# Judges and hunting experience



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

From the AKC HT Rule book:
"Note* It is *strongly recommended *that only those judges with an extensive background in the hunting of waterfowl and/or upland game be invited to judge an AKC Retriever Hunting Test."

From the HRC Rule book:
"**Base Requirements for all Judges*
2. The individual *must* be an avid upland game and/or waterfowl hunter; and..."

I have limited hunting experience, and would really rather train than hunt so I don't judge HTs.

How important do you feel it is to have judges be avid/experienced hunters?


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

I brought this up to a man who has been a player in the games before I was born . He looked at me like I was crazy . And this was almost 20 years ago .
I wanted a HT judge to at least have a hunting license and/or hunter safety course . I mean , REALLY , you might be able to judge a HT because the AKC says so , but to a hunter , if the judge don't hunt ,it doesn't carry much weight.


----------



## Brian Skibicki (Feb 23, 2008)

The main reason I got involved in training dogs was so that I could have a better hunting companion, and I got hooked big time always wanting an even better dog. Maybe one day with a whole lot of luck, money, and God's help I will own an FC. There is nothing more fun then having a dog that is the best one at a dove hunt, tower shoot, or the duck blind. 

My feeling regarding a judge who is not a hunter is there is no way he can see the point behind testing for skills in a AKC or HRC Hunt Test if he or she has never been there and done that. The scenarios that you are attempting to replicate in a Hunt Test are not close to what those used in a Field Trial, and they are not supposed to as they are trying to answer different questions. I can always tell when someone tries to set up a mini field trial as opposed to a straightforward hunting scenario. A Hunter / Judge sees the ducks circling gets excited and thinks how it is supposed to go down out in the duck blind, a non-hunter / judge sees the ducks circling and thinks.... well hell I don't know what they are thinking.

One of the best compliments I ever received as a judge was when a member of a hunt test committee upon approving my test said " This set-up is exactly how I would hunt this pond." Made me feel pretty good, a non-hunter would never understand that.


----------



## nuts4ducksjw (Mar 15, 2010)

I am new to hunt tests and fairly new to dog training but have huntEd upland and small and big sence about ten years old (20 years) and started hunting waterfowl 9 years ago and been around the dog training and testing about 5 years. By no means do I consider my self an expert or even qualified to judge. But in my own opinion. I think it is very relevant to require judges of "hunt tests" to both akc and hrc to have a very experienced background in hunting and hunting dogs. It even says it in the name and really isnt thAt the whole point. The dogs are judged against a standard of defferent levels of hunting skills. As a owner of a dog being tested against theses standards I want the judges to be very experienced in ( hunting ) and the standards they are judging. I also think it's for the better for the breeds ( hunting retrievers ). Is It not the titles Of that they are awarded. The way most breeders and prospective owners narrow down and choose there breeding stock or new hunting comPanion. I think anyone considering becoming a judge should understand and respect this. I Ment no disrespect from this and hope it isn't taken that way


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I don't care if a judge hunts or not. It has no bearing on weather they know anything about dogs or not. Whats really important is they understand dogs as pertaining to the game they are playing. 

Pete


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

SouthBryanLabs said:


> One of the best compliments I ever received as a judge was when a member of a hunt test committee upon approving my test said " This set-up is exactly how I would hunt this pond." Made me feel pretty good, a non-hunter would never understand that.


I know of what you speak!!! Gives me the warm fuzzies every time.

Major peeve of mine is running across someone judging a HT who has a little or no waterfowl hunting experience. Or the judge(s) whose main interest is dog training with little interest in hunting or with hunting as a distant secondary outlet. Biggest reason I left AKC 10 years ago to run (and judge) HRC. Now I'm thinking of moving back as it seems to me the HRC at times has lost its original focus.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Pete said:


> I don't care if a judge hunts or not. It has no bearing on weather they know anything about dogs or not. Whats really important is they understand dogs as pertaining to the game they are playing.
> 
> Pete


Agreed.
From someone who has never hunted a day in my life but would like to judge some day. 
I do however strongly feel that judges should have 100% trained a dog before applying 
How much do you learn if a pro trains your dog and you show up and run it on test day.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Pete said:


> I don't care if a judge hunts or not. It has no bearing on weather they know anything about dogs or not. Whats really important is they understand dogs as pertaining to the game they are playing.
> 
> Pete


how does one set up a hunting scenario if one has never hunted? Give me a person who has hunted and has trained a finished retriever to judge. That will give you the best chance for "keeping it real".
Besides , if the rule book says that is what a judge is "strongly recommended "
to have for a background ,who are we to question that? LOL kinda


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

You can tell by decoy setups with most judges, I've never hunted in a field that the decoys are 100 yards away from were I'm hunting.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

John Kelder said:


> I brought this up to a man who has been a player in the games before I was born . He looked at me like I was crazy . And this was almost 20 years ago .
> I wanted a HT judge to at least have a hunting license and/or hunter safety course . I mean , REALLY , you might be able to judge a HT because the AKC says so , but to a hunter , if the judge don't hunt ,it doesn't carry much weight.


I find your comment interesting. In your experience, do you feel that currently other hunt test judges feel the same as you feel? Also, do you think that whether or not a judge hunts or has hunted might be a function of the area he is from?


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I believe a judge should have hunting experience but also have trained their own dog and know what good dog work is but most hunts I've been on wouldn't make for a good test set up and most of the birds fall with in 40 yards of me my main concern with my dog when hunting is steadiness and being able to chase down cripples which can't be duplicated in a test. I think test are a compromise between a real hunting situation and testing your dogs ability to the extreme.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

SouthBryanLabs said:


> ....... *"This set-up is exactly how I would hunt this pond."* Made me feel pretty good, a non-hunter would never understand that.


I have been told that as well, and it does make ya feel good



Furball said:


> Agreed.
> From someone who has never hunted a day in my life but would like to judge some day............


Why? Why does a person want to judge others hunting dogs if they have never hunted? Why bother to train and test hunting dogs if you do not hunt? I do not get the "Why". Is it a power thing?


.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

kimsmith said:


> You can tell by decoy setups with most judges, I've never hunted in a field that the decoys are 100 yards away from were I'm hunting.


You've never had birds swing wide of decoys because they are decoy shy?


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

From the HRC rule book under requirements to be a judge.

*2. The individual must be an avid upland game and/or waterfowl hunter; and*


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> how does one set up a hunting scenario if one has never hunted? Give me a person who has hunted and has trained a finished retriever to judge. That will give you the best chance for "keeping it real".
> Besides , if the rule book says that is what a judge is "strongly recommended "
> to have for a background ,who are we to question that? LOL kinda


John
We are talking AKC right. I don't know if I have ever run more than a handfull of tests that had anything to do with a hunting scenerio and what one does or doesn't do to recover birds.
I believe we are testing abililities within the dog to see if its suitable for hunting at the specific levels.
Hunt test also test handlers. So much of what goes on is handler error at a hunt test. why because they spend to much time hunting and not enough time training. Just kiddin
As Furball stated she doesn't hunt, but I bet she can put 3 birds out and a blind. AH you say,, but that doesn't mean she'll put them in the right spot. OH I say,,,thats where understanding dogs come in not hunting.

If someone hunted alot and didn't know much about retriever games they may drop 3 birds in a pile of decoys 20 yards out Which is fine by me,,,but what will the gallery think.
John ,it just doesn't seem relavent to me although the rules must have reasoning behind it ,,,well maby ,,,,and I think the reason is that the game was designed for hunters by hunters,,so by golly a person playing or judging better hunt.
Just the way I see it.

Pete


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> I have been told that as well, and it does make ya feel good
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ken, I have a bunch of clients that don't hunt but really love to train and watch their dogs do what the dogs love.

Glad to see I wouldn't qualify as an HRC judge, I don't hunt anymore.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Pete said:


> We are talking AKC right. . . .
> 
> Pete


Nope, the O.P. types AKC & HRC and I am talking NAHRA, you know. The original rule book Both of those other games are based on.......


.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Alec Sparks said:


> ..... I don't hunt anymore.


 
But you have, in the past. And could go again on the morrow, I have seen you shoot. Furball typed she had NEVER hunted.



.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Why? Why does a person want to judge others hunting dogs if they have never hunted? Why bother to train and test hunting dogs if you do not hunt? I do not get the "Why". Is it a power thing


Its actually quite simple to understand.
Some people get into golf,,,some people get into soccer and they don't have to be a foreigner to play soccer,, Some people collect baseball cards and never played baseball
Some People enjoy training retrievers and they don't have to hunt to train one.
Some people like to play dress up,,but don't hunt
People have passions in life.
why,,is it a power thing that makes people think you must be a hunter to understand hunting dogs.

Pete


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

I got into the dog games, HT's, as a means to keep me and my dog in shape and ready to hunt when the season came around. We've only been doing this for 8 years now and I'm also on my second dog. So relatively speaking I have just a little bit of experience compared to many others here. My dogs are pro trained but I work with them almost every week and also work with the trainer and his other dogs. In the last 8 years I have been running/handling my dogs I can say that I've only ran 1 really really good hunting scenerio/test. It was a goose/duck hunting field scenerio with layout blinds, decoys and multiple shooters. This was an AKC test by the way. The marks were not necessarily long 50 - 75 yards and a double blind included but they were fairly technical. The blinds were 2 geese that had sailed out of the area. When my dog and I finished my first thought was "That was fun let's do it again"! 

The judges were avid hunters and knew how to translate that to a HT scenerio. I'm positive that judges who had no hunting or very little hunting experience could have come up with a similar scenerio.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> But you have, in the past. And could go again on the morrow, I have seen you shoot. Furball typed she had NEVER hunted.
> .


Still, the HRC rule says 'must be'. Must.

I don't really have a dog in this fight but back in the day some of the most ridiculous test [AKC] I ever saw put up were done so by avid hunters. And I mean REALLY stupid.

IMO: in tests to judge hunting dogs one does not have to be an avid hunter to properly set up and evaluate dogs. 

From a logical perspective I would want a novice non-hunting judge paired with an experienced judge [hunter or not] though.


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

> Some people get into golf,,,some people get into soccer and they don't have to be a foreigner to play soccer,, Some people collect baseball cards and never played baseball
> Some People enjoy training retrievers and they don't have to hunt to train one.
> Some people like to play dress up,,but don't hunt
> People have passions in life.
> why,,is it a power thing that makes people think you must be a hunter to understand hunting dogs.


Those same people who get into Golf and Soccer still play the game but most don't become umpires of Soccer or Catties for Pros. Those people who collect baseball cards don't become umpires behind the plate most of the time. Nothing is being said about playing the retriever game, the question is can they make good judges not understanding what hunting is about? Some could after training with good judges, not saying hunters make good judges either but they do understand what a day of hunting is about....


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Alec Sparks said:


> ....I don't really have a dog in this fight but back in the day some of the most ridiculous test [AKC] I ever saw put up were done so by avid hunters. And I mean REALLY stupid......


and I have seen that as well in NAHRA, we had a feller who used to love to stick a sea gull decoy out in his field. Then I went hunting with him and said 'No sea gull decoy?" he did not bring it hunting only to field tests to mess with dogs.......... so I guess the other hand is just 'cause somebody IS a hunter don't mean ya want to run under them;-)


.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Ken Bora said:


> Why? Why does a person want to judge others hunting dogs if they have never hunted? .


Because maybe some people who have gotten into this game for the enjoyment of spending time with the pet wants to give back to the retriever community. We all know that the Hunt Test (and Field Trial) GAMES are hurting for judges. 

Do some people maybe get into judging as a power trip. I am sure the answer is yes, but that would be the same for just about anything. You always have people who are looking for power any way they can. But I think the majority of the people who get in and decide they want to judge are doing it because they enjoy the game and want to give back (because we all know judges do not get paid).


.[/QUOTE]
Why bother to train and test hunting dogs if you do not hunt? I do not get the "Why". 


.[/QUOTE]

Maybe because some of us who do not enjoy hunting do enjoy spending time with our pets,and have decided that the Hunt Test or Field Trial GAME is what we would prefer to do with that time. 

I do not remember having to sign a piece of paper when I got my Lab saying that I would take it hunting because it was a hunting dog. I must have missed that requirement.

And the best thing about your above statement. I guess whenever anyone ever calls someone out for not judging because they have decided to critique judges can simply state - Well I do not hunt, and Ken Bora does not understand Why someone who does not hunt would train / test / judge, so that gives us a pass from giving back to the Retriever Community.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I would rather run under a judge that was a hunter AND understood bird placement for testing AND what each level of dog is expected to be tested on. If they don't understand the latter two, they shouldn't be judges. What I really hate to see is the old lets put a bird here, here and here with no thought or Junior test-they put the bird at the edge of land before water. We teach them to go in water or put a bird in the water off a point so they go up the point and cheat


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Zman1001 said:


> ....And the best thing about your above statement. I guess whenever anyone ever calls someone out for not judging because they have decided to critique judges can simply state - Well I do not hunt, and Ken Bora does not understand Why someone who does not hunt would train / test / judge, so that gives us a pass from giving back to the Retriever Community.


 
you are right I do not get it.
All the time and hours of training and miles on the truck.
All the birds purchased and gear in the truck.
All the weekends away from alleged family and friends to get that title.
In my mind it is like building a race car from the frame up, and never driving it
.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> Why? Why does a person want to judge others hunting dogs if they have never hunted? Why bother to train and test hunting dogs if you do not hunt? I do not get the "Why". Is it a power thing?


To be clear I am speaking of AKC not HRC or anything else. I am a dog trainer not a hunter and I work really hard at being good at the former. I'm quite sure I would love to hunt, just have never done it. Grew up in the 'burbs in California & Florida, dad was not a hunter, didn't know anyone who did. Not about to put my dogs in some gator infested creek to find out if I like it now. 

The whole "hunting scenario" mantra is outdated in today's AKC HT game. When was the last time a committee changed a test strictly on the basis of it being an unrealistic hunting scenario? That right there tells you we are testing dogs not how well we can replicate last weekend's hunt. And you learn how to test dogs by training them well. 

I see people in my area applying to be judges and trust me I don't get it at all. They don't train their own dogs, are terrible handlers, have very little grasp of terminology and concepts, they do not hunt, struggle to put the # of passes required to judge on their own dog that someone else has trained....and that is your new crop of judges. Sorry but I just don't put myself in that crowd. I have no intentions of applying until my young dog has his MH. I figure two owner trained & handled MH dogs is a pretty good base of knowledge to test someone else at junior or senior.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> and I have seen that as well in NAHRA, we had a feller who used to love to stick a sea gull decoy out in his field. Then I went hunting with him and said 'No sea gull decoy?" he did not bring it hunting only to field tests to mess with dogs.......... so I guess the other hand is just 'cause somebody IS a hunter don't mean ya want to run under them;-)
> 
> 
> .


How bout a fraking Eider decoy in [out of the test] the Bernhard stick pond during a 'puddle duck' hunt?

And then there was the time a handler punched a judge at West Thompson after his dog had to be rescued by a boat when it became tangled in a sea duck gang rig............

Please....don't get me started on people that think they're clever when they try to fool a dog........


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Those same people who get into Golf and Soccer still play the game but most don't become umpires of Soccer or Catties for Pros. Those people who collect baseball cards don't become umpires behind the plate most of the time. Nothing is being said about playing the retriever game, the question is can they make good judges not understanding what hunting is about? Some could after training with good judges, not saying hunters make good judges either but they do understand what a day of hunting is about


Most mini field trials are put on by hunters who have ego's to maintain . That has nothing to do with whether they hunt or not.

I have seen avid hunters who have had a MH make the most assinign assumptions about what a dog just did or didn't do.
being a waterfowl Hunter ,,as a lone constant,, plays no role in evaluating dog work. A person can watch hunting on tv and could possibly be a better judge than someone who hunts 7 days a week. hunters can be so gung hoe that they become blinded by what just happened. Hunters probably know hunting better than hunting dogs

Knowing dog work trumps knowing hunting,,,after all we are evaluating dog work,,,not hunting scenerio's.

Pete


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I have switched to FT's for the past year for a number of reasons. I will probably run some more hunt tests in the future. I got into dog training because my husband was the hunter. I do not care much for shooting, but I love eating! Plus, training dogs got me outside and enjoying myself. Over the years I have taken the judging seminar, ran a few tests and trials and do a pretty fair job with my dogs. I would never consider judging a hunt test just because of the feelings expressed here. If you want real hunters, I am sure there are plenty out there. Just do not read me the riot act because I am not "giving back" to the sport. The sport does not want me in that capacity. Who is to tell who's loss or gain that is?


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> you are right I do not get it.
> All the time and hours of training and miles on the truck.
> All the birds purchased and gear in the truck.
> All the weekends away from alleged family and friends to get that title.
> ...


The hunt tests are where we drive the race car. 
If you eliminated every HT competitor that didn't hunt, you wouldn't have enough people to put on the show.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Furball said:


> To be clear I am speaking of AKC not HRC or anything else. I am a dog trainer not a hunter and I work really hard at being good at the former. I'm quite sure I would love to hunt, just have never done it. Grew up in the 'burbs in California & Florida, dad was not a hunter, didn't know anyone who did. .......


How did you come to train hunting dogs?


.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

I have an extensive background hunting ducks and pheasants, though I rarely hunt anymore.

I believe that the _hunting_ knowledge/experience one needs to judge retriever work is relatively basic and it's _much _more important and relevant to have a good understanding of _dogs_ and their natural tendencies. Regardless of your passion for hunting, or the rule books' recommendations, tests determine whether or not the dog has the _skills_ to perform as a satisfactory hunting companion in the field. You can learn enough about hunting by reading old Field & Stream stories to make that determination as long as you understand dogs ... you can't learn to understand dogs by reading.

It's like saying Howard Cosell never stepped into a boxing ring so he must not know anything about the sport.

I am always amused when I read the debates about whether or not a test is a "realistic hunting scenario". In my years hunting, I have seen just about every possible scenario you could dream up. Throw some birds out there wherever you want and you've probably got a test that _could_ happen when hunting. Whether it tests good dog work is another story.

I don't judge HTs, BTW, but I've run a few.

JS


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Ken Bora said:


> you are right I do not get it.
> All the time and hours of training and miles on the truck.
> All the birds purchased and gear in the truck.
> All the weekends away from alleged family and friends to get that title.
> ...


Ken, I understand exactly what you are saying, but try to look at it a little bit different.

I have no children. I do not hunt, but I do have a pet. I really enjoy spending time with that pet. That includes training, testing, traveling, etc. Just like hunting is your hobby, training is my hobby. I have no desire to go sit in a field, or edge of pond, or in a tree stand for hours on end just so that I hope I may get to shoot a duck / goose / deer / etc. 


I like your race car analogy. You made a great point, and it is very similar, except that with a race car, it sits in your garage when not in use. With your pet, it lays at your feet.

Not trying to argue, just trying to at least help you understand your question or why.

Doug


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> How did you come to train hunting dogs?
> 
> 
> .


Got a golden retriever and some guy in my obedience class invited me out to field train.
Should I not have gone? That was 20 years ago and I was in middle school. Sorry I didn't know any better. In my next life I'll refrain.


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

captainjack said:


> From the AKC HT Rule book:
> "Note* It is *strongly recommended *that only those judges with an extensive background in the hunting of waterfowl and/or upland game be invited to judge an AKC Retriever Hunting Test."
> 
> From the HRC Rule book:
> ...


Glen,

I read the rules and they are what they are so if you are not an "avid" hunter then you are not judging HRC. The AKC rule is nothing more than a recommendation so judge that if you want to.

Now to answer your question. I could care less if my judge hunts or not. To be honest I generally assume the judges I run under in AKC (I don't run HRC) do not hunt. While I like the fact that HT's try to kinda, maybe, generally, sometimes, in a round about way resemble a hunting situation they are not in any way real hunting situations. I know this because I am a hunter and I have never parked my truck 30 feet from a "line" in the middle of the day, stood around for 2 hours, got my dog out of my truck, walked to a spot, stood there for one minute, watched 3 birds hit the ground without me taking a single shot (AKC) and then sent my dog for the birds. Of course all of this with people and dogs standing everywhere.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

JS said:


> It's like saying Howard Cosell never stepped into a boxing ring so he must not know anything about the sport.
> 
> 
> 
> JS


 
how often did Howard sign a judges scorecard?

.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

jtfreeman said:


> parked my truck 30 feet from a "line" in the middle of the day, stood around for 2 hours, got my dog out of my truck, walked to a spot, stood there for one minute, watched 3 birds hit the ground without me taking a single shot (AKC) and then sent my dog for the birds. Of course all of this with people and dogs standing everywhere.


Now THIS is my kind of hunting!! HAHAHAHA


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

The hunting experience the books ask for is not so much so folks know where to place birds. I think it's more so that they have a referrence point for gauging the dogs work. Many times I think judging comes down to asking yourself "Is this a dog I would want to hunt with?". And to have that perspective it helps if you've actually hunted.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Brad B said:


> The hunting experience the books ask for is not so much so folks know where to place birds. I think it's more so that they have a referrence point for gauging the dogs work. Many times I think judging comes down to asking yourself "Is this a dog I would want to hunt with?". And to have that perspective it helps if you've actually hunted.


Now that is a really good point, and I think that angle is perfectly relevant to judging the dogs.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Ken Bora said:


> How did you come to train hunting dogs?
> 
> 
> .


Ken, if I'm reading you right, you would like to have someone say that the goal is not to have a well trained HUNTING companion. Instead, there is some other reward that would be of value to the non-hunter. Maybe someone could mention a few?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> Ken, if I'm reading you right, you would like to have someone say that the goal is not to have a well trained HUNTING companion. Instead, there is some other reward that would be of value to the non-hunter. Maybe someone could mention a few?


I'm not speaking for Ken. Heaven knows he doesn't need anyone to do that. But I'm in agreement with him that being a hunter does not provide any assurance of quality judging. I think it's a common perceptual error that hunt tests necessarily equal sound hunting dogs. Many a solid gundog will never see a hunt test. Many a hunt test dog will never see a day's hunt.

I am fully in favor of any organized activity that prompts hunters to take a better trained dog to the field or marsh. Hunt tests do that. It's one of their greatest virtues. But it's not axiomatic that a _dog_ will be a solid _gundog_ because he can pass some tests, any more than a _person_ will be a competent hunt test judge because he hunts. As usual, there is more to it than is on the surface.

Evan


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Alec Sparks said:


> How bout a fraking Eider decoy in [out of the test] the Bernhard stick pond during a 'puddle duck' hunt?
> 
> And then there was the time a handler punched a judge at West Thompson after his dog had to be rescued by a boat when it became tangled in a sea duck gang rig............
> 
> Please....don't get me started on people that think they're clever when they try to fool a dog........


 
I think that would be a fun thread.......
I gots some tails 

.


----------



## Erin O'Brien (Mar 5, 2010)

I have never hunted and may never but work very hard at tests and training days to make the event run well that some have asked if I would consider judging. I don't have any plans to judge and after reading this, it makes me want to judge even less. I think judges put up with a lot more than any volunteer at an event and make the biggest sacrifice of time and not being able to run their dog in the event they're judging. So that's the only reason I'd judge, because we can't have a test without them, and it's the ultimate give back to the club in my opinion. I know there are judges out there that are on power trips, but I feel those are far fewer than those that are only there to give back to the sport. Teaching bird placement to be realistic would be beneficial which they supposedly do in judge training. 

And why did I get into this? Because I grew up with hunting retievers and it is a waste having one without training them to do what they love best. I enjoy seeing my dog do a challeging blind much more than I could imagine enjoying them in any other dog sport. Why do people do any dog sport? Are you ever going to see a dog do weave poles outside the agility ring? It's fun, the dogs love it, we get to enjoy nature, and that's all I need to get me out there everyday after work. How many people shoot clays and don't hunt? Are they wasting their shooting skills just because they enjoy a sport that I would guess spun off from practicing for hunting?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

eobrien01 said:


> It's fun, the dogs love it, we get to enjoy nature, and that's all I need to get me out there everyday after work. How many people shoot clays and don't hunt? Are they wasting their shooting skills just because they enjoy a sport that I would guess spun off from practicing for hunting?


Good point. And you're not alone. Many trainers who run hunt tests also participate in other venues, but don't hunt. You sound like someone who might be a very good judge. I encourage you to attend judging clinics, and to pay attention to the better judges you'll see along the way. Study what works, and what make sense. Try not to get too bogged down in wrenching your hands over what conforms with "realism" to the extent that you forget that this is about _*testing dogs*_, more than pretending to hunt.

Evan


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Evan said:


> Good point. And you're not alone. Many trainers who run hunt tests also participate in other venues, but don't hunt. You sound like someone who might be a very good judge. I encourage you to attend judging clinics, and to pay attention to the better judges you'll see along the way. Study what works, and what make sense. Try not to get too bogged down in wrenching your hands over what conforms with "realism" to the extent that you forget that this is about _*testing dogs*_, more than pretending to hunt.
> 
> Evan


Where is the "like" button???


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

To me a HT is a test to evaluate the *skill sets *needed to have a fine hunting dog.

I don't see them as a replica of hunting, just a scenario to test the dog and trainer.
Personally, I think a HT participant and his/her dog should do all the training them selves (with some help obviously...bird throwers, shooters, advice  etc) so ther can enjoy the progress.

Far too much emphasis is put on the ribbon vs. the learning and the progress made by the team.

In regard to hunting credentials for a HT judge??

I have hunted a fair amount and judged a couple tests, don't know if I am any good at either, and they are 2 different entities, but I do enjoy both!!

*RK*


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Furball said:


> The whole "hunting scenario" mantra is outdated in today's AKC HT game. When was the last time a committee changed a test strictly on the basis of it being an unrealistic hunting scenario? That right there tells you we are testing dogs not how well we can replicate last weekend's hunt. And you learn how to test dogs by training them well.
> 
> senior.


It's outdated because the sport is over run with people who don't appreciate hunting, never gone hunting and now want to judge. They setup crap unrealistic tests repeatedly and it's become norm. How long till we start giving everyone a ribbon so they feel good like kidsports?

/Paul


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

Brad hit the nail on the head. Judging a HT is way more than setting marks and blinds.....and everyone is right who said there are king for a day types no matter what constinuency they hail. Also I fully agree a solid knowledge of dog behaviour is necessary in order to set a fair test. But.... as an HRC judge I have been asked to evaluate a given dog as a hunting companion for the level tested. 

There are test dogs that do not make good hunters and there are good solid hunting dogs that couldn't pass a test in a month of Sundays. I am the first to say a solid test dog with a bunch of hunting experience is the cat's meow.

HT's were introduced because field trials had become irrelevant to the average hunter. To allow the average hunter a venue to run his/her dog against a standard. Keeping the judging pool close to the hunters helps keep the program relevant to the hunting community.

Where is the legitimacy for breeding and training when a community of nonhunters or occasional hunters dictates the traits valuable to a hunting dog? (This one really gets my undies in a bundie). I fully welcome these people to participate in hunting tests as it has vastly improved the quality and quantity of breeding stock, training techniques etc. etc. But as Brad stated, how can they assess my dogs as hunting dogs, when they have little idea as to what a hunting dog does when he is actually hunting. 

Those of you who haven't had the opportunity to take your dog hunting, I welcome you in my boat - bring your dog. I challenge each and every 'hunting" judge to reach out to a non hunting judge and help them remove the "non". This way a smorgasborg of good opportunities to play with our hunting dogs will become great opportunities.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> It's outdated because the sport is over run with people who don't appreciate hunting, never gone hunting and now want to judge. They setup crap unrealistic tests repeatedly and it's become norm. How long till we start giving everyone a ribbon so they feel good like kidsports?
> 
> /Paul


If only it were that simple. As an avid hunter for most of my 60+ years, I know many avid hunters - very few of whom would have any idea how to uniformly and substantively set up a series of tests to determine the real value of a field of gundogs. I also know a fair number of HT participants who don't hunt, but who know more about dogs and fieldwork than many hunters. There isn't an automatic cross over.


JS said:


> I have an extensive background hunting ducks and pheasants, though I rarely hunt anymore.
> 
> I believe that the _hunting_ knowledge/experience one needs to judge retriever work is relatively basic and it's _much _more important and relevant to have a good understanding of _dogs_ and their natural tendencies. Regardless of your passion for hunting, or the rule books' recommendations, tests determine whether or not the dog has the _skills_ to perform as a satisfactory hunting companion in the field. You can learn enough about hunting by reading old Field & Stream stories to make that determination as long as you understand dogs ... you can't learn to understand dogs by reading.
> 
> ...


No more does a competent movie critic have to be a great actor to be a good critic, than a HT judge needs to be a hunter to judge competently, as long as they understand dogs and fieldwork. If you were judging a real hunt, maybe those rules chage a bit. But to judge an artificial one, not at all.

Even the most ardent hunter/HRC'er would agree that we don't go duck hunting, set up a big pop-up canopy, park dozens of trucks around it, set up holding blinds and wingers, blow duck calls that sound more like party horns, and expect to have a successful hunt! When we're hunting, aren't all the birds shot flyers? Aren't all the rounds live loads? There is more, of course. But if we are to be realistic in making sure the best judges to judge, let's be clear about what we expect them to judge.

Evan


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

Interesting thread! I USE to hunt and I have run and judged all vinues of dog work. I even took a stab at training other peoples dogs (boy, that was a fun trip). Now Cleo and I both grade the judges tests for HRC. I have noticed, over the past 8 or 10 years that we have been doing this,that HRC has grown greatly. I also have noted that the numbers of judges has DROPPED from around 800 into the 600s. If this trend continues I can see fewer people saying YES to judging assignments and less people being able to enjoy watching their dog do what gives them great pleasure.

This really has little point, just an observation of an old man doing what gives me pleasure doing the things I can still do. I personally have always liked a judge with Common Sense and a sense of humor as well as one that has "dog smarts". Ken would make a good HRC judge with his common sense as well as his love of dogs. Yawl have fun now, ya hear, Bill


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

In real life, give me a dog that can do a 200 yard+ single and runs excellent blinds/handles very well and I bet I get as many birds back as someone that has a titled [MH/etc] HT dog.

HT are a game....

I haven't run a HT in must be 13+ years but there was no shortage of really wacky scenarios back then. "You're following a group of pheasant hunter across a field 100 yards behind them............."

I always felt there was to much thought about creating a 'clever' scenario then setting up a solid test of the dogs ability at a given level.

I liked Pete and 2Talls posts from a page back too.


----------



## Kent W (Jun 22, 2009)

Some very good input here on hunting and judging. I have been standing next to a dog (starting with NAHRA since it was the only "game" in the area at the time) for 13 years now. A drop in the bucket compared to many on RTF whom I learn something from each time I log in. And hunting with that dog and her son since. I now run and judge NAHRA and AKC. I believe they BOTH have something to give to this addiction we call Field and Hunt Tests. Yes, a hunter does not make a unanimously good judge. And of course visa versa. But I believe IT HELPS them UNDERSTAND what the particular venue they are judging wants to see in a QUALIFIED dog. I read on here a post by someone who mentioned layout blinds in a test and expected to hear that venue was a NAHRA or possibly HRC test. But an AKC event. That suprised me. Let me say why: It has been my experience that your "typical" AKC venue (committee) wants nothing to do with a handler in a layout blind. Or a dog in a hide-a-pooch (doors open of course for their viewing pleasure) or a hunter and dog in a boat at the shores edge, etc, etc. That has just been MY experience for these 13 years. I know those are a lot of logistics to put together for a test. They arent "tricks" but nothing more than tools I would EXPECT to find on a hunt. As a hunter, I would like to put these in a given test. But have been "veto'ed" for the lack of a better term by the hunt test committees and co-judge. OK, so we agreed on something else. But the number of dogs allowed for a few added elements for that test that would have added time it took to run the test, and not be there all day. Just saying that "in general" I believe a hunter can put together a "more realistic hunting scenario test" than someone who has never quartered a field or called Geese from a layout blind.
Just my .02 thank you.


----------



## mngundog (Mar 25, 2011)

captainjack said:


> From the AKC HT Rule book:
> "Note* It is *strongly recommended *that only those judges with an extensive background in the hunting of waterfowl and/or upland game be invited to judge an AKC Retriever Hunting Test."
> 
> From the HRC Rule book:
> ...


Are you asking the question on the basis of if those rules would be removed would it be ok? Or are you saying in spite of the rule would it be ok to judge?
If it is the latter, I would say that a judge that would blatantly disregard the rule book, should not be allowed to judge anyone.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> how often did Howard sign a judges scorecard?
> 
> .


Not a relevant question. I would wager Howard could have predicted the decision and been right a good percentage of the time. ;-) And could have made an excellent referee had he wanted to.

JS


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Pete said:


> I don't care if a judge hunts or not. It has no bearing on weather they know anything about dogs or not. Whats really important is they understand dogs as pertaining to the game they are playing.
> 
> Pete


Pete;

Agree.

Having judges with hunting experience was supposed to prevent "test creep". I don't see where this has worked. Anyone who has run an upper-level test in recent years can agree. 

Lisa


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

This has been an interesting read.

For me, hunting is a passion. The time spent at duck camp is something impossible to fully describe from my perspective. Then again, after reflecting on the many, many hunt tests my dogs and I have run in the last ten years, there has *never* been a single time that I have wondered about and/or cared whether the judges hunted or not. 

For some reason this "apparant" conflict reminds me of an old question, "Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?"


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

The most realistic hunting scenario I've ever personally seen was at the NAHRA Invitational here on Sauvies Island in 92. Throw the dog in a crate in the back of the pickup and then get in the cab. Driver takes off down the road and then slams on the binders. Gunners on either side of the truck fire a shot and then handler runs around to the back and jumps Fido out. There is a blind planted on one side of the road and a trail on the other. Sure was easy to pickout who the road hunters were.
I was there to escort the judges on set up and I can tell you that the test was set up solely by Larry Calvert. I seriously doubt that Larry has ever fired a shot in anger much less to be called an avid hunter. Great judge though and can hide chickens with the best of them.

Hunting is about decoys and calls and scouting and like that- doesn't have a damn thing to do with hiding chickens.
Would I like a judge that hunts- well to quote the notorious LVL- it depends.

Bottom line is that we owe a little respect to those that are willing to sit in the sun/rain/bugs taking crap from every ******* mouthbreather that can come up with an entry fee. Don't mean we gotta like 'em or even the job that they do, just means we couldn't do it without them.

Same goes for volunteer help of any stripe regards

Bubba


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> In real life, give me a dog that can do a 200 yard+ single and runs excellent blinds/handles very well and I bet I get as many birds back as someone that has a titled [MH/etc] HT dog.
> 
> HT are a game....


Exactly! In fact, the huge majority of hunters out on the marsh would DIE for a dog with Senior Hunter skills.

Not to say there is not value in training your dog beyond that but, generally speaking, it is the person who naturally strives for excellence and is challenged to do the best he can do, who aspires to bring his dog to the upper levels.



> I haven't run a HT in must be 13+ years but there was no shortage of really *wacky scenarios* back then. "You're following a group of pheasant hunter across a field 100 yards behind them............."


And there's a term we hear a lot ... wacky ... or more commonly, "stupid" test.

I agree, there are good tests and there are stupid tests but it has little to do with their resemblance to hunting. A "stupid test", IMO, is one that tells you nothing about the dog's skills.

Three in a pile in the middle of the dekes may be a pretty common hunting scenario but in a hunting test it doesn't tell you much a except the dog can swim and stumble on the birds.

JS


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

So, as someone who has never hunted but has a great interest and enthusiasm for training and testing my retrievers at hunt tests, if I were to decide to become an AKC HT judge, which I have every right to do...what in your opinion is the desirable level of hunting experience I need to gain before applying? 
I ask this because obviously no two people have the same level of experience. What is acceptable? How do you decide if someone was actually any good at hunting and really gained a valuable knowledge base on hunting to be qualified to set up a realistic hunting experience. Hard to value or devalue something if there is no way to quantify it.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Furball said:


> So, as someone who has never hunted but has a great interest and enthusiasm for training and testing my retrievers at hunt tests, if I were to decide to become an AKC HT judge, which I have every right to do...what in your opinion is the desirable level of hunting experience I need to gain before applying?
> I ask this because obviously no two people have the same level of experience. What is acceptable? How do you decide if someone was actually any good at hunting and really gained a valuable knowledge base on hunting to be qualified to set up a realistic hunting experience. Hard to value or devalue something if there is no way to quantify it.


I don't know the answer to your question. I do know that, because you are not a judge, some who have posted to this threda believe that you are not allowed an opinion on anything remotely related to judging.

The AKC Rukes State "It is strongly recommended that only those judges with an extensive background in the hunting of waterfowl and/or upland game be invited to judge an AKC Retriever Hunting Test."

And the HRC Rule book:
"The individual must be an avid upland game and/or waterfowl hunter; and..."

I've hunted a bit but am not "Avid" and do not have an "extensive background". I started hunting waterfowl only after I had trained my dog for hunt tests. I wanted to let the dog do what he was trained to do, rather than just run tests which I believe is mostly for the handlers.

But, In my non-hunter opinion, I believe that a waterfowler with "extensive experience" would be a hunter that could scout a suitable area to hunt, set out a proper spread of decoys, call in the birds, and kill the birds. "Extensive experience" would also likely mean that this person could do these things in multiple areas such as timber holes, mashes, meadows, etc. I may be wrong, but I'd guess that to gain this extensive experience would likely take several hunting seasons.

Now I'll put some smiley faces so my buddies from the other thread will see that I've been working on my sense of humor.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

If HT's are only about testing dogs skills and not about setting up real hunting scenarios why do they make you wear hunting attire why not let you wear what ever you want?


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

captainjack said:


> I don't know the answer to your question. I do know that, because you are not a judge, some who have posted to this threda believe that you are not allowed an opinion on anything remotely related to judging.
> 
> The AKC Rukes State "It is strongly recommended that only those judges with an extensive background in the hunting of waterfowl and/or upland game be invited to judge an AKC Retriever Hunting Test."
> 
> ...


I guess we could read further into the AKC rule (since the HRC rule is clear) and state that since the judge does not invite his or herself then it is the responsibility of the club to determine what an "extensive background in hunting" represents.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I like this thread, however the most important thing I take out of it and what worries me about judges and dogs, that do not hunt is that the vast majority of our breedings go to hunting homes, and most the time hunting only homes, and the dogs will never have titles. We use the hunt test to evaluate dogs for the breeding of these hunting dog. If the HT loses it's connection to real world hunting, I fear we will also lose the traits necessary to a good hunting dog, but of little importance to non-hunters.. We might start breeding dogs, with NO nose, who are loud, who do not have the patience to sit in a blind all day, nor the endurance run upland all day, who creep out into the decoys, who lack the natural instinct to hunt and not need avid training or trainers. A judge with hunting experience knows the reason and importance behind those traits, from actual experience, and takes them into account when judging. Sure a non-hunter can say I can understand, but until your in a duck blind for hours with a breaking, noisy, nervous, always moving wired up dog. There is "No Understand"  We will all agree, It is a fun game, and games don't need to be realistic. We have a lot of games that serve no real-life purpose but fun for handlers and dogs, Agility, Rally, Super FLY, Show etc. However hunting, hunting dogs, and hunting titles, still serve a purpose outside of the sport. We owe it to the breed and community to keep the HUNT in hunt test, and continue to breed dogs who can play games but more importantly be respectable hunters.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> If the HT loses it's connection to real world hunting, I fear we will also lose the traits necessary to a good hunting dog, but of little importance to non-hunters.. We might start breeding dogs...........


Sorry but you are the breeder, breed what you think is right not what has a title. If you really believe this then you're just as bad as the conformation breeders with their fat labs and hairy goldens, breeding what has a ribbon in a worthless competition. 

If you think a judge is incapable of judging well because they have no hunting experience then don't enter under them. If no one enters under that judge, they won't be asked back to judge.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Pete;
> 
> Agree.
> 
> ...


You clearly don't understand the purpose of a hunt test. Test creep....please...




/paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan said:


> Good point. And you're not alone. Many trainers who run hunt tests also participate in other venues, but don't hunt. You sound like someone who might be a very good judge. I encourage you to attend judging clinics, and to pay attention to the better judges you'll see along the way. Study what works, and what make sense. Try not to get too bogged down in wrenching your hands over what conforms with "realism" to the extent that you forget that this is about _*testing dogs*_, more than pretending to hunt.
> 
> Evan


I already posted a reply to you but clearly you haven't read the HT rules lately. Fact is the book calls for people with extensive hunting experience and extensive dog handling in the field experience. That is what makes HT's work well. The purpose is to test dogs in a hunting scenario, not just test dogs.

/Paul


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

So Anney if you don't think a judge or a dog needs to be from a hunting back ground that all you need is to be is a dog trainer what is your criteria for being a trainer that can evaluate a dog in a test say at the master level do you think someone who has a dog that is lets say 7,8,or 9 years old when they finally get there MH title and ran numerous tests and failed is more qualified to judge then someone who comes from a strong hunting back ground. I think if your going to evaluate the skills of hunting dog which these are then you need to have a hunting background and also need to know how to train a dog to the level you are judging


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Scott Parker said:


> So Anney if you don't think a judge or a dog needs to be from a hunting back ground that all you need is to be is a dog trainer what is your criteria for being a trainer that can evaluate a dog in a test say at the master level do you think someone who has a dog that is lets say 7,8,or 9 years old when they finally get there MH title and ran numerous tests and failed is more qualified to judge then someone who comes from a strong hunting back ground. I think if your going to evaluate the skills of hunting dog which these are then you need to have a hunting background and also need to know how to train a dog to the level you are judging


Well gee could you be a little more pointed? Is that a dig against my dog that he was 8 years old when he got his MH and I need to apologize because I trained him myself and didn't pass every test we entered? Seriously. I've already stated I have no intentions of applying as a judge at this time, so this is not about my qualifications. I'm not familiar with your dog training/competition records nor your hunting experience so I can't really make assumptions about your competency as a judge either, nor would I want to!

My point is I DON'T KNOW and neither does anyone else if "extensive hunting experience" is necessary or not! You can have great judges with that experience and great judges without that experience. If one wishes to hold the opinion that they don't want to run under judges without hunting experience that is their prerogative, and really the only issue I have with any opinion expressed in this thread is that of Ken Bora who made it very clear that he believes people like me who have never hunted have no business owning a hunting breed much less training it for hunting tests or *gasp* considering judging said hunting tests, that we should just stay home thank you very much. That's a great attitude to kill this sport with.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

Anney my point is that just because you've gotten a dog though 5 master tests no matter who you are doesn't mean your going to be a good judge of hunting dog any more then if you go hunting ever weekend with your dog you need to understand what good dog work is in a hunting situation


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Scott Parker said:


> Anney my point is that just because you've gotten a dog though 5 master tests no matter who you are doesn't mean your going to be a good judge of hunting dog any more then if you go hunting ever weekend with your dog you need to understand what good dog work is in a hunting situation


I AGREE. I've said -- now this is the 3rd time -- that I have no intentions of applying as a judge at this time. Let me make it more clear : I do not feel I am qualified to be a hunt test judge at this time! 

I just now re-read your above statement and realize (or hope) that you are not trying to specifically denigrate MY aspirations...but rather, if I'm reading it right, want to emphasize that hunting experience and dog work required in that field are just as important as knowing good dog work from a training standpoint....a very valid argument, I cannot disagree with it. 

I question HOW you can validate that someone has extensive hunting experience and whether their hunting experiences automatically make them MORE qualified to judge than someone with NO hunting experience. You can't really know that, any more than you can know how good of a dog trainer/handler they are just by the titles they have on their dogs. 

I'm kind of arguing in a circle so I think I'll quit now.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> What's a Cattie?


I don't know what a Cattie is but I love the analogy about baseball umpires. I mean Tom, you have to admit that all major league baseball umpires are former professional baseball players.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Scott Parker said:


> Anney my point is that just because you've gotten a dog though 5 master tests no matter who you are doesn't mean your going to be a good judge of hunting dog any more then if you go hunting ever weekend with your dog you need to understand what good dog work is in a hunting situation


I think I agree with your point. I know of very successful dog owners/handlers who by nature don't possess good judgement and shouldn't judge regardless of their knowledge of dogs. I think Annie's point is that the term "extensive hunting experience" is open to subjective qualification. I don't think many hunt test secretaries ask a potential judge how much he or she hunted last year and how long have they been hunting. Frankly I believe most of us recognize good judging when we see it and most of us really have no idea, nor care if those "good judges" hunt or how much.

John


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> ... Frankly I believe most of us recognize good judging when we see it* and most of us really have no idea, nor care if those "good judges" hunt *or how much.
> 
> John


John the poll says 70% do care.


----------



## David McCracken (May 24, 2009)

I am an AA HRC judge and I believe that a judge should set up his/her test as "close" to an actual hunting scenerio as possible. I have set up Finished tests in flooded timber where the longest mark was 35 yards with a 60 yard blind, tested from layout blinds with 50 goose decoys and the dog in a dog blind, I often use a dog stand, requiring the handlers to be in waders (or get wet if they don't want to wear waders), and sometimes, I have the handlers and dog "sneak" up on a group of resting ducks. I understand that, as judges, we cannot exactly duplicate real hunting, but I try to get as close as possible.
Being an avid waterfowl hunter of almost 60 years, I feel that I know what a real hunting dog has to do.
Professor


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

captainjack said:


> John the poll says 70% do care.


I guess I need to define 30% as most of us. My wife would say that's typical for me. But my point was that there are certain judges who's test we like to run. They set up nice, fun test time after time and make running a hunt test fun. Other than small talk as my dog is returning with the last bird where I might discuss the upcoming hunting season, I would have no idea if that judge hunted or not. As long as the test are good, I'm not going to go on a mission to find out how much he hunts and revoke his or her judging card if they don't hunt enough. Now if a certain judge regularly sets up terrible test that have nothing to do with hunting, I might ask the question.

John


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I've hunted my fair share.

I have NEVER carried a bucket,or sat on one when I have hunted ducks or doves. I have NEVER hunted out of a blind where it was possible to cook breakfast,, or NOT be freezin ass cold.

Seldom have I sucessfully called ducks. Its been more prudent to keep still and quiet. The conditions of the days weather, and the location of where I was STANDING had more to do with success than anything.

Most of my duck SHOOTING has been by the JUMPING methods.
Birds stone dead at 15 yrds.

Seldom am I in full Camo.
I have worn full white coveralls 

I wear jeans reguarly.
I ALWAYS have GLOVES ON!!

3 decoys are a lot. Bout all I care to cart along with me.

I dont think I have EVER dropped a triple.

A bird has never fallen out of the sky and hit the dog.:razz:

NO BODY IS EVER WITH ME WHEN I HUNT!!!! (judge)

I really dont understand how I would apply ANY of my experiences and be considered a QUALITY judge.

Prolly why nobody asks!!:razz:


Gooser


----------



## Erin O'Brien (Mar 5, 2010)

Just to make a point, pretty sure a dog that is, "breaking, noisy, nervous, always moving wired up dog," isn't going to pass a master test no matter if it was a hunter judging or someone who just read the rule book 5 minutes beforehand. Rule book says breaking and loud and prolonged barking are serious faults. It doesn't take sitting in a blind for hours with them to understand that they don't make the cut!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Furball said:


> ... Ken Bora who made it very clear that he believes people like me who have never hunted have no business owning a hunting breed......


I didnt say you could not own one, world is full of rescue and wash outs that need love. What I asked was how you got into training dogs for hunt tests. You told the boyfriend story. Then said you like your dogs to do what they love. My dogs have a lot more fun sitting head on my knee for hours watching the sky and listening for the sound of wing beats (They sadly hear them before me now) for hours. Than they do siting in a dog box for hours waiting and waiting. Wanna get the dog doing what it loves? Take it hunting.;-)

.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> What I asked was how you got into training dogs for hunt tests. You told the boyfriend story. Then said you like your dogs to do what they love.
> .


Actually I didn't say either of these things. Not to pick nits or anything....


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Furball said:


> Actually I didn't say either of these things. Not to pick nits or anything....


 
this is the boyfriend line



Furball said:


> Got a golden retriever and some guy in my obedience class invited me out to field train.


I would search for the other but sadly the ice cube in my glass has no Crown on top of it. Gotta limp to the fridge.;-)
.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> this is the boyfriend line
> 
> I would search for the other but sadly the ice cube in my glass has no Crown on top of it. Gotta limp to the fridge.;-)
> .


Actually that does make me laugh as that "guy" was good old Loyd Kiernan and his wife June, well into their 70's when I was 13 and met them at pet obedience class with my golden puppy. But he had a gaggle of goldens and trooped them out to throw bumpers once a week and I tagged along.
I may have said it in the past but in this thread I did not say I got into field work because my dog(s) loved it. Slater does love it...Fisher likes it because it's time with me and he gets birds. The rest he could give or take.


----------



## Steve Hamel (Mar 1, 2004)

I've run under alot of good judges who are not hunters. Most good judges possess many positive qualities that make up for a lack of "hunting experience".

I've met alot of people who called themselves "hunters" and get out once or twice a year for a walk in a field with their dog and a gun. Being a hunter does not necessarily make you a good judge of dog work. I agree with the comment that your average hunter would be more then happy with a Senior Hunter.

Personally , I encourage any person who has an interest in judging to pursue their interest.

Steve


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I hunt, I run tests, and I judge tests. As someone (too lazy to search back as to who) said that it was more of a hunting skills test.. I think that is exactly right. To get ALL the huinting skills, you gotta take fido hunting. However, given the skills he acquires to compete/pass a test or trial, it doesnt take much time to learn to have patience, scan the sky for birds, and learn about missed shots. 
If you have a seasoned or senior hunter you are way ahead of the average guy with the average hunting dog. Not many guys that hunt only will get out 4 or 5 times a week to train their dog. That is what kept me in the game.... it motivates me to train in march and july.
The thrill of putting your dog on a blind down a lake and over a point in front of some hunting buddies that really dont train their dogs surpasses picking up a ribbon. 
I think the requirement for a judge to be a hunter is to prevent the tests from getting too far from their roots. They are, after all, HUNT tests. You are supposed to be looking for a dog you would like to hunt with. I am of the belief that water tests should be run out of a blind. Missed shots would be great. And why do you need to be quiet when the shooting starts?.... when I hunt it goes something like this....BANG... stay...BANG....stay..BANG...stay...... FIDO..
The biggest untraining during hunting season that I see is in blinds... I knock down a duck and it goes into a patch of cover across the lake.. I handle the dog to the patch of cover then she hunts it up.... do that in a hunt test/trial and your dead meat.


----------



## S Goldby (Jan 20, 2008)

I am an avid hunter and run hunt tests and a few FT's. I have seen very few tests that resemble a true hunting experience. I got into the game to have a well behaved hunting dog that others would want to hunt with and appreciate it. The venues merely test the ability and training of the dog. If you want a true hunting experience sit with the dog all day without a shot and see how well it behaves or shoot one bird, retrieve it then send it on a 350 yd blind for a downed snow goose. Judges should know bird placement and challenge the dogs instead of trying to trick them, test on ability and perserverance. Most of all it is a game and a hobby so enjoy it with your companion.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

eobrien01 said:


> Just to make a point, pretty sure a dog that is, "breaking, noisy, nervous, always moving wired up dog," isn't going to pass a master test no matter if it was a hunter judging or someone who just read the rule book 5 minutes beforehand. Rule book says breaking and loud and prolonged barking are serious faults. It doesn't take sitting in a blind for hours with them to understand that they don't make the cut!


I beg to disagree I have seen several MH's and above, who are able to hold it together in a 15 min test, but you take them out hunting and they degrade into creeping, twitching, whining, breaking monsters as the minutes go into hours, they have to sit next 2 another dog all day, and the shots and birds continue coming. I do believe that most dog people can spot these types in a hunt test, you don't need hours to do that. The main point is that judges that hunt with dogs, will look closer at such traits, because they know the real-world value of them It adds value to the "Would I hunt with this dog" question, when you've experienced hunting with good (relaxed ahhh) and bad (Pull hair out, where's the e-collar) dogs for hours, regardless of titles. Human's are much harder to train than dogs


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

As I posted in the other thread...A judge should be an expert on his craft. Law or otherwise. If you are a judge on the supreme court, you'd better know more than one aspect of the law. You'd better know property law, tax law, international law etc. 

I feel the same goes for a HT judge. If you make no effort to at least go out and try to hunt, how can you judge a sport that is specifically designed to test the skills of a HUNTING DOG?


----------



## rookie (Sep 22, 2003)

Just my opinion but from what I have seen here in the north east most of the master hunts test the judges were more interested in giving away rosettes trying to be popular so they would get more judging assignments. Few if any were really interested in judging the dogs to master standards. Many had one puppy triple with the last two series being doubles that many JH dogs would have passed. Most of these test were poorly constructed and the judging was even worse. I would question why these people would want to judge when most of the handlers they were judging knew more about what a master test should be that they did! Who's to blame? The clubs hire them with the thought that by doing so it will bring entries and that means $$$$$$. The thought of holding a H/T to a high standard with good experienced judges went out the window when the Master National passed the 5 out of 7 rule. They later changed this to six passes in a year, but the damage was already done!
Off my soap box now but you have to shop for good judges to know if your dog is really good or better yet go run a F/T qual and see what retrievers can really do.
W Price


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> ...
> I feel the same goes for a HT judge. *If you make no effort to at least go out and try to hunt, how can you judge a sport that is specifically designed to test the skills of a HUNTING DOG*?


Someone made a bad analogy about golf and catties and soccer and something on this or the poll thread I think...

Anyway...

How many current NFL refs are former NFL players or coaches?

How many MLB umps are former MLB players or coaches?

Pretty sure the answer to these questions is zero. Probably few if any college level refs o umps played college ball either. 

I'd guess there are many olympic judges (this would be a closer analogy to a HT judge) that are not former olympic athletes. The fact is there are many sports where the judges at the highest level have never competed at that level.

For the record, I voted that HT judges should have hunting experience. If for no other reason, because the Rules either require it, or strongly recommend it. Everyone, especially judges should respect and abide by the rules.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

captainjack said:


> Someone made a bad analogy about golf and catties and soccer and something on this or the poll thread I think...
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...


I'd be willing to bet that MOST all NFL refs played college football at minimum. I don't know but, I'd assume. I know of a couple major league BB umpires who played in minor league ball.....that is still considered "professional" because they got paid. 

sort of a loose anology although....they have "played" the game and certainly understand it at a higher level than those who sit in the stands and analyze stats.....

I'd be more apt to trust a person who has played the game versus someone who simply watches ESPN and memorizes stats.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I live sort of on a small bluff overlooking a waterfowl club. I have a very nice view of other hunters and their dog work. With big money club members you think one of them would have a dog that could accomplish a WC. Only one guy has a dog that could do a single,,but I can't tell if it delivers to hand or not. Everyone else wades out and gets their own birds with the dog spashing around in the backround,,,and those are the good ones ,a few won't even get wet.. And these guys are hard core avid. Do you think I would want these goobers judging my dogs. Do they even know what retrievers are for? All one has to do to understand what a hunting dog as pertaining to the HUNT TEST game (AKC) is suppose to do, and run hunt tests from the ground up.



You will learn bird placement by training not hunting. You can learn a dog has to sit in a holding blind from running tests not hunting, You will learn the cadence of the mechanics by going to a test and training your dog not hunting. You learn to signal to the bird throwers by training and running tests not hunting,. You can learn appropriate camo by seeing what others are wearing at a test. The list is endless,,, all of it can be learned by training your dog and running hunt tests,,and not one single thing must one be an expeienced hunter to set up a test, I can find out by watching tests that decoys are used and where to place them,,I can learn by training my dog in this environment what works and doesn;t work

If we were judging dogs during an actual hunt then the judge better be a damed experienced hunter. Same goes for judging hunt tests. Hopefully the judge at a particular level has lots of experience training dogs and running dogs at that level.
But hunt tests ARE NOT HUNTING and never will be. They are a measure of a dogs ability and skills neccessary for hunting. 
As a matter of fact when I hunt I break a whole lot of hunt test rules,,,so thats probably why I am not a good judge. I speak only for AKC ,,I have only run 1 charity HRC event and it was fun and allowed a few extra things seen while hunting which may be against AKC rules. But I still felt like I was at a hunt test. Some one please give an example of hunting experience needed to judge a dog at a hunt test that CANNOT BE GAINED by training dogs and running hunt tests.

Pete


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Pete said:


> ...You will learn bird placement by training not hunting. You can learn a dog has to sit in a holding blind from running tests not hunting,....,. You can learn appropriate camo by seeing what others are wearing at a test......... The list is endless,,, all of it can be learned by training your dog and running hunt tests,,.....
> Pete


Gosh Pete,
I hunted for 'bout 30 years 'fore I even seen my first hunt test.
Purty sure I learned where the birds fall in the decoys, learned the dog needs to sit in the duck blind and how to hide my very large pale white back side in all conditions quite well long before I ever set foot on the field test grounds. I even asked a judge one time who musta went to your school of judging "Why did you put your decoys in that spot?" And she said "It was easy to toss them from that hard ground over there. It will not matter, decoys never affect the dogs"...........
Yup!!!!!!! Guess you are right Pete. You CAN learn all you need to know about hunting just by running a dog in a hunt test

Sad..... Just Sad


.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> If we were judging dogs during an actual hunt then the judge better be a damed experienced hunter. Same goes for judging hunt tests. Hopefully the judge at a particular level has lots of experience training dogs and running dogs at that level.
> But hunt tests ARE NOT HUNTING and never will be. They are a measure of a dogs ability and skills neccessary for hunting.


 I think you need to re read what I wrote



> Yup!!!!!!! Guess you are right Pete. You CAN learn all you need to know about hunting just by running a dog in a hunt test


Actually I agree with this. One cannot learn much about hunting from running hunt tests.
Only actually hunting will teach you about hunting. And only running hunt tests will teach you about hunt tests. 

You seem to love twisting words around and conjuring up assumptions.  

Pete


----------



## Erin O'Brien (Mar 5, 2010)

This whole thread and related threads, seems to attack those that don't hunt. Now I'm not saying everyone who doesn't hunt should be running tests, but there are people out there that actually try and learn something before they do it. Ken, that person is already judging, maybe it would have been more beneficial to say, "I've been hunting for 30 years and if I was hunting this spot, my decoys would have been here. I've seen plenty of dogs get freaked out swimming through the decoys or get distracted, and a hunting dog needs to be able swim right through them and be able to find a bird within the decoys." Then next time, she would have thought about the placement of her decoys. 

This looks more like a political conversation to me...maybe we should move it to Potus. Everyone is making blanket statements based on one non-hunting judge or a hunting judge that know zilch about dog training. I think judges should understand hunting before judging, maybe by learning from an experienced hunter. And it goes the other way, if you don't really get dog skills, you shouldn't be judging. I think both of these can come from experience running dogs for a few years in hunt tests. What do people do at hunt tests? Sit around and talk about hunting and dogs, what better place to learn about where to place the decoys, where to place birds, and how to know whether a dog is doing a job up to the standard or not. I know when I'm at hunt tests or training days, I hear about hunting all day long. I'm pretty sure if I asked one of my training friends to go over a days hunt, they would tell the story so vividly that I probably would get more out of it than going hunting by myself. They are so passionate about the sport, they can make the story come alive.


----------



## DougM (May 5, 2008)

Pete said:


> Some one please give an example of hunting experience needed to judge a dog at a hunt test that CANNOT BE GAINED by training dogs and running hunt tests.


Well, I for one have gained insights while hunting that have greatly improved my ability to set up hunt test scenarios when I'm judging. Hunting has also helped me understand the validity of certain scenarios that I thought were pretty bogus when I first saw them in hunt tests.

A perfect example is the poison bird scenario. While goose hunting several years ago, I knocked down two birds: a stone-dead snow about 100 yards out and a wounded blue about 40 yards past the snow. In that scenario, you need to get the dog past the dead bird to pick up the cripple first. I didn't have that kind of training in my dog at the time, but I sure do in all the dogs I hunt with now.

Before that incident, I always thought a poison bird was a meaningless trick thought up by judges who wanted to fail dogs. Not so, but if I hadn't hunted, I would never really have internalized the lesson. I've learned many similar lessons in years of hunting and running hunt tests.

Bottom line: If you hunt, you will see things that will make you a better judge _across the board_. Decoy/bird placement, use of terrain/wind/cover, concealment, dog skills...everything. Unless you get out and actually hunt with dogs, you can't fully understand what it is you're trying to accomplish at a hunt test.

If that weren't the case, we'd just call them "tests."


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Amen


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

DougM said:


> Well, I for one have gained insights while hunting that have greatly improved my ability to set up hunt test scenarios when I'm judging. Hunting has also helped me understand the validity of certain scenarios that I thought were pretty bogus when I first saw them in hunt tests.
> 
> A perfect example is the poison bird scenario. While goose hunting several years ago, I knocked down two birds: a stone-dead snow about 100 yards out and a wounded blue about 40 yards past the snow. In that scenario, you need to get the dog past the dead bird to pick up the cripple first. I didn't have that kind of training in my dog at the time, but I sure do in all the dogs I hunt with now.
> 
> ...


thats a good point Doug. However, I have the opposite experience. My dog will pick up that long bird (poison or not) because of his training for HT not because of his hunting.


----------



## DougM (May 5, 2008)

jtfreeman said:


> thats a good point Doug. However, I have the opposite experience. My dog will pick up that long bird (poison or not) because of his training for HT not because of his hunting.


I guess what I was trying to say is that the two (hunting vs. hunt testing) are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.

Do the skills we teach our retrievers in order to compete in hunt tests translate into skills that make them better gun dogs? Without a doubt.

Do the things our retrievers learn while hunting make them better hunt test dogs? For the most part, yes. Slippage on line manners can be a negative, but is rather easily brushed up with training.

But we were talking about the human side of the equation, not the canine side. I'll grant you that I know some pretty good judges who don't hunt, but I also know with abject certainty that the fact that I hunt has made me a better hunt test judge. :2c:


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

eobrien01 said:


> .... Ken, that person is already judging, maybe it would have been more beneficial to say, "I've been hunting for 30 years and if I was hunting this spot, my decoys would have been here. I've seen plenty of dogs get freaked out swimming through the decoys or get distracted, and a hunting dog needs to be able swim right through them and be able to find a bird within the decoys." Then next time, she would have thought about the placement of her decoys.....


 
Nope,
She made it clear she knew everything already
But on a side note my club has NEVER asked her back.
She may have been all done learning, but we were not


.


----------



## Erin O'Brien (Mar 5, 2010)

Ken Bora said:


> Nope,
> She made it clear she knew everything already
> But on a side note my club has NEVER asked her back.
> She may have been all done learning, but we were not
> ...


Those are the people that shouldn't be judging, even the best of the best in this sport say they learn from others everyday.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> Gosh Pete,
> I hunted for 'bout 30 years 'fore I even seen my first hunt test.
> Purty sure I learned where the birds fall in the decoys, learned the dog needs to sit in the duck blind and how to hide my very large pale white back side in all conditions quite well long before I ever set foot on the field test grounds. I even asked a judge one time who musta went to your school of judging "Why did you put your decoys in that spot?" And she said "It was easy to toss them from that hard ground over there. It will not matter, decoys never affect the dogs"...........
> Yup!!!!!!! Guess you are right Pete. You CAN learn all you need to know about hunting just by running a dog in a hunt test
> ...


Ken,

I’m disappointed. I know you’re a bright guy. This example isn’t unique, of course. But it does little to illustrate anything beyond the need for better judging education. That lady could be educated about this and other important issues without her ever setting foot in a duck blind. I’ll grant you that had she hunted ducks a bit she would have seen for herself how decoys effect dogs, at least until they get some experience with them, although there is no guarantee of it. By the time my dogs are through Basics they will have seen enough decoy work that even very strategic uses and applications have little effect. Then, of course, a season of hunting really takes the magnetism from them.

But the larger issue is all the elements of hunting combined that a hunter should logically take into consideration that a non-hunter would not tend to recognize. I appreciate those things, and how they present to influence performance as a gundog. Where I think we differ is our overall view of the value of hunt tests in determining the quality of gundog breeding and training. And key contrasts in that consideration is that red devil (and I believe you also) just see it as a game to play, and that this was the intent of those who pioneered the sport. I don’t. 

I remember it well, and it had a great deal to do with providing a testing venue that they believed had more to do with influencing future generations of gundogs than field trials, as they assessed them. As much as I enjoy discussing that issue, my interest here is focusing on maintaining a useful balance of meaningful testing, and an enjoyable and useful element of realism.

As someone who views the overall value of hunt tests as _tests_, I believe standard concepts of fieldwork should reign supreme, but should be dovetailed together with an appropriate measure of the look and feel of a hunt. My own extensive hunting experiences with retrievers have shown me clearly that even dogs with the greatest concentration of talent are better and more useful in game conservation than those with under developed field skills. That makes if vital to test these dogs in a balanced venue where they are truly tested in substantive ways that reflect abilities needed on a typical day’s hunt. I don’t believe that has to be done by trying to invent a scenario that looks cosmetically like a day’s hunt unless the components of that test lend to the actual testing. 

In large part, I feel that way because I know it can’t be done. Only hunting is _hunting_. But I also hold those views because I know how easy it is for a skilled dog to adapt to conditions in the marsh and field, as opposed to just thrusting an under trained one into action, and relying on experience to make them steadier, or better at blind retrieves, or at effectively dealing with diversions, or any of the many other elements that make it so valuable to take a retriever hunting.

Whether or not someone is an avid hunter, teach them how to judge. In my experience, no one is doing that better than the HRC. But I’m willing to learn!

Evan


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Well, I for one have gained insights while hunting that have greatly improved my ability to set up hunt test scenarios when I'm judging. Hunting has also helped me understand the validity of certain scenarios that I thought were pretty bogus when I first saw them in hunt tests.


No one has yet answered my question!!!! why because it doesn't exist. Or even its so insignificant it doesn't matter anyway.
Here is what I am starting to think about this.
There are alot of hunters whose ego's are puffing themselves up. Thinking that it is only hunters who can understand a scenerio at a TEST. This makes you bigger fishies. Since I have only seen a couple of tests over the last 2 decades plus,,, which had any resemblance of hunting,,, that through logical means I have concluded that only a couple judges have actually ever hunted.

Anyone who has run enough HUNT TESTS and trains their dogs alot and learns about dogs and how they behave at HUNT TESTS can learn to be a good HUNT TEST judge. If they hunt also great, Then and only then can they tell us a little story why the birds are landing where they land. and all about how we showed up late which is why we are picking up every bodies bird. Come to think of it as long as I remember thats the only scenerio I can think of. And most of these judges were hunters.:razz: HA! HA!

Pete


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

DougM said:


> I guess what I was trying to say is that the two (hunting vs. hunt testing) are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.
> 
> Do the skills we teach our retrievers in order to compete in hunt tests translate into skills that make them better gun dogs? Without a doubt.
> 
> ...


We agree on most.

I feel that training for HT makes my dog a better hunting retriever. I do not feel that hunting my dog makes him a better HT dog. I am not sure that hunting my dog makes him a better hunting retriever as it relates to those skills that impress your friends and retrieve those difficult birds. Hunting and training for the type of hunting you do, yes. But just hunting, no.

Now, back to the origional. I said earlier that hunting experience was not important to me for a Judge. I think it is great if they are hunters and it may make them a better judge in some situations but it is not something I think about when getting ready to run


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Pete said:


> ..... If they hunt also great, Then and only then can they tell us a little story why the birds are landing where they land. and all about how we showed up late which is why we are picking up every bodies bird. Come to think of it as long as I remember thats the only scenerio I can think of. And most of these judges were hunters.:razz: HA! HA!
> 
> Pete


 the "come in late" story is lame but often used.
Ones I like and use are.......

You been sitting in the blind for a long time and need to step out and water a bush. Yes you take your dog and gun with you, don't we all?

or

You been set up before first light and at shooting time some dork weeds who had snuck up on your spread open fire on your first flock of the day
Mad as heck you send your dog to get those birds


or

A decoy is out of place so you sit your dog and wade/walk out to right the decoy. Workers are told as soon at you touch the decoy all hell breaks loose. Calling and shooting and ducks hitting the water. You send your steady dog from the remote sit then scamper back to the line


and the best of the best, land series only...

Know how when you are done for the day and picking up your decoys a small group ALWAYS comes over. And know how there is ALWAYS one of your buddies who lugs his loaded gun all over the field while picking up decoys??? Well take a bland (who did we chafe to get stuck with this) field and stack about 3 dozen goose decoys in a heap in the middle with a great large worker pretending to bag um.... and boomity boomity BOOM!!
marks go down and dog goes past stack and large worker on both sides



Those are hunting stories that I just HAPPEN to use.... in some set ups


.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

The best one that I ever heard was from two judges from WI who were judging the SH in South Florida.

"You were out hunting one day, walking thru the woods and came upon a bunch of people at a Hunt Test. So you thought you would give it a try."


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DougM said:


> Well, I for one have gained insights while hunting that have greatly improved my ability to set up hunt test scenarios when I'm judging. Hunting has also helped me understand the validity of certain scenarios that I thought were pretty bogus when I first saw them in hunt tests.
> 
> *A perfect example is the poison bird scenario. While goose hunting several years ago, I knocked down two birds: a stone-dead snow about 100 yards out and a wounded blue about 40 yards past the snow. In that scenario, you need to get the dog past the dead bird to pick up the cripple first. I didn't have that kind of training in my dog at the time, but I sure do in all the dogs I hunt with now.
> 
> ...


I believe that teaching your dog to handle off a poison bird well and handle well on blinds are the two most important skills a hunting dog needs to possess. I know marking is of primary importance in field trials and hunt test, and I insist on having good marking dogs because I can't compete in field trials without them, but with my dog hidden in the blind coupled with the general chaos of real hunting, dogs aren't able to mark well, and with birds splashing down within 30 yards they really don't need to. Having the ability to handle your dog on a missed mark is a great insurance policy.

The point that a judge learns to employ poison birds in his test even if his motive is to trick dogs, forces us all to train on them which makes a more complete hunting dog even if we don't hunt or really understand the utility of the skill.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> The best one that I ever heard was from two judges from WI who were judging the SH in South Florida.
> 
> "You were out hunting one day, walking thru the woods and came upon a bunch of people at a Hunt Test. So you thought you would give it a try."


That is perfect!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan said:


> Ken,
> 
> I’m disappointed. I know you’re a bright guy. This example isn’t unique, of course. But it does little to illustrate anything beyond the need for better judging education. That lady could be educated about this and other important issues without her ever setting foot in a duck blind. I’ll grant you that had she hunted ducks a bit she would have seen for herself how decoys effect dogs, at least until they get some experience with them, although there is no guarantee of it. By the time my dogs are through Basics they will have seen enough decoy work that even very strategic uses and applications have little effect. Then, of course, a season of hunting really takes the magnetism from them.
> 
> ...


Evan, clearly for you the HT is purely about testing dogs. One mans opinion. I guess if you ran HT's and tried to judge it would of more importance. If the HT for you is just about the test, great. For many though a HT should be more than that. Sadly as we see less people actually hunting I fear the true aspect of the total experience will be lost.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pete said:


> No one has yet answered my question!!!! why because it doesn't exist. Or even its so insignificant it doesn't matter anyway.
> Here is what I am starting to think about this.
> There are alot of hunters whose ego's are puffing themselves up. Thinking that it is only hunters who can understand a scenerio at a TEST. This makes you bigger fishies. Since I have only seen a couple of tests over the last 2 decades plus,,, which had any resemblance of hunting,,, that through logical means I have concluded that only a couple judges have actually ever hunted.
> 
> ...


Yep. What we get is a bunch of training scenarios made to look like a hunt. 

/Paul


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Evan, clearly for you the HT is purely about testing dogs. One mans opinion.
> 
> /Paul


Not purely, Paul. Just the primary point. I haven't said anywhere that HT's are purely or only about testing; just primarily, and there's an obvious difference. People should be creative, and have fun with any sport they choose, and the elements of perceived realism do a lot to create that. 

I've really enjoyed listening to the judges instruction at the several HRC tests I ran this year. They clearly thought through what they set up, and gave clear explanations to the participants. That should be a model for all hunt tests.

I'm just not sure how you're missing my message of balance, rather than an 'all one aspect' being relevant approach.

Evan


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Evan & Pete-

from the Mother of all rule books

SECTION 3: All tests will be judged by at least two judges.
a. The judges are representatives of the NAHRA hunting retriever program and its “standards” and will abide by the Regulations and Field Procedures and the Guidelines for Judging Hunting Retriever Field Tests.
b. The judges will set up all tests within the prescribed guidelines set forth in these Regulations and Field Procedures and must give paramount consideration to the *simulation of actual hunting conditions*.
c. All tests will be set up within the prescribed distance and cover limitations of each particular category.
d. Duck blinds, numerous decoys, boats, calls, and other hunting implements should be utilized in *a manner simulating normal hunting*.

.​


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

while I was re-reading the rule book....there are numerous rules which basically "require" a judge to have hunting experience. Why would ANYONE who is or wants to judge try to circumvent the rules and compromise the integrity of a test? Per the rule book....to be a judge and adhere to this rule, you would need "some" hunting experience at minimum. If you do not have ANY hunting experience, how can you follow the rule book you expect all the dogs' running under you to follow? 

"Ingenuity on the part of the Judges is always encouraged
not only in planning natural hunting situations, but also in
devising some that are unusual, while practical and realistic
and that would be encountered “in a true hunting situation.”
These situations might take the form of a type of hunting​
unique to the region that the event is held,"


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Litterally, the AKC rule book is page after page of references such as this....if you don't have hunting experience, how can you really follow the rule book? 

*Test Dogs.​*​​​​Changing a hunting situation after a series​
has been started should be avoided if at all possible.

Sorry- the font is wigging out on me....we are changing a "hunting situation" not changing the "test" if we run a test dog and need to make adjustments.....


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ken/Happy - please don't be quoting the rulebook. I tried that. Deaf ears. Face it boys, the new generation along with creating new math have also created a new "Hunt" test that somehow doesn't involve "hunting." 

Green ribbons for everyone. Wouldn't want anyone to go home unless they feel good about themselves. 

Perhaps we should take handlers guns away, get rid of decoys, remove clothing requirements, get rid of the annoying rules about distance and just focus on the dog work. Oh wait, we did that already....

/Paul


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

Ken Bora said:


> Evan & Pete-
> 
> from the Mother of all rule books
> 
> ...


I think a section of the upper level tests should include setting up a decoy spread while your dog sits quietly at honor though the process.

I mean that is part of hunting, right??;-)

Just askin'.....


*RK*


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

road kill said:


> I think a section of the upper level tests should include setting up a decoy spread while your dog sits quietly at honor though the process.
> 
> I mean that is part of hunting, right??;-)
> 
> ...


 
the rules are there to test the hunting skills of the dog, not the handler. We all know our dogs are usually way better than we are. No need to test the obvious...


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Ken/Happy - please don't be quoting the rulebook. I tried that. Deaf ears. ....
> 
> /Paul


 
not gonna do it

NAHRA's purpose in establishing this concept is to discover and reward dogs that can fulfill the
hunter's needs in the field by performing in a manner consistent with the demands of actual
hunting conditions. The purpose is not to confront the dog with trick problems, but rather to test
the dog's natural ability and acquired training. NAHRA Field Tests utilize duck blinds, numerous
decoys, boats, calls and other hunting implements in a manner simulating normal hunting. Under
the NAHRA concept, the objective is to recover the bird as quickly and efficiently as possible, to
create the least amount of disturbance in the marsh and upland and to give the hunter the​maximum amount of time to actually take game.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

road kill said:


> I think a section of the upper level tests should include setting up a decoy spread while your dog sits quietly at honor though the process.
> 
> I mean that is part of hunting, right??;-)
> 
> ...


 Hi Stan,
see post 104


.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> E Sadly as we see less people actually hunting I fear the true aspect of the total experience will be lost./Paul



Around here it is already lost. Anyone that has been gun captain (for AKC club) can attest that it is getting increasingly harder to find anyone that can gun at the tests. We end up relying on the same few folks gunning at most every test. I would say the number of handlers that are hunters are in the minority. By a LOT. 

I'm guessing the judging ranks are headed in the same direction.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

dixidawg said:


> Around here it is already lost. Anyone that has been gun captain (for AKC club) can attest that it is getting increasingly harder to find anyone that can gun at the tests. We end up relying on the same few folks gunning at most every test. I would say the number of handlers that are hunters are in the minority. By a LOT.
> 
> I'm guessing the judging ranks are headed in the same direction.


There is truth to that statement. I've been thinking about calling a few local gun clubs next year and asking if they have any members interested. Skeet shooters are typically terrible gunners for a while.


----------



## Ihatesteel (Aug 22, 2011)

I garentee you I can find some skeet shooters that can gun.

I'm kinda late to this discussion I guess, and I'm realtivly new tp dog stuff (mainly the games) and not trying to stir the pot, so if I'm wrong in how I feel tell me I'm a big boy. But I know for me when it comes to setting up for a mornings duck hunt, I take alot of things into account like sun's location, wind direction, stumps and logs that may affect a dogs perform or hang them up, and put them in a place to mark well. I'm in no way saying I'm qualified to judge, but there are little things that I've pointed out to novice hunters, or novice dog handlers on hunts that they never thought of and I didn't either till I hunted a bunch with dogs. I guess my point is that jsut like in trianing you can't make up for actual hunting experiance.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

road kill said:


> I think a section of the upper level tests should include setting up a decoy spread while your dog sits quietly at honor though the process.
> 
> I mean that is part of hunting, right??;-)
> 
> ...


I actually ran a test like that in Montana years ago. You come to the line, sit your dog in front of the holding blind, toss a decoy into the water and then go back into the holding blind. Remote send the dog.

/Paul


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

All this no hunting experience not being important, blah blah blah. Makes me wonder why all of the sudden NAHRA and the HRC are taking off in places that have been purely AKC in the past. Makes me wonder why every retriever magazine article right now are focusing the complaints people have with the sport and on getting back to hunting and real-world judging. Makes me wonder why the AKC wants to let other breeds into retriever hunt tests. We've lost 4 AKC test this year already, and this is CA AKC central, (metro-un-hunting community central). Could there be a common thread here... Just saying ;-)


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I'd be willing to bet that MOST all NFL refs played college football at minimum. I don't know but, I'd assume. I know of a couple major league BB umpires who played in minor league ball.....that is still considered "professional" because they got paid.
> 
> sort of a loose anology although....they have "played" the game and certainly understand it at a higher level than those who sit in the stands and analyze stats.....
> 
> I'd be more apt to trust a person who has played the game versus someone who simply watches ESPN and memorizes stats.


Good point you make, those who have played the game are those who have played the game, that doesn't mean that they have ever hunted.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

I would like to turn this into a learning process for us new hunters. Let's talk a little bit about some of the things that are learned from "Actual hunting", like decoy placement.

When I go hunting this fall, where should I place my decoys relative to my blind in order to get the birds to come in to me. And also, where would the birds fall in relation to those decoys (yes, I know that flying objects, once turned into dead weight will vary in their falling location, but let's try to relate this to bird placement within a hunt test, and the relation to the decoy spread)?

Thank you for your opinion in my trek to start learning how to hunt, since I now have a dog capable to hunting with me.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

Zman Decoy placement varies a lot depending on the weather such as wind, rain,
fog whether it's overcast or sunny the worse the weather is the closer I put them it also depends on if it's early season when they aren't so spooky or late season after they've been shot at I use less decoys as the season goes on and tend to place them farther out it also depends on the type of cover or blind your hunting from they tend to shy away from heavy cover later in the season and it also depends on the type of birds your hunting some are a lot wearier then others as far as where they fall it depends on how good you are at calling them in to you I'm not that great I tend to drop more in the decoys early and as the sun gets higher I'm dropping more on the outside of the decoys I'm no expert on it and most of my hunting is local and in public places that get a lot of hunt pressure so I don't have a vast knowledge of hunting different places so there's more to it depending on where you hunt.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Thanks Scott. I guess I will try to rephrase the question.

It appears that one of the biggest complaints of "hunters" regarding a hunt test set-up is that the decoys are no where near any logical location (i.e. they were just thrown there because I could reach them).

So, taking factors like wind and rain out of it, and looking at a pond that is like a diamond.

The line is at home plate. It is a double with the marks coming from 1st and 3rd base.

Where should the decoys be placed? Should the decoys be placed in direct line to 1st base (maybe out 5 yards), out in the general area of 1st base (maybe 5 yards short of the AOF), or should the decoys be placed 10-15 yards off shore, in direct line to 2nd base (where nothing is happening).

Thanks
Doug


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

Furball said:


> I see people in my area applying to be judges and trust me I don't get it at all. They don't train their own dogs, are terrible handlers, have very little grasp of terminology and concepts, they do not hunt, struggle to put the # of passes required to judge on their own dog that someone else has trained....and that is your new crop of judges.


It has been brought to my attention that my above quote has been INCORRECTLY PRESUMED to be about or directed toward my good friend Patty Kopco, by some mysterious and anonymous "MFGRC members" who were so kind to extrapolate this information and pass it on to Patty. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH -- I WAS NOT REFERRING TO HER. You know what happens when you ASSUME something? Well guess what, you've not only made an ass out of you and me, but you made both Patty and myself feel pretty sh*tty. If that was your goal, then congratulations you have succeeded brilliantly. 

Patty is a wonderful friend and a great champion of our goldens and hunt tests. I commend her for applying to be a judge and feel that she will be a creative, fair and fun judge to run under. Her and Mike have done amazing things with their golden boys and I can't wait to congratulate them for Jagger's MH and Ozzy's SH in the coming tests. For someone to read into what I wrote, ASSUME to know what I was referring to, and run to Patty and try to upset her and cause a rift in our friendship, is REALLY CRAPPY. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I would place the main body of decoys about a dozen or so about 20 yards out toward 2nd base strung out a little not to tight together you want some gaps for the birds to land in if you were hunting and you don't want the dog to get hung up in the lines I would also put a pair or 2 out toward 1st base and also 3rd base maybe 30 to 40 yards out you can drop the bird on the backside of those.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

Anney The fun factor that Pattie would bring to the test judging would out way any inexperience she might have in other areas. I never thought I'd hear myself say that but Pattie is an exception to any rule


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Scott Parker said:


> I would place the main body of decoys about a dozen or so about 20 yards out toward 2nd base strung out a little not to tight together you want some gaps for the birds to land in if you were hunting and you don't want the dog to get hung up in the lines I would also put a pair or 2 out toward 1st base and also 3rd base maybe 30 to 40 yards out you can drop the bird on the backside of those.


what I don't understand is when a mark is out 60-80 yards and the judges put the decoys right in and amongst where the bird lands. In a HT scenario, that just "lures" the dogs right in to where the bird is at or, conversely, judges who put decoys clear out in the field attempting to pull dogs where the mark actually lands- I don't understand either thought process.....


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

I am going to revive this thread, since it somehow died just as it was really starting to develope into something very useful. I feel like I understand(opinion) why the rules all say "hunting expirence and dog expirence" and it was really just starting to show its head here. Setting up a hunt test should not be walking up to a piece of water and saying "Oooh that looks like a good spot to throw a bird." Shouldn't it be more in the lines of, this is how I would hunt this area, birds should fall here, and yes this bird placement is appropriate for the level of dogs that are being judged? It isn't intended to bash non-hunters, but in the same sense you are judging a hunting dog. These are merely tools in the bag to do the best job you can.


----------



## Brian Skibicki (Feb 23, 2008)

Duckquilizer said:


> Setting up a hunt test should not be walking up to a piece of water and saying "Oooh that looks like a good spot to throw a bird." Shouldn't it be more in the lines of, this is how I would hunt this area, birds should fall here, and yes this bird placement is appropriate for the level of dogs that are being judged? It isn't intended to bash non-hunters, but in the same sense you are judging a hunting dog. These are merely tools in the bag to do the best job you can.


The answer to your question from my perspective is a little bit of both, and a lot of both. Confused yet? Although I won't claim to be part of an "Expert" panel of judges having only judged 30+ times, but I have been fortunate to have judged with some guys and gals who have been running and judging longer then I have, which is around 6 years.

When a judge arrives at a piece of property on Friday to begin to set up his test for the weekend with his Co-Judge, he basically gets what he gets according to what the hunt test or field trial committee gives him to work with. Sometimes it lends itself to certain types of hunting as opposed to others, meaning more of a wide open field where you would be more likely to see a spread of goose decoys. Other times you get a field with heavy cover where jump shooting some ducks is more easily replicated. Regardless of what the terrain you are presented with you have to test to the standard and level you are judging, actually be able to see the dog do the work, and provide a safe and productive flow of the test. Not always an easy thing to do and check off all of those boxes given the limitations that the piece of land or water you are assigned to. For me, as I was taught when I apprenticed, was to identify the blind first with the level of difficulty determined by the level being tested, and "build" the test around that. Although we are trying to simulate a hunting scenario, let's face it some scenarios are a little more complicated then others. I don't think I have ever sat on a bucket and shot ducks, maybe doves, in the middles of any field, but at the same time it just is not practical to have folks climb in and out of a lay out blind in order to determine if a dog is capable of doing finished level work. And if it is a water test, getting into a corner where there is plenty of cover to set up a spread of decoys is not practical for a test getting completed in a timely and safe fashion, but it is how I might hunt a particular piece of water. If I am lucky that "Oooh that looks like a good spot to throw a bird." opportunity presents itself at the same time as the confines of the piece of property dictate all the while having a safe and productive series of the level being tested. Hope that is not too wishy washy..


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Brian Skibicki said:


> The answer to your question from my perspective is a little bit of both, and a lot of both. Confused yet? Although I won't claim to be part of an "Expert" panel of judges having only judged 30+ times, but I have been fortunate to have judged with some guys and gals who have been running and judging longer then I have, which is around 6 years.
> 
> When a judge arrives at a piece of property on Friday to begin to set up his test for the weekend with his Co-Judge, he basically gets what he gets according to what the hunt test or field trial committee gives him to work with. Sometimes it lends itself to certain types of hunting as opposed to others, meaning more of a wide open field where you would be more likely to see a spread of goose decoys. Other times you get a field with heavy cover where jump shooting some ducks is more easily replicated. Regardless of what the terrain you are presented with you have to test to the standard and level you are judging, actually be able to see the dog do the work, and provide a safe and productive flow of the test. Not always an easy thing to do and check off all of those boxes given the limitations that the piece of land or water you are assigned to. For me, as I was taught when I apprenticed, was to identify the blind first with the level of difficulty determined by the level being tested, and "build" the test around that. Although we are trying to simulate a hunting scenario, let's face it some scenarios are a little more complicated then others. I don't think I have ever sat on a bucket and shot ducks, maybe doves, in the middles of any field, but at the same time it just is not practical to have folks climb in and out of a lay out blind in order to determine if a dog is capable of doing finished level work. And if it is a water test, getting into a corner where there is plenty of cover to set up a spread of decoys is not practical for a test getting completed in a timely and safe fashion, but it is how I might hunt a particular piece of water. If I am lucky that "Oooh that looks like a good spot to throw a bird." opportunity presents itself at the same time as the confines of the piece of property dictate all the while having a safe and productive series of the level being tested. Hope that is not too wishy washy..


Spoken like a guy with expirence in both...nice job!


----------



## Steve Babcock (Dec 3, 2005)

Well, I guess I am in the minority on this issue. Before you jump on me, I have hunted for over 50 years and I guide hunters from Sept to Dec. Tomorrow I am taking my grandson on his first hunt for antelope, then back guiding for 5 more weeks. While hunting experience is probably desirable, I believe that a person that hasn't hunted can be a good judge. It still requires someone who is willing to be a student of the game, and can understand dog behavior. 

Our Hunt Tests can only simulate hunting, I work with clients who bring their own dogs, some with HT titles that have never seen a fly away. I had a Pointing Griffon in with a HT title that not only couldn't find birds, but I had to spend an hour trying to catch him to stop him from chasing cows. There is no HT that will prepare a dog for everything a dog is likely to see in actual hunting.

It is hard enough to get Judges and to exclude someone who doesn't hunt doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Steve Babcock said:


> Well, I guess I am in the minority on this issue. Before you jump on me, I have hunted for over 50 years and I guide hunters from Sept to Dec. Tomorrow I am taking my grandson on his first hunt for antelope, then back guiding for 5 more weeks. While hunting experience is probably desirable, I believe that a person that hasn't hunted can be a good judge. It still requires someone who is willing to be a student of the game, and can understand dog behavior.
> 
> Our Hunt Tests can only simulate hunting, I work with clients who bring their own dogs, some with HT titles that have never seen a fly away. I had a Pointing Griffon in with a HT title that not only couldn't find birds, but I had to spend an hour trying to catch him to stop him from chasing cows. There is no HT that will prepare a dog for everything a dog is likely to see in actual hunting.
> 
> It is hard enough to get Judges and to exclude someone who doesn't hunt doesn't make sense to me.



I'm some what in agreement with you in the respect that being a judge has none thing to do with being a good hunter...I would say a good dog trainer would make a better judge...not necessarily a pro ...When it comes to a hunt test ,I try to decide what few traits I want to see demonstrated that particular week end...Along with my co-judge we set test that will reveal the level of performance of training or natural ability the dog has in these areas making them suitable for hunting at what ever the level we are testing at... I'm not trying to duplicate a hunting set up...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

With all the talk about decoys and proper placement as to when you hunt...What is the bottom line purpose of using decoys at a test..? Before someone gets on their high horse let's not rehash all the examples of bad or misplaced decoys you have seen ...Try and stick to the question ...purpose.....thanks Steve S


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Notwithstanding the point that AKC rule dictates hunting experience as a requirement to judge, I agree with Steve Babcock and question the need for such a rule. Like Steve I have hunted ducks, geese, pheasants and big game since 1965, so I do understand hunting and judging, but I also belive a real student of the game with good dog sense could become a great hunt test judge just by playing the game, paying attention and training with experienced HT folks. 

John


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

steve schreiner said:


> With all the talk about decoys and proper placement as to when you hunt...What is the bottom line purpose of using decoys at a test..? Before someone gets on their high horse let's not rehash all the examples of bad or misplaced decoys you have seen ...Try and stick to the question ...purpose.....thanks Steve S


I think they use decoys more as a distraction then to simulate a hunt. But if you want to really use them as a distraction just put one out about 30 yards up wind of where the bird lands when they see just one they think it's the bird and it sucks them off the line to the bird. Which I see as trying to trick the dog which I don't believe is fair.


----------



## Steve Babcock (Dec 3, 2005)

I am glad that a few people agree with me, because my wife doesn't even agree with me.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

My 2cents---A good judge can evaluate a dog's work quite well even if the judge has not had hunting experience. However, if you are hunt testing, a judge without hunting experience is quite capable of giving a nonsense explanation for a scenario in order to justify his setup. I want to add that I like both FT and HT but I appreciate the design of the tests (HT) that a judge with hunting experience sets up for us.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

There is an art to good test set-ups (Lance Brown would call it "poetry") that goes beyond the technical requirements or training scenarios often seen. A good judge understands how terrain and cover affect the working dog and uses those to his/her advantage. A good judge knows how a "finished hunting companion" should perform and tries to set up situations that will showcase a good dog's capabilities. While extensive hunting experience is no guarantee of those results it certainly does help. Especially for HT's where we are, after all, supposed to be evaluating the dogs' capabilities as hunting dogs. So yes, the book is correct to encourage the use of judges who know and understand how to hunt with dogs.


----------



## Erik Nilsson (Jan 16, 2011)

I like to see the "Hunt" in a hunt test, the over all expierence is what I enjoy the most.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

If the basic idea of HT's is to evaluate and demonstrate retrievers' abilities to perform in hunting situations, how do we properly evaluate them on those abilities (both natural and trained) if we don't set up realistic hunting situtaions? Having hunting experience certainly aids in setting up good, fair, realistic and challenging tests. Does that mean that someone couldn't set up a good test without ever having hunted? Definitely not but, if the titles are to indicate to the general public that the dog that earned it is an elite level hunting dog, they better darn well live up to the title in my opinion. Over the years, I've run a number of tests that made no sense and had no relation to hunting. No scenario was given (other than the sometimes typical "There's a bird that's going to come out over there and then there's another bird that's going to come out over there.......). Judges need to get themselves to a place where they take the time to try to make it all make sense. That doesn't mean overly contrived or imaginative tests just for the sake of doing it but true to life set ups that make sense and that could possibly happen while out hunting.

The last Master test I judged, my co-judge and I required handlers to come up to the line carrying a single decoy with their dog. Once at the line, they were to sit their dog, take about 4 steps forward and then drop the decoy in the water. They were told that they could talk to their dog up until the point that the decoy hit the water and that once the decoy hit the water, the first bird was going to be launched. Handlers were pinching nickels into dimes in the gallery but it was fun, and enlightening, to see how handlers and dogs worked together. I was very surprised to see how many dogs had trouble being set down and left. Many had to be re-heeled back to the point of origin. It made me think, "Haven't these dogs ever been asked to sit remotely while their owner was setting decoys?" At the end of the day, dogs did well, handlers unpuckered and many commented that they enjoyed the test. Several thanked us for taking the time to do something that "made sense".


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Pete said:


> I live sort of on a small bluff overlooking a waterfowl club. I have a very nice view of other hunters and their dog work. With big money club members you think one of them would have a dog that could accomplish a WC. Only one guy has a dog that could do a single,,but I can't tell if it delivers to hand or not. Everyone else wades out and gets their own birds with the dog spashing around in the backround,,,and those are the good ones ,a few won't even get wet.. And these guys are hard core avid. Do you think I would want these goobers judging my dogs. Do they even know what retrievers are for? All one has to do to understand what a hunting dog as pertaining to the HUNT TEST game (AKC) is suppose to do, and run hunt tests from the ground up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Pete makes a good point in that being an avid hunter doesn't mean that someone has trained a dog to the level that makes it a dog that you would want to hunt over. I have a friend in MA who is an avid hunter and his HRCH MH dog has as much real life hunting under her belt than most dogs. He sets a very high standard for his dog all year round. Would love to run under him if he'd ever judge, but I know I'd really need to bring my "A" game.The flip side is knowing other avid hunters who judge who have dogs that are absolutely painful to hunt with. Still need to be tied out, can't run a blind, noisy, won't honor, etc. They probably can set up a realistic scenario, but I'd be more impressed if they'd trained their dog to level they are judging.

M


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

stonybrook said:


> It made me think, "Haven't these dogs ever been asked to sit remotely while their owner was setting decoys?"


That is the problem, IMO with trying to make it too much like pretend hunting. We don't all hunt the same. My dogs get to run and splash around while I am putting out decoys since they will be asked to sit and do nothing for hours on end after that task.

At least if you are used to hunting you know how ridiculous the hunting scenario sounds when you are trying to describe why you are shooting ducks 100 yards away.

You are late to the hunt and your buddies are already out in the field regards,


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

C'mon, stonybrook. You must have been at our last Hunting Test and stole that idea. We did exactly the same thing.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

DoubleHaul said:


> That is the problem, IMO with trying to make it too much like pretend hunting. We don't all hunt the same. *My dogs get to run and splash around while I am putting out decoys* since they will be asked to sit and do nothing for hours on end after that task.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 
> You are late to the hunt and your buddies are already out in the field regards,


And I do both.
Saturday past it was 29· and I kept the dog out of the water.
By Monday it was up to 44· and I let the dog frolic.
Simply explain in your scenario that it is a Traditional Thanksgiving morning duck hunt and it is very cold and your keeping your dog out of the water. The “place one decoy” test was very much in vogue up here a couple seasons ago. As well as the “One goose Decoy Blew over” land series. Handler walked out to stand up decoy and as soon as decoy was touched all heck broke loose. Handler was told to “Hunker” while the birds came in and then after stand and release the dog that was still sitting next to the judges, hopefully.
The style of hunker was always very amusing, in these tests.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

ken bora said:


> and i do both.
> saturday past it was 29· and i kept the dog out of the water.
> by monday it was up to 44· and i let the dog frolic.
> simply explain in your scenario that it is a traditional thanksgiving morning duck hunt and it is very cold and your keeping your dog out of the water. The “place one decoy” test was very much in vogue up here a couple seasons ago. As well as the “one goose decoy blew over” land series. Handler walked out to stand up decoy and as soon as decoy was touched all heck broke loose. Handler was told to “hunker” while the birds came in and then after stand and release the dog that was still sitting next to the judges, hopefully.
> the style of hunker was always very amusing, in these tests.


i like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha! Awesome!


----------



## Gunner's Dad (Jul 18, 2012)

I have read this whole thread, because i was bored, and i would like to ask the opposite of this question. Sorta. 
I have extensive hunting experience, both with and without dogs involved, from all over Texas and surrounding states. Yet i have only a little little bit of experience actually training dogs, and have never ran a hunt test. I watched a few. What would be the problem with me judging a hunt test? I have the hunting experience necessary, im only missing the dog experience. 

Know that sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it. 

Both are there for a reason. Whether or not you or I understand the reason is irrelevant to the fact that they are both important. 

And i think the hunting experience is there in order to make sure that the Hunt Test stay true, or more true to hunting.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Scott Parker said:


> I think they use decoys more as a distraction then to simulate a hunt. But if you want to really use them as a distraction just put one out about 30 yards up wind of where the bird lands when they see just one they think it's the bird and it sucks them off the line to the bird. Which I see as trying to trick the dog which I don't believe is fair.


I agree ..They are there for that very purpose..To see how dogs react to them...The one decoy if placed right can have a very big effect on the dogs ...So why have the big spreads that are so difficult for the workers to deal with ...Boats are almost a thing of the past at a test ...to retrieve decoys ....Ever have a dog drag a decoy out of the intended spot and then can't get it put back...? Now has the test changed ( became more difficult ) for the rest of the dogs..? Decoys like the gun issue can be a pain on some occasions... Steve S


----------



## Jeff Brown (Jan 5, 2008)

Zip, BUTKAS NADA

When apprenticing for the AKC or taking the seminar - no one asks. Besides in the AKC these are not HUNT TESTS AS CALLED. They are. MARKING TESTS....

In the rule book very few comments are made about hunting. One that comes to mind is about the dogS. Would I want to hunt with the dog or something very similar. I am paraphrasing. They never ever ask about the judges.

I am a 8 point JH, SH and a 6 point Master Judge and I do hunt.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Gunner's Dad said:


> I have read this whole thread, because i was bored, and i would like to ask the opposite of this question. Sorta.
> I have extensive hunting experience, both with and without dogs involved, from all over Texas and surrounding states. Yet i have only a little little bit of experience actually training dogs, and have never ran a hunt test. I watched a few. What would be the problem with me judging a hunt test? I have the hunting experience necessary, im only missing the dog experience.
> 
> Know that sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it.
> ...


If we were only judging people hunting without dogs you would be perfect  These really are not hunting tests, and these are not supposed to be dog tests, these are supposed to be hunting dog tests(retrievers). The rules state that the gold standard is if you would want to hunt with this dog. If you have never hunted how do you decide if you would want to hunt with the dog in question?


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

These are just a few of the instances in the rule book that talk about hunting and experience hunting, If a person doesn't hunt how do they interpet all the rules that relate to hunting? 


*It is strongly recommended that only those judges with an extensive background in the hunting of waterfowl and/or upland game be invited to judge an AKC Retriever Hunting Test.*

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

The Judges, with paramount regard to Section 1 of this Chapter, shall determine the tests to be given and shall design those tests in order to approximate as nearly as possible the conditions met in *true hunting situations*. In keeping with this aim, the Judges shall design and enhance hunting situations by utilizing, as naturally as possible, the equipment that would be found in a true upland game or waterfowl hunting situation. Strategic placement of numerous decoys, use of camouflaged blinds to conceal guns and throwers, duck boats, duck and goose calls, etc., are necessary adjuncts to Hunting Tests for Retrievers.

“a true hunting situation,” must be interpreted for application to Hunting Tests as “natural hunting conditions.”

While natural hunting conditions are subject to great variations in different parts of the country, Retrievers are expected to possess a defined set of abilities that enable them to serve as hunting companions. In most instances, there shall be little doubt in a Judge’s mind as to the abilities expected of dogs in a given hunting situation.

Hunting Tests provide a mechanism for identifying, through the evaluation of the abilities of Retrievers, those dogs that possess abilities that set them apart as accomplished *hunting companions*.

The information provided here is intended as a guide, not only for Judges, but for all concerned with the welfare and development of Retrievers as superb *hunting companions*.

Judges shall select and determine the nature and objectives of each hunting situation Planning Hunting Situations. This is one of the most important responsibilities of the Judges. With *natural hunting situations*, it is much easier to score the abilities of a dog than would be true with situations that are very easy, or with situations that are too difficult and time-consuming, or too tricky. *Of primary importance is the simulation of natural hunting conditions in as realistic a manner as possible*

On blind retrieves, wherever possible, the Judges shall plan their hunting situations taking advantage of hazards...


Ingenuity on the part of the Judges is always encouraged not only in planning natural hunting situations, but also in devising some that are unusual, while practical and realistic and that would be encountered “in a true hunting situation.” These situations might take the form of a type of hunting unique to the region that the event is held...

The Judges shall think of the handler as a hunting companion.

Judges are encouraged to incorporate elements and conditions that lend realism to their hunting situations.For example, a test that requires a dog and handler to work from a boat is realistic but caution must always be exercised.

Judges shall avoid setting up a too clearly defined line (i.e., a departure point that would be *unnatural when hunting*).

All birds should be within gun range so the Judges will be able to see and evaluate the dogs under *normal hunting conditions*.

Running crippled birds, or “runners.” Dogs should be able to follow and find a runner. Since dogs are being evaluated based upon their abilities as *hunting companions*, the Judges shall evaluate a dog’s abilities when confronted with a runner since the dog should find the birds shot for it.

Judges in keeping with simulation of realistic and *natural hunting conditions* must remember the use of numerous decoys, islands, points of land, rolling terrain, cover, ditch lines, wind direction, etc. are important factors to consider when designing test scenarios to evaluate Junior dogs as capable *hunting companions*.

it is the responsibility of the clubs to determine the “qualifications” of each prospective judge by researching experience accumulated through training, *actual hunting over dogs*,...

*In keeping with the aim of simulated hunting conditions and situations*, handlers, Judges, workers and other test participants shall be attired in dark or customary hunting attire that adequately reflect a waterfowling or upland hunting environment.

Hunting situations shall, to the extent that it is practical and *realistic*, make use of the natural hazards, numerous decoys, hunting equipment and obstacles that are encountered in *true hunting*.

Master Hunting dogs must exhibit those qualities expected in a truly finished and experienced *hunting* companion.

...it is important to retain the perspective of “suitability as a hunting companion.” A certain tolerance must be afforded to the dog that still proves effective and accomplishes its purpose in the field.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Sounds like the AKC's intent is to have judges with decent expirence in both to me...


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> These are just a few of the instances in the rule book that talk about hunting and experience hunting, If a person doesn't hunt how do they interpet all the rules that relate to hunting?
> 
> 
> *It is strongly recommended that only those judges with an extensive background in the hunting of waterfowl and/or upland game be invited to judge an AKC Retriever Hunting Test.*
> ...




This is the reason it only takes 70 % to get a quallifing score...tolerance.....Steve S


----------



## vanman (Sep 26, 2007)

I have been in it since 96. Do my share of judging.started in hrc, then moved on because i to felt that hrc lost sight of what the organization really set out to do.moved to akc and ran many.did my share of judging.still run hunt tests a bit and always will as i am a big waterfowler.have been in the field trial game for 8yrs now.i got used to going home alot more than being there in the end.I still judge hunt test and trials and hunt lots.but u got to seperate the two venues because your after a totally different objective in each.some judges dont remember that when they go from one to the other.granted every judge has layed an egg once or twice no doubt, but we should always stay focused on what our objective is in that particular judging assignment.just my thoughts.


----------



## vanman (Sep 26, 2007)

Gotta remember to simulate hunting but we're still testing.3 pillows in the water dont cut it.


----------

