# Mass honor in a senior



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

*Senior *HT in June LI. Both the water blind and land blind are run together and contestants are told not to put their dogs away after completion and stand in an area on lead. Takes over an hour and it's not cool. Most (9?) are intact males. One is growling and there is contact on lead. Handlers move farther apart. One has 2 males on lead. After all this the female test dog is quartered in front of the honoring line and a live mallard is released over the heads of the honoring dog and the test dog breaks followed by other breaks and the same growing dog going after another dog. Judges were warned not to do this because it was going to cause problems. I personally can't believe no one protested the situation. If anyone was there or the judges want to comment (I'm sure you know who you are) I would like to hear it. I just hope this test doesn't catch on in other areas. People were afraid to call in the HT committee because they did not want their dog implicated.


----------



## pupaloo (Jan 6, 2006)

I think two things:

Be prepared for whatever you see at a test. That's what tests are about. As the caliber of dogs increases, so will the stuff judges dream up to find the best of the best.

Sounds like some of the dogs at this test were not properly socialized and/or need a brush-up on their OB. Manners are the most important thing a dog can learn. It doesn't matter what's happening. Sit means sit-whether there is a live duck or not. And a dog that growls and doesn't stop immediately when told to be quiet by the handler once should be put in the truck, whether it fails the test or not. I don't care if the situation was unusual-dogs should be respectful in whatever situation they are in.


----------



## Gordy Weigel (Feb 12, 2003)

Nancy, if this is a true story and follows the facts, these Judges need to have their heads examined. So many holes could be knocked in testing a Senior dog in this manner, I do not even know where to start.
I hope this is a huge exaggeration, if not it is another example of why many AKC HT handlers are giving HRC a try.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

This has so many issues just plain wrong. Potential for injury to both dogs and humans, dogs overheating from stress, and just no merit in testing dogs. Protest should have been filed.


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Huh?????????????????


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

pupaloo said:


> I think two things:
> 
> Be prepared for whatever you see at a test. That's what tests are about. As the caliber of dogs increases, so will the stuff judges dream up to find the best of the best.
> 
> Sounds like some of the dogs at this test were not properly socialized and/or need a brush-up on their OB. Manners are the most important thing a dog can learn. It doesn't matter what's happening. Sit means sit-whether there is a live duck or not. And a dog that growls and doesn't stop immediately when told to be quiet by the handler once should be put in the truck, whether it fails the test or not. I don't care if the situation was unusual-dogs should be respectful in whatever situation they are in.


First. This is a hunt test. We are not finding "the best of the best".
Second. This is not hunting with your buds where the dogs can be socialized together first. This is new unfamiliar dogs, and competition. The environment needs control. Such as one dog honors. Sometimes, males will be males. Especially if they are currently having a few weekend visitors. Sometimes two males just do not get along and can not be hunted together. Even if they see each other frequently at the hunting shack. That does not make them bad for any reason. Ideally it might be better. But realistically, stuff happens. Dogs is Dogs.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Hard to understand what was being tested given the dogs were on lead (I think I understood that correctly). Other than testing the strength of the lead and handler, I don't understand what was being tested........but I do have a question...how did the handler with 2 dogs run the blind with one while having the other on lead?


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

pupaloo said:


> I think two things:
> 
> Be prepared for whatever you see at a test. That's what tests are about. As the caliber of dogs increases, so will the stuff judges dream up *to find the best of the best.*
> 
> Sounds like some of the dogs at this test were not properly socialized and/or need a brush-up on their OB. Manners are the most important thing a dog can learn. It doesn't matter what's happening. Sit means sit-whether there is a live duck or not. And a dog that growls and doesn't stop immediately when told to be quiet by the handler once should be put in the truck, whether it fails the test or not. I don't care if the situation was unusual-dogs should be respectful in whatever situation they are in.


Bold added by me...

This is a HUNT TEST, not a FT. Dogs are supposed to be judged against the standard, not each other to find the "best of the best". No?


----------



## Chris Meyer (Aug 10, 2008)

It's only a senior hunt test at that too.


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

I know of one dog and handler who would not have sat or honored through this. Also, how is that a fair test, the first team who honored must have been there for hour, and the last running dog for minutes? I am curious what the point of this was?


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Was this an AKC hunt test? I didn't think there was a quarter in AKC.


----------



## Don Smith (Mar 23, 2004)

thunderdan said:


> Also, how is that a fair test, the first team who honored must have been there for hour, and the last running dog for minutes?


Good observation. I would submit that the dogs did not all have the same test based upon that.


----------



## pupaloo (Jan 6, 2006)

Rick_C said:


> Bold added by me...
> 
> This is a HUNT TEST, not a FT. Dogs are supposed to be judged against the standard, not each other to find the "best of the best". No?


Yes, that's true. But how many threads are there here complaining about tests? Too hard for the level of the dog, or "outside the box" setups, or whatever? And how many threads about passing percentages? Why would judges feel the need to explore the boundaries of the rules if it was just "against the standard"? Either the tests are fair and the dogs aren't up to the work, or the judges are trying to test at the outer limits to pass the best, no?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Gotta be more to this story.

Ain't buying it just yet regards

Bubba


----------



## pupaloo (Jan 6, 2006)

brandywinelabs said:


> First. This is a hunt test. We are not finding "the best of the best".
> Second. This is not hunting with your buds where the dogs can be socialized together first. This is new unfamiliar dogs, and competition. The environment needs control. Such as one dog honors. Sometimes, males will be males. Especially if they are currently having a few weekend visitors. Sometimes two males just do not get along and can not be hunted together. Even if they see each other frequently at the hunting shack. That does not make them bad for any reason. Ideally it might be better. But realistically, stuff happens. Dogs is Dogs.


First-see above.

Second-I have dogs-I know all that. I didn't say they were bad. But it doesn't mean the dogs shouldn't be able to honor and behave. If they don't they should be put away. If my dog can't sit and be patient and be a gentleman for an hour waiting, then we need more training-I don't care what environment we are in, exciting or not. That's his job.


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

I am so confused by the leads being on dogs. That's not an honor in my book. If it was my dog could honor easily.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Just out of curiousity Pupaloo, at what level are you competeing? There is a reason hunt test's are set up in an elevating sequence. These are only senior level dogs, and if this is a true set up, the judges would have gotten more than an ear full from me. It is not difficult to set up a good, fair, test within the subscribed requirements from akc, at least with decent ground to work with. I would like to see where this idea came from within the akc rule book. I have noticed within HRC some silly tests too. I get tired of the same old "If you train for everything, you will be OK". I really like reading in the HRC magazine the Judges Corner articles. They call out some stupid test set ups there, and even say the hunt test comittee should have been involved in righting some wrongs, he doesn't say "train for everything". That is why there are hunt tests, a set standard, given specified requirements. Not to hard to understand, but some judges can't seem to get it, and there are a couple I will not run under, so those clubs will lose the fee money from my four dogs.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Jason Glavich said:


> I am so confused by the leads being on dogs. That's not an honor in my book. If it was my dog could honor easily.


I think they were only on lead while waiting to run the "honor". I'm assuming they were taken off-lead then.


Again... what's a quarter doing in AKC?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Clarification 
Dogs were on lead during the blinds standing in an area. The guy with 2 dogs was offered the judges car but declined and tied him to a tree. The honor was then assembled off lead with dogs a few feet apart. The one dog was growling which was when it should have stopped. Typing this in the field. Yes it should have been protested


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

pupaloo said:


> I think two things:
> 
> *Be prepared for whatever you see at a test.* That's what tests are about. As the caliber of dogs increases, so will the stuff judges dream up to find the best of the best.
> 
> The reason everyone is questioning this is because you NEVER see something like this at a test.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I fail to see what training your dogs to behave properly has to do with judges setting up a situation where a "failure" on the part of a dog, endangers others, people and dogs. My dog might be a perfect angel, so will I feel good about this after Boscoe over there has ripped a hole in him?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Wasn't there, don't know a thing about it _*(as written it sounds like a nightmare)*_ but...

 Sounds like someone was trying to attempt a "British-style" test??? If so, is this ethical, fair, "legal," legitimate, good or bad for future expectations, etc.?
 Assuming the judges were being honest in their intent to test a hunting dog in a hunting situation, would there be an altered version of this test that could be safe and appropriate at a senior level? At Master? Or is the very concept too out of the box? (I think I can envision some scenarios at Master that might be interesting and fair, but would give me a stroke nonetheless.)


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I have to add, setting aside all the other more violent things that can go wrong in this supposed test of sociability and obedience--waiting anywhere on lead in June, outside, in a stressful situation, especially with a black dog, for an hour, is at the very least unfair, and potentially dangerous. It's pretty boneheaded to ask it of participants, _if that's what happened--again, wasn't there--trying to treat this like a hypothetical._


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Mike Tome said:


> .....
> 
> Again... what's a quarter doing in AKC?



I don't know anything about what's going on here but I've seen some judges set up a half-azzed quartering test and call it a walk-up. 

Didn't involve an honor though.

JS


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

> Typing this in the field.


Is this on scene reporting? HPW


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

One other item sticks out as being odd....the original scenario said "a live mallard was released over the head of the honoring dogs"......was the flyer shot? If so where were the guns in relation to the working/honor dogs? If it wasn't shot, was the quartering dog to pick up the bird or just let to chase after it?

Really confused? And having a hard time trying to understand the intent behind such a test.

Sounds like a fun TRAINING scenario, but a very poorly thought out TEST.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

HarryWilliams said:


> Is this on scene reporting? HPW


Apparently this was in June....


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

GoodDog said:


> pupaloo said:
> 
> 
> > I think two things:
> ...


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

pupaloo said:


> Be prepared for whatever you see at a test. That's what tests are about. As the caliber of dogs increases, so will the stuff judges dream up to find the best of the best.
> 
> Sounds like some of the dogs at this test were not properly socialized and/or need a brush-up on their OB. Manners are the most important thing a dog can learn. It doesn't matter what's happening. Sit means sit-whether there is a live duck or not. And a dog that growls and doesn't stop immediately when told to be quiet by the handler once should be put in the truck, whether it fails the test or not. I don't care if the situation was unusual-dogs should be respectful in whatever situation they are in.




I am going to respectfully disagree with you on the first part of your comment. Field trials are to find the "best of the best" Hunt tests are to find who meets the standard. The idea that sometimes pops into judges mind of "what can we do to make this harder" is not good, and usually leads to problems with a test. I will agree that as the level increases so does the difficulty, which if they were MASTER dogs would make this a little more plausable, but Mid level dogs, it seems steep and does not suprise me to her that there were problems, I would like to know the reason the dogs were kept in the vicinity of the line. Seems unfair to the dog that ran FIRST vs the dog that ran LAST.

AS far as intact males being in an area together, not overly fond of that idea, and am not sure how you expect dogs that don't know each other, out in a stressful environment to respond. It would be fair to assume that perhaps the reason soe of the dogs were not "properly socialized" is because they are young dogs that have purposfully been kept away form other intact males as a precaution...... Sitting there mad that they aren't getting to work, next to someone that they don't like what would you expect... Sounds similar to having opposing teams shara a locker room. 


Like I said, I would like to know why it was done, if they have a reason other then wanted to amp the difficulty or not. Again playing against a standard.

I would agree that if my dog started growling I would have sacrificed a test though.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I have a question - is it really fair to have a person with 2 dogs honor at once? This test sounds crazy and unsafe....common sense was not applied on this particular honor....

FOM


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Once the dog has completed the testing, he is done being evaluated. Once they leave the line and are behind the judges, the evaluating stops. (unless of course dog disrupts tests etc...) I dont see why handlers would have been expected to wait around with the dog after he has completed the test. Maybe I've read it wrong- but once run, and honored, what is left? 
Sounds ridiculous to me- 
Anyone else there- what about the judges? Glad this was on the east coast- those judges and that kind of test arent welcome here in CA. ! ha ha


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

pupaloo said:


> Yes, that's true. But how many threads are there here complaining about tests? Too hard for the level of the dog, or "outside the box" setups, or whatever? And how many threads about passing percentages? Why would judges feel the need to explore the boundaries of the rules if it was just "against the standard"? Either the tests are fair and the dogs aren't up to the work, or the judges are trying to test at the outer limits to pass the best, no?



There are outer limits to the standard, that would be puttin gin more concepts into a mark or blind, then there is stuff that is not testing anything just trying to be out of the box. The box is the box for a reason, because it is proven to find dogs that meet the standard. Judges that only wnat to pass the best are raising the standard. Leave that to the FT's


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

And I have to ask, if the enteries were only 14 or so dogs, why do a mass honor????


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I can just imagine the disruption to the other stakes. All of that standing around with a dog on lead while needing to get other dogs to other stakes. It would cause a logistical nightmare. Why would a judge cause themself such a headache?
Mark L.


----------



## M&K's Retrievers (May 31, 2009)

What about the handler running in dogs in two events?


----------



## Latisha (Feb 2, 2004)

FOM said:


> I have a question - is it really fair to have a person with 2 dogs honor at once? This test sounds crazy and unsafe....common sense was not applied on this particular honor....
> 
> FOM


A lot of things sound wrong with this scenario, but this one really stood out to me. It doesn't sound fair or safe.

What if a handler had had more than 2 entries? 

Latisha


----------



## Cleo Watson (Jun 28, 2006)

Nancy, in all phases of our dog sport, we find some idiot judge who thinks he/she will be 'cute' and add a new twist to the test. To me that always left only two choices, scratch my dog or ask for the Hunt Committee. A lot of time the Hunt Committe is composed of members who are not judges and this is also a problem. It was always easier to scratch my dog and not have to go home and try to correct the bad habit my dog would be exposed to and choose to not ever run under their judgment. Just one of those 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' situations caused by an idiot. Be sure to notify the Hunt Secretary why you are not entering your dog under that judge - it will take time but the word will get around and they won't be asked to judge for that club and some others again.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

1) what are they testing by honoring on lead?

2) Man do I Love HRC.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I've seen this done before. It's usually done as a cold honor and the running dog is or should be a bye dog. It's a form of the old english honor if I'm not mistaken. It definately a way the test dogs across the pond and also done in the form of a walk up. I'll see if I can find it in one of my books.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

More info The one judge is known for mass honors and for non-AKC type scenarios.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

So again I'll ask What is it doing in a "Senior"?
There IS a controlled break allowed soooooooooooo...........
Sounds like a darn mess.
Can't a Senior just be a inbetween a Junior and a Master and leave it as such???


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

But WAS this an AKC test? If the judges are "known" for it, it must be acceptable per AKC regs, right? I think I may be missing something.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

I think that I would make a "special" note in my mind to NEVER run under these judges again. As a club I would NEVER ask them to judge again. It is your money and you can choose how to spend it.

What if a pro has 5 dogs? Classic. This is up there with some of the stupidest things I've heard.

The craziest one I've personally seen was a "road hunting" setup. Where the gunners were shooting out of a truck. Judges were from N Dakota and the test was in MN. They said that they thought that this is how MN hunted. Wanted to be fare. Was pretty darn funny for me.


----------



## NJ_H2OFWLR (Mar 1, 2006)

There was a "Walk-up" on LEAD in junior at same HT. What are these guys thinking?


----------



## Hoosier (Feb 28, 2008)

sheriff said:


> I think that I would make a "special" note in my mind to NEVER run under these judges again. As a club I would NEVER ask them to judge again. It is your money and you can choose how to spend it.
> 
> What if a pro has 5 dogs? Classic. This is up there with some of the stupidest things I've heard.
> 
> *The craziest one I've personally seen was a "road hunting" setup. Where the gunners were shooting out of a truck. Judges were from N Dakota and the test was in MN. They said that they thought that this is how MN hunted. Wanted to be fare. Was pretty darn funny for me.*


Now that's funny. They should probably have them shoot grouse off an ATV also.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

2tall said:


> But WAS this an AKC test?


That's a good question.
There are only 2 AKC HTs listed on EE running today, both in Wisc.
So someone say it ... where is it?
JS

Edit: My bad. 1 in MN, 1 in ND.


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

JS said:


> That's a good question.
> There are only 2 AKC HTs listed on EE running today, both in Wisc.
> So someone say it ... where is it?
> JS
> ...


I don't think this test is happening today....the original poster mentioned June in their first post.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

OK, maybe I misunderstood.
In post #19, dated today, it sounded like she was "typing in the field".

JS


----------



## dead bird (Jun 15, 2009)

so where was this test?????


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

One guy whose dog passed this test (I'm guessing it's the same test, a mass honor in AKC Senior I would guess is fairly unusual) talked about it over on one of the Chesapeake boards. The way he described it, didn't sound that bad and I believe he said most dogs did fine. I think the test was in NY last month. It does sound sort of....unconventional.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Something like this was done years ago in Memphis. They'd invited 2 British judges to the event. One was the kennel master to the royal kennels. The 2 British judges were split...one for SH and one for MH. The other SH judge was Robert Milner as I recall. 

Anyway...the judges took the next 6 (maybe 8) dogs and handlers and put them in a line. They started waliking and out ahead the gunners threw a bird and shot it. Handlers stopped the dogs and the judges called a number. That dog picked up the bird while the others honored. When the dog recovered the bird, the process started over. I'd guess from the time the line was formed until the last dog had recovered was maybe 15 minutes. The dogs were excused and the judges called the next set to the line.

Never saw another test quite like it but it really wasn't objectionable because the judges worked with only a few dogs at a time and controlled the environment. I think Bill Watson was there. If so, do you remember it this way?

After the test was over, we discovered one of the issues of confusion. The judges were invited to a hunt test. The Brits don't have an event like this. They have what we call a field trial and they call it some variant of "hunt test."

Eric


----------



## pupaloo (Jan 6, 2006)

GoodDog said:


> Just out of curiousity Pupaloo, at what level are you competeing? There is a reason hunt test's are set up in an elevating sequence. These are only senior level dogs, and if this is a true set up, the judges would have gotten more than an ear full from me. It is not difficult to set up a good, fair, test within the subscribed requirements from akc, at least with decent ground to work with. I would like to see where this idea came from within the akc rule book. I have noticed within HRC some silly tests too. I get tired of the same old "If you train for everything, you will be OK". I really like reading in the HRC magazine the Judges Corner articles. They call out some stupid test set ups there, and even say the hunt test comittee should have been involved in righting some wrongs, he doesn't say "train for everything". That is why there are hunt tests, a set standard, given specified requirements. Not to hard to understand, but some judges can't seem to get it, and there are a couple I will not run under, so those clubs will lose the fee money from my four dogs.


Senior. 

If dogs are supposed to be judged against a standard, and a test is over the top but people don't report it because they are afraid of "getting in trouble", then they will continue to be at the mercy of judes who want to "test" HT dogs like FT dogs. So, either do something about it, or show up ready for anything and don't complain....


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I haven't posted for awhile but I figure I would put in my two cents. When the first MASTER tests, especially the Master Invitational of 1990, were run (this was one of the qualifying tests before the Master National) they would have up to 7 or 8 dogs honor off lead. Birds would fly away, missed by accident, and the dogs were judged according to thier steadiness, whether the bird was SHOT or not. (I did run the test and finished it so it is not second hand) 

There were quartering tests done along with trailing, both Master and Senior in the same era. 

Now push it forward to circa 2009. I have had my excitement with dog fights on the honor,
breaking dogs, dogs that shouldn't have even been entered, etc, etc, both as a Field Trial Judge and a Hunt Test judge. As a participant we have run some very strange tests everything from a blind at the feet or chair of a gunner to all the birds in the air at almost the same time. IF what Nancy reported was accurate ( I have known her for a long time as a trueful person) this test has to go at the top of the list in a SENIOR as at the minimum strange and without much thought of consequences, to almost really @#$%%&-
$%. 

Now back to training my dogs.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> Something like this was done years ago in Memphis. They'd invited 2 British judges to the event. One was the kennel master to the royal kennels. The 2 British judges were split...one for SH and one for MH. The other SH judge was Robert Milner as I recall.


Maybe you could ask Mr. Milner for a recollection. Or, apropos the test in question, go to this year's Master National--



sheriff said:


> I think that I would make a "special" note in my mind to NEVER run under these judges again. As a club I would NEVER ask them to judge again.


--and ask the judge himself.

MG


----------



## wsumner (Mar 5, 2004)

The orginal post said it was run in June at LI (Long Island). The test was a Senior test. That means it is either AKC or NAHRA. No NAHRA tests on LI in June so it much be AKC. One handle had 2 dogs. Not hard to figure out which test it was. 

Some judges must get bored judging the same type set up and test so they have to try to come up with something different. I believe it is more for there own amusement then to improve the quality of the test. Not all judges are created equal. It is a shame that one of these judges didn't have the guts to just say "NO" to the other. 

It sounds like a bad test and definitely not Senior level. 

Can anyone tell me how the group honor was explained in the senerio?


----------



## Pat F. (Jan 3, 2003)

If memory serves me correctly Guy Fornuto from L.I. was a judge who liked to do this and I remember it well *BUT* it was *ONLY DONE* in a Master series and usually with 7-8 dogs at a time off lead. It was a true honor; bird was released and shot at but missed. You were excused and the next set of dogs would come to the honor line with the same scenario til all dogs had completed the honor. I can see and understand this being done in a Master test but definitely *NOT* in a Senior test and if the dogs were on lead this was *NOT* a legitimate honor in my judge's book.

Pat


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Pat F. said:


> If memory serves me correctly Guy Fornuto from L.I. was a judge who liked to do this and I remember it well *BUT* it was *ONLY DONE* in a Master series and usually with 7-8 dogs at a time off lead. It was a true honor; bird was released and shot at but missed. You were excused and the next set of dogs would come to the honor line with the same scenario til all dogs had completed the honor. I can see and understand this being done in a Master test but definitely *NOT* in a Senior test and if the dogs were on lead this was *NOT* a legitimate honor in my judge's book.
> 
> Pat


How can you have an honor in an AKC test without a dog being released to retrieve, or a marked fall. And how can you release a dog on a flyaway?


AKC Hunt Test Regs said:


> *Section 6. *In Senior and Master Tests, at their discretion, Judges shall determine the number of dogs that shall be kept on the line simultaneously. Every dog shall honor in at least one hunting situation *involving the **retrieve of a marked fall(s)* in the Senior and Master Tests by remaining on the line off-lead while the working dog retrieves, unless otherwise directed or until dismissed by the Judges.


And with a mass honor as described, how does a judge decide the number of the dog(s) that break, or cause interference with the working dog. And while the rules don't specifically require the working dog to be honored (and it does not sound like this test required it), I think that is an important part of the honor. 

T. Mac


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

T. Mac said:


> How can you have an honor in an AKC test without a dog being released to retrieve, or a marked fall. And how can you release a dog on a flyaway?
> 
> And with a mass honor as described, how does a judge decide the number of the dog(s) that break, or cause interference with the working dog. And while the rules don't specifically require the working dog to be honored (and it does not sound like this test required it), I think that is an important part of the honor.
> 
> T. Mac


T.Mac hit it right on the head. An honor is not complete until the WORKING dog is released to retrieve and the honor dog is excused.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> *Senior *HT in June LI. Both the water blind and land blind are run together and contestants are told not to put their dogs away after completion and stand in an area on lead. Takes over an hour and it's not cool. Most (9?) are intact males. One is growling and there is contact on lead. Handlers move farther apart. One has 2 males on lead. After all this the female test dog is quartered in front of the honoring line and a live mallard is released over the heads of the honoring dog and the test dog breaks followed by other breaks and the same growing dog going after another dog. Judges were warned not to do this because it was going to cause problems. I personally can't believe no one protested the situation. If anyone was there or the judges want to comment (I'm sure you know who you are) I would like to hear it. I just hope this test doesn't catch on in other areas. People were afraid to call in the HT committee because they did not want their dog implicated.


Sounds like a major clusterfork to me.


----------



## dead bird (Jun 15, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> *Senior *HT in June LI. Both the water blind and land blind are run together and contestants are told not to put their dogs away after completion and stand in an area on lead. Takes over an hour and it's not cool. Most (9?) are intact males. One is growling and there is contact on lead. Handlers move farther apart. One has 2 males on lead. After all this the female test dog is quartered in front of the honoring line and a live mallard is released over the heads of the honoring dog and the test dog breaks followed by other breaks and the same growing dog going after another dog. Judges were warned not to do this because it was going to cause problems. I personally can't believe no one protested the situation. If anyone was there or the judges want to comment (I'm sure you know who you are) I would like to hear it. I just hope this test doesn't catch on in other areas. People were afraid to call in the HT committee because they did not want their dog implicated.


the way I look at is this if you didn't have the ***** to say something to there face's then don't come on here and cry about your spilled milk


----------



## Kevin Eskam (Mar 2, 2007)

dead bird said:


> the way I look at is this if you didn't have the ***** to say something to there face's then don't come on here and cry about your spilled milk


Sure, then you have the whole hunt test commitee breathing down your neck and trying to get you banned from running any AKC hunt test.

Been there done that!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Pat F. said:


> If memory serves me correctly Guy Fornuto from L.I. was a judge who liked to do this and I remember it well *BUT* it was *ONLY DONE* in a Master series and usually with 7-8 dogs at a time off lead. It was a true honor; bird was released and shot at but missed. You were excused and the next set of dogs would come to the honor line with the same scenario til all dogs had completed the honor. I can see and understand this being done in a Master test but definitely *NOT* in a Senior test and if the dogs were on lead this was *NOT* a legitimate honor in my judge's book.
> 
> Pat


Bingo Pat. However, the dogs were on lead _Waiting _for all the dogs to complete the land and water blind combination. They were off lead for the honor. The supposed working dog was the test dog who broke on the live duck first while working or quartering in front of the line of honoring dogs off lead. He did not indicate if the duck was shot but said a live duck was released over the heads of the honoring dogs for the working dog. I'm thinking wonged and shackled? That I didn't ask. The handlers were "shown" the live duck and then later it came with no warning from their backs. Could this be a NAHRA test?



> the way I look at is this if you didn't have the balls to say something to there face's then don't come on here and cry about your spilled milk


This is my point-most people say they will do something but when push comes to shove *they won't call for the HT committee and stop everything* with a judge like that and a dangerous situation exists to dogs, especially _since one was growling before the honor_, and I know the breed that was, and it wasn't a Lab. That's when someone should have called for the HT committee.I was training in the field when I was posting my 2 other posts, I did not watch the test. The handler called me about a different matter, *not to complain*, but I asked how his dog was doing as he needed one more pass for his title and he told me the scenario, and yes, he is concerned with what happened and the effect on his dog breaking. 
He is a very honest guy, and I asked him to repeat everything. This was not a big entry. The judge insisted on them standing out with the dogs on lead with vehement objections from handlers so some dogs stood out for a very long time. Speak up to the marshall, carry a rule book, and write a letter to the HT committee saying you will not run under this judge again. Evidently he has a habit of doing his own thing and not following AKC rules.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> T.Mac hit it right on the head. An honor is not complete until the WORKING dog is released to retrieve.


I thought the honor was not complete until the honor dog and handler are released by the judges.


----------



## NBHunter (Apr 24, 2009)

I thought the purpose of Hunt Tests were to somewhat "replicate" a hunting scenerio. I just have to wonder when was the last time that any of us went hunting and 10 dogs...20 dogs...however many there were and they all honored for one dog. Sounds like hunt tests British style to me. I might be cool to try in training and maybe a great way to work on steadiness, but doesn't sound much like any kind of realistic hunting scenerio.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> More info The one judge is known for mass honors and for non-AKC type scenarios.


 
Well do tell, he will never judge a test I have anything to do with. This set up, if correct, shows only that the judges are 1) Stupid and 2) lazy


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I have hunted a LOT in my life and never have I had more than 2-3 dogs that ever needed to "honor" together. A mass honor is a judge that is too lazy to put it somewhere else


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

> Could this be a NAHRA test?


No way. Please leave NAHRA out of this one. HPW


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> One guy whose dog passed this test (I'm guessing it's the same test, a mass honor in AKC Senior I would guess is fairly unusual) talked about it over on one of the Chesapeake boards. The way he described it, didn't sound that bad and I believe he said most dogs did fine. I think the test was in NY last month. It does sound sort of....unconventional.


Well, of course he didn't mind it. He had a Chessie. It was on the winning end of the growling. Miserable, stinking breed. 

Tongue firmly in cheek.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Folks,

We have asked on many occasions that if you have a problem with a test/trial to make the question/complaint "hypothetical" on the open forum. 

Please do not use RTF to "call out" a particular judge by posting his/her name. It is very clear that people can figure out who/what/where by checking the alledged info against EE and AKC records or by asking the original poster via PM.


----------



## J Hoggatt (Jun 16, 2004)

Bur Oak said:


> Nancy, if this is a true story and follows the facts, these Judges need to have their heads examined. So many holes could be knocked in testing a Senior dog in this manner, I do not even know where to start.
> I hope this is a huge exaggeration, if not it is another example of why many AKC HT handlers are giving HRC a try.


How about NOT taking a shot at something in order to ADVERTISE the HRC? 

Isn't there a forum just for the HRC?


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

This unknown judge is known for some interesting things. In fact, there are a lot of people who have a G ??? F???? story. And when the stories are told everyone is rolling. Someday I want to run under him just so i can tell a story about it.


----------



## M&K's Retrievers (May 31, 2009)

J Hoggatt said:


> How about NOT taking a shot at something in order to ADVERTISE the HRC?
> 
> Isn't there a forum just for the HRC?


Gimme a break...


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

Sounds like an English, or elements of one, test to me which probably isn't the worst thing in the world. Do any of you ever stop and think that the way most train for HTs and FTs really does not lend itself to throwing a foreign wrench, so to speak, into the works. I assume that those that have more than one dog they train could put those dogs in a line and throw marks for each individual while the rest honor without to much of a problem.


----------



## HuntsmanTollers (Feb 20, 2003)

Bruce MacPherson said:


> I assume that those that have more than one dog they train could put those dogs in a line and throw marks for each individual while the rest honor without to much of a problem.


That may well be true and we do train for multiple dog honoring when training. However those dogs have been and are well socialized to each other. If there was a dog growling I would hope we would not have them involved in that type of training. For that matter, I also don't like it when the working dog has to run across the face of the honor dog. It SHOULDN"T be a problem but that doesn't matter when IT IS a problem. It is not worth the risk. Safety is supposed to be the first consideration.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

I trained every week once a week with one of the judges . We never did anything like that set up in training .I consider him a better than most judge , so I am surprised at this set up .
A growling dog baring teeth ? I would respectfully inform the marshall I am worried about my dog's safety , and tell them to come get me after that dog has been put away .Then the onus is on them to get the committee .As I have never been accused of being shy ,they would have gotten an earful if the situation was as described . 
And 10 bucks says1) no AKC rep there that w/e and 
2) LI is known for big entries .People didn't enter because of something in the premium.That something is usually the judges .


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

In our training group, part of our steadiness drills includes lining up all the finished dogs, usually 6-8, off lead, no e-collars because we want the corrections up close and personal. Flyers shot very close, dogs take turns getting the retrieve and everyone jolly well learns to be steady. But put that in an AKC HT at the senior level no less? With no working dog picking up the bird and dogs on lead from the description, it's not even an honor under the AKC HT regulations. Sounds pretty pointless, risky and egotistical. I surely do love judges who can test dogs within the AKC regulations by setting up well-placed marks and blinds (honors ain't rocket science) and don't need a bag of tricks to bolster their ignorance in how to do so.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I sort of have mixed feelings about this. Like others I assume it is a British-style test, and similar to our own American field trials when they first came across the pond back in the 1930s.

On one hand, I really do not see this type of test having a serious place at our table. It is not how we hunt waterfowl, but it is like upland. Our tests today more aptly resemble waterfowl hunts.

On the other hand, British-bred Lab advocates argue that one of the reasons their dogs are superior to American-bred Labs is that the American-bred Lab cannot sustain the necessary steadiness for that kind (British-style) of test. It sure would have been nice to prove them wrong. :?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> I sort of have mixed feelings about this. Like others I assume it is a British-style test, and similar to our own American field trials when they first came across the pond back in the 1930s.
> 
> On one hand, I really do not see this type of test having a serious place at our table. It is not how we hunt waterfowl, but it is like upland. Our tests today more aptly resemble waterfowl hunts.
> 
> On the other hand, British-bred Lab advocates argue that one of the reasons their dogs are superior to American-bred Labs is that the American-bred Lab cannot sustain the necessary steadiness for that kind (British-style) of test. It sure would have been nice to prove them wrong. :?


But was this a GOOD "British-style" test (which I would like to see one day, preferably in Britain)? Was it within the range of trained-for expectations, and if not, is that fair?

What if a judge went to a British-style test and set up not just an "American" test the dogs had never seen at a transitional level, but a stupid, poorly designed test? Would that be fair?

(Not saying this test was stupid and poorly designed--I wasn't there, maybe it was just "different"--but that seems to be the assumption in the hypothetical conversation.)


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> On the other hand, British-bred Lab advocates argue that one of the reasons their dogs are superior to American-bred Labs is that the American-bred Lab cannot sustain the necessary steadiness for that kind (British-style) of test. It sure would have been nice to prove them wrong. :?


It seems to me unlikely that anyone will be motivated enough to ever put this to the test. From all that I've heard and read, competition British Labradors are *trained* for steadiness in a way most of us American-Lab devotees would not want to undertake. First, it sounds incredibly time-consuming and boring and control-oriented. Second, even if we wanted to spend all of that time and delay our dog's career, there are a number of aspects to the training we've long thought counterproductive to developing our dogs' marking, range, and initiative--so we'd be risking the career of a young prospect as well as a lot of time.

The question of the role of breeding can't be settled until a statistically significant number of American-bred Labs are trained British style and fairly evaluated (we would also need reliable information on what proportion of British bred dogs make the cut). I can't imagine anyone investing that kind of effort, just to win a point in an argument.

In summary, it's an invalid conclusion to state American Labs are genetically less steady when there's been no comparison of dogs trained the same way.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

J Hoggatt said:


> How about NOT taking a shot at something in order to ADVERTISE the HRC?
> 
> Isn't there a forum just for the HRC?


Actually how about using this as an example of why we all *must* support *BOTH* HRC and NAHRA.

If AKC continues to offer HT's that are designed (by thinking "outside the rules") to thin the field and the AKC HT Club committees do not do their job and review some of these weird scenarios, we insure HT people have options. So even if you run only AKC, support these other venues: come out and help and encourage your friends to participate. Let the AKC clubs know that there are other places some of us can take our dogs.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> ...and the AKC HT Club committees do not do their job and review some of these weird scenarios...


It's NOT their job to review tests for anything but safety. In AKC, a committee CAN NOT interfere with the judges' test for "weirdness"; only for safety reasons.

It's one of the basic ideas about judging, and it's one of the basics ideas about being on a committee.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Actually it is the committee's job to be reviewing the tests for safety and upholding the regulations and guidelines of the AKC.

In a case like this, safety issues could be raised. You've got the potential for 11 dogs to be going after one duck. Talk about a possible free for all breaking out.... with dogs and handlers all in the mix. There is just too much opportunity for somebody to get hurt. Especially at this level of training.

Not worth it for me to run my dogs in a test like that. I'd have run my blinds and then withdrawn my dog if the committee couldn't/wouldn't have done anything to change this honor. Whether my dog could do that honor or not, it isn't worth it to risk injury because some other dog couldn't.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

luvalab said:


> It's NOT their job to review tests for anything but safety. In AKC, a committee CAN NOT interfere with the judges' test for "weirdness"; only for safety reasons.
> 
> It's one of the basic ideas about judging, and it's one of the basics ideas about being on a committee.



I believe that this particular test does pose safety issues for the dogs.

Actually the committee can review tests to see if they conform to AKC rules. For instance, suppose you have a senior or masters stake and the judges want to have a "delayed" double for one of the marking series, where you send the dog for the first mark down and than throw another mark as the dog is coming with the bird. This is against the rules: You must have at least 2 marks down to call this a multiple marked series.

Suppose, in Senior, the judges want to place a blind between 2 marks that have already been run. This is also against the rules, and the handlers have every right to request that the hunt test committee look at the test.

It would be so less embarrassing for the judges and the club if a member of the committee were assigned to each judges team at set up time and brought any possible rule violation to the committee _before_ the test. That would be an example of the club doing its job. It would also help if the committee members knew and understood the AKC rules and regs - as opposed to being warm bodies.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> But in a case like this, safety issues could be raised. You've got the potential for 11 dogs to be going after one duck. Talk about a possible free for all breaking out.... with dogs and handlers all in the mix. There is just too much opportunity for somebody to get hurt. Especially at this level of training.
> 
> Not worth it for me to run my dogs in a test like that. I'd have run my blinds and then withdrawn my dog if the committee couldn't/wouldn't have done anything to change this honor. Whether my dog could do that honor or not, it isn't worth it to risk injury because some other dog couldn't.


I agree. If it is as presented, there are safety issues.

But the poster was talking about "weirdness," which is not only not the "job" of the committee, but interference because the committee doesn't like the test or finds it odd is prohibited. 

Words posted on RTF have a certain amount of power. I'd hate to see people confused on what a committee's job is.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> I believe that this particular test does pose safety issues for the dogs.
> 
> Actually the committee can review tests to see if they conform to AKC rules. For instance, suppose you have a senior or masters stake and the judges want to have a "delayed" double for one of the marking series, where you send the dog for the first mark down and than throw another mark as the dog is coming with the bird. This is against the rules: You must have at least 2 marks down to call this a multiple marked series.
> 
> ...


Words. Have. Power.

You said, the committee should do its "job" and review tests for "weirdness"; this is fundamentally incorrect.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

luvalab said:


> It's NOT their job to review tests for anything but safety. In AKC, a committee CAN NOT interfere with the judges' test for "weirdness"; only for safety reasons.


You beat me to it Vicky...

The committee can disallow a test if its not within the rules. 

I have to admit, I would have gone to the book on this one and maybe even phoned an AKC rep on the spot...

Mark


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Not worth it for me to run my dogs in a test like that. I'd have run my blinds and then withdrawn my dog if the committee couldn't/wouldn't have done anything to change this honor. Whether my dog could do that honor or not, it isn't worth it to risk injury because some other dog couldn't.


Maybe we should all go on or two steps further: get some signatures together and write the club. Tell them that the committee did not do its' job, and that you found the judge(s) actions irresponsible and suggest that they not be asked to judge another HT, as you will not run under then again.

If the committee was called in on this test, then the HT secretary must submit an incident report to AKC. Either telephone or write to AKC events department outlining this incident. Make sure it is investigated. The idea is to get the club thinking that it is better to take the HT setups, judges selection, and handler concerns much more seriously.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Several posts in this thread have implied (apparently since this was an AKC test) that this is a _TYPICAL_ AKC test. Some even commenting "this is why I run HRC, XYZ, etc".

Do you think maybe the reason this test and these judges are getting so much press here is because it is NOT typical?? 

You can find goofy and pointless test set-ups in any venue and I have witnessed a few. But unless you have seen more than a couple AKC tests, let's not go off the deep end and suggest this is typical of AKC. ;-)

JS


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Maybe we should all go on or two steps further: get some signatures together and write the club. Tell them that the committee did not do its' job, and that you found the judge(s) actions irresponsible and suggest that they not be asked to judge another HT, as you will not run under then again.
> 
> If the committee was called in on this test, then the HT secretary must submit an incident report to AKC. Either telephone or write to AKC events department outlining this incident. Make sure it is investigated. The idea is to get the club thinking that it is better to take the HT setups, judges selection, and handler concerns much more seriously.


Paragraph 1--I don't know who the "we" is here, but you aren't suggesting that a committee can be called AFTER the test is over... right? (just checking)

Paragraph 2--I think part of the OP's intent was to point out that people _should _step up when they as handlers feel something is unsafe. And also that it is a very difficult thing to do, especially when you or your dog may be criticized when you do so.

Generally--I think the vast majority of clubs take test set-up (within their powers), judge selection, and handler concerns VERY seriously. Do you really believe otherwise??? If so, you should state what your experience on both the handler and the committee (and maybe the judge) sides are?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

JS said:


> Several posts in this thread have implied (apparently since this was an AKC test) that this is a _TYPICAL_ AKC test. Some even commenting "this is why I run HRC, XYZ, etc".
> 
> Do you think maybe the reason this test and these judges are getting so much press here is because it is NOT typical??
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I also take exception to the notion that committee members are "warm bodies."


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

JS said:


> Several posts in this thread have implied (apparently since this was an AKC test) that this is a _TYPICAL_ AKC test. Some even commenting "this is why I run HRC, XYZ, etc".
> 
> Do you think maybe the reason this test and these judges are getting so much press here is because it is NOT typical??
> 
> ...


Actually, I believe that posters do describe this test as weird, out of the ordinary, and _unsafe_.

But, in the hunt test and FT game, the weird and untypical has a way of becoming common practice.

I find it interesting that some posters feel that this test if valid and we all should simply train on honors involving groups of dogs. 

Yes if we have enough bodies in our training group, it is a very good idea to line up multiple dogs to honor each other -- one very good way to train/proof for steadiness. But that does not mean that it is appropriate to include this training approach in a test. In fact, many believe that this is unsafe.

Let's take that a little further: if we regularly train on levels [way] above the tests we will be taking, than is it perfectly fair for the judges to "ignore" the "should not" wording in the regs and test on those heady _training_ marks -- i.e. 200 yard blinds; 300 yard marks in heavy cover; ultra "tight" marks, etc. Maybe it is within the AKC rules to ignor the "should not" words during test set up -- maybe not. (Personally I'd like the HT committee to at least recognize and discuss marks and blind combos that are way outside any reasonable norm.) 

I may have to put up with that nonsense to get an ACK title (breeding considerations). But it makes me appreciate the existence of these other venues. The clubs and the AKC should be aware that if they step too far over the line, they will lose participants.


----------



## Wyldfire (Sep 24, 2003)

> It would also help if the committee members knew and understood the AKC rules and regs - as opposed to being warm bodies.
> __________________


 
It would help even more if contestants knew the rules and put a WRITTEN complaint to a comittee member, instead of just complaining. If you put complaints in writing, sign it them something has to happen. If it's not worth writing down at the event, it's not right to complain after the event.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Actually, I believe that posters do describe this test as weird, out of the ordinary, and _unsafe_.
> 
> Weird and out of the ordinary are irrelevant in terms of what a committee is officially allowed to do; unsafe is within their bounds. I was merely pointing out that the first two are irrelevant, because your post stated that was part of a committee's job, which is incorrect.
> 
> ...


All I wanted to point out is that one should be accurate about the roles of the judges and the committee.


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

Exactly what does the HT committe do in an AKC test when they see a test that is setup like the one be talked about?

As a past HRC HT Committe member when we, the committe, see a test setup that is a little out of the ordinery we ask the judges question as how they will judge something that is likely to happen in this setup. "We will judge it accordenly" does not cut it as an answer. 
As a judge in HRC, if my co-judge and I setup a test and the committe makes a comment about a certain thing in our test it will make us look at the setup a little closer. 

If an AKC HT Committe can not comment on a test the judges setup then whats to stop a set of judges from going over the top? I guess this is the reason that a number of years ago in a 80+ dog Masters (before the split at 60) in the first series the dogs picked up 7 birds and in the second series they had to have headlights on so the last few dogs could see the marks.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

luvalab said:


> Paragraph 1--I don't know who the "we" is here, but you aren't suggesting that a committee can be called AFTER the test is over... right? (just checking)
> 
> Paragraph 2--I think part of the OP's intent was to point out that people _should _step up when they as handlers feel something is unsafe. And also that it is a very difficult thing to do, especially when you or your dog may be criticized when you do so.
> 
> Generally--I think the vast majority of clubs take test set-up (within their powers), judge selection, and handler concerns VERY seriously. Do you really believe otherwise??? If so, you should state what your experience on both the handler and the committee (and maybe the judge) sides are?


The "WE" is the handlers in the stake.

I'm suggesting that the committee, _*if it is doing it's job*_, will recognize a safety issue _*before*_ the first dog is run in the series and make sure that the judges correct the problem.

But, sometimes the problem becomes apparent after the test dog is run. But once a problems becomes apparent, and the judges are unwilling to address it properly, the committee must step in. 

If individual handlers feel that they will be punished or ostracized for speaking out, than get together with other handlers in the stake and compose a written "group" statement. Submit this letter -- after the test -- to the club's BOD. Let the BOD discuss the issue and determine how it can rectify the problem at the next HT' and hopefully determine that these judges will not be invited back. 

Personally, I have found that most of the gallery is already grumbling about the perceived problem, they just don't have the courage to step forward. If one handler brings the problem to the attention to the judges, the rest of the group verbally supports that handler. And most judges should be classy enough to consider the issue. If the club is so creepy as to "punish" the handler for pointing out possible safety issues or rule violations -- people need to band together and let the club know how wrong this sort of thinking.

Regarding you last point, I think that the majority of clubs _try_ to take their duties seriously. But, I have been involved with lots tests (as a judge or observer) where the club tells the judges what fields are available to hold the test, and do not assign a committee member to accompany the judge teams. The judges are rarely asked about the test design, just the list of equipment and throwers needed for each series. The good clubs pick committee members who do have a working knowledge of the rules and understand test set up. The good clubs assign people to the judge team during test set up, and make sure that set up dogs are made available. But these are volunteer organizations and "new" blood will join the committees. Few clubs have the organizational zest to make sure that these new "bodies" are properly educated.

Interestingly enough, as a handler, I witnessed a terrible safety issues: the route to one of the marks included a jump that was extremely dangerous for high rollers. The test dog slammed into the far ditch wall. Watching were 2 of the best and most experienced judges I have ever run under. Also, on hand was the HT chairman, who was President of the club, and also happened to be a seasoned judge. NONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZED A HAZARD and/or TOOK THE DANGER SERIOUSLY???! 

However, members of the gallery saw the problem, but no one spoke up ...

And as the series proceeded dog after dog slammed into the ditch wall. Eventually, a dog was badly injured. 

The club officers at the HT were all frightened at the possibility of a law suit.

And every handler that I spoke with later, about this incident, were deeply regretful that they did not speak up ... and also expressed resolve that they will not hold their tongue in the future.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

It has been explained many times before --

In HRC the HT committee has the authority over the judges regarding test set-up, and it is the HT Committee that will have to answer to the HRC if there are any problems;

In AKC the judges have authority over the HT committee regarding test set-up (except in the case of safety), and it is the judges that will have to answer to the AKC if there are any problems.

Personally, I like the HRC way better. :?


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> It has been explained many times before --
> 
> In HRC the HT committee has the authority over the judges regarding test set-up, and it is the HT Committee that will have to answer to the HRC if there are any problems;
> 
> In AKC the judges have authority over the HT committee regarding test set-up (except in the case of safety), and it is the judges that will have to answer to the AKC if there are any problems.





Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Actually it is the committee's job to be reviewing the tests for safety and *upholding the regulations and guidelines of the AKC*.


Just wanting to keep the record straight.



AmiableLabs said:


> Personally, I like the HRC way better. :?


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

Guys, really, run whatever venues you want to run. Disagree with the AKC regulations all you want. Wish they were different in every way possible. Whatever floats your boat, and it's all good, and on some things I actually agree with you guys.

I was just pointing out that "wierd scenario" policing is not within the purview of the hunt test committee's job in an AKC test. 

For better AND for worse, judges in AKC have a good deal of freedom. They and their scenarios have the "right" to be weird once the club has given them the power to be weird by hiring them on. I'm pretty sure that's one reason a whole lot of folks--despite that it's a little unseemly--try to dig out judges' names when questionable tests are talked about.

If a test is _unsafe_, it's up to everyone to do their part to make it safe, as outlined much more clearly than I can summarize in a couple of little books available on the AKC web site in PDF form, which I'm not going to go rummaging through and quote right now, because--hey--I just don't want to. 

Maybe later, if my dander's still up. ;-)


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 9, 2009)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> The "WE" is the handlers in the stake.
> 
> I'm suggesting that the committee, _*if it is doing it's job*_, will recognize a safety issue _*before*_ the first dog is run in the series and make sure that the judges correct the problem.
> 
> ...


That sounds pretty bad. I think I'd have offered the club my $70 donation, and politely taken my dogs and gone home. Did anyone refuse to run, esp after a serious injury? Our dogs depend on us, not judges or committees, ultimately for their safety. That goes for the original scenario as well. I've been hunting all my life, and NEVER have had 10 dogs together like that. I'm curious also, someone asked how a flyer was shot over the dogs and handlers? Surely not.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

luvalab said:


> I was just pointing out that "wierd scenario" policing is not within the purview of the hunt test committee's job in an AKC test.


Since words have power, let me edit my earlier post so it more accurately reflects my original thought.



Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Actually how about using this as an example of why we all *must* support *BOTH* HRC and NAHRA.
> 
> If AKC continues to offer HT's that are designed (by thinking "outside the rules") to thin the field and the AKC HT Club committees do not do their job and review _some _of these weird scenarios *for purposes of upholding the regulations and guidelines of the AKC *; we insure HT people have options. So even if you run only AKC, support these other venues: come out and help and encourage your friends to participate. Let the AKC clubs know that there are other places some of us can take our dogs.


The clubs shouldn't have to review every weird scenario. But weird scenarios should serve as a Red Flag to possible safety problems or rule violations. Knowledgeable and experienced committee members will quickly recognize situations requiring further review. This is not policing.

Have fun with your errands.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

My little brain will soon explode. Forgive me, but I must purge this entire RTF episode and disengage. Sorry, but I've become confused as to what's being debated.


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

to post # 75 - L.I. does not have large entries any longer...
Folks just do not want to travel here becasue of the tolls, high motel fees, lack of water at the test grounds, ticks and chigger bites...
I could go on and on why the entrys are low but all that info should clear the air...
As for the senior judges, M. Moskowitz hit the nail on the head...
One of the judges is an ole timer. The other judge is a new-be wanna be...
Cheers,
Freya


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

More clarification. The honor dogs did a *walking* honor off lead in a line. The duck was shot for the quartering working dog in front of them. She broke, and so did some of the honoring dogs. The part that was objected to was not being able to crate their dogs but having to hold them on lead in a designated area all that time before the honor.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

The whole thing has "CF" written all over it.....

Why the hunt test committtee did not step in is beyond my comprehension....

Angie


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Have you ever tried to get there ?????

john


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

> The whole thing has "CF" written all over it.....


Isn't that just down the road from that place in Egypt? HPW


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

The hunt test comm. was in the judges pocket at this test...No way would that comm. say or do anything.
Freya


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Jerry and Freya said:


> The hunt test comm. was in the judges pocket at this test...No way would that comm. say or do anything.
> Freya


I believe that now. That's too bad. I feel that people should be encouraged at the lower levels by fair tests appropriate for that level that can be tough but safe, especially in this economy when people may be traveling a distance, staying overnight and all the expenses associated for a weekend. The only recourse is writing the HT committee that you won't run tests under those judges.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Jerry and Freya said:


> The hunt test comm. was in the judges pocket at this test...No way would that comm. say or do anything.
> Freya


That is quite the accusation . One of those judges has held every position on HT/FT committee , along with having been ,I think,every club officer at one time or another .
Looking forward to seeing your names in upcoming premiums regards..


----------



## Bill Davis (Sep 15, 2003)

So since the HT commitee has no say in what a judges set up unless it is a safety issue or rules issue, the handlers pay the price of poor test setups at the expense of the entry fee and travel expenses. That's ashame


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

luvalab said:


> It's NOT their job to review tests for anything but safety. In AKC, a committee CAN NOT interfere with the judges' test for "weirdness"; only for safety reasons.
> 
> It's one of the basic ideas about judging, and it's one of the basics ideas about being on a committee.


Safety is not limited to gun safety. Having this many dogs and one "live" duck is a potentially dangerous situation and directly affects the safety of dogs and people.


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

So, bottom line, you would just not enter at either this club's tests down the line or under those judges...right?
Freya


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

John Kelder said:


> That is quite the accusation . One of those judges has held every position on HT/FT committee , along with having been ,I think,every club officer at one time or another .


Well, you've just explained the reasoning behind Freya's "accusation". 




John Kelder said:


> Looking forward to seeing your names in upcoming premiums regards..


Looks like a veiled threat. And that explains why handlers are so reluctant to step forward when something is amiss!

Instead of protecting the judge -- or trying to save face -- the club should be meeting to find out what went wrong and taking steps to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. Your comments would lead many to assume that this club has some systemic and cultural problems that need to be addressed -- for the sake of the sport.

Just say'in


----------



## Kevin Eskam (Mar 2, 2007)

John Kelder said:


> That is quite the accusation . One of those judges has held every position on HT/FT committee , along with having been ,I think,every club officer at one time or another .
> Looking forward to seeing your names in upcoming premiums regards..


A Threat? WOW I had a judge do that to one of my friends last year. 

And you wonder why people dont challenge the judges.....


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> .... I feel that people should be encouraged at the lower levels by fair tests appropriate for that level that can be tough but safe, especially in this economy when people may be traveling a distance, staying overnight and all the expenses associated for a weekend. The only recourse is writing the HT committee that you won't run tests under those judges.



I think that there is another recourse. Getting together a letter that the handlers at the test can sign and forward on to the club. There is strength in numbers, and the individual handler should not have to worry about Club retribution.

The HT Secretary must include a written report of any protest or incident at that test. If someone did file a protest, your handler group could also forward a copy of that letter to AKC Events. This will give AKC additional info and they will investigate.

Not entering a test because of a particular judge doesn't mean a thing if done on an individual basis -- particularly with EE serving as another layer between the club HT secretary and the handler. Submitting a group letter after the test does mean something to the club BOD, and they will have to think about inviting back that judge team.

Personally, I think that people need to step forward at the test, especially if there is a safety issue. But if they cannot do that, than work together as a group!

Just say'in


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Bill Davis said:


> So since the HT commitee has no say in what a judges set up unless it is a safety issue or rules issue, the handlers pay the price of poor test setups at the expense of the entry fee and travel expenses. That's ashame


Is that the only responsibility of the HT committee in an AKC HT? In a NAHRA HT the HT committee is also responsible from making sure the tests being set up are within the boundaries of the test standard? I'm aware of many instances in NAHRA where the judges were asked to change a setup.

It's also sad to think that handlers have to think they are going to be blackballed if they ask the HT committee to review a set up.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> Well, you've just explained the reasoning behind Freya's "accusation".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If club officers didn't judge on occasion ,the shortage of judges would become very problematic very soon .And I stated the man's past / current positions , not in his defense , but to let it be clear that , IMO he is dedicated to his breed and his sport .
You should also know I am in no way , now or ever , have been a member of said club(s).
And my comment regarding names in the premium was in no way a threat . It was my way of saying get involved . Since the poster was local to the event , and clearly is opinionated , volunteering to be on the local clubs HT/FT comm. would provide them with the proper venue to put those opinions to good use .I didn't notice their names in the premiums , which is why I wrote that .
And as to your comment and the word assumption , its just that . I do not assume anything ,nor should others ,IMO. Putting on an event in LI is challenging to say the least.The LI clubs are rich in tradition and are filled with people who are well versed in the Retriever world .To imply anything else is an insult to them .
If I have a situation at an event , I address it right then and there.Quietly, with logic and knowledge of the rules .In the form of a question . 
I don't hide behind my keyboard regards ....


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

As a long standing member of the club in question let me say that suggestions, corrections and any type of fixing of a matter is not addressed by the people involved or the board of directors...
It is "his way" or the highway...
The land we use to train on is just about not available any longer do to a long standing arguement with the local DEC and not just due to lack of water to train in either
They will not issue training permits for the club sessions.
Now that tells you something
Not to mention the original post about the senior test he put on this past May
Freya


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

His way or the highway as it goes...
Obvious to see if you have a group of dogs on lead in the heat just hanging around for a group honor in a senior hunt test.
As ever, Freya


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

John Kelder said:


> If club officers didn't judge on occasion ,the shortage of judges would become very problematic very soon .And I stated the man's past / current positions , not in his defense , but to let it be clear that , IMO he is dedicated to his breed and his sport .
> You should also know I am in no way , now or ever , have been a member of said club(s).
> And my comment regarding names in the premium was in no way a threat . It was my way of saying get involved . Since the poster was local to the event , and clearly is opinionated , volunteering to be on the local clubs HT/FT comm. would provide them with the proper venue to put those opinions to good use .I didn't notice their names in the premiums , which is why I wrote that .
> And as to your comment and the word assumption , its just that . I do not assume anything ,nor should others ,IMO. Putting on an event in LI is challenging to say the least.The LI clubs are rich in tradition and are filled with people who are well versed in the Retriever world .To imply anything else is an insult to them .
> ...


John, I was responding to the wording of your thread.

Now that you explained what you meant - no problem.

I do not know the clubs in your area, but feel that any club should welcome and take seriously all comments from the handlers regarding judges and setups. Any problem at the test needs to be discussed seriously by the BOD and solutions addressed. Other posters familiar with the situation do not seem to feel that has happened.

I stated several times during this thread that individual handlers need to step forward immediately when they perceive a problem. They could talk with the judge quietly or ask a question after test dog has been run. If the judge does not quiet their concern, they should call the HT committee.

Just say'in


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> John, I was responding to the wording of your thread.
> 
> Now that you explained what you meant - no problem.
> 
> ...


You are correct .Monday morning quarterbacks , especially on an open forum ,tends to accomplish very little , if anything at all .


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Safety is not limited to gun safety. Having this many dogs and one "live" duck is a potentially dangerous situation and directly affects the safety of dogs and people.


I totally, totally agree. 

I don't believe I limited my previous posts to stating it was unsafe to gun safety issues (I think I did even mention potential violence and heat previously...)...

But if I somehow gave that impression, let me state clearly that this was not the only thing I was thinking of--there's a whole lot unsafe about the scenario as stated, esp. as a senior test, and esp. with the dogs confined on-lead in a stressful situation.

Totally agree.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> I stated several times during this thread that individual handlers need to step forward immediately when they perceive a problem. They could talk with the judge quietly or ask a question after test dog has been run. If the judge does not quiet their concern, they should call the HT committee.


I agree. As the owner of a dog who seems to be a magnet for aggressive dogs, I would have refused to participate in this scenario, requested a refund of my $, AND had AKC on the phone, simultaneously. But that's just me. 

Judges are required to "write up" dogs who attack other dogs while under judgement. This scenario was done not once, but twice, at two different clubs, a few weeks apart, and yes, they were AKC Senior tests. My spies tell me fights broke out both times. Did the HT committees at either event investigate the dog fights? Was a report submitted to AKC identifying the offending dog or dogs, their owners, and the circumstances under which the dog fights occurred? This should all have been part of the club's report back to AKC.

It's all well and good to say dogs should be socialized, etc. but the reality is, unless one trains specifically for trhis type of set-up, one is blindsiding one's dog with a completely unexpected and untrained-for set of skills. It is an extremely unfair thing to do to one's dog, and I am disappointed in those who seem to think it is fine to be unfair to one's dog. Amy Dahl is correct: one of my UK correspondants gave me a blow-by-blow description of a training class she attended recently for FT dogs. It involved everyone in a line, marching back and forth in a field for HOURS, and dogs getting corrected for any sort of infraction. I don't know anybody who trains this way, nor would I care to. So, do we now all set up this kind of meat-grinder sort of training drill, so that our dogs can pass under a judge who appears to be geographically challenged? Or do we grow a backbone and insist on the regulations (ALL of them) being followed? Because the judges, the committee and the club all failed to follow the regs as written.

Lisa


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Keeping my own opinion out of the discussion.....
I thought I had read this in the AKC R&R

Section 6. In Senior and Master Tests, at their discretion,
Judges shall determine the number of dogs
that shall be kept on the line simultaneously. Every dog
shall honor in at least one hunting situation involving
the retrieve of a marked fall(s) in the Senior and Master
Tests by remaining on the line off-lead while the working
dog retrieves, unless otherwise directed or until dismissed
by the Judges.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

duckdawg27 said:


> Keeping my own opinion out of the discussion.....
> I thought I had read this in the AKC R&R
> 
> Section 6. In Senior and Master Tests, at their discretion,
> ...



Some judges have better discretion than others. AKC allows wide latitude to judges in setting their tests. However, judges need to carefully consider each test from all angles, and mentally run through a host of possible worst-case scenarios before proceeding.

Hope is not a strategy.

I started showing dogs in obedience trials many years ago, when I was a child. Then, judges were at their discretion to have as many dogs lined up in the ring for sit and down-stays as they wished (some put all the dogs in the class togather, shoulder-to-shoulder, wrapped right around). Sounds good, right? After all, this is a test of obedience. Except my little dog was jumped, mauled and almost killed before my nine-year-old eyes, all in the space of less than 30 seconds, before the judge, stewards, and owners could get there. AKC has since put in requirements for distances between dogs, number of dogs per group, and so forth. Some judges have better discretion than others. Or did I already say that?

Lisa


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Ken-

That may be the letter of the rules but there's a wrinkle in how it was done. The judges insisted on dogs being held in a finite space for the time that all other dogs ran. The wording in the section you quoted provides for the judges to require multiple dogs to be on line so as to honor. However, the judges in this case were being cute and took advantage of the wording of a rule to create both an untrained and frankly, an untenable situation.

Early on, I mentioned a test where by 6 or 8 dogs were out at the same time....one retreived and the others honored just like an English field trial. The judge was a Brit and this is what he was used to. The dogs were under judgement the whole time and were actively participating in the test....they needed to pay attention.

In this case, the dogs were just supposed to wait...altogether in a confined space. It's no wonder that an occasional lip curled or there was a growl.

The dogs were on lead. That tells me that the dogs were not under judgement or were out of contention. In either case, the dogs and handlers should have been free to return to the trucks. If a handler had said, "I'm going to the truck. Call me when you are ready for the next test element."....the judges would have been hard pressed to defend dropping the dog.

Eric


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> Early on, I mentioned a test where by 6 or 8 dogs were out at the same time....one retreived and the others honored just like an English field trial. The judge was a Brit and this is what he was used to. The dogs were under judgement the whole time and were actively participating in the test....they needed to pay attention.
> 
> In this case, the dogs were just supposed to wait...altogether in a confined space. It's no wonder that an occasional lip curled or there was a growl.


And after this, they were lined up, and did a walkup honor while the bye-dog quartered in front of the line, a live bird was flighted over the line, and shot for the "working" dog to retrieve. As Senior allows controlled breaks, we all know that many people enter Senior when their dogs are "mostly" steady. This type of a walkup honor, ala UK style is a supreme test of steadiness, not appropriate (IMHO) for dogs just up from Junior, many of whose owners are hoping their dogs will be sort of steady. Particularly poorly thought out when preceded by all the dogs being confined to close quarters as a group, getting wound up watching each other run the blinds.

A walkup honor is part of the Canadian WCX, and as such, is written into the regulations for that event. Handlers know they must perform this test, and know to train accordingly. I will reiterate what I said earlier: it is monumentally unfair to the dogs to put them into a testing situation for which not only were they not trained on, but their handlers were not even aware SHOULD have been trained on. 

Lisa


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

As stated in original...I am not posting my opinion.
right wrong otherwise......it appears that the R&R supports what they might have done.

Should they have done it?? well whole 'nother matter ain't it.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

duckdawg27 said:


> it appears that the R&R supports what they did.


Well, yes and no. It is easy to pull out sections of the regs and we all do it. But when one judges, one needs to know and follow all of the regs, as written. So while the regs allow for judges to have as many dogs on line as they wish, it also states 

Section 1. 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.* (emphasis mine)

Judges may not pick and choose which bits of the regs they wish to follow, and merrily disregard the rest. Actually, this applies to all of us, handlers, committees, judges, and spectators.

Having the non-slip retrievers walk up in a line while "beaters" flush out the game ahead of them is a singularly ritualized for of shooting that is done in the UK. Other than shoots that are specially designed to emulate this type of hunting (and for which, wealthy clients pay chunks of change to play "English Landed Gentry For A Day"), does anyone on this side of the pond hunt this way? Is this a realistic hunting scenario for the average American retriever? This is the sort of question every judging pair should be asking themselves as they set up their tests.

The part of the regs that allows for multiple dogs on line has been part of FT since the beginning. But the difference is that in FT, the dogs are stationary. I have seen tests where a judge will have several dogs lined up on a levee watching the working dog work. This does represent a type of waterfowling situation that one may encounter out west. But it is not a walkup. It is just like a regular honor, but there are more dogs doing it, and they are spaced well apart (and their handlers are standing next to them).

Lisa


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

RE: the Ideas Behind the Test

Putting aside the execution of the test, the idea of the test itself does not bother me as much as it apparently bothers the rest of you. Many practical and principled changes could be made to its execution. However, I like that the traditional HT/FT form is being challenged. I think that is good for the game and especially good for the dogs.

RE: Being "Blindsided"

Out of everything I have read, I think this is what disturbs me the most. It is not fair being tested on something you have not had the chance to learn. In the early days of HTs, whenever the judges were going to do something supremely unusual, it was not uncommon for the handlers to be notified ahead of time, usually through publishing it in the premium so the option to not participate was allowed.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i guess that the RHTAC should look into petitioning the AKC eliminating the honor at HT's, at least at the Senior level of testing.

there could be a fight where a dog or handler is injured ANYTIME there are 2 or more dogs at the line. what is the HT committee supposed to do-ask around the day of the test so that they can pair dogs according to temperament, sex or some other issue the handlers come up with? the honor is a test of trainability and TEMPERAMENT. AGGRESSIVE DOGS SHOULD NOT BE EARNING DEGREES AND ENTERING THE BREEDING POOL!!!!! read what the regulations say about honor dog attributes and tell me where lip curling, growling, snarling, or fighting fit in. ditto with breaking.

was it a good set-up? NO
was it a "legal" set-up? YES
would i want to participate in such a set-up? HELL NO!

what i take issue with on this thread is:

1. one of the judges was actually named named. people have done this repeatedly on RTF over the years. the moderators have pleaded that it not be done, yet it happens again and again.....
2. the person starting the thread was not there, nor had a dog entered; the bus was started on the basis of hearsay....
3. no one at the time asked the judges or ht committee to consider changing anything about the test
4. people using this example of poor test design to promote other venues. (NAHRA and HRC are excellent retriever testing orgs- they don't need this type of advertising to legitimize them)

several years ago i judged a senior test with the named judge and argued against just this type of honor. i stuck to my guns and won. however, i was an 8 point judge. had i been a newbie i might not have prevailed. this is why the selection and pairing of judges is so important to conducting a fair and enjoyable test for the benefit of the participants, the dogs, the club, and the parent organization.-Paul


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

paul young said:


> several years ago i judged a senior test with the named judge and argued against just this type of honor. i stuck to my guns and won.


Apparently you were not convincing enough to make him realize what a dumb arse idea it was if he is still doing it after "several years" ;-)


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

LMAO!!!! I DON'T CLAIM TO HAVE THAT KIND OF INFLUENCE OVER ANYONE!-Paul


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

I'm not sure what the rules say about AKC Hunt Test committees but I can assure you that if I hired you I can also fire you and this just wouldn't fly in my clubs test.

The ONLY funny part of this thread is the idea that it is "uncool" to bring up HRC in it. However, at every opportunity it is okay to explain why AKC excels over HRC.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> there could be a fight where a dog or handler is injured ANYTIME there are 2 or more dogs at the line. what is the HT committee supposed to do-ask around the day of the test so that they can pair dogs according to temperament, sex or some other issue the handlers come up with?


Two dogs can get into a fight any time. Getting in and out of the holding blind can sometimes be an exercise in exit route planning when certain dogs known to be "bristly" are running.

But when you have more than two dogs on line and offlead, you are now looking at a pack situation. Two dogs ganging up on a third can result in a severely injured or dead dog much more quickly than just two dogs mixing it up. This is also more likely to occur when the dogs are already in motion.

I agree about the temperament issue; it wasn't the judges who fell down in regards to the known growly dog, but everyone around who heard the dog and did not raise an objection to being put in a situation where canine emotions would get heightened. Chap. 1 Sec. 22 is very specific about the responsibility we all share where dogs displaying aggression at hunt tests are concerned. What we suffer from is being too nice, and giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and put a dog on report. A dog theat attacks another dog (or a person) and is reported to AKC is disqualified from ever entering any AKC competition, of any kind, forever, unless the owner is willing to go through an extensive process of getting the dog reinstated, and PROVING the dog is not a hazard to other dogs or people. For most dogs, this results in permanently being barred from being on the grounds at any AKC event. Most judges, committees, fellow handlers do not want to be the bad guy, so the dog is excused from the competition, and no formal action is ever taken. 

Lisa


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

As pointed out, legal yes, a good set-up No. The question I would like answered is, who is this a simulation of natural hunting conditions in as realistic a manner as possible? How did the judges explain the test scenario? I believe this was run as an AMERICAN Kennel Club test, not as a British test. I would just like to know how they described the set-up. I have hunted a lot and in a lot of places in the US and I really have never had 10+ dogs on honor in any NATURAL HUNTING CONDITION I have ever hunted in. Now I have not hunted everywhere but I ma hard pressed to think of any NATURAL HUNTING condition that involves a mass honor? The closest thing I can come up with is a tower shoot and that is far for NATURAL HUNTING CONDITIONS.


----------



## J Hoggatt (Jun 16, 2004)

Ken Newcomb said:


> I'm not sure what the rules say about AKC Hunt Test committees but I can assure you that if I hired you I can also fire you and this just wouldn't fly in my clubs test.
> 
> The ONLY funny part of this thread is the idea that it is "uncool" to bring up HRC in it. However, at every opportunity it is okay to explain why AKC excels over HRC.


Show me this on this site and I will shut-up! Contrary - I read the opposite - all the time.


----------



## allydeer (May 11, 2008)

Lets say you have a young dog / Best Dog You Ever Had. You come to the line marks go down you send it. The Dog On Honor Breaks gets aggresive Ripps Up Your Dog . Now your stuck with vet bills/ Or maybe your dog lost it's desire and drive .Half to turn it into a pet for the kids to lay around with. Not for it Or Agains't but just another thing to look at.


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

allydeer said:


> Lets say you have a young dog / Best Dog You Ever Had. You come to the line marks go down you send it. The Dog On Honor Breaks gets aggresive Ripps Up Your Dog . Now your stuck with vet bills/ Or maybe your dog lost it's desire and drive .Half to turn it into a pet for the kids to lay around with. Not for it Or Agains't but just another thing to look at.


Allydeer...

An honor is a common and legal part of a hunt test for upper level dogs. That isn't the issue in question here. You are very likely to see an honor dog in a test situation. What you are not likely to see is something that the OP presented.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Mike Tome said:


> Allydeer...
> 
> An honor is a common and legal part of a hunt test for upper level dogs. That isn't the issue in question here. You are very likely to see an honor dog in a test situation. What you are not likely to see is something that the OP presented.


Hey Mike ,
Send me a PM of your avatar in its entirety please .


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> As pointed out, legal yes, a good set-up No. The question I would like answered is, how is this a simulation of natural hunting conditions in as realistic a manner as possible? *How did the judges explain the test scenario?* I believe this was run as an AMERICAN Kennel Club test, not as a British test. I would just like to know how they described the set-up. *I have hunted a lot and in a lot of places in the US and I really have never had 10+ dogs on honor in any NATURAL HUNTING CONDITION I have ever hunted in.* Now I have not hunted everywhere but I ma hard pressed to think of any NATURAL HUNTING condition that involves a mass honor? The closest thing I can come up with is a tower shoot and that is far for NATURAL HUNTING CONDITIONS.


 
anyone??? Hello....??


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> anyone??? Hello....??


My understanding is this is his pet test and has been for years as posters have said but was done differently this time.
The handlers did not even know about the duck being shot although he did show them the live duck so that would =no scenario. As they were walking the handler glanced over his shoulder to see what was happening and the duck was shot. Not knowing what was going to happen was also cause for concern as at least the handler could prepare himself for a break. There are so many elements of this honor that are inappropiate for a senior dog and it's a shame if the dogs had passing work until that point were failed because of this honor.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> My understanding is this is his pet test and has been for years as posters have said.


That is not the answer. A “pet” test” does not simulate natural hunting conditions in as realistic a manner as possible. 
I understand this is his pet test, but I would like to hear form someone how this is justified as natural hunting conditions in as realistic a manner as possible. 

So you are saying these judges ran a test and did not explain it or describe the scenario?


----------



## Brevard Arndt (Jul 2, 2003)

pupaloo said:


> I think two things:
> 
> Be prepared for whatever you see at a test. That's what tests are about. As the caliber of dogs increases, so will the stuff judges dream up to find the best of the best.
> 
> Sounds like some of the dogs at this test were not properly socialized and/or need a brush-up on their OB. Manners are the most important thing a dog can learn. It doesn't matter what's happening. Sit means sit-whether there is a live duck or not. And a dog that growls and doesn't stop immediately when told to be quiet by the handler once should be put in the truck, whether it fails the test or not. I don't care if the situation was unusual-dogs should be respectful in whatever situation they are in.


But hunt tests are are not intended to select the "best of the best". The purpose of the hunt test is to judge the dogs abilities against the "standard'. Period. The "best of the best" is the purpose of the field trial. Period.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> .....T*here are so many elements of this honor that are inappropiate for a senior dog and it's a shame if the dogs had passing work until that point were failed because of this honor.*


This statement pretty much sums it up. Perhaps replace "senior dog" with "hunt test" and there you have it.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

and may I add, the least of the problems was whether there was a the lack of a scenario.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> and may I add, the least of the problems was whether there was a the lack of a scenario.


 
Perhaps, but you are required to give one. The wording I continue to use is straight from the AKC rules. You also *MUST* explain the test. You cannot just say walk up there and stand on honor and throw a surprise bird. In my book this is as big a deal as anything else involved
I am also very curious about your statement that he “showed them the live duck” 

Section 2. Pheasants and/or ducks and/or chukars
may be used in AKC-licensed or member club Hunting
Tests, as may any other species of game bird that might
be unique to a specific region. Clubs shall specify in the
premium list the exact species of birds to be used in
their hunting tests.
A minimum of two live birds per entry must be made
available for use at the discretion of the Judges in all
test levels.
*No live bird, or any species of fowl, shall be used in*
*a test while under any form of restraint or physical*
*impairment at any sanctioned, licensed, or member*
*club event for Retrievers.*

How exactly did he “show them a live duck”? You say they did not even know a duck was being shot/thrown.

Section 4. 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. …………….
*Judges must explain the test set-up to the handler,*
*and further explain the objectives or scenarios as they*
*relate to a specific hunting situation.*

Not explaining the test would be just as big a problem, by the rulebook, as the cluster they set up.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> and may I add, the least of the problems was whether there was a the lack of a scenario.


From what you describe, yes, the lack of a scenario is the least important thing going on in the end.

But I've actually thought about this before--why insist on a scenario? I think the idea--and to me it's a good one--is to force each set-up to have it's own little mission statement, so that the set-up has a purpose and cohesive shape to it. 

Done right, it might be hokey, but I think it's a good thing that, if judges actually take it seriously, can help prevent screwy "why don't we do this! zing!! and then a bird there! boom-boom!!" sort of stuff that CAN get purposeless, and sometimes stupid or with the potential to be dangerous.

I like the scenario... but I'm an English teacher. I get into narratives.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

luvalab said:


> From what you describe, yes, the lack of a scenario is the least important thing going on in the end.
> 
> But I've actually thought about this before--why insist on a scenario? I think the idea--and to me it's a good one--is to force each set-up to have it's own little mission statement, so that the set-up has a purpose and cohesive shape to it.
> 
> ...


 
Please read above...it is not a "nice thing" it is a REQUIRED THING.

*Judges must explain the test set-up to the handler,*
*and further explain the objectives or scenarios as they*
*relate to a specific hunting situation.*

They did not explain the test nor did they have a senario that related TO A SPECIFIC HUNTING SITUATION.
Scenarios are given in part to describe what you are getting is an actual (or at least imagined) HUNTING scenario. Had these guidelines been followed this test may never have been set in the first place. Not explaining the test set up is inexcusable and I also fault the handlers that ran the test for not flat out starting a riot when asked to run a test with no idea of were a bird was coming from, when or why… MAJOR problem


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Please read above...it is not a "nice thing" it is a REQUIRED THING.
> 
> *Judges must explain the test set-up to the handler,*
> *and further explain the objectives or scenarios as they*
> ...


Oh for Pete's sake, WE AGREE!!! I never said it wasn't required--just that in the end, it was the least of the problems.

The problems, however, could have been prevented if the judges followed the rules and created a scenario.

I'm just saying why I think a scenario belongs in the rules and should be taken seriously.

We agree, Badbullgator. We agree.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Judges must explain the test set-up to the handler,
> and further explain the objectives *or* scenarios as they
> relate to a specific hunting situation*.*


I read this to say that scenarios are not required (i.e. either objectives or scenarios are suffient)

Perhaps the objectives were explained without a scenario?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

jeff t. said:


> I read this to say that scenarios are not required (i.e. either objectives or scenarios are suffient)
> 
> Perhaps the objectives were explained without a scenario?


Section 4. 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.

Still the question I am asking. What hunting does this simulate?


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

From what I've read it seemed like the judges were trying to simulate a hunting senerio where birds can come out of nowhere. People cry all the time that it doesn't resemble hunting conditions. Except for having to stand out in the hot sun for an hour before running.. Oops maby we do sit around for an hour before the first bird comes thundering from behind and we quickly stand up and scan the sky for the now absent roar.

The only thing about the hunting scenerio or lack of it is I have never heard of is having so many dogs standing in a line while duck hunting.,,,but I have watched and even hunted with a bunch of dogs ,,some walking at heel others plotting around in front while pheasant and partridge hunting so it aint to far off.


Some rules were broke,,,but they would have to be if you wanted to simulate a hunting scenerio.

If I said it once I'll say it again,,,, we are not really hunting when we go to a hunt test. We are judging the merrits of what makes up a good hunting dog.

As plastic as all hunt tests are they have rules for safety to evaluate dogs abilities.

This stuff comes about because people push for more realistic tests. Sorry aint gonna happen unless you break the rules.

It just goes to show ya ,,,dont wish for something you might regret,,you might just get it.

I personally don't care either way what judges do.. They do what they do, Its been proven over the years that they have the final say.
Remember these guys gave up their weekend to watch your dogs. 

Pete


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

*badbullgator wrote:*


> Still the question I am asking. What hunting does this simulate?


Is it not possible for hunters to have more than one dog in a duck blind? Might your dog in your blind watch another dog work from a nearby blind? In upland game it is surely possible to have two or three dogs working the ground.

While this kind of multiple honor is not unreasonalbe, that said, I do think that this kind of honor is not appropriate to the Senior level, but would be acceptable for Master level.

Also have to agree that the number of honoring dogs was too large to assure safety of all dogs and handlers. 3 or 4 might not be out of the question. Also, safety of the dogs was an issue standing in the heat for an hour. 

I've seen a number of people use group honors as part of their training regimen.

*Lisa wrote:*


> I agree about the temperament issue; it wasn't the judges who fell down in regards to the known growly dog, but everyone around who heard the dog and did not raise an objection to being put in a situation where canine emotions would get heightened. Chap. 1 Sec. 22 is very specific about the responsibility we all share where dogs displaying aggression at hunt tests are concerned. What we suffer from is being too nice, and giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and put a dog on report. A dog theat attacks another dog (or a person) and is reported to AKC is disqualified from ever entering any AKC competition, of any kind, forever, unless the owner is willing to go through an extensive process of getting the dog reinstated, and PROVING the dog is not a hazard to other dogs or people. For most dogs, this results in permanently being barred from being on the grounds at any AKC event. Most judges, committees, fellow handlers do not want to be the bad guy, so the dog is excused from the competition, and no formal action is ever taken.


Another poster mentioned that aggressive dogs should not be entered. I would have to agree with Lisa and that poster. 

Some years ago, a dog was finally "written up" when it was honoring and attacked the working dog. (a MH level dog) Many people, including the owner, knew the dog was not reliable. There were plenty of signals that this dog was an accident waiting to happen. Why did everyone have to wait till this dog injured someone else's dog before the dog was put out for good? Like Lisa, I have seen the same thing in obedience as well.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Pete,

i am in no way advocating this type of honor situation, but i have to ask you which regulations you feel were broken by doing so. there was a lack of common sense on multiple levels to go forward with this, but i know of no regulation that would prohibit it.-Paul


----------



## POACHER (Jul 12, 2009)

Hello to all. My name is Dan and my dogs call name is poacher. I stumbled on this site this weekend and found a post that seems to be about the test that i ran in. I would like to try and clear a few things up for all the interested around the globe. First off I am a big waterfowler have been for years. I am on my second retriever and first one I am really trying to train proper. The hunt tests are new to me this year. I have entered 7 tests 2 ukc seasoned and 5 akc senior. We passed our first 6 tests but got droped onhis last senior test. I had fun at all tests. 2 of the senior tests I did were under the judge in ?. Both times he had us do a mass honor. The first tests mass honor all dogs stayed steady and passed the honor. Now for the second Tests mass Honor.

As I recall let me say again. AS I RECALL at the time of the mass honor there were 5 dogs left to run it. As I recall the judge said we are walking to our hunting spot and we jump a bird on the way the gunners will shoot it and the bye dog will retrieve. We were told to walk along and when the guns go off we were to sit our dogs honor the worker and the turn and walk away when told all OFF LEAD. All this was in front of the dogs handlers gunners ect. and at NO TIME DID I FEEL IN DANGER IN THE LEAST!

When the senario went down 2 dogs broke 1 on the far end and the one next to me. I was on the opposite end of the line. The 2 dogs arrived at the bird and a very quick tusle went on. The 2 handlers gathered there dogs and failed the test. Neither dog had any puctures or blood. 

We were all held together to wait for the honor in a sun/shade area in the trees behind the land blind test. The reason we were sort of told to stay there was because it was a long walk to the cars and exiters would have to walk through the test site. It was a long wait and there were a couple grumbles here and there.

I dont really know alot about rules and dont really know the judges just there names. If I new the rules as well as some on here I still wouldnt have said anything. Not for fear of retaliation but because I actually thought the mass honors were one of the coolest parts of all the tests weve run. The gentleman judge in ? is sort of my favorite. Why? Because at the begining of his second test there were many new nervous faces with lots of ?s. He answered ?s and then said something like this. Folks we are here to have fun relaxe and go hunting. It made me as a newbie to the games but lifelong hunter feel welcome and comfortable. JMHO

In closing let me say Thank you to judges in Question for their time and effort. I will run in your tests anytime.

My feeling is a couple good people that LOVE dogs and TRAINING made a test a few things took longer than thought, and an oversite my have been made. A lesson was learned no one or no dog was hurt and a perfectly human mistake was made that I am sure is regretted.

Any ?s fire away.

DAN


----------



## K.Wilson (Feb 9, 2005)

"The one judge is known for mass honors and for non-AKC type scenarios."

SO, if this is the case, why do clubs keep asking this person to judge???

Karen


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Another poster mentioned that aggressive dogs should not be entered. I would have to agree with Lisa and that poster.
> 
> Some years ago, a dog was finally "written up" when it was honoring and attacked the working dog. (a MH level dog) Many people, including the owner, knew the dog was not reliable. There were plenty of signals that this dog was an accident waiting to happen. Why did everyone have to wait till this dog injured someone else's dog before the dog was put out for good? Like Lisa, I have seen the same thing in obedience as well.


And I am seeing more of it in recent years. Possibly a sign of our permissive society or whatever (shrug). But everybody seems to have an excuse. And they aren't even using the word "aggression" any more, it is "reactive" (isn't that sooooo PC?) Seems to be a common term among the agility folks. 

Lisa's Rule for Judging #1: Everybody loves their dog. Always good to keep in mind when explaining why a dog does not qualify, or when someone wants their dog's conformation evaluated! However, it seems to me that in recent years, everybody seems to think not only their dog, but everyone else's eats rainbows and poops butterflies. Seems we have forgotten these are carnivores with strong prey drive. So it does not surprise me anymore when I see patently aggressive dogs at events. 

Lisa


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm not getting into the questions of this whole situation except to say that I really appreciated Dan (Poacher's Dad), taking the time to write a respectfull, objective account of the test in question. I think Dan is going to go a long way in this game with as good an attitude as he showed me with that post.

John


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> Pete,
> 
> i am in no way advocating this type of honor situation, but i have to ask you which regulations you feel were broken by doing so. there was a lack of common sense on multiple levels to go forward with this, but i know of no regulation that would prohibit it.-Paul


I'm with Paul. If it's legal you should be ready for it and if not train. Don't bellyache on the internet blaming the judges.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> *badbullgator wrote:*
> 
> 
> *Is it not possible for hunters to have more than one dog in a duck blind*? Might your dog in your blind watch another dog work from a nearby blind? In upland game it is surely possible to have two or three dogs working the ground.
> ...


 
See bold above


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

POACHER said:


> Hello to all. My name is Dan and my dogs call name is poacher. I stumbled on this site this weekend and found a post that seems to be about the test that i ran in. I would like to try and clear a few things up for all the interested around the globe. First off I am a big waterfowler have been for years. I am on my second retriever and first one I am really trying to train proper. The hunt tests are new to me this year. I have entered 7 tests 2 ukc seasoned and 5 akc senior. We passed our first 6 tests but got droped onhis last senior test. I had fun at all tests. 2 of the senior tests I did were under the judge in ?. Both times he had us do a mass honor. The first tests mass honor all dogs stayed steady and passed the honor. Now for the second Tests mass Honor.
> 
> As I recall let me say again. AS I RECALL at the time of the mass honor there were 5 dogs left to run it. As I recall the judge said we are walking to our hunting spot and we jump a bird on the way the gunners will shoot it and the bye dog will retrieve. We were told to walk along and when the guns go off we were to sit our dogs honor the worker and the turn and walk away when told all OFF LEAD. All this was in front of the dogs handlers gunners ect. and at *NO TIME DID I FEEL IN DANGER IN THE LEAST!*
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Dan, but the bold points out the danger in this. Setting a test such as this leaves open the oppertunity for more than one or two dogs to break. In this case the dogs did not injure each other, HOWEVER, that is nothing more than luck and a judge should not set something up that allows that possibility.
Good luck with your dog and welcome to RTF


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Howard N said:


> If it's legal you should be ready for it and if not train. Don't bellyache on the internet blaming the judges.


Hmmm. Now I know to train for it. How would I have known 'less I have read it on the Internet? :? 

How did those handlers ignorant of this judge's proclivities know ahead of time before they entered? 

As I said before, and still maintain, _it is unfair to be tested on something you have not yet had a chance to learn._ I guess I must now add the caveat "it is impossible to anticipate and therefore train for every conceivable scenario allowed under the rules." 

Therefore I request that we go back to how I remember it twenty years ago when HTs first began, and when the judges want to do something _supremely out of the ordinary_ it is mentioned ahead of time in the premium, so the handlers can either a. train for it, or b. choose not to enter.


----------



## POACHER (Jul 12, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> Thanks Dan, but the bold points out the danger in this. Setting a test such as this leaves open the oppertunity for more than one or two dogs to break. In this case the dogs did not injure each other, HOWEVER, that is nothing more than luck and a judge should not set something up that allows that possibility.
> Good luck with your dog and welcome to RTF


BBG I totally understand the dangers I saw it in front of me. So did the judges. What I am saying is a Person thought up a test figured it was within the rules and tryed to work it in. Bad decision? Maybe. Will he run it again? I doubt it especially if he is a RTF follower which I dont know.

They gave up a whole weekend for no pay that I know of.( other than the $50 I accidently droped infront of them on my way to the line.);-);-)
I dont feel they should be crusified for possably making a mistake. Lucky yes! done on purpose with intent of harm? NOWAY!

Even old dogs make mistakes and misjudgements once in awhile.


----------



## POACHER (Jul 12, 2009)

AmiableLabs said:


> Hmmm. Now I know to train for it. How would I have known 'less I have read it on the Internet? :?
> 
> How did those handlers ignorant of this judge's proclivities know ahead of time before they entered?
> 
> ...


I knew about him and the Mass honor ahead because I train with people who know the games and judges better than I. I must say though our dumb asses never trained for it.  It was worse thinking about doing it than actually doing it! I can see if people did not know the judge and about the mass honor notification would be a help!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

POACHER said:


> BBG I totally understand the dangers I saw it in front of me. So did the judges. What I am saying is a Person thought up a test figured it was within the rules and tryed to work it in. Bad decision? Maybe. Will he run it again? I doubt it especially if he is a RTF follower which I dont know.
> 
> They gave up a whole weekend for no pay that I know of.( other than the $50 I accidently droped infront of them on my way to the line.);-);-)
> I dont feel they should be crusified for possably making a mistake. Lucky yes! done on purpose with intent of harm? NOWAY!
> ...


Dan
We agree. I have not named them and I am sorry others did. On the bright side maybe if they do see this they will not ruun a set up like this again. I give up many weekends for no pay and I would really like to hear about it if I were setting a bad test. I don't think I have siad they did anything outside the rules, but we all know you can be within the rules and still set a bad test. I would agree with your old dogs statement, BUT it has been stated that this is not the only time one of these judges has set the same thing. Once is a mistake, more than that is habit. I have never siad they set it with intent to harm...noway, no how, but again anyone who knows dogs should know the potential is there and that it does not have to be. You say yourself that you knew the dangers in front of you and by your own word this is your second retriever so an experianced judge should have known well the potential situation he was setting up.

I still want to know WHAT REALISTIC HUNT does this simulate?


----------



## Waterfwlr (Jul 14, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> I still want to know WHAT REALISTIC HUNT does this simulate?


Let's be real here. Anybody that is actually a hunter knows that AKC tests don't simulate real hunting. Far from it. HRC tests are about as close as you can get but still not perfect.

And second, everybody is complaining and belly aching about this test. I have run under the judge in question many times and NEVER felt anybody or any dog was in danger. Granted this was a senior test but the bottom line is SIT MEANS SIT. Complaining about never training for this type of honor is an excuse. If your dog sat or at least stayed next to you like a trained retriever should, you wouldn't have a problem. He has been doing this mass honor for many many years. Never been a problem.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Pete,
> 
> i am in no way advocating this type of honor situation, but i have to ask you which regulations you feel were broken by doing so. there was a lack of common sense on multiple levels to go forward with this, but i know of no regulation that would prohibit it.-Paul


Paul

I think it is mandatory for the judges to give some type of goofy senerio.


I think BBG put it up on the screen. The contestants should know what is going on or is about to happen. I think its to much for a senior dog to go through,,,,but might welcome the change of pace in a master. I don't mind being next to the aggressive dog. Sounds challenging


Pete


----------



## Rhumbline (Jul 13, 2009)

OK here goes, hopefully we can put this entire issue to rest. First I am writing not only as a participant in the honor in question, the hunt test secretary for the event and a member of the hunt test committee, but as a person that ran my first hunt test in 1989 (HRC) and entered the AKC hunt test world shortly there after. I have finished the forth generation of my home bred master hunters as well as having won an Amateur stake. I have yet to judge in the hunt test world but have judged all levels of field trials. So I am not "new" to the dog game. When I moved back home to Long Island (from Texas) I was very surprised at the variation in how hunt tests were run and judged from those that I had run in Texas and Louisiana. Did the differences upset me, no, things were just different, I adjusted a few things and trained for somethings I had never seen before. If anyone can tell me they do not know not only the majority of the judges on their circuit, but what kind of tests they set up, I would say they either are not very observant or they do not run many tests or train with many others who also run tests. I can look at a premium and have a pretty decent idea what kind of tests the judges in question will set up, yes things can be different but most judges do not change their stripes very often. Should I travel to a different region I would expect a learning curve, much the same as I experienced when I moved home. The judge in question on this particular weekend has been judging since the AKC hunt tests began, he was a judge at the first or second Master National, so he has been around the block more times then most of us care to admit. He is a strong proponent of retriever training and testing and has help more people become involved in this sport at all levels (participants, judges, trainers, breeders and duck hunters), then most of us will ever be able to. So a man who has dedicated many years to a sport he loves is getting ripped apart because many of you do not think you can hunt five dogs out of a boat. The scenario started (maybe not this time but most of them) that you are at the local game preserve picking up for a "Tower Shoot" or a "Driven Pheasant Shoot" both of which many many local dogs spend all winter doing, and both of which often have 10 or more dogs working off lead bear each other. So no we were not trying to hunt 5 dogs out of a boat, but how many test really simulate a days hunt. When was the last time you really wanted your dog taking forever swimming a down the shore water blind (10 yards off the shoreline)blowing your whistle and waving your arms around to get a bird rather then letting him "cheat" the edge and get back in the blind as quickly as possible, while you were sitting in the blind waiting for the next flight to come in. Yet how many weekends a year do we see that very set up ?

The first hunt test I ran on LI was in either 1992 or 1993 in that test I watched a "group honor" and was amazed. All those dogs sat so very still, impressive. Since then I have participated in more "group honors" then I care to remember (a safe guess would be 35). Rarely have I ever seen a dog break and never have I seen a fight, before this one. So say what you want about the safety of the group honor, but my dogs have NEVER been hurt or injured doing one. However I have had my dogs attacked on three other occasions by the honoring dog (traditional honors) while mine was the working dog, including the second day of that weekend, when the honor dog broke, slammed into my dog and ripped the bird from his mouth. But I digress. At no time during the honor in question did I feel that myself or my dog was threatened. The dogs in question in the honor were mostly young (12 months - 2 years old) intact males with new to the sport owner/trainer/handlers. Perhaps looking back this was probably not the best group of dogs to do this setup with, but that is why they call it hindsight. The two dogs that were involved in the "fight" know each other and have trained together. As a member of the Hunt test committee I asked both handlers, if they would like to file a complaint, neither handler choose to do so. No competitor made a complaint about the judging to any member of the hunt test committee. Believe me the judge in ? could care less if somebody filed a complaint against him, there would be no "retaliation" as so many of you have claimed. Maybe some judges but not this one. He would probably enjoy a good "discussion" with the AKC on the merits of his setup.

There was no quartering involved in the honor. The dogs remaining under judgment were lined up along one edge of a field, the gunners and bird thrower were about 30 yards in front of the line of honoring dogs the working dog was nearer to the gunners then the working dogs, everyone started walking forward together, we had not gotten very far when the bird was released, the working dog broke and then two honoring dogs broke. There was more noise then anything, the handlers went out and got the dogs that broke put them on lead and the rest of us passed. Was it exciting/scary ? Absolutely. Was it worthy of 18 pages of posts on RTF no way. This judge has held this kind of honor for almost 20 years and this is the first fight ever. How can you argue and say the setup is inherently unsafe. I do not think the judge in question will be judging much longer as his health is not what it used to be, but if you do decide to brave, the ticks, high cover, non-technical water (where you actually still see boat marks) and come to LI, and if the judge on the premium is the one in ? here, be ready for a group honor. Don't worry if you have more then one dog back to the honor, it will be broken down so that each of your dogs will be in a different group. The group honor always seems "scary" but it is not really and the many handlers who have participated in them over the years can attest they actually end up being fun. Relax a bit and remember why we all got involved in hunt tests to begin with and that is to have a bettered trained dog to hunt. But the reason many of us stay in it is to have, fun, enjoy our dogs and friends and watch some amazing dogs do great things. I am sorry I am not a better writer, perhaps if I were I could explain things better. In the mean time please stop bad mouthing a man who has done so much for the retriever world, find something else to obsess about, train your dogs, have fun and remember why we all spend so much time and money in this sport.


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

I haven't went over every post because I'm on vacation, but I do have one question. After the 2 dogs broke did the remaining 3 dogs have to do it all over again. I might be wrong but if you are running senior with a single honor and a dog breaks then you have to wait and honor for the next dog. If these 3 dogs didn't walk up again with a bye dog then this would be an illegal honor. 

Now for the mass honor in a test, just seems a little lazy on the part of the judges. I can't see anything good that would come from a mass honor test. What would they have done if 25 dogs made it to the honor part of the test? I guess the standard is getting too easy so we have to come up with stupid ideas to fail a dog......


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I have several questions. Did no one hear the dog growling before the honor when the group was standing waiting for the honor, and if so, didn't that make anyone think there might be a problem brewing? Was the mass honor explained to the handlers or was it assumed everyone knew exactly what was going to happen?



> I might be wrong but if you are running senior with a single honor and a dog breaks then you have to wait and honor for the next dog. If these 3 dogs didn't walk up again with a bye dog then this would be an illegal honor.


I agree with this completely. I don't think the requirements were met for the senior test if the honoring dog broke.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> As a member of the Hunt test committee I asked both handlers, if they would like to file a complaint, neither handler choose to do so. *No competitor made a complaint* about the judging to any member of the hunt test committee


I guess they'd rather try and throw the judges under the internet buss.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I agree with this completely. I don't think the requirements were met for the senior test if the honoring dog broke.


I wasn't there and didn't see it, but if the other honoring dogs sat while the working dog was sent to get a bird then they honored. 

Didn't they?


----------



## HuntsmanTollers (Feb 20, 2003)

Waterfwlr said:


> He has been doing this mass honor for many many years. Never been a problem.


I must have misremembered. I believed I read a post where 2 dogs broke at this test and were in the process of fighting. Luckily no dog was injured.


----------



## POACHER (Jul 12, 2009)

Rhumbline.

Good post.


Howard N Quote:
I agree with this completely. I don't think the requirements were met for the senior test if the honoring dog broke. 

I wasn't there and didn't see it, but if the other honoring dogs sat while the working dog was sent to get a bird then they honored. 

Didn't they? 

Yah and im sorry but if your dog sat through the 2 dog break in the mass honor rules or no rules you deserved to PASS!!


----------



## POACHER (Jul 12, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> I have several questions. Did no one hear the dog growling before the honor when the group was standing waiting for the honor, and if so, didn't that make anyone think there might be a problem brewing? Was the mass honor explained to the handlers or was it assumed everyone knew exactly what was going to happen?
> 
> 
> I agree with this completely. I don't think the requirements were met for the senior test if the honoring dog broke.


I knew the senario. I know for sure 3 others in the line new the senario that leaves 1 person that I dont know about and that person PASSED. So the problem is?

Did I hear dogs growl in the holding area? yes. Did I hear anything on the line? No. I was too busy concentrating on my dog and our task at hand. I have to wonder how somebody in Wisconsin knows so much on the topic? Were you there or are you talking for a second party who was involved??


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

> I wasn't there and didn't see it, but if the other honoring dogs sat while the working dog was sent to get a bird then they honored.
> 
> Didn't they?


I wasn't there either but it sounds like the working dog wasn't sent because the other 2 dogs broke, so by the rules the honor dogs has to see the working dog retrieve a duck. 



> *No competitor made a complaint* I guess they'd rather try and throw the judges under the internet buss.


Only a few people would complain when they get a pass. I wouldn't consider talking about a mass honor being useless, throwing anyone under a bus. It needed to be thrown under a barge. I don't know how many dogs ran but I guess only 3 dogs passed.



> Yah and im sorry but if your dog sat through the 2 dog break in the mass honor rules or no rules you deserved to PASS!!


I agree, but why as a judge would you want to put yourself in a situation were you would have to break the rules.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

1) I think this test is rather pointless and provides no practical insight into the working skills of a trained retriever. 

2) Setting that aside, other than the potential problem created in the “holding area”, I don’t believe it is unreasonable to ask a Senior Hunter to honor in this manner. If a judge wants to waste time watching 5 dogs sit in a line, go for it!

3) I’ll bet Robert Milner is getting quite a chuckle from this thread. 

JS


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

I think if I am ever an AKC judge I will line all the dogs up and release 50 rabbits to run between them mean while 10 rooster pheasants will be thrown with one being shot. 

Train don't complain.

I used to speed a lot. I was never in a crash. Doesn't make it a good idea or safe.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

kimsmith said:


> I haven't went over every post because I'm on vacation, but I do have one question. *After the 2 dogs broke did the remaining 3 dogs have to do it all over again*. I might be wrong but if you are running senior with a single honor and a dog breaks then you have to wait and honor for the next dog. If these 3 dogs didn't walk up again with a bye dog then this would be an illegal honor.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Ken Newcomb said:


> I think if I am ever an AKC judge I will line all the dogs up and release 50 rabbits to run between them mean while 10 rooster pheasants will be thrown with one being shot.
> 
> Train don't complain.
> 
> ...


I'm with Ken.

I'm sorry for the judge ... in that he has been ID'ed and is ending his career on a controversial note.

That said ...

In general ... just because someone has adopted a particular departure from the norm (judge outside the box), made it into his "signature" item, and incorporated it into all of his tests - for years and years ... doesn't make it appropriate. 

It's a rather sad fact that the longer a person is allowed continue down some delusional path, the more acceptable and reasonable his beliefs and actions seem ... to him.

It would be nice if a co-judge would say ... "NO! We're not doing this just cause you think it's cute.".

Senior Hunter IS NOT A FIELD TRIAL WHERE DOGS NEED TO BE ELIMINATED!
So this idea that any "bell n'whistle" that anyone can possibly think up is fair game.

Just because something is not against the rules doesn't make it appropriate or reasonable - or even safe. Yes handlers, train your dog way far above the test level. But, Judges ... learn the difference between a training set up and an appropriate test set up. They are 2 very different things! If you don't understand how to recognize the difference, well, maybe you need to forego judging assignments.

Finally, it is not enough for the HT Committee to ask the handlers if they wish to submit a complaint. You had an adverse incidence at your test. DEAL WITH IT YOURSELVES! 

This incidence should have been submitted the the AKC. The AKC should have followed up with the judges and Club rep.

This situation shouldn't appear on the internet for you to think "maybe something isn't right with group honors" or "maybe we should defend the practice". 

Grow some organizational balls!


----------



## Waterfwlr (Jul 14, 2009)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> I'm with Ken.
> 
> I'm sorry for the judge ... in that he has been ID'ed and is ending his career on a controversial note.
> 
> ...


He doesn't do group honors to eliminate dogs. I don't know where you got that from. He does it to make his test a little different and to have fun. The group honor, the way it's done, is in no way dangerous. There was 5 dogs on the group honor. The dog should honor another dog regardless if it's one or 10 dogs. Sit means sit, if your dog can't do that, they don't deserve to pass.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Just because something is not against the rules doesn't make it appropriate or reasonable


How do you make the judgment call on what's appropriate and reasonable? I have done group honors in training since I started, we used to call it steadiness training. We'd have all the dogs there that day all out together and someone would whoop and holler and eventually throw a bird with multiple shots. The steadiest dog could make the retrieve.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Waterfwlr said:


> He doesn't do group honors to eliminate dogs. I don't know where you got that from. He does it to make his test a little different and to have fun. The group honor, the way it's done, is in no way dangerous. There was 5 dogs on the group honor. *The dog should honor another dog regardless if it's one or 10 dogs.* Sit means sit, if your dog can't do that, they don't deserve to pass.


Should means just that. Just because they SHOULD does not mean they will. SOmeone already said 2 dogs broke and fought over a bird. Those 2 dogs SHOULD have honored, but they didn't. Your right they don;t deserve to pass, but that still does not make it safe.


----------



## Waterfwlr (Jul 14, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> Should means just that. Just because they SHOULD does not mean they will. SOmeone already said 2 dogs broke and fought over a bird. Those 2 dogs SHOULD have honored, but they didn't. Your right they don;t deserve to pass, but that still does not make it safe.


True, but although the there was a very minor scuffle that lasted all of about 1 second, things happen. I don't think he set up a unsafe scenerio. I have seen worse fights happen either single honoring or just walking by each other.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Waterfwlr said:


> True, but although the there was a very minor scuffle that lasted all of about 1 second, things happen. I don't think he set up a unsafe scenerio. I have seen worse fights happen either single honoring or just walking by each other.


 
Dude, what don't you understand about this? There WAS a FIGHT and you even admit it. It does not matter how minor it was, there WAS A FIGHT that was a direct result of a multi dog honor. You can say lots of things about the set up, but it is proven that it is dangerous. Even a minor fight can put an eye out. There is just no need to put dogs in that situation.


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 9, 2009)

Howard N said:


> How do you make the judgment call on what's appropriate and reasonable? I have done group honors in training since I started, we used to call it steadiness training. We'd have all the dogs there that day all out together and someone would whoop and holler and eventually throw a bird with multiple shots. The steadiest dog could make the retrieve.


Howard,
I've been following this thread silently through all 20 pages, and it has been interesting, to say the least. Obviously these dogs can be trained to perform amazing tasks, to amazing levels. I would venture to say that we could train a dog to do almost anything a creative mind could come up with.

Question for you, an accomplished trainer/handler, is at WHAT COST do you train a dog to be super-duper steady, to a level that is most likely not required in hunting situations? I agree with you completely that judges have latitude, and that not every test is a realistic hunting situation, but it seems that training to be super steady can come at a cost, for everything we train into a dog, affects some other aspect of his behavior. Especially at a SH level. 

Am I wrong or naive to think that training young dogs (or dogs in that relatively early stage of training) to such a high level of steadiness may have ill-effects, or inhibit desire when it is needed during more stressful training? I train my dogs to be steady, sure, but very carefully. Being steady while 4 birds are shot/thrown, other dogs retrieving...isn't that enough? Sure we can make more tempting breaks, and sure we can train for them....when does it come at a cost at some point?


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Waterfwlr said:


> True, but although the there was a very minor scuffle that lasted all of about 1 second, things happen. I don't think he set up a unsafe scenerio. I have seen worse fights happen either single honoring or just walking by each other.


Please look again at this scenario and relate it to the class of dog being tested. This is a test for the senior level dog. The senior dog is the intermediate level, just above junior. At the senior level, the dog is just beginning to do multiple marks, as evidenced by the doubles that are required. Note that triples and quads are not seen! The dog is just beginning to handle, hence the requirement that the blinds be outside the area of the marks. AND the dogs are just learning to be steady and honor. So please why then is a judge setting up a walkup honor with multiple dogs and a breaking bird flyer for senior. With the walkup, the dog already has momentum going in the forward direction. The multiple dogs adds a level of excitement and competition, and the breaking bird flyer (live flyer shot at 30 yds in front of the honor line) further amps up the excitement factor. This is NOT a scenario for the senior dog. If you want a group honor, then do it without either the walkup or the breaking bird flyer. At most you should only see one of these features in a senior test, if any. In fact I can't remember ever seeing all of them together in a master test for an honor situation. About the only thing that could be added to make this any tougher would be if the walkup was actually down a moderate steep slope (levee shoulder) with a cut bank in front. While this may be in line with the written requirements of the senior test, it sounds like it is way beyound the standard of the senior hunter. And a pass rate of 3 dogs out of a 14 dog entry would tend to confirm that thought. And losing nearly half of the dogs carried to honor, meaning these dogs sat steady for the 4 marks, is further proof that this may have been out of line. 

Note that it appears that the honor for all dogs was never finished as it sounds like the flyer was a no bird? And as both the working dog and the 2 honor dogs broke. Now did the working dog in breaking draw the honor dogs out? etc., etc. And in any event, the 3 dogs who were steady should have had to go through this all over again, as the working dog by breaking was never sent to retrieve, hence per rule the honor was never completed. It is stuff like this that can really come back and bite you when you try to do something cutesy or "different". There is a reason why most judges don't do these things and this is why. The fact that this judge may have been lucky till now notwithstanding, I sure would hate to be the secretary and committee that also by rule needs to write this up on their AKC event report as a dog fight and try to justify the cause, identify the attacking dog, etc. 

T. Mac


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

dnf777 said:


> Howard,
> I've been following this thread silently through all 20 pages, and it has been interesting, to say the least. Obviously these dogs can be trained to perform amazing tasks, to amazing levels. I would venture to say that we could train a dog to do almost anything a creative mind could come up with.
> 
> Question for you, an accomplished trainer/handler, is at WHAT COST do you train a dog to be super-duper steady, to a level that is most likely not required in hunting situations? I agree with you completely that judges have latitude, and that not every test is a realistic hunting situation, but it seems that training to be super steady can come at a cost, for everything we train into a dog, affects some other aspect of his behavior. Especially at a SH level.
> ...


At some point with some dogs I'd expect you have a point. I train the dogs I have had in steadiness from a young age. 

I've had more trouble with wild out of control dogs than dogs that are to steady. With the dogs I've had, I don't feel being steady took anything out of them. On the contrary, being steady helped them focus on the birds.

If you've got one without lots of go then it could be different.


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

I don't understand why any judge would do this to see if a Senior dog was steady. You can have a control break so what if ever dog broke and most recovered with a no here. That would be a judging nightmare trying to figure out if anyone interfered with the other handlers. Ones arguing that this is ok, can't you see a lot of problems with this setup.


----------



## Waterfwlr (Jul 14, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> Dude, what don't you understand about this? There WAS a FIGHT and you even admit it. It does not matter how minor it was, there WAS A FIGHT that was a direct result of a multi dog honor. You can say lots of things about the set up, but it is proven that it is dangerous. Even a minor fight can put an eye out. There is just no need to put dogs in that situation.


Anybody that thinks that was so dangerous maybe should take up a different sport. Maybe golf, although you could get hit it the head with a golf ball, or struck by lightning.

There are lots of dangers out there when training or running a test. That's just part of the game. So, the dogs fights I've seen on just a regular 1 dog honor, maybe we should stop honoring all together because there is a potential danger there.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Mass honor at senior level -

let's think about this for a minute....

I would guess a majority of people enter their dog in a particular level when they 'think' the dog is ready...That means that you can have from 'beginning' to 'advanced' junior, senior, or master level dogs. A 'beginning' level senior dog may have more steadiness issues than one that is about ready to jump into masters...
I am not saying that judges should dumb down the tests for the 'beginning' level dogs - but the tests should be reasonable for that level (not overly advanced and not a gimme)

Since a controlled break is allowed by the rules, one would have to assume that a majority of senior level dogs are perhaps expected to have more issues with breaking than a master level dog...thus, I think a senior test should be set up not to encourage a 'break' - ie, in your face birds, mass honors, honors where the working and honoring dog are sitting very close to each other....

Now at a master level test...I see no problem with a mass honor...


Juli


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Waterfwlr said:


> Anybody that thinks that was so dangerous maybe should take up a different sport. Maybe golf, although you could get hit it the head with a golf ball, or struck by lightning.
> 
> There are lots of dangers out there when training or running a test. That's just part of the game. So, the dogs fights I've seen on just a regular 1 dog honor, maybe we should stop honoring all together because there is a potential danger there.


can't see the forrest for the trees......... good for you


----------



## Grant Wilson (Feb 27, 2008)

I just love tests that you describe like this........

"The 2 handlers gathered there dogs and failed the test. Neither dog had any puctures or blood."

No this was not against the rules, yes it was stupid.......end of thread.


----------



## kimsmith (Mar 30, 2003)

> Anybody that thinks that was so dangerous maybe should take up a different sport. Maybe golf, although you could get hit it the head with a golf ball, or struck by lightning.
> 
> There are lots of dangers out there when training or running a test. That's just part of the game. So, the dogs fights I've seen on just a regular 1 dog honor, maybe we should stop honoring all together because there is a potential danger there.


I know you have to be kidding. How could you argue that the Mass Honor in any way could be good at a Senior Level test or any other level......


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

kimsmith said:


> I know you have to be kidding. How could you argue that the Mass Honor in any way could be good at a Senior Level test or any other level......


How could you argue that it's not? Are these dogs trained or not? Are they suitable for hunting companions or not?


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

Howard;

Are you really saying that if this was done at a FT you would be OK with this??


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken Newcomb said:


> Howard;
> 
> Are you really saying that if this was done at a FT you would be OK with this??


Oh, MAN, I would love to see this at a FT, if only for the entertainment value.

Lisa


----------



## Grant Wilson (Feb 27, 2008)

Howard N said:


> How could you argue that it's not? Are these dogs trained or not? Are they suitable for hunting companions or not?


That's a very good point....BUT, it's still not smart. I think there are many other thing I would rather have my dog evaluated on at the Senior level than wether or not he can handle a mass honor. If one of these dogs had been hurt or one of them was your dog that had been hurt you would be singing a different song.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Oh, MAN, I would love to see this at a FT, if only for the entertainment value.
> 
> Lisa


 
Can't you just see it in your minds eye? 4th series of the National AM. , Judges line up the contestants in groups of 10 and then shoot a big squawking greenhead 30 yds in front of them. Ah yes, I can smell the tar bucket now!

T. Mac


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Ken Newcomb said:


> Howard;
> 
> Are you really saying that if this was done at a FT you would be OK with this??


Ken, it's legal. Matter of fact, the field trial rules are very specific in saying the judges are the ones who determine how many dogs are on line at one time for the honor. 

I believe my dogs and almost all well trained trial dogs, would have no trouble with it. 

If that weekend's set of judges decide to do it, then I'm going to do it and not bellyache on the internet that the judges wanted to see trained dogs. The mechanics of it could be a little complicated with one handler having multiple dogs.


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

Hey Howard, just out of curiousity, is it legal to have a mass honer in the Derby? Also, have you ever seen a mass honor in a feild trial? If not, why do you think you haven't? Thanks, and congrats on your wins in the great white north.

Wes


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Ok, all this has brought up another question. How do you score this? A fifth series non marking series? Scored for trainability only? As the regs state:Every dog shall honor in at least one hunting situation involving the​retrieve of a marked fall(s) in the Senior ... and as a senior hunting situation for senior is defined as being a double, how does this walkup single honor qualify? Is a bye dog a working dog? Is not the working dog also tested by working with honor dogs? 

T. Mac


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I've never seen an honor in the derby. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything specifically saying you can't. The dogs are supposed to be steady but you can bring them up to the line on lead. By the rules, the derby is more about natural abilities then trained abilities. I know I would hate to drop a derby dog 'cause it wasn't steady on honor.

Nope, I've never seen a mass honor at a field trial. I have at a master hunter. I know I'd not be in favor of a mass honor during a series with a working dog out in the field under judgement when I'm judging. It's hard enough to keep an eye on what the working dog is doing without having to watch a couple of honoring dogs at the same time. It seems to me, you'd be putting more emphasis on line manners than on what they're doing in the field and I'd rather judge them on what they do in the field. 

However, I don't want to tell someone else what they should judge on and what they shouldn't so I'm not in favor of telling them they can't do something if it's legal. It seems to me that the purpose of this thread and the other threads on this subject are all about telling a judge what he can and can't do. If you don't like it, get your club and a couple more to support a rule change. 

Mechanics would be a problem at a big trial with multiple dogs honoring. Rorem, Farmer or Eckett could have 20 dogs each and they have to go to different stakes. I don't think a judge at a big trial could afford to spend the time with this.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I always thought of a honor as something that should be done but it has no way to increase your score only to eliminate. For AA dogs this is not much of a trick. I saw a pro that would drop the dogs off at the truck no stake out and get another. about a dozen dogs laying around watching marks. 

On new Years a friend of ours has a group of folks to party and train. 20-30 dogs out at a time no fights or issues. it only take 2 people to air all the dogs and go on a long walk. The only training tool is a whistle. All ages of dogs from rowdy pups to retired seniors.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Holy Crap Bubba, I heard your last test was a cluster but this is pretty extreme....where did you park?

/Paul


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Last weekend I judged FVRC SH on sunday. A pro/handler came to the line and said "you just don't know what you are bringing to the line with a senior dog, anything can happen.". Very true.... Younger dogs, many times new handlers(we had 8 that day). My humble opinion, not something I would do in a senior level. I have done this in training, never know when you might see it in a master.


----------

