra distance, marking will become more important.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

SamLab1 said:


> It is interesting to read replies stating the extra distance is no problem for their dog. I agree distance is not a big factor to the dogs. The change will be the additional factors that come into play with the extra distance. Not many HT are run in a parking lot. Anyone that trains their own dog is very aware of this with the wind, ditches, cuts, side hills, sloughs, points, channels, brush, decoys, cover, trees, hay bales, etc, etc. It will make a difference, judges have more to work with. Can the dogs do it, absolutely...but not always.
> 
> The change in HT I see today is the majority of dogs go out for blind work, in local HTs and at the MN. 12 years ago that wasn't the case. Marking has taken a back seat to running blinds for qualification. Maybe with the extra distance, marking will become more important.


This is my take as well... Marking is taking a back seat to blind work.

Angie


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

SamLab1 said:


> The change in HT I see today is the majority of dogs go out for blind work, in local HTs and at the MN. 12 years ago that wasn't the case. Marking has taken a back seat to running blinds for qualification. Maybe with the extra distance, marking will become more important.



Why do you think that is?

Are the marks easier? 

Are the blinds tougher? 

Or being judged with a sharper pencil?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Some HT judges have a tough time setting up challenging marks, but can set up a keyhole, across the tip of a point, or other blind they saw training with their pro the week before.

Also, some do not know how to judge/score a good tight hunt or when a dog is out of the area and when it is not.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I have noticed in the past dozen or so years the crisp blind handling is just not there at the Master level. I tend to worry more about the marks sometimes then the blinds primarily on how my dogs are trained. Listening to the handlers in the gallery especially the amateur handlers they are are apprehensive about running the blinds land or water. As a judge it seems the shots and decoys are placed in a position to draw the dogs to the blinds, then hack them around once they get in the area of the blind. I judged a Master early in the year, we had limited water and a time management issue with help. We decided to set up a cold water blind across a point, then the dogs had to handle back in the water. The point was scented, the decoys placed on the opposite side of the point, where they couldn't be seen as a draw to the dogs from the line. It was plain ugly, some dogs after many casts couldn't get thier dogs back in the water, they were running around with thier noses to the ground etc. The better "trained" dogs and better handlers put a whistle on the dog about where they should on the middle of the point and the dogs took thier casts back in the water. Others (ones who failed) try to wish thier dogs to the blind and were too late in the whistles. Some very experienced handlers, Pros and Amateurs. told me that was the first time in many starts they had done a cold blind. We came back with a triple with a out of order flyer. Dogs had no problem with the marks.
A cold blind is a good hunting senario , dry diversion shot (away from the blind) go get the blind! You have a dead bird that the wind is going to blow away, other birds are comming in, get the dead one.

An old mentor once told me many years you can teach any dog to do a blind, but, you can't teach them to mark if they don't have it.
Maybe as trainers we should take the "slop" out of the blinds and be more percision. Just some thoughts.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Angie B said:


> This is my take as well... Marking is taking a back seat to blind work.
> 
> Angie


Are you suggesting that the trained behaviors are becoming more important than what may be considered a natural ability?


----------



## Carol (Aug 17, 2004)

I don't think they are more important, they're just another part of the requirements for a master retriever. The "marking is of paramount importance" line of the rule book gets quoted a lot. But the rest of the paragraph says " However, this does not imply that dogs which excel in Marking shall not be scored lower, even to the extent of not receiving a Qualifying score, for deficiencies in, or a lack of the other required abilities." And also, in the section about Trainability, "There shall be expectation of full refinement in the acquired attributes in Master Hunting Tests." I agree that many master dogs that fail, fail because because the dogs don't handle, but shouldn't they handle? Shouldn't a master dog be expected to come tractably to the line, sit for the birds and take whatever direction their handler gives them? I think people get so focused on the marking that they forget the importance of the other behaviors the make a well rounded hunting. Just my thoughts.


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

DoubleHaul said:


> The change was suggested by people who run the tests to the RHTAC, which noodled on it and suggested it to the AKC PED, which agreed and it was adopted by the BOD. People who run the tests certainly had input--perhaps not as much as you would like, but the whole idea originally came from the folks who run tests. It may not be a perfect system or even a very good one but it certainly was not a decision by the AKC without input from folks who run tests.


Bull, it was voted on by the board at their meeting and they haven't asked anyone jack----! This is my problem with the whole thing, if they are going to change the rules they should get input from everyone and not just 4 or 5 people. That is why we have delegates and club presidents and board members for the clubs. When anyone knew anything it was a done deal. AKC you suck too on this little deal.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Angie B said:


> This is my take as well... Marking is taking a back seat to blind work.
> 
> Angie


I agree. Some years past the HT regs were changed to require a seperate score for each of a minimum of 3 blinds. So the emphasis went from an evaluation of overall "trainability" to how well pup performed on those 3 blinds. Trainability is much more than whistle sits and casts as it encompasses line manners, the honor, delivery, working with the handler as the marks do down, steadiness, etc. If "marking is of paramount importance" as is stated several times in the book, why create a seperate scoring section for blinds? IMO emphasis on a single attribute is contrary to the basic intent which is to evaluate a dog's suitability as a hunting companion. Blinds should be a test of control, but in the context of a hunting situation. (And I never put my decoys behind a point where I can't see the birds that are drawn into them. -) 
As for the 150 yd change it just seems unnecessary. Judges always have had the ability to stretch out a bird if they needed the distance to incorporate other factors, or to add some length to get a factor. The problem will be with those that really don't appreciate how to set up and judge good tough marks and will use the 150 distance as a minimum and still not get good marks to evaluate the dogs.


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> (And I never put my decoys behind a point where I can't see the birds that are drawn into them. -)


Now that is a blindly obvious point (pun intended). Why I hadn't thought of that I'll never know, but very, very true.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

It would seem to me that if there are enough numbers that are truly this upset about the the change,, that the answer would be Non participation.

Money does talk.

You really dont have to run HT to have a beautifully trained dog.

Gooser


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Add more pages to your Black book that I keep reading about.

Let the HT that have Huge numbers of dogs figgure out how they are going to get all those dogs through big long set-ups, and when they have a type of test that just eliminate ,, then that CLUB goes down in the little black book..

There are other venues that let you "Play all day", but as true with Life,, people have issues and want to complain about them also...Their titles dont mean anything,, breeders dont recognise the accomplishments because the clientele want the "other venue" titles in the pedigree ect,, ect,,
If folks want to see those titles in pedigrees,, then Ya cant now complain when the Org wants to make the Title MORE meaningful as a way to test the dogs. Ya cant have it both ways!


I am VERY happy ,,, and am having more fun with the dog I have now,, than I have EVER had with the previous ones. TRAINING is the "IT" for me.
I May run a FT or Another HT someday,, but thats a LONG ways away... Right now a well trained dog is my goal... Tests dont give you that..


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

MooseGooser said:


> ... Right now a well trained dog is my goal... Tests dont give you that..



and the gold nugget of the day award goes to the gooser of mooses!!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Right now a well trained dog is my goal... Tests dont give you that..


Tests, and trials even moreso as the dog had to do better than many other dogs, give proof of your dog's talent and trained abilities.

I have fun training *and* I have fun trialing.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Howard N said:


> Tests, and trials even moreso as the dog had to do better than many other dogs, give proof of your dog's talent and trained abilities.
> 
> I have fun training *and* I have fun trialing.



I like that nugget better...

I like training, but training towards a goal is even funner.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Tests, and trials even moreso as the dog had to do better than many other dogs, give proof of your dog's talent and trained abilities.
> 
> I have fun training *and* I have fun trialing.


Howard

may be true in trials, but not hunt tests .
tests you don't compete against other dogs.
tests you run against a standard. As we can see from this thread in particular. Many don't want to be tested per HUNTING standards,bu t feather technical standards.

Also, I will say, I own SEVERAL ribbons that I don't feel I deserved at all.
i have also attended and run tests where my dog,that creeped, performed somewhat loosely on blinds,received the same ribbons that Pro trained dogs received, that were dead steady, and did stellar work on their blinds.

it leaves one scratching their heads as to what you are holding when walking away with your riribbons personally have found a group of people I highly respect , and will value their opinion or the opinion of the " Pitt boss" if I did a paticuarly good job on a very difficult set up.


Hasnt happened yet!Thats why it will mean more when it happens


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Buzz said:


> I like that nugget better...
> 
> I like training, but training towards a goal is even funner.


I like both nuggets equally as in it is pretty cool to handle a dog to the area of the fall for a cripple, the dog tracks it down and your companions have that wow look on their face, especially kids. Ribbons are equally cool but not what floats all our boats but I have great admiration for the level of training it takes to get them there.

Is funner a five dollar word?


----------



## Carol (Aug 17, 2004)

"i have also attended and run tests where my dog,that creeped, performed somewhat loosely on blinds,received the same ribbons that Pro trained dogs received, that were dead steady, and did stellar work on their blinds."

So that day you had the "C" dog and the pro had the "A" dog. Just like in high school, some graduate with a 4.0, some with a 2.7, but they all get the same diploma! Hunting test is about standards, which allows for some dogs to excel and others to "get by" with less than perfect work. It's not about "winning the ribbon" it's about playing the game.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Well said, Carol.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Carol said:


> "i have also attended and run tests where my dog,that creeped, performed somewhat loosely on blinds,received the same ribbons that Pro trained dogs received, that were dead steady, and did stellar work on their blinds."
> 
> So that day you had the "C" dog and the pro had the "A" dog. Just like in high school, some graduate with a 4.0, some with a 2.7, but they all get the same diploma! Hunting test is about standards, which allows for some dogs to excel and others to "get by" with less than perfect work. It's not about "winning the ribbon" it's about playing the game.


Butttttt,,,,
My Personal goal is to have that "A" dog.
i know me, and I wasn't going to get that dig by just running more tests,and continuing with the very bad habits I have as a handler.

So, now MY goal is to have a well trained dog,and hopefully along the way,something's I will learn,will help me be a better handler.

When we accomplishe that, we will see what happens.

This is just my personal opinion.I highly respect anyone who achieves any sort of title on their dog.


Gooser


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> Butttttt,,,,
> My Personal goal is to have that "A" dog.
> i know me, and I wasn't going to get that dig by just running more tests,and continuing with the very bad habits I have as a handler.
> 
> ...


Get out of the bubble bath and the clown routine. I know you and your very special dog can do it. Just another personal opinion...JD


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

JDogger said:


> Get out of the bubble bath and the clown routine. I know you and your very special dog can do it. Just another personal opinion...JD



So,, You are sayin I have to become a dirty,smelly old stick in the mud persona to achieve success?? 

Gooser


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

What do you call a gal/guy who barley got through Med School with a C average? 
Answer - Doctor.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> What do you call a gal/guy who barley got through Med School with a C average?
> Answer - Doctor.


A doctor that may be creepy..

A doctor that may break under pressure.

A doctor that has trouble remembering when he set somting down.

A doctor that doesnt take directions all that well..


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

Are we still talking about Doctors or Politicians?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Hey Gooser,

I don't know how to answer the question on your personal hygiene habits, though I always use scented bubble bath...:grin::grin::grin: as to your personal goals as a trainer, that's what I want too and if we can get titles along the way, I think it's awesome. 

But don't change the program for the few who want to do MN stuff, which I feel gets competitive. I want the ability to prove my dogs can do what they are/were meant to do. Be a gun dog.

It comes down to this....when you or someone else is looking to purchase a pup, what do you/they look for? Pedigree, titles and clearances. So, titles have almost become a necessary evil....

I don't want them to be easy....I want the HT program to stay with its original intent, provide a venue for hunters to prove their dogs.

Sue Puff


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

This summer's master tests that I ran I noticed some huge inconsistencies in judging. One Master test we saw 2 triples and a quad. First series was a straight up triple, probably 5 or so dogs handled out of 40 or so dogs and a couple broke.

Second series was a tough triple with an island in the middle which cause a reentry and there must have been a nesting mallard on it plus drag back. Most dogs handled on this bird and probably a third of the dogs handled on one of the other birds in the set up. Watching all of the dogs I figured the judges were going to only end up with 10-15 dogs through to the next series. Mind you the water blinds were also hard and many dogs hacked them out too. Well they carried something like 37 dogs! At least one person that I talked to never thought her dog would be carried and the only reason her dog was on the grounds was because she had no one to take care of her dog at home and she got a ribbon.

Third series was a quad! 2 short birds and 2 medium length birds. Fairly hard set up with a real breaker bird thrown towards the line at about 5 yards. Well the test dog broke and handlers got nervous. The one judge say's "keep it quiet but don't let your dog break!" So most people handled the running dog like an honor and spoke quietly. Over half handle on at least one bird some on two birds.

There was maybe 5-7 dogs that did this test without a handle. 27+ dogs got ribbons. My dog did very well and after all was said and done I felt almost robbed. If judges want to set up ball busters than follow the standard and only pass the dogs who actually do the work. I know at the ribbon ceremony many people had very surprised looks on their faces and looking back at it many probably felt they really didn't deserve the passes.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> This summer's master tests that I ran I noticed some huge inconsistencies in judging. One Master test we saw 2 triples and a quad. First series was a straight up triple, probably 5 or so dogs handled out of 40 or so dogs and a couple broke.
> 
> Second series was a tough triple with an island in the middle which cause a reentry and there must have been a nesting mallard on it plus drag back. Most dogs handled on this bird and probably a third of the dogs handled on one of the other birds in the set up. Watching all of the dogs I figured the judges were going to only end up with 10-15 dogs through to the next series. Mind you the water blinds were also hard and many dogs hacked them out too. Well they carried something like 37 dogs! At least one person that I talked to never thought her dog would be carried and the only reason her dog was on the grounds was because she had no one to take care of her dog at home and she got a ribbon.
> 
> ...


It always leaves the final option; 

See Ted's threads on his judges sheets. They are beautiful, concise and professional. (yes, a very well deserved compliment on his showing off how his judges sheets work)There could come an option for a HT to have a "Book" of standardized tests? Judges select from those test combinations from "the book". I'd vote for Ted (100% serious) to put together those books for HT's and have judges adhere to those standards. Minor variables would be required although, we are judging hunt tests to a "standard" or, are we not?


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Don't get me wrong, the test that I explained was a very good set of tests. The judges just need to judge the standard.

Also saw one test where dogs that had 2 very good quick 1-2 whistle handles in separate series that were failed.....I was the HT secretary for that and got to field the complaints. Not saying they should have passed but when a HT pro's that take dogs to the MN every year complain something is wrong.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Seems to me, If you Over Train,then game day is a cake walk.

I understand not wanting a standard change, but it seems like a done deal.
If you are serious about a breeding program,I think many think Master Hunter minimal , and many like to see QAA.
So there is your long marks anyway.
This is all just my opinion.What do I know?

Gooser

P.S.
Honysuckle is my bubble fragrance of choice


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> Don't get me wrong, the test that I explained was a very good set of tests. The judges just need to judge the standard.
> 
> Also saw one test where dogs that had 2 very good quick 1-2 whistle handles in separate series that were failed.....I was the HT secretary for that and got to field the complaints. *Not saying they should have passed but when a HT pro's that take dogs to the MN every year complain something is wrong.*



Maybe that pro is a custom to getting the easy test and lenient judges ...Just because he/she is a pro doesn't carry any weight ...Steve S


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> *Not saying they should have passed but when a HT pro's that take dogs to the MN every year complain something is wrong.*


Pros don't whine? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

I know both pro's very good and run tests along side them all summer long and have not heard them complain. I would name them but that is not important. Just stating that the standard isn't a standard when one judge says 2 handles and your out no matter what and the next set let you handle 2-4 times!


----------

