# Have AKC Hunt Tests abandoned their stated purpose of simulating a days's hunt?



## Orion Labradors (Sep 12, 2010)

Have the AKC Senior Hunt Tests on the west coast abandoned their stated purpose of simulating a day's hunt at a level between the Junior and Master levels? 

They have traditionally been a straight forward double with a single blind off to the side or between the double mark.

Now the double marks are as difficult as the marks at the Master level. 

Now the lenth of the blinds have been extended with trickery such as scented bird bags placed on the line to the blind. (How many hunters leave a sack of birds out in the field away from their hunting blind?)

Many new comers who actually hunt waterfowl and upland game come to hunt tests and become disappointed and are turned away because they can't run their hunting retrievers at AKC hunt tests. 

Should Senior hunt tests be designed for the average hunter who does not run a pro trained dog or should we start doing angled water entries, flower pot singles and converging singles at the Junior level?


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Are these changes now the norm? I am on the East Coast and have not seen enough Hunt Tests in other areas to know what is really going on.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I think as time goes on people get better at training dogs. As the dogs get better the tests get harder the criteria goes up. The standard changes. This does benifit the hunter though because more people train to higher standards and the more people know the better for everyone. 
The tests will continue to get harder as training techniques advance.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

kzunell;808820[COLOR=red said:


> *]I think as time goes on people get better at training dogs. As the dogs get better the tests get harder the criteria goes up. The standard changes.*[/COLOR] This does benifit the hunter though because more people train to higher standards and the more people know the better for everyone.
> The tests will continue to get harder as training techniques advance.


 
How doest the citeria and STANDARD change?

Is there a protocol for its changes?

ORRR.

Is it SOMEONES INTERPRETATION of the Standard applied at a weekend hunt?

The original poster stated the distance of the blinds have increased,, and that trickery is involved with suction and diversion.

If distance was longer than the rules allowed,, the HC should have addressed it.

As far as suction on a blind, I have always assumed it would be present,, and train reguarly for it.

When you hunt,, dont you on occation have to run your dog through old scent to get another bird that has been dropped??

Just askin.

Gooser


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Orion Labradors said:


> They have traditionally been a straight forward double with a single blind off to the side or between the double mark.


I don't know about the west coast but around here they are pretty straight forward doubles with a single blind that is not between the marks, which is against the rules. 

Frankly, you could make a SH test a lot tougher than pretty much any one I have ever seen and a decent hunting dog should be able to pass.


----------



## Sophie Gundog (Apr 28, 2010)

Check out the pass/fail rate for last Saturday senior test at Sauvie Island on EE Entry....10 pass out of 42 ,3 scratches


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Suction allows the judge to verify trainability. I have heard many times HTs in CO are tougher than surrounding states and in our last HT last weekend, Marks were no more than 60-70 yards, blinds had good challenges to them. There is a Standard established by the AKC, dogs are tested to that level of performance, the standard has not changed significantly over the years. As noted earlier, if the marks were >100 yards, the HT Committee should have stepped in and reviewed it with the judges.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

kzunell said:


> I think as time goes on people get better at training dogs. As the dogs get better the tests get harder the criteria goes up. The standard changes. This does benifit the hunter though because more people train to higher standards and the more people know the better for everyone.
> The tests will continue to get harder as training techniques advance.


Wouldn't that be a better description of Field Trials? 

If the standard the dogs are judged against changes, then the HT is nothing more than a mini FT except the dogs are not ranked...(though all the judges would have to do is release their scores and then the HT dogs could be ranked). A slippery path to go down. 
I'm of the school of thought that the HT should not change. It is a Standard-based test to assess hunting skills under "normal" hunting conditions. Too often judges are setting up tests that would be better described as "unusual" or "exceptional" hunting conditions. 

If handlers want more challenging set-ups with greater distances and even some trickery, then they would be better off going to the Field Trial venue. Leave the Hunt Tests alone; if continuity and replicablilty are not pretty constant, then the HT titles are of lesser value as time goes on, which is completely contrary to the purpose of having a Standard-based test, temporal consistency is key. A dog that earned a SH 20 years ago should still be able to earn one in 20 years from now with no additional training...the dog is still a SH level competitor regardless of time. The FT game is a different story as the FC's of 20 YBP would not be able to compete well with the FC 20 years from now (unless they received higher levels of training and were genetically capable of attaining that level...and lived for 40 years). The FT is set up in purpose to be that way, to select for the best specimen, to constantly push the envelope.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

MooseGooser said:


> ORRR.
> 
> Is it SOMEONES INTERPRETATION of the Standard applied at a weekend hunt? Gooser




Is a "standard" a moving target? 

A "standard" implies that those that are not deficient in meeting the criteria have met the standard. Using standard deviation that would mean that about 75% would meet the standard. We all know that this is not the case in the hunt test world. If the tests are indeed getting harder, are there less meeting the standard in the west? If not, the standard has probably been met.

I will say that I did judge with someone from the west recently and their perception of easy was more like a good solid test in my area.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

kzunell said:


> I think as time goes on people get better at training dogs. As the dogs get better the tests get harder the criteria goes up. The standard changes. This does benifit the hunter though because more people train to higher standards and the more people know the better for everyone.
> The tests will continue to get harder as training techniques advance.


really?

i have trained all of my dogs to their MH titles spanning 20 years of involvement in the sport and am an 8 point judge across the board. to my knowledge the standard has not changed during that time. perhaps you can enlighten me.

to the OP, the way the game is evolving is unsettling to me. a Master dog has always been way more than is required for a good hunting dog, but that was ok, because you knew what you were getting into when you sent in the entry fee. a Senior dog was a dog any hunter would be proud to have by their side. the regulations make a specific point of the fact that a Senior dog is not expected to be fully trained. that is expected and required of the Master dogs. see page 28 and para. 4 and 9 on page 29 of the regulations. a Junior dog was about getting the masses involved and keeping their interest long enough to get them to train to a higher level. now we have Pros that make a living training and running junior dogs. so much for that.-Paul


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

brandywinelabs said:


> Is a "standard" a moving target?
> 
> A "standard" implies that those that are not deficient in meeting the criteria have met the standard. Using standard deviation that would mean that about 75% would meet the standard. We all know that this is not the case in the hunt test world. If the tests are indeed getting harder, are there less meeting the standard in the west? If not, the standard has probably been met.
> 
> *I will say that I did judge with someone from the west recently and their perception of easy was more like a good solid test in my area.*



bolding by me , Steve S 

I don't think the standard has changed since the first rule book for hunt test was written ...I do believe because of this very statement in bold print there is a lot of differences of opinion on what a dog should be capable of doing ...One must remember that there is always a new batch of dogs coming up through the ranks...People choose to run a dog before its time too...I have seen test in the 80's that are no different than todays...I do believe testing areas have changed and this has caused more factors to be delt with in some areas of the country...No longer just a round body of water and birds thrown out front 40 yards with a splash...like my old duck hunting pool...Steve S


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I was at the Sauvie Island Senior Friday.The test was not extreme at all.Most of the dogs or handlers (me included) took themselves out.The judges set the test up for the dogs.The first series was a reasonable walk up land double,a little tight but nothing terrible.Memory bird about 80 yds,right to left up , go bird flyer about 60 yds, to the left about 60 yds,thrown right to left. A short 40 yd blind about 90 degrees off to the side of the go bird.Same handling area.They had 27 out of 40 dogs to the next series.It was a water double.Memory bird to the left about 85 yds with at least 60 to 70 yds of swimming water,thrown left to right up a little incline on land.Go bird directly in front about 80 yds,60 to 70 yds of swimming water,thrown right to left again up a little incline on land.The marks were about 50 yds apart.Then back to the blind which was an angle entry to the right about 70 yds across the pond.We had the test aced up to the return on the memory bird.Had a little stickiness.Got the bird out and was flustered and sent Beanie too soon on the blind and she no goed.I think most of the dogs went out on the blind.The test was tough but doable.I do agree however that hunt test should still test at whatever level but not increase the degree of testing because of a National Master or better training methods.Leave that to FT.
We did pass Monday's test.One more to go for her title.

Jeff Gruber
Beanie - CK'S Contessa

PS Beanie says she would like a new handler.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

I ran 6 senior tests in WA, OR and MT last year to get our title (no JH so needed 5 passes) and never saw anything that I felt was out of line with the rules or what a senior dog should do. We did see a flower pot double at one test which some people didn't like but we had trained for them and I saw very few dogs have a problem with it. Blinds are not run between marks in senior (unless run before the marks I guess but we never saw that) and I only saw 1 blind that was less than 90 degrees away from the marks. And it was a very clear channel blind so wasn't impacted by the marks.

I did hear about a couple of knarly sounding series at Suavie in Masters but I wasn't there and based on what I heard about all the water I'm sure tests were impacted by the lack of usable land.

We start our journey in master tests this weekend. I don't care about hard tests as long as they're fair...and, hopefully, fun and challenging to run.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

labsforme said:


> Most of the dogs or handlers (me included) took themselves out.


It has been a long time since I judged one, but IMO a senior test typically has a wide variety of quality in dogs and handlers. Even recently, watching them it seems that this is still true. I have seen lay down senior tests where 5 out of 40 passed and some more challenging ones where almost everyone passed. 

I have never seen a senior test that I thought was too much test. Sure the distances may be a smidge long if there is no cover or anything. The only time I have seen a flower pot (or momma poppa--I always get them confused) was when it was the only way to make the water pretty square. Usually the dogs that fail do it to themselves (although I have seen one where the judges pencil whipped folks) for whatever reason.

Around here, it is typical for the Senior to be the exact same test as the Junior only done as doubles with blinds thrown in.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I don't know if they have changed anything. There have been rules in place for a long time that have little or nothing to do with simulating a days hunt.

The fact that you can't even whisper to your dog or pat your leg before being released by the judge comes to mind. It just makes no sense to me. And there are many others.

I run the test they set up, the way the rules say to run it. If I see certain judges making a habit of not setting up tests which comply with the rules, I'll likely avoid those judges and maybe that club in the future. If it's just a tough test but within the rules, I'll go home and train and come back for the challenge. Being one of the ten out of 40 dogs to pass a test makes me feel like I'm doing a good job in my training.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

kzunell said:


> I think as time goes on people get better at training dogs. As the dogs get better the tests get harder the criteria goes up. The standard changes. This does benifit the hunter though because more people train to higher standards and the more people know the better for everyone.
> The tests will continue to get harder as training techniques advance.


The harder the criteria for the test, the more likely that the average joe is going to need professional help. The more need for pro help, the less likely that the average joe is going to participate in hunt tests. This is the beginning of the end for our sport if the average joe cannot compete with the pros.


----------



## David Lo Buono (Apr 6, 2005)

paul young said:


> really?
> 
> i have trained all of my dogs to their MH titles spanning 20 years of involvement in the sport and am an 8 point judge across the board. to my knowledge the standard has not changed during that time. perhaps you can enlighten me.
> 
> to the OP, the way the game is evolving is unsettling to me. a Master dog has always been way more than is required for a good hunting dog, but that was ok, because you knew what you were getting into when you sent in the entry fee. a Senior dog was a dog any hunter would be proud to have by their side. the regulations make a specific point of the fact that a Senior dog is not expected to be fully trained. that is expected and required of the Master dogs. see page 28 and para. 4 and 9 on page 29 of the regulations. a Junior dog was about getting the masses involved and keeping their interest long enough to get them to train to a higher level. now we have Pros that make a living training and running junior dogs. so much for that.-Paul




Here Here!

I love playing the games...But comparing a days hunt Vs an AKC or NAHRA or HRC set up is many times like comparing apples to oranges...Anyone who spends a decent time afield will tell you that......Enjoy the games for what they are....The ultimate peice of gear to carry into the field is a retriever UNDER CONTROL....Which is exactly what it takes to acheive the upper level titles..CONTROL is the essence of a MH or HRCH or MHR....And Its why I play the game...I can rattle off a thousand set ups that we train for that I most likely will never see or do during a days hunt on the marsh.....


----------



## Bally's Gun Dogs (Jul 28, 2010)

Another aspect to bring to the game is degree of judging. I have seen harder setups judged a little loose and easier setups judged with a sharper pencil. Senior tests get second choice of location as masters tests get the first choice so sometimes the judges have to set up something they would prefer not to do. Then most will judge accordingly.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

It has been close to 15 yrs since I've run a test and those were UKC. At the time all the test seemed straight forward with Started to hook the beginner, Seasoned for a decent hunting dog, and Finished for a really superior gundog.

It saddens me if these test are turning into mini field trials. They shouldn't be competition to drop dogs. they should be judging your dog against a standard.

Substitute the letters for each UKC, NAHRA, or AKC to my statements above. Is it time for a new HUNT TEST starting with an A for Amatuer?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I dont know how y'all hunt, but no HT or FT comes close to simulating a REAL hunt...when you can simulate a decoying duck/goose that comes flying in at odd angles, while you are wearing a full jacket and chest waders, or when you have to sit up in an instant from a layout blind, then you can talk about simulating a day's hunt...these are retrieving games


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> I dont know how y'all hunt, but no HT or FT comes close to simulating a REAL hunt...when you can simulate a decoying duck/goose that comes flying in at odd angles, while you are wearing a full jacket and chest waders, or when you have to sit up in an instant from a layout blind, then you can talk about simulating a day's hunt...these are retrieving games


Yes you are correct. I am only familiar with UKC hunt test and the original intent was to simulate a hunt as closely as possible. There is no way to simulate a 200 yard sailing goose or a crippled wood duck diving.

However, you can simulate different levels of ability in a hunting dog. If it is turning into lets try to trick the dogs by going outside the simulated hunt rules it isn't right.

Actually since I'm not in the game anymore I shouldn't have an opinion so I should bow out on this one but at any rate thats my opinion.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Hey Bon (Evan too).Beanie is the dog I got last year that we talked about.She's come a long way.She just needs (and hopes for) a better trainer/handler.She can do the work if I just settle down.It didn't help that she'll be in heat in a couple of weeks.

Take care,

Jeff


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

All venues are to "simulate" hunting. IMO, AKC is *least like* a real hunting scenario. HRC is most realistic and NAHRA is the most complete.
Of course the dogs and handlers know there is a big difference between real hunting and tests.
The dogs don't care as long as they get to pick up the birdies.



.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Doc E said:


> All venues are to "simulate" hunting. IMO, AKC is *least like* a real hunting scenario. HRC is most realistic and NAHRA is the most complete.
> Of course the dogs and handlers know there is a big difference between real hunting and tests.
> The dogs don't care as long as they get to pick up the birdies.
> 
> ...


Not to say I totally disagree, but put some flyers in HRC and it might be "complete".


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Doc E said:


> All venues are to "simulate" hunting. IMO, AKC is *least like* a real hunting scenario. HRC is most realistic and NAHRA is the most complete.
> Of course the dogs and handlers know there is a big difference between real hunting and tests.
> The dogs don't care as long as they get to pick up the birdies.
> 
> ...


I'm not really qualified to argue since I've never even seen a NAHRA test but why do you say UKC is more realistic than NAHRA?


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Doc E said:


> All venues are to "simulate" hunting. IMO, AKC is *least like* a real hunting scenario. HRC is most realistic and NAHRA is the most complete.
> Of course the dogs and handlers know there is a big difference between real hunting and tests.
> The dogs don't care as long as they get to pick up the birdies.
> 
> ...


Doc E, when was the last time you ran an AKC test? 

Each venue is about simulating the challenges a dog will face while hunting. All venues have their positives and negatives regarding actual hunting situations. With all due respect to the OP, this sounds like a "damn, I just failed a test" whine. Been there, done that.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

If you want to "simulate an actual days hunt" then GO HUNTING. I would every single day, if possible. If you want to test specific qualities that a hunting retriever needs to possess to be an effective conservation tool, in controlled conditions with objective judging, there is a hunt test somewhere every weekend. Love 'em. If you want a "changing standard" as dogs and training get better, then there is a FT every weekend. Those are fun, too. Except for the goofy Friday start deal. The three should NOT be confused, IMHO. ;-)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

It's dog games, it's all good, whatever venue you enjoy. No reason to single out one as less because you can't do well. AKC is definately more technical and requires a more highly trained dog and some of it is because of the use of live flyers. Live flyers bring out the essence of what a retriever is about and it does change the game. Dead birds or bumpers don't bring the same enthusiasm, but we need to stick together because there are people that are adamant that they want to see dog games and hunting end, and they are gaining strength through bills they are pushing through with the money they solicit. Wake up, this is only the start, because once they get their foot in the door, they will go after shooting birds and hunting.


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> I'm not really qualified to argue since I've never even seen a NAHRA test but why do you say UKC is more realistic than NAHRA?


First couple of thoughts :
Shooting a real gun from the line
No attention getting from the field



.


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

RF2 said:


> Doc E, when was the last time you ran an AKC test?


 
Ran in two "Plan A" AKC Tests last year. (part of the process of getting our Club approved by AKC).


.


----------



## Robert (Feb 28, 2006)

Thomas D said:


> Not to say I totally disagree, but put some flyers in HRC and it might be "complete".


There is flyers in HRC. You just don't see it often.


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Not to say I totally disagree, but put some flyers in HRC and it might be "complete".


I've run in a few HRC Finished where Flyers were used. Not extremely common, but done, none the less.
Just my opinion, but I like to see Started/Junior dogs have a flyer.
Once a dog moves up, I don't see a lot of value in them.



.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

There is much value at any level in an out of order flyer to see if a dog will swing off it, look past it to a longer mark, or run a blind past it as a PB, IMHO.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Doc E said:


> I've run in a few HRC Finished where Flyers were used. Not extremely common, but done, none the less.
> Just my opinion, but I like to see Started/Junior dogs have a flyer.
> *Once a dog moves up, I don't see a lot of value in them.*
> 
> ...


 
Seriously?? I'll bet at least 50% of the master tests I've watched I've seen at least one dog break on a flyer, several times were while on honor.

I agree with ErinsEdge, AKC is more technical in general, especially in masters. I've run, attended and/or helped at HRC and NAHRA events as well and all the dogs and most of the competitors had just as much fun at each. That's what really matters.

I've never had any illusions that hunt tests were supposed to accurately replicate a "real day of hunting". Instead, IMHO, the purpose is to put the dogs in several different situations that they may encounter while hunting to demonstrate their skill and training to accomplish the task. All based on the level of the dog (junior, senior or master).

All just IMHO


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Thank you for a great post.



ErinsEdge said:


> It's dog games, it's all good, whatever venue you enjoy. No reason to single out one as less because you can't do well. AKC is definately more technical and requires a more highly trained dog and some of it is because of the use of live flyers. Live flyers bring out the essence of what a retriever is about and it does change the game. Dead birds or bumpers don't bring the same enthusiasm, but we need to stick together because there are people that are adamant that they want to see dog games and hunting end, and they are gaining strength through bills they are pushing through with the money they solicit. Wake up, this is only the start, because once they get their foot in the door, they will go after shooting birds and hunting.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

paul young said:


> really?
> 
> ia Junior dog was about getting the masses involved and keeping their interest long enough to get them to train to a higher level. *now we have Pros that make a living training and running junior dogs. so much for that.*-Paul



That's funny, and unfortunately true...


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

GulfCoast said:


> There is much value at any level in an out of order flyer to see if a dog will swing off it, look past it to a longer mark, or run a blind past it as a PB, IMHO.


No kidding. Got a crate of ducks outside right now, waiting for training later, HT this weekend. The dogs are pacing, moaning and should be about out of their skins by the time we get set up. They don't do that when I set a crate of bumpers out there. All kinds of ways to use live birds and test a dog to see if it is a suitable hunting companion.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Buzz said:


> That's funny, and unfortunately true...


 
without pro entries it would be awfully hard for a lot of clubs to make ends meet. We often have 4-5 pro trucks with a minimum of 10 dogs entered in various stakes per truck. Lose 50 dogs and we'd be taking a major hit and costs would over-run profit quickly. Same holds true for any event. I see a lot of pro's working HRC dogs even though the owners (i guessing) run their own dogs more frequently. 

It isn't good for anyone for events to go away. Pro's lose business, people lose opportunities close to home to work their dogs. 

I've yet to see an unfair junior test where the dog didn't take itself out. I've seen tests which I don't like because they contradict good training.


----------



## Madisonian (Jun 11, 2010)

> I was at the Sauvie Island Senior Friday.The test was not extreme at all.Most of the dogs or handlers (me included) took themselves out.
> 
> Jeff Gruber
> Beanie - CK'S Contessa


That's all true, but the Friday and Monday tests show the VERY wide range of difficulty at Senior. The pass rate was 25% on Friday and 75% on Monday, with essentially the same dogs and handlers running both tests. Three pros collectively got one dog through that Friday Senior test. If the judges realize 10 dogs in that the test is a little too hard, it's too late...


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Robert said:


> There is flyers in HRC. You just don't see it often.


Well aware of that. Treasure Coast uses them a lot. Even though it isn't against the rules,  it isn't something HRC buys into.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Things I now expect to see in senior. Out of order flyer, Bull dog, Pinched birds, over under, remote sit/send, Land-water doubles, blinds straight into the wind. blinds a few yards behind the gunner station, multiple land-water entries on blinds/marks. Things I haven't seen yet but train for are bull dogs on way in from blind and bull dogs on the way out to blind. 
In Junior I am seeing more Pinched tests and the angle between marks is going down. Also seeing more angled water entries in junior. Seeing more dogs dropped for switching in Junior tests (actually returning to an old fall). Junior has gone from 4 singles to delayed doubles. 

The written standard hasn't changed much in AKC but judges are changing how they score things and the tests set up. I am seeing more quads and quints in Master now. 

An example of a Standard that hasn't changed is the Lab breed standard. Yet the judges seem to be going with bigger is better in the show ring. If the judges change how they interpet the standard then what is required to get a title changes. 

Think about how your standard of what a good car or truck has changed since 1986.


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

Side question about clubs: Don't clubs make their money from their members? Isn't that money in order to secure the training grounds? As far as costs per HT (costs to put on the test), does that increase or decrease depending on the number of dogs?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

agengo02 said:


> Side question about clubs: Don't clubs make their money from their members? Isn't that money in order to secure the training grounds? As far as costs per HT (costs to put on the test), does that increase or decrease depending on the number of dogs?


I don't know about most clubs, but every club of which I have been a member made their money from tests/trials. It takes a lot of members to bring in the profit from one test.

As far as costs, typically the two biggest line items in a typical test P&L is going to be Birds and Judges expenses. Birds are variable, but judges expenses are fixed. Bird Boys are typically the next biggest (fixed), then food for judges and BBs (fixed) AKC fees (variable?) and judges gifts.

If you break it down just into truly fixed and truly variable (to simplify--I know some are going to be semi-fixed and semi-variable) fixed costs will run around 60% of the total around here.

Looking at the actual numbers from one of my clubs recent hunt tests, we needed 177 dogs (assuming each one pays $65) to break even. After that, each dog entered added about $3.00 in profit to the club, until you hit the point where you had to add more splits, of course.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> I don't know about most clubs, but every club of which I have been a member made their money from tests/trials. It takes a lot of members to bring in the profit from one test.
> 
> As far as costs, typically the two biggest line items in a typical test P&L is going to be Birds and Judges expenses. Birds are variable, but judges expenses are fixed. Bird Boys are typically the next biggest (fixed), then food for judges and BBs (fixed) AKC fees (variable?) and judges gifts.
> 
> ...


AND an unexpected split can mean the difference between making money and loosing ....especially the master .... a master with 60 dogs at 70$ a head vs a split 32 and 32...Steve S


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Doc E said:


> Just my opinion, but I like to see Started/Junior dogs have a flyer.
> Once a dog moves up, I don't see a lot of value in them.


I strongly disagree with that a flyer does not greatly affect dogs at higher levels. 

The excitement of the live flyers plays with the dogs minds from JH at HT's to all age stakes at FT's. We train with dead ducks instead of bumpers as much as possible but wish we could train more frequently with live ones. Flyers suck memory from the dogs brains when they have to go pick up the long hidden or retired dead bird mark.


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

Buzz said:


> That's funny, and unfortunately true...


There is a pro in our area that runs several dogs in the junior tests... as something to get his derby dogs use to the environment. Very very talented dogs and a great pro. I know our club like the entry fees as well. No need to belittle a pro running junior dogs.


----------



## Dan Boerboon (May 30, 2009)

Sophie Gundog said:


> Check out the pass/fail rate for last Saturday senior test at Sauvie Island on EE Entry....10 pass out of 42 ,3 scratches


 
Check out EE for the Southern MN spring test 6/25 MH and 4/20 SH. I don't think the standards are changing IMO some judges like/need to set up a more challenging test than others.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Madisonian , the test Monday between the A and B portion ( I was in B) had a 50% overall pass rate.Same dogs as Friday in both.Monday's test was,IMHO,easier and it included a 50 yd flower pot on land in B.Just throw birds though.The A portion had a tougher test than B.Train for whatever comes up.As I had stated before.We should have passed Friday except for my mess up on the blind.

Regards,

Jeff


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

There has definitely been a change. It is very apparent to those of us who were involved from the beginning. One example---evaluation of the nose. It was Category II under Abilities. It's no longer there. Also, I believe the spirit of the Hunt Test has changed i.e. "...to determine their suitability and ability as hunting companions."


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

Rick_C said:


> *1.* Seriously?? I'll bet at least 50% of the master tests I've watched I've seen at least one dog break on a flyer, several times were while on honor.
> 
> *2.* I agree with ErinsEdge, AKC is more technical in general, especially in masters.
> 
> 3. I've run, attended and/or helped at HRC and NAHRA events as well and all the dogs and most of the competitors had just as much fun at each. That's what really matters.


1. Then the dogs were being run before they were really ready.
2. Ask Rob -- you were there, when he ran the HRC Finished last year (at "honey Hole pond).
3. For sure, for sure 

Good luck at Loon Lake this weekend -- we'll swing by after training



.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Doc E said:


> 1. Then the dogs were being run before they were really ready.
> 2. Ask Rob -- you were there, when he ran the HRC Finished last year (at "honey Hole pond).
> 3. For sure, for sure
> 
> ...


1. Wrong. I've seen MH titled dogs break on a flyer. And, if there is no benefit for "upper level" dogs, why do they use them in the Open of field trials?

2. The dead bird that landed maybe 15 or 20 ft in front of the dogs with a big splash? What does that have to do with flyers?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Robert said:


> There is flyers in HRC. You just don't see it often.


They shoot flyers in HRC tests all the time.........................................................................................Upland tests, that is!


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

A dog that breaks is "not ready" for that level???" I have seen *** dogs break on a flyer. That means they were not ready for Junior?  

That is EXACTLY why flyers complicate tests more than dead birds. Use rooster pheasants as flyers and that adds even MORE complication. 

They are DOGS for crying out loud. If they really were robots, they would be no fun to snuggle with on the couch.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> They are DOGS for crying out loud. If they really were robots, they would be no fun to snuggle with on the couch.


Yes, an opinion shared by many!!!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Saying a live flyer is put in a test just so a dog breaks is pretty naive. In the advanced testing, the flyer influences how the dogs attempt to pick up the birds, their memory, if they even see another bird go off, and if you just go watch an all age stake you will see what that flyer does. It is a waste of the flyer to make it a breaking bird.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

agengo02 said:


> Side question about clubs: Don't clubs make their money from their members? Isn't that money in order to secure the training grounds? As far as costs per HT (costs to put on the test), does that increase or decrease depending on the number of dogs?


Make money from members? Sorta. Seems the vast majority of the entry fees at tests/trials are from non-members that make the drive. 

Having to split a series can really tighten the profit margin for a club.

I haven't studied the treasurers report, but ours will open the books for any member. I suspect your club treasurer would do the same (provided you politely approached them with the request).


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> Saying a live flyer is put in a test just so a dog breaks is pretty naive. In the advanced testing, the flyer influences how the dogs attempt to pick up the birds, their memory, if they even see another bird go off, and if you just go watch an all age stake you will see what that flyer does. It is a waste of the flyer to make it a breaking bird.


What if that live flyer turns out to be a cripple and a runner?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Jerry and Freya said:


> What if that live flyer turns out to be a cripple and a runner?


You think that is a reason not to shoot flyers? It is judged as such or no birded. These dogs certainly should be able to manage a cripple.
The day they stop shooting flyers I personally will have lost my desire to compete-it's what is most compelling and beautiful about these dogs is their desire for live birds.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Jerry and Freya said:


> What if that live flyer turns out to be a cripple and a runner?


What's wrong with being presented with a cripple? As ErinsEdge stated these dogs should be able to manage a cripple.


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

Russ said:


> I strongly disagree with that a flyer does not greatly affect dogs at higher levels.
> 
> The excitement of the live flyers plays with the dogs minds from JH at HT's to all age stakes at FT's. We train with dead ducks instead of bumpers as much as possible but wish we could train more frequently with live ones. Flyers suck memory from the dogs brains when they have to go pick up the long hidden or retired dead bird mark.


I have had a few dogs that I could pull off the flyer and send for the other marks before sending for the flyer in all age stakes. Sometimes the judges set up tests where one of the retired marks did not retire until the first bird was picked up. When the flyer went down and my number called I would take a step toward a retired station and the dog would follow me and lock in on that bird station. One judge kidded me about "cheating his test" because instead of sending for the flyer, I sent the dog for a shorter retired first because that station did not retire until the first bird was picked up (usually flyer) and the retired mark was really close to the flyer station was and I saw a few dogs that went back to the flyer station when sent for the retired mark.

I had one dog, Kate, that after the flyer was shot automatically locked in on the long retired without me doing anything and I couldn't get her off of it so I sent her. I sent her next for the short retired then the flyer. 

A couple of times I sent Hooker for the flyer and on her own went to the short retired and picked up that bird on her own.

The point I am trying to make is not all dogs are crazy and hopped up about flyers. Of course that was in AA stakes where the flyer was at a distance of 200 plus yards. I would have had a problem if I had tried that in the Hunt tests because the flyer was much closer to the line and usually the last bird down. If there was an out of order flyer I would always send for the last bird down first.


----------



## Tarball (Aug 12, 2010)

Recently had a pup with three passes compete in Junior. TWO previous dogs took a DUMP in the area of the second fall. He came to line ...first bird flyer was shot and crippled. He chased, found the bird returned to line with a flapping quacking live duck. 

Second single was from the sack and thrown into area of dog crap. Puppy went out, sniffed the area.......continued hunt.......returned to bird.....sniffed it, continued hunt......never left the fall area.....returned to bird, picked it up, returned and again delivered to hand. Both retrieves were done with speed and in a stylish manner.

After driving 200 miles with my 7 year old granddaughter.........he was booted for "blinking the bird" The fat, slow, disinterested Goldens that crapped in the fall area...........looked at the bird........looked at the handler......looked at the bird........looked at the handler.....and then slowley picked up the bird and returned.....????? Yes they were called back!

So much for encouraging young people. So much for using the Junior to encourage the masses. So much for a "Standard". Am I dissapointed?
Only when the seven year old said........"Why did the boot us grandpa?"


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I don't want a dog that will Never break.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> Well aware of that. Treasure Coast uses them a lot. Even though it isn't against the rules, it isn't something HRC buys into.



Not only is it something HRC does not buy into it is something that is harshly protested against by many HRC judges and Reps who cannot justify their reasoning other to say there is no reason for it. I guess it is far more real to shoot a real gun with a popper in it than to use a flyer.
Really not knocking any venue, I love HRC and AKC. Both have their good points and both have things I do not like. As to test getting harder or standards being raised. I don't see it so much. Are test simulating a days hunt? Sure, it is a simulation just like any other simulation. It is not the real thing, it just kind of sort of looks like it. You want real hunt.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Tarball said:


> Recently had a pup with three passes compete in Junior. TWO previous dogs took a DUMP in the area of the second fall. He came to line ...first bird flyer was shot and crippled. He chased, found the bird returned to line with a flapping quacking live duck.
> 
> Second single was from the sack and thrown into area of dog crap. Puppy went out, sniffed the area.......continued hunt.......returned to bird.....sniffed it, continued hunt......never left the fall area.....returned to bird, picked it up, returned and again delivered to hand. Both retrieves were done with speed and in a stylish manner.
> 
> ...


I haven't read the R's & R's for a while but I believe blinking is mandatory elimination, is it not?

And it is defined as what you described.

Judges had no choice.

JS


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Did the judges inspect the bird when it was given to them? Did it have crap all over it when you took it from the dog? If so, did you mention that to the judges? Don't know if it would make any difference to them but I probably would have pointed it out and maybe catch a break.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Did the judges inspect the bird when it was given to them? Did it have crap all over it when you took it from the dog? If so, did you mention that to the judges? Don't know if it would make any difference to them but I probably would have pointed it out and maybe catch a break.


Not meaning to throw the judges under the bus....wait a minute....that's pecisely what I am doing. Any judge that allows any dog to crap near the AOF, and not demand the handler to go out and clean it up, deserves to be thrown under a bus.

Even "Master/Finished" dogs will turn their noses up at another dog's crap, so why would a judge think they can adequately judge a Jr animal in that type of setting? The dogs they failed weren't the problem, they were the problem for failing to run a proper test. Beep-Beep!

UB


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

I hate to mention it but just because the crap is picked up the scent remains...It seems we have lost the art of judging and are all now bean counters...Steve S


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Sorry people I don't buy it. Most dogs sniff other dog's crap all the time. Watch them, they can't go by it without giving it a look see and sniff. If it's in the area I wouldn't begrudge a dog a slow pick up but he's got to pick it up and retrieve it.

coprophagous regards,


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

I have plenty of thoughts about the direction of AKC Hunt Tests. None of them will be expressed by me here. There are some judges that have heard my opinion and although I'm sure it had little or no effect it did make me feel better.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Sorry people I don't buy it. Most dogs sniff other dog's crap all the time. Watch them, they can't go by it without giving it a look see and sniff. If it's in the area I wouldn't begrudge a dog a slow pick up but he's got to pick it up and retrieve it.
> 
> coprophagous regards,


Exactly!!!

JS


----------



## Kent W (Jun 22, 2009)

I judge AKC Senior/Junior and NAHRA all levels. I believe (just my opinion) that the "AKC" through their reps at the clinics I have attended WANT more realistic scenarios. More decoys, more use of "common" hunting tools/gear such as boats (for handlers and dog at the shoreline), layout blinds, and longer (more than 20') walkups. At a NAHRA Field Test I would (or could) expect to see the use of layout blinds for handlers in a field goose hunt at any level that didnt allow you to hold onto your dog. But, in my opinion, if I were to do that in an AKC Senior I would be ran out of town on a rail. I dont like, nor set up tricky or gotcha tests in either venue. But rather what I have experienced in the field and witnessed at Field and Hunt Tests that I liked (yes, a copy cat). I have only been "playing" these games for 11 years. But if at one time an AKC Hunt Test used more equipment typically found in a hunt than a dog whistle, then yes, they (or us judges) have indeed changed.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Howard N said:


> Sorry people I don't buy it. Most dogs sniff other dog's crap all the time. Watch them, they can't go by it without giving it a look see and sniff. If it's in the area I wouldn't begrudge a dog a slow pick up but he's got to pick it up and retrieve it.
> 
> coprophagous regards,



Exactly. Down here most training and test take place in a cow pasture full of crap. I have seen many birds land in crap and not be an issue for the dog.


Lastly, I would have to re-read the post (and I am not about to do that), but I don't think the OP said it landed in crap, just that dogs had crapped near or in the AOF. IMHO a dog that will not pick up a bird simply because it is near dog crap has not persevered.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't think they ever can or will simulate a days hunt. The only thing that can do that is a day's hunt. To even try is folly.

I think sometimes there is too much emphasis on trying to simulate the hunt. You know it is not a hunt, and guaranteed the dogs know it is not a hunt. The hunting accoutrements at tests do not fool man nor beast into believing they are at a hunt.

What they can and should do, however, is simulate the dog skills needed on a day's hunt. We need to remember we are evaluating a hunting dog's skills. Sometimes non hunting judges get much too carried away with technical concepts that will likely never be seen in 2 lifetimes of hunting.

But over all, it's all good. The more the dogs and handlers get exposed to the better. Whether it is a "realistic hunting" experience or not, as long as it tests the actual SKILLS that a hunting dog needs, then I say go for it. Some venues place more emphasis on the "realism" while others have more on the "technical" aspects.

Run them all. Your dog will love it, and will come out the other end a better hunting dog.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

there seems to be widespread agreement among most of those posting on this topic that realism and or simulation of a day's hunt are counter to a good testing program and of no value in evaluating the dogs's retrieving skills. they point out that those skills can be assesed without any attempt at the realism that the AKC makes frequent and pointed references to throughout the regulations booklet and as presented at their seminars.

is it time for RHTAC to recommend that those references be struck from the regulations and the tests be re-named simply retriever skill tests?

this is a serious question, not just a glib attempt at sarcasm.-Paul


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Paul,

I don't necessarily think that "realism" is counter to good testing. Rather, try as we might, we will never really simulate a true hunt. Sure, the dogs should be exposed to decoys, camo, blinds, boats, etc. in a test. But even with all that, the dogs still know it ain't hunting. 

I think it may be the handler's expectations of how much a real hunt can actually be simulated within the framework of a hunt test. 

For example, take the concept of talking to your dog. Sure we all talk to the dogs while hunting. But which dog is trained to a higher standard, one the needs "sit" reminders while birds are in the air,, or one that sits through it all without the reminders?


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

dixidawg said:


> But which dog is trained to a higher standard, one the needs "sit" reminders while birds are in the air,, or one that sits through it all without the reminders?


 
Then why doesn't that (no talking) carry over to Honor ?



.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

paul young said:


> there seems to be widespread agreement among most of those posting on this topic that realism and or simulation of a day's hunt are *counter* to a good testing program and of *no* value in evaluating the dogs's retrieving skills. they point out that those skills can be assesed without any attempt at the realism that the AKC makes frequent and pointed references to throughout the regulations booklet and as presented at their seminars.


I don't think I would go so far as to use the bolded words but I agree that hunt tests don't well simulate hunting and you can evaluate the skills a dog needs to be a good hunting companion without pretending to be hunting, when everyone involved knows you are not.



paul young said:


> is it time for RHTAC to recommend that those references be struck from the regulations and the tests be re-named simply retriever skill tests?


Fine by me. Just line the dogs up and stop worrying so much if the handler pointed the fake gun at the gun station before the bird was in the air, etc.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

If the Master National is the best of the best, when was the last time layout blinds were used or sending dogs from boats or platforms? Maybe it's been done, but not recently.

We also have to keep in mind that some handlers cannot get into a boat or layout blind.


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

Tarball said:


> Recently had a pup with three passes compete in Junior. TWO previous dogs took a DUMP in the area of the second fall. He came to line ...first bird flyer was shot and crippled. He chased, found the bird returned to line with a flapping quacking live duck.
> 
> Second single was from the sack and thrown into area of dog crap. Puppy went out, sniffed the area.......continued hunt.......returned to bird.....sniffed it, continued hunt......never left the fall area.....returned to bird, picked it up, returned and again delivered to hand. Both retrieves were done with speed and in a stylish manner.
> 
> ...


Fetch means fetch. I agree with UB though, the judges shoulda had the handler clean that up.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

paul young said:


> "..... realism and or simulation of a day's hunt are counter to a good testing program and of no value in evaluating the dogs's retrieving skills. they point out that those skills can be assesed without any attempt at the realism that the AKC makes frequent and pointed references to throughout the regulations booklet and as presented at their seminars.
> 
> is it time for RHTAC to recommend that those references be struck from the regulations and the tests be re-named simply retriever skill tests?
> 
> this is a serious question, not just a glib attempt at sarcasm.-Paul


Agreed. We are not training, and we are not hunting. But we are testing
the merits and siklls....!
It is indeed serious. As an example, in the name of realism, we see things in tests like two birds so close that the AOFs are almost identical (two birds thrown the same direction from the same station landing only 10 - 15 or so yards apart and almost the same exact line to each.). And then the judges do not take that into consideration to the point of scoring a switch, or not expecting many dogs to handle, or the dogs just stumble on bird. That is what blinds under the arc or on a line through or near the AOF are for. Set a good mark based off suction and placement and you can then truly get a definitive score of marking and memory for each bird.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

It does in the golden retriever WCX. 



Doc E said:


> Then why doesn't that (no talking) carry over to Honor ?
> 
> 
> 
> .


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

hotel4dogs said:


> It does in the golden retriever WCX.


That's more due to the fact that the handler usually has to wake the rug up before leaving the line.

Not like one of them fluffies is gonna break regards

Bubba


----------



## Monte09 (Feb 5, 2008)

brandywinelabs said:


> Agreed. We are not training, and we are not hunting. But we are testing
> the merits and siklls....!
> It is indeed serious. As an example, in the name of realism, we see things in tests like two birds so close that the AOFs are almost identical (two birds thrown the same direction from the same station landing only 10 - 15 or so yards apart and almost the same exact line to each.). And then the judges do not take that into consideration to the point of scoring a switch, or not expecting many dogs to handle, or the dogs just stumble on bird. That is what blinds under the arc or on a line through or near the AOF are for. Set a good mark based off suction and placement and you can then truly get a definitive score of marking and memory for each bird.


As soon as we stop trying to simulate a day’s hunt you can count me out. The reason I participate is to develop the skills that will help my dogs succeed while hunting. A true hunting dog will require real hunting experience to become a finished/master hunter but we can train and test a number of skills that will be needed during a days hunt. There is an infinite number of scenarios that a dog may encounter during a days hunt that would be considered an unfair test which is why we attempt to simulate a hunt. That’s why it’s important for our judges to be not just hunters but also experienced handlers/trainers. My concern is if we start running ‘retriever skill tests’ the tests will stray even further from a days hunt than currently required for a fair hunt test.

Many poke fun at the rule requiring us to shoulder a gun. An experienced hunting dog will often swing with a shoulder gun. Take away the attention getters at the gun stations and many would be grateful the rule exists.

Steve


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Bubba said:


> That's more due to the fact that the handler usually has to wake the rug up before leaving the line.
> 
> Not like one of them fluffies is gonna break regards
> 
> Bubba


Oh my, Bubba ... this is gonna leave a mark. :grab:


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Monte09 said:


> As soon as we stop trying to simulate a day’s hunt you can count me out.
> Steve


Steve, We can't stop simulating. But sometimes the attempt to "simulate" clouds the fact that we are testing and gets in the way of good fair testing.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Bubba said:


> That's more due to the fact that the handler usually has to wake the rug up before leaving the line.
> 
> Not like one of them fluffies is gonna break regards
> 
> Bubba


What dogs are you running, Bubba? And need I add that the GRCA WC test just may be more difficult than your breed's equivalent.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

gdgnyc said:


> What dogs are you running, Bubba? And need I add that the GRCA WC test just may be more difficult than your breed's equivalent.


Hey I didn't know they made brown and white fluffies. that one in you avatar is cute.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

you must refer to the lab WC, in which they have to run 20 feet to a bird, one time, pick it up with lots of encouragement, and deliver it in the general vicinity of the handler, give or take 20 yards....




gdgnyc said:


> What dogs are you running, Bubba? And need I add that the GRCA WC test just may be more difficult than your breed's equivalent.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

OK Boys and girls I'll bite ...


> We did see a flower pot double at one test which some people didn't like


Whattinthewurld is a "flower pot" retrieve? My idiots have brung back some quare things, but never a flower pot. Yet.

Eug


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Colonel Blimp said:


> OK Boys and girls I'll bite ...
> 
> Whattinthewurld is a "flower pot" retrieve? My idiots have brung back some quare things, but never a flower pot. Yet.
> 
> Eug


 
Eug, here's a discussion of flower pot marks.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=70432

Chris


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Bubba said:


> That's more due to the fact that the handler usually has to wake the rug up before leaving the line.
> 
> Not like one of them fluffies is gonna break regards
> 
> Bubba


Who is Bubba in SE Washington? Is that you Ron Jackson? Doesn't sound like Mark Buckmaster, Al Dado or Ed Labonara, could be Carol Sealock but I always took Bubba to be a man.


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> Who is Bubba in SE Washington?
> 
> 
> but I always took Bubba to be a man.


He's SW not SE.

You opened a door someone will be able to drive a truck thru. Where is /Paul when you need him

INCOMING!!!!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> Who is Bubba in SE Washington? Is that you Ron Jackson? Doesn't sound like Mark Buckmaster, Al Dado or Ed Labonara, could be Carol Sealock but I always took Bubba to be a man.


don't know if'in a feller would be a holdin' a tea cup 
thinkin' it is Paris H in deep cover


----------



## Rip Shively (Sep 5, 2007)

Living proof that some men just get better looking with age. Then again, it could be an old photo. Does Terry realize how lucky she is?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ken Bora said:


> don't know if'in a feller would be a holdin' a tea cup
> thinkin' it is Paris H in deep cover


Sorry, I didn't meant to insinuate that Bubba was a women, I was just trying to picture who he or she was and of all the people I know in Washington, Carol Sealock is the most prone to give me s___ in a fun way like Bubba, but now that I see a photo, I can see that it's not Carol. 

John


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Them Golden folks will hit even a bare hook. 

As bad as the dern Chessie huggers regards

Bubba


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2011)

Bubba said:


> That's more due to the fact that the handler usually has to wake the rug up before leaving the line.
> 
> Not like one of them fluffies is gonna break regards
> 
> Bubba


Dude,

The GOLDEN i train with you would need a freight train to stop! And his OB is rock solid!

I don't own one,but let's be honest...

Don't we all wish we did?


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

duk4me said:


> Hey I didn't know they made brown and white fluffies. that one in you avatar is cute.


Hey duk4me, come on out this winter. I'll show you what a REAL pheasant dog looks like. Let me correct that---TWO REAL pheasant dogs.


----------



## Mike Smith (Mar 24, 2005)

Use to like reading Bubba's posts.
But that statement just pure dumb, I really think he knows better (I hope)


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Them Golden folks will hit even a bare hook.
> 
> As bad as the dern Chessie huggers regards
> 
> Bubba


 
more like carp jumping in the boat video.....http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vi...-wabash-river/1d0ijhu6t?q=flying carp&rel=MSN


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

gdgnyc said:


> Hey duk4me, come on out this winter. I'll show you what a REAL pheasant dog looks like. Let me correct that---TWO REAL pheasant dogs.


Pheasants n New York City? Next thing your gonna tell me is ya'll make picante sauce too.

I thought all ya'll had was Broadway, Saratoga, some island named mamhatten, and the Amazing Mets. Not mentioning those Dern Yankees....oh yeah we put them out last yr so I guess I can mention them.

Ya'll leave Bubba alone he's drinking those designer beers they got out there on the left coast.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

duk4me said:


> Ya'll leave Bubba alone he's drinking those designer beers they got out there on the left coast.


RIGHT ON!!
anyone chafein' Bubba gots to go through Tim first....
and I'll take on the winner of that if Tim turns out to be a girlieman.
I'm not as big as I once was, but still larger than most.
and quick
and mean
and bald;-)
and some say I smell like a wet goat, ...... 
now and then;-)



.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Allllllrighty then- we got the RTF Musketeers. We ain't real pretty and can't dance much but we got STYLE and lotsa beer. Where's that Bait guy- we need some diversity if we are to go big.

Full figured regards

Bubba


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Bubba said:


> Allllllrighty then- we got the RTF Musketeers. We ain't real pretty and can't dance much but we got STYLE and lotsa beer. Where's that Bait guy- we need some diversity if we are to go big.
> 
> Full figured regards
> 
> Bubba


Here I thought the Red-head may have been making you skip a meal or two last time I saw you......'course I was looking through bloodshot eyes at 8am....or the Reeder's bisquits and gravy had the blood pressure up a bit high and wasn't seeing things too clearly?


----------

