# Are 60 dog Master limits resulting in Substandard Master tests.



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Just wondering what everyone else is seeing. 

My thoughts I have ran 3 tests and worked 5 (60dog). Of those 2 tests were what I would considered moderate master level, 2 good series; 1 hurry up and finish series. 2 tests were 1 good series and 2 substandard series; quick short open triple and a double with a blind; Many times a master series was less than the senior test running the same day. (I ran both so I can speculate; the last few senior I've ran were tough ) Only one test had 3 tough series, and that test went on an extra day. It was a Thur-Fri that ran in to Sat. AM. Pretty much every test ran into the evening-dark, Every test, had 1 series that was a double. This last one we were shooting-running in the dark both days, and doing paperwork by car light. 

I have ran 2 (90) dog tests, flights split at 45 dogs. Both of those tests had 3 what I would consider master level series, both had 3 triples, and we were able to go to the BBQ on Sat. and still get out of there mid-afternoon Sun. 

Is 60 dogs just too many to run and have a true Master-level test?


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

It's a time management issue, IMO. Most time is lost between series and/or lunch breaks. If judges/workers are efficient in the transition and have 'working lunch', you can have 3 master level series. Some time can be lost with having to wait on pros at other stakes, but that's been minimal from what I've seen. Much more time lost in transition between series.

By far, the toughest master test my dog has seen was done by 2:00 on Sunday. I also ran another good master test at the cattle ranch where all but about 5 dogs ran all 3 series on saturday. There was < 30 min from completion of 1 series until the test dog was running next series. Very efficient time management by judges and workers.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I think it is time management and quality of judges. One tough test last year was at Waterloo. Three triples. Last series was a water triple that was tough. Finished about 4 pm on Sunday. 22 of 57 passed.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

While pass rates appear to be an easy way to base test difficulty, they aren’t. Tests with a large number of MH, MNH or pro trained dogs might have a high pass rate. Some time ago someone at AKC said if more than 50% of the dogs pass, the test is too easy. That’s not sound logic. There are so many variables.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Tom is Zackly right! When you know the "pass percentage" you have exactly ONE data point. Yas can extrapolate an infinity number of predictions from that single point- problem is that they are ALL invalid. There are as Tom says- too many variables.

It ain't rocket surgery regards

Bubba


----------



## Arnie (Nov 26, 2012)

A good, experienced marshal can keep a test moving quickly by keeping the holding blinds full, by keeping count of birds at each station and rebirding timely with a known number of birds ready to go. The Master marshal should coordinate with the lower stake marshals to inform the pros ahead of time when they need to get back. 

Think about it. With 60 dogs entered, a 10 minute per dog series would take 10 hours. I've experienced tests where it took as much as 12 minutes per.
Since land series take less time than water, they should be run first when all the dogs are in contention. There will be less in contention after call-backs. Water series do not need 100+ yard swims. We've all seen challenging water tests where factors rather than distance defined the difficulty.

This is just stating the obvious yet we have all experienced tests where common sense is not in play. We've also been to well run tests with 60 entries. It can be done.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I voted "NO" but would have preferred a "Not Necessarily" option. It is time management. I think it starts with a good HT Committee, a willingness to do what is necessary to have adequate help*, training marshals and helpers, setting expectations and holding everyone accountable, having phone numbers passed around so everyone has a contact for if/when problems arise, etc. etc. 

* I'd have to query the OP, 'cause I might be making a wrong assumption. But I wonder if the HT's he observed with hurry up, inferior second/third series were adequately staffed. The demographic reality with a lot of clubs (I suspect) is that they tend to be made up of older folks. And physiologically, old folks might not be as time efficient when it comes to getting heavy stuff loaded and toted and so forth. Without young volunteers clubs might have to pay for some young legs and backs. 

I've been flamed in the past for making similar comments so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

On no, not the old people argument! That is bs.


----------



## Kyle Bertram (Aug 22, 2006)

60 dogs is not too many if:

You have judges that don't mind staying till 5:30 pm Sunday
you have long enough days to run late.

I am of the mindset that we should throw a quality triple in each series .......But I seldom do it because I won't get home until 2 am and I have to work the next day. I usually throw two good quality series and then do one to get it done.

Should we go to 45 dog flights if we insist on 3 series??? I think so.
Should we change to two good, series mandate triples and call it good .....I think so.

I just run it out on paper, three good triple series including 15 mins for lunch each day starting 60 dogs , 50 dogs to the second and 40 dogs to the third is at least 19 1/2 hrs running time.

THERE ISN'T ENOUGH TIME!


----------



## Dazed (Apr 7, 2013)

45 Dog limit, in Masters? Ok, lets do it. Especially when "Pro's" can enter 25 dogs with a single click. 
Add in an entry fee of $100.00 and probably more in 2019, you can effectively weed out the Amateurs who are providing the manpower to facilitate these tests. Sure, clubs are paying for help, but that's not sustainable either. I have yet to see a "Pro", provide any help other than someone to run the dogs back and forth, while they stand there BS'ing. Word on the street is that MN was 85% Pro. I give it a couple more years, and the "Pro's" will be able to play amongst themselves.
Hopefully, MARC can split off somehow, and become more sucessful in the next couple of years.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

When they are bringing back 97% into the second series on most tests, the test to me seem to not be not geared toward maintaining a Master level but rather becoming participation ribbons. Another words....."give the customers what they want and keep them happy!" JMHO the judge shopping that goes on and we all know it goes on, seems more to get the most entries to make money rather then determine Master level dogs. I attended a HT seminar 9 months or so ago, was told far too many dogs brought back when they should of been dropped. That was the AKC reps that I talked to answer. I get HT are NOT a FT but when you bring back darn near 100% into second and third series of course there is no time, then they throw out a BS double to hurry things up. If the tests were Master Level in each and every series, the Judges would have no issue getting some answers early on.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

No. Or, at least, the 60 dog limit is no good reason to put up a weak test. Good planning, strong club support and rigorous time management are your friends. I've seen a 90 dog flight, with 3 good triples, finish easily in two days, and I've seen a 60 dog flight, with 3 "cupcake" series, stretch into Monday. But if a club thinks they can't put up a good 3 series with 60 dogs nothing says they can't cut the limit to whatever they're comfortable with.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

dazed, Here in Texas and OK, pros provide plenty of help. Best Retrievers often brings his bird boys to throw and shoot for his flight. Cripple Creek Retrievers owner JC Strange and one of his assistant trainers often throw birds when the club is shorthanded. There are other examples but this two immediately come to mind.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> When they are bringing back 97% into the second series on most tests, the test to me seem to not be not geared toward maintaining a Master level but rather becoming participation ribbons. Another words....."give the customers what they want and keep them happy!" JMHO the judge shopping that goes on and we all know it goes on, seems more to get the most entries to make money rather then determine Master level dogs. I attended a HT seminar 9 months or so ago, was told far too many dogs brought back when they should of been dropped. That was the AKC reps that I talked to answer. I get HT are NOT a FT but when you bring back darn near 100% into second and third series of course there is no time, then they throw out a BS double to hurry things up. If the tests were Master Level in each and every series, the Judges would have no issue getting some answers early on.


If that's your experience, you're running in the wrong part of the country. I run tests in TN, AL, GA, KY, MS and have never seen anywhere near those numbers called back. It's normally 20-30% drop after the 1st(have seen it as high as 50%). In a 60 dog flight, avg # of passes is usually in the low 20s. Sometimes a little higher, and sometimes lower. Ran one in Middle TN this June that 16/60 passed. Very difficult master test.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

In this years Tulsa RC ht the percentage of passing was very high. Couple of reasons but I think the main one was the quality of dogs. It was mainly pros and ams who were going to the National. We were there for a tuneup immediately prior to the National.


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

Wayne Nutt said:


> In this years Tulsa RC ht the percentage of passing was very high. Couple of reasons but I think the main one was the quality of dogs. It was mainly pros and ams who were going to the National. We were there for a tuneup immediately prior to the National.


 This does tend to happen. I marshaled, ran test dog, and shot flyers at this test. One flight was 32/56 and the other 42/57. When you have pros like Clark Kennington, Derek Randle, Jeff Chestnut, Rody Best, Luke Cour, and others pass rates are generally high. In this rare occasion too you had some dogs doing acceptable work that were "picked up" by the handler to make a point. Leading into National it was not the time to become loose. 

Also Rody brought some help for our test and he shot flyers. Was exceptional help, one shot dead kills 0 no birds in that flight. That helps with time management too.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

The tests are fine. Just ran a Master with 3 solid triples, 3 solid blinds and we finished before 3:00 on Sunday. Pros marshaled flights and pitched in where needed. The angst is not warranted.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Wayne Nutt said:


> dazed, Here in Texas and OK, pros provide plenty of help. Best Retrievers often brings his bird boys to throw and shoot for his flight. Cripple Creek Retrievers owner JC Strange and one of his assistant trainers often throw birds when the club is shorthanded. There are other examples but this two immediately come to mind.


Hey Wayne...

Are these bird boys the pros provide old enough for Medicare? No? Bet it helps to have some youthful hustle around.

Youth isn't the only thing needed. They have to know something about what's going on. And they need leadership from HT Committee and all the way down the chain of command. I mean having a bunch of young guys to help is just a small part of a successful formula. But it isn't nothing.

Demographics and physiology can suck. But it is what it is.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Why are pass rates even being discussed in a test to the standard which is not a competition? There are more pro handled dogs, and looking at the pass rate will just push the entry to more pros. Why not look at the quality of the testing and judges' knowledge of bird placement? More judges, and better judges, would be available if they didn't have to spend so much time and expense becoming qualified to judge by being expected to apprentice at all three levels, and attend multiple seminars with so few given, especially if they have judged field trials. There should be a possibility to be grandfathered in if you have been running dogs for 25-30 years or more. You have lost many good judges because of those ridiculous rules. It went from no tests, seminars, and apprenticing to over-kill. Also, many that are commenting probably have been running in a single small region only and it is not universally true in other areas.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

fishduck said:


> The tests are fine. Just ran a Master with 3 solid triples, 3 solid blinds and we finished before 3:00 on Sunday. Pros marshaled flights and pitched in where needed. The angst is not warranted.


Agree. All this fault-finding and angst is getting a bit much, not to mention insulting to the judges & clubs & the rest of the volunteers, who aren't exactly getting paid for the privilege of being abused by keyboard experts. Be thankful that anyone volunteers to run a club, organize a test, judge, set up, clean up, marshal, shoot birds, dry birds, so you can run your dogs. Enjoy the sport, give back however you can, and try making HT seem like FUN, might help to draw more in than this constant complaining.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

fishduck said:


> The tests are fine. Just ran a Master with 3 solid triples, 3 solid blinds and we finished before 3:00 on Sunday. Pros marshaled flights and pitched in where needed. The angst is not warranted.


I'm glad you saw a quality test, the last 2 I've been to 2nd and 3rd series have been a joke. No blame game here just the series weren't to master level and we are testing Master dogs. My theory is that judges have to put on junk to manage time. Most likely because in one scenario the first series wasn't done the first day. The other the judges brought back 50 out of 55 dogs to the second, then brought back 40 for the last series. The last series started at 12:30 on Sun. it gets dark ~4-4:30pm right now. Now were all these dogs worthy of being brought back? perhaps; I didn't judge it; but when two of your 3 series are all about finishing on time and not testing dogs; your not testing master hunters. Might as well just be passing out ribbons; but perhaps that's become the new goal for the AKC hunt test program.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I'm glad you saw a quality test, the last 2 I've been to 2nd and 3rd series have been a joke. No blame game here just the series weren't to master level and we are testing Master dogs. My theory is that judges have to put on junk to manage time. Most likely because in one scenario the first series wasn't done the first day. The other the judges brought back 50 out of 55 dogs to the second, then brought back 40ish for the last series. The last series started at 12:30 on Sun. it gets dark ~4-4:30pm right now. Now were all these dogs worthy of being brought back? perhaps; I didn't judge it; but when two of your 3 series are all about finishing on time and not testing dogs; your not testing master hunters. Might as well just be passing out ribbons.


So what do you want, what is your solution and reason for this thread? More rules/rule changes so tests are up to your standards? Smaller limits? Mandated 3 day MH tests for 60 dog Limits? The rules were changed to offer clubs the option to hold limited MH because they didn't have the grounds or workers or judges to support larger entries. It gave clubs flexibility, it isn't a mandate that all clubs hold Limited tests, it isn't a mandate that 60 dog Limited MH have to finish in 2 days, that's the minimum time allowed. Nothing in the rules now against a club splitting a 60 dog Limited Entry into 2 flights of 30 dogs each if they want to finish quicker, or starting the MH on Friday and finishing Sunday. It is up to the club, how they handle it, their grounds, their resources for judges and workers. I don't agree with continuing to make more and more and more rules that take away individual club's decision-making in that regard. When it is a matter of common sense time management for the most part, whether on the part of the judges or committee or both.


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

There is far more to setting an enjoyable, challenging test that truly measures the training level of a dog than having good marks. It is an art form learned after much trial and error. There are those who have run many, many tests who would still make a dog's breakfast out of judging. 

You might set a wonderful test with horrible mechanics, or vice versa. It is often the unforeseen issues that cause the biggest time wasting. Good help is important - managing good help is even more important. Keeping the particiapants engaged in your test leads to less (or no) b!tching when ribbons are handed out. Setting tests where the dogs take themselves out without making the tests too hard or worse, tricky, requires well thought out bird placement. Learning not to require a bird to fall within ten foot circle to make the mark may also require several shots upside the head.

Good judges know how to manage all aspects of the test. They will usually get done on time, deliver a fair test and pass those dogs who truly did the work. Judges are also human, and evern good judges will make mistakes. Also it occurs to me, that thoughtful judge pairing also helps. Pairing two judges who like and respect one another is far more likely to lead to a successsful test than not. I would wager that 90% of 60 dog tests are done sometime mid Sunday afternoon or sooner. If you have a problem, I suggest learning to judge and jumping through the hoops. No it isn't easy, it's not meant to be. And just because you have judged twenty opens doesn't necessarily make you a good JH judge with its different dogs, challenges and standards. As an upper level (expereienced)judge, you owe it to the sport to judge JH and SH on a more frequent basis if nothing else to help the new people.

Quit whinging and get qualified to judge.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I'm glad you saw a quality test, the last 2 I've been to 2nd and 3rd series have been a joke. No blame game here just the series weren't to master level and we are testing Master dogs. My theory is that judges have to put on junk to manage time. Most likely because in one scenario the first series wasn't done the first day. The other the judges brought back 50 out of 55 dogs to the second, then brought back 40 for the last series. The last series started at 12:30 on Sun. it gets dark ~4-4:30pm right now. Now were all these dogs worthy of being brought back? perhaps; I didn't judge it; but when two of your 3 series are all about finishing on time and not testing dogs; your not testing master hunters. Might as well just be passing out ribbons; but perhaps that's become the new goal for the AKC hunt test program.


The editing by you to add your last sentence is exactly what is wrong, with people like you making a mockery of AKC HT. Not cool, not to the participants, not to the volunteers busting their butts. You want better judging, then best get your attitude right to encourage people to join in the sport, get involved in training, joining clubs, working tests, then eventually judging. If you can't offer anything constructive vs demeaning, then how about sitting it out.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

If the judging in HT is too easy for you, then move up to field trials, which finish amateurs in 2 days with longer marks and swims. Usually the gripe is based on the fact that certain HT participants want to show that they are better than others. Thats what competitive field trials are for. Ht were not started to be competitive.


----------



## SaPaHa (Dec 8, 2012)

Dazed said:


> 45 Dog limit, in Masters? Ok, lets do it. Especially when "Pro's" can enter 25 dogs with a single click.
> Add in an entry fee of $100.00 and probably more in 2019, you can effectively weed out the Amateurs who are providing the manpower to facilitate these tests. Sure, clubs are paying for help, but that's not sustainable either. I have yet to see a "Pro", provide any help other than someone to run the dogs back and forth, while they stand there BS'ing. Word on the street is that MN was 85% Pro. I give it a couple more years, and the "Pro's" will be able to play amongst themselves.
> Hopefully, MARC can split off somehow, and become more sucessful in the next couple of years.



I have been at many Master tests where the Pros have provided ATVs and gunners!! Pros do help a lot; maybe it is just not noticed. I don't think they go around telling everyone how much they have helped out. Most Pros are very professional and don't need all kinds of recognition. They are there to do a job and they do it and they provide help when needed.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

SaPaHa said:


> I have been at many Master tests where the Pros have provided ATVs and gunners!! Pros do help a lot; maybe it is just not noticed. I don't think they go around telling everyone how much they have helped out. Most Pros are very professional and don't need all kinds of recognition. They are there to do a job and they do it and they provide help when needed.


Agree, we have lots of great pros who not only help, but put on tests and judge as well.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Dazed, So what if the National was 80% pro. I am an amateur and don’t have a problem with this as I am competing against a standard not them. As previously stated I saw pros helping. I helped by marshaling for about three days. 
As a side not I have always got into every test that I have tried to enter. 
I can’t tell if you have entered and passed a master test. 
Care to share?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Rainmaker said:


> So what do you want, what is your solution and reason for this thread?


Why does there need to be a reason for a thread? Isn't the purpose of a forum is to discuss items, get various view points, digest; not to sway others opinions not to solve the worlds problems. Actually I'm glad I started this thread, it has added more life to this forum than it has seen in months. Brought out a bit of fire from an area that has been devoid of life. Yes I might've edit the last line, about the AKC goal just to stir a bit . Do not take any of this too seriously it's only a discussion on an internet forum. There is always the possibility that I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time (poll seems to be favoring that).

Possible solutions,

1) limit the # of dogs-entry's a single handler can have in a test. 4 per stake, 12 per entire test. Makes more people be involved in the running of their own dog, more people to help, more handlers to keep dogs moving btw holding blinds. Only having the possibility of 4 dogs to juggle in one stake, and the other stakes are only waiting on at most 8 dogs from both other stakes. 

2) Better instruction in setting and scoring of tests; better instruction on time management. I will agree there are a lot of hoops to go through to judge. I have been through them. Still with all theses hoops; There is not much instruction on how to actually setup, judge or score. So just require a person to have *ran and titled* a dog in the stake they are to judge. Get rid of the apprenticeship (waste of time) instead, require a new judges be paired up with an (Apprentice Approved judge) x2 times, before they are let loose to judge within the current judging pool. (Apprentice Approved judge, a judge that has been approved by the AKC reps. to teach-instruct others). (Get all the judges on the same page to what is standard, what is standard scoring, and how to best move dogs through).


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I don’t support a limit of 4, maybe 10 dogs per event.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Why does there need to be a reason for a thread? Isn't the purpose of a forum is to discuss items, get various view points, digest; not to sway others opinions not to solve the worlds problems. Actually I'm glad I started this thread, it has added more life to this forum than it has seen in months. Brought out a bit of fire from an area that has been devoid of life. Yes I might've edit the last line, about the AKC goal just to stir a bit . Do not take any of this too seriously it's only a discussion on an internet forum. There is always the possibility that I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time (poll seems to be favoring that).
> 
> Possible solutions,
> 
> ...


Limited entries per handler, been discussed repeatedly, hurts more than it helps. It removes pro trucks, for the most part. Which is not a good idea, not in these parts anyway, maybe out where you are. It won't force people to run their own dogs or to help more, it will just reduce entries. Period. Clubs in this area who have chosen to not be part of the MN, for example, see a big reduction in pro trucks and therefore, big reduction in entries. Maybe that's what you want, small entries, so the judges/clubs can cater to a small group of amateurs? Good luck to clubs sustaining themselves without big entries, some can, some can't. Like it or not, this is a joint sport, pro and am. Work together or both sides lose. Good marshals should be used and educated to keep things running with better communication between stakes, as well as time management by judges. Who is in charge of training these marshals, for example? The club/HT committee that got them to volunteer. It's all volunteer, and trying to wear multiple hats, and do the work of 5 people because there are not enough volunteers in the first place. "They" who need to fix things? It ain't AKC. It is clubs (volunteers) who have to host seminars, it is volunteer judges trying to train other volunteer judges, etc etc etc. All so a group of people can run their dogs and get ribbons on a weekend, or fail trying, and hopefully other groups of volunteers will do the same back for them on another weekend. That's why and how tests get put on, not some magic wand waved by AKC. "They" who should be doing things better? It's US. All on us. 

Trying to make all judges judge the same, set up similar "tough" tests, while also making things run quickly every test every weekend? Great idea in theory, but in practicality, not so much. HT have a fairly detailed set of regulations but you also have to leave SOME ability to independently judge. You can't have rules so strict that every test setup is the same, takes the same amount of time. A set of standards, yes, that's what we are testing to, within a written guideline of requirements. It isn't logical or feasible to demand all humans across the country judge the same, it's part of what makes it fun and a challenge to train, you never know what you're going to see at the weekend! And you cannot, simply cannot, force common sense time management on people, they either learn it, have it or they don't. I don't know how to "legislate" time management into the rules, that doesn't open up a whole can of worms.

If pass rates seem too high, well, if the dogs are doing the work, guess they are just that well-trained, it is a test to a standard, not a field trial. Or the judges were too easy, set ups too simple. No way of knowing unless you are there at the line for every test, so, can't really go by pass rates to determine if judges were "too easy", there are too many factors. I have thick enough skin to not give a rat's butt what someone thinks of my dogs, they please me, and I've learned, anyone who cuts down my dogs isn't worth my spit. I do care about the general perception of HT though and people inferring the titles are crap, not earned, whatever, when it shouldn't be that way. Anyone out working with their dog is a good thing, it is what we should be encouraging, get to the line that first time, get that rush for that first JH ribbon, get hooked! That's what brings people to work HT. Trying to make things better, run smoother, through education of other volunteer workers and judges, is a good thing. Denigrating someone's accomplishments with their dogs, not so much.

Poor quality tests such a big issue in your area? Then round up the clubs you feel have an issue, let them know what you think of their tests, their selection of judges/test setups, their poor time management, suggest they either not do a 60 dog limit, or they break up into smaller flights that can test to your standards in two days (more judges required of course), or they schedule the 60 dog MH to run across three days (more worker spots need filling then). THOSE are more logical suggestions to your problem than wanting more rule changes to affect everyone, whether they have YOUR problem or not. And apparently the big majority do not agree with your problem, going by the poll results.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Well said!


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Well said Kim!


----------



## championretrievers (Feb 7, 2008)

What she said, lol


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

I entered one 90 dog Master last summer. There was only one or two scratches and they were not split into two groups. The judges did a very good job setting up tests in my opinion and the more experienced participants seemed to agree. I was throwing birds when not running so I saw nearly every dog in every series. The issue I had was dogs being called back after multiple handles on marks, cast refusals on blinds and water cheating to the extent of running completely around a pond to the mark. I think over 60 passed and from what I saw maybe 2 dozen met the standard. My dog passed with no handles on marks and no cast refusals and he was under 20 months old at the time. Seeing how many dogs got passes with multiple faults really diminished my view of a master title. 
I ran my dog in two derby's got a JAM in each and placed 3rd in a Qaul, all of which were far more rewarding than a master pass. 
I'll enter more masters next year but my first experience was disappointing.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

1tulip said:


> Hey Wayne...
> 
> Are these bird boys the pros provide old enough for Medicare? No? Bet it helps to have some youthful hustle around.
> 
> ...


What's your hangup with age? Damned whippersnapper...


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I entered one 90 dog Master last summer. There was only one or two scratches and they were not split into two groups. The judges did a very good job setting up tests in my opinion and the more experienced participants seemed to agree. I was throwing birds when not running so I saw nearly every dog in every series. The issue I had was dogs being called back after multiple handles on marks, cast refusals on blinds and water cheating to the extent of running completely around a pond to the mark. I think over 60 passed and from what I saw maybe 2 dozen met the standard. My dog passed with no handles on marks and no cast refusals and he was under 20 months old at the time. Seeing how many dogs got passes with multiple faults really diminished my view of a master title.
> I ran my dog in two derby's got a JAM in each and placed 3rd in a Qaul, all of which were far more rewarding than a master pass.
> I'll enter more masters next year but my first experience was disappointing.


That's too bad, but, it happens, and sometimes, you'll wonder why you train your dog to such high standards, but then, you can go run FT and see how that goes too, see if it's a better fit for you. Run HT for 20 years and you'll find that sometimes you pass when you shouldn't, sometimes you fail when you shouldn't, sometimes a very small percentage will pass a MH, sometimes a very large percentage. If it bothers you, the best you can do is help, by getting qualified to judge then doing the best you can to judge well and fairly, set an example. Kudos to you for working the test by throwing, btw.

I can tell you, the judging in HT and FT is never perfect, never satisfactory to everyone. After my last judging assignment, I actually got a call at home from a disgruntled handler. You think people line up to volunteer a weekend and then get bashed, privately and on social media? We need judges in both venues, and trained, knowledgeable ones, not just seat warmers, how to get them and keep them coming into the games, is the task. I do enjoy threads that discuss particular scenarios and debates how people would judge that "hypothetical", how they interpret the rules, or, how they would set up marks based on a particular photo, etc. As long as it doesn't descend into too much mud slinging and side tracking, people can learn from discussions like that, as well as going to judging seminars. But of course, some can't contain their egos or nastiness and ruin it for others, and same happens in real life. Lots of egos and personalities involved, from top to bottom, makes improving and learning quite a challenge sometimes, and many of us just go private, have our own groups we can bounce stuff off of, etc, you can only take so much, social media being both a blessing and a curse. 

Constructive criticism with possible solutions to the perceived issues is generally of more benefit long term. How do we get and train judges, how do people learn how to set up marks and blinds and judge the work within the framework of the rules? What are some good ways to manage time? Example, most run land first as it generally goes fastest, save water for when there are the fewest dogs left. Seems pretty basic. Except, I've seen it done otherwise, and wonder, WTH were they thinking and why. Some clubs are very organized, they post where handlers should be first thing in the morning, and have the marshals in communication to move people where they need to be to keep things running as much as possible, with as few delays waiting on handlers from other stakes. First time I marshaled an Open, I was petrified, who am I to tell these muckety mucks where to go and when. Running under poor/untrained marshals, very frustrating. Test dog? What test dog? Radios? Huh? Some of the stakes that need it most, need direction, like a JH for example, get someone who's handed a clipboard and no knowledge. You'd think so what, no big deal. Except when the marshal hasn't been educated, refuses to move dogs out of order so handlers can get to other stakes, and then they are holding up the SH and MH. The marshal that doesn't keep dogs lined up, doesn't pay attention, is afraid to say or do anything or simply doesn't have a clue. Or the marshal makes up their own numbers for the running order and NOBODY knew what was going on. That was fun. Lots of moving pieces to put on a test or trial, lots of behind the scenes stuff that many don't realize. There is simply a ton of work, by volunteers, before the first dog ever gets to the line, lots of things that can only be learned by experience, sometimes that experience is good and the person has a good time and comes back for more. Sometimes, that volunteer gets thrown in the deep end and doesn't come back. Education. Training. Experience. Good treatment. Feed and water them. Relieve them. We do it for the dogs. How do we do it for the volunteers?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I entered one 90 dog Master last summer. There was only one or two scratches and they were not split into two groups. The judges did a very good job setting up tests in my opinion and the more experienced participants seemed to agree. I was throwing birds when not running so I saw nearly every dog in every series. The issue I had was dogs being called back after multiple handles on marks, cast refusals on blinds and water cheating to the extent of running completely around a pond to the mark. I think over 60 passed and from what I saw maybe 2 dozen met the standard. My dog passed with no handles on marks and no cast refusals and he was under 20 months old at the time. Seeing how many dogs got passes with multiple faults really diminished my view of a master title.
> I ran my dog in two derby's got a JAM in each and placed 3rd in a Qaul, all of which were far more rewarding than a master pass.
> I'll enter more masters next year but my first experience was disappointing.


2 dozen or so met the standard in YOUR opinion.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

If you can run a 4 series amateur FT in 2 days there's no reason you can't run a 3 series MH in the same time frame. 

Not sure most HT folks would like the callbacks/pass rates though.


----------



## Vol89 (Jul 10, 2015)

I have to agree on the multiple handles issue. I ran a master test a few weeks ago and picked my dog up on the last bird of the 3rd series. I had already handled him in the 2nd series so I figured there is no way he could or should pass. The senior judge chastised me for not handling him. I have been away from the game for a number of years and it's obvious that some things have changed. However, it used to be the norm that if you handled on more than one mark there was no way you would pass. When did it become acceptable?


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

Vol89 said:


> I have to agree on the multiple handles issue. I ran a master test a few weeks ago and picked my dog up on the last bird of the 3rd series. I had already handled him in the 2nd series so I figured there is no way he could or should pass. The senior judge chastised me for not handling him. I have been away from the game for a number of years and it's obvious that some things have changed. However, it used to be the norm that if you handled on more than one mark there was no way you would pass. When did it become acceptable?


It's a business my friend. Pass rates equals more entries, liberal judges get more gigs because their pass rates please the customers. Not that hard to figure out. So train to your standards and keep your standards. There are MH out here very good dogs and there are now dogs with MH titles not worth the food in their dish. Enjoy the journey and hunt that dog!


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I have rarely talked to a handler that failed that thought the test was too easy. The complaining from the gallery is proportional to the difficulty of the test.

If you don't like the current state of affairs then judge and judge often.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

For the ones saying you should not pass if you handle on more than one mark, It all depends on why the handle. Read the rule book. If you handle to the area of the fall, you are showing the judge that the dog did not mark the birds and if handled to the areas on more than one series, you are telling the judges your dog cannot mark multiple birds. Now if your dog goes directly to the fall area, established a hunt, than started to widen their hunt, then you have told the judges your dog can mark, but just can't find it. Now the dog has passed marking and it becomes just trainability. If dogs handles find, you are good. I am not saying you can do this on all birds but this is why you can pass with more than one handle. Until you sit in that chair and give up your weekend so others can run, don't complain. All judges are not created equal.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> 2 dozen or so met the standard in YOUR opinion.


Yep just my opinion, based on the rules;

"Master Hunting dogs that require excessive handling on marks and blinds, that refuse voice or whistle commands, or appear unwilling to perform their work must be viewed in a different light than Senior Hunting dogs where a degree of tolerance is necessary for those not-so-seasoned Senior dogs. Master Hunting dogs must exhibit those qualities expected in a truly finished and experienced hunting companion."


If my dog had refused casts on blinds and needed multiple handles on marks he would not have earned a master pass and I would not have accepted a ribbon. 
Why have junior and senior if the master test is lowered to the same standard? How many handles on marks or cast refusals on blinds is too many?
There are supposed to be factors for the dog to deal with in a good test. If the dogs can cheat the factors and still get a pass what is the point?
A year ago I was looking forward to the challenge of getting a MH title. Now I question weather it's worth five more weekends to get a title that doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, IMO of course.
Cutting dogs that fail test would speed things up, encourage better training and probably increase entries in the Senior level tests.

As I said before, I'll give it a chance again next year but if I see the same low standards I'll be done with HT's.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Why have junior and senior if the master test is lowered to the same standard? How many handles on marks or cast refusals on blinds is too many?
> There are supposed to be factors for the dog to deal with in a good test. If the dogs can cheat the factors and still get a pass what is the point?
> A year ago I was looking forward to the challenge of getting a MH title. Now I question weather it's worth five more weekends to get a title that doesn't necessarily mean anything at all, IMO of course.
> Cutting dogs that fail test would speed things up, encourage better training and probably increase entries in the Senior level tests..


I concur with your assessment, of the current state of Master hunt tests. I started this thread thinking that perhaps it was time constraint and running too many dogs in a flight; was what was causing it. Seemed a good bet that finishing so many dogs in a certain time period you might have expedite the setups; making them less. You bring up other items that could be more impactful. Perhaps various interpretation of the Standard are more at issue. Standard should be the same anywhere, any test. Perhaps this is what is lacking

How many cast refusals-whistles in MH?; Grey area as it depends but 2-3 consecutive, has me writing significant notes; 4ish and I start contemplation of page folding. I know I'm a hard-A$$ , and have seen many dogs brought back where I would have them out. I'd recommend anyone who has campaigned and titled their own dog to start playing around with the idea of judging, but if you have a tough idea of what is standard you might not be invited to many parties.


----------



## Cooper (Jul 9, 2012)

They need to limit the entries and quit giving the ribbons away just because the dogs bring in all of the birds.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I concur with your assessment, of the current state of Master hunt tests. I started this thread thinking that perhaps it was time constraint and running too many dogs in a flight; was what was causing it. Seemed a good bet that finishing so many dogs in a certain time period you might have expedite the setups; making them less. You bring up other items that could be more impactful. Perhaps various interpretation of the Standard are more at issue. Standard should be the same anywhere, any test. Perhaps this is what is lacking
> 
> How many cast refusals-whistles in MH?; Grey area as it depends but 2-3 consecutive, has me writing significant notes; 4ish and I start contemplation of page folding. I know I'm a hard-A$$ , and have seen many dogs brought back where I would have them out. I'd recommend anyone who has campaigned and titled their own dog to start playing around with the idea of judging, but if you have a tough idea of what is standard you might not be invited to many parties.


 It isn't necessarily limited to HT. I have seen Field Trials where the dog clearly failed the blind but is called back because it had good marks.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Tom Lehr said:


> It isn't necessarily limited to HT. I have seen Field Trials where the dog clearly failed the blind but is called back because it had good marks.


FT’s are judged relative to the rest of the field and the faults become cumulative as the trial continues. If the majority of the dogs had poor blinds, then poor blinds will be called back. If your marks were exceptional but blind was subpar, then you are still in the game as long as you didn’t commit any eliminating faults. 

As far as HT judging, I’ve said it many times and will say it again; the HT game is not doing itself any favors with all the hoops you have to jump through to become a judge. I am married with a full-time+ job and 2 very small kids. I took the time to train my own dog to a MH (mostly before kids), but now I simply do not have time to go to multiple seminars and apprentice several times, etc etc. I only have so many free weekends. 

Reform is in need.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

It's always the people who don't judge whining the loudest about poor judging or the standard of performance in Hunt Tests. ALWAYS.

And the least experienced participants always know just how to 'fix' them. ALWAYS.

Now, just why is that?  -Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Because those who have been there longest tend to listen the least.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Anybody wants to PM me needing to find a challenging test, I can give you a list of a handful of judges that will oblige


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

DarrinGreene said:


> Because those who have been there longest tend to listen the least.


This site needs a "like" button. Agree Darrin with you. My running in master Tests, when the handle is used, sure seems like the test turns into a "pheasant" hunt then. Dogs cast to the area of the fall then pheasant hunt after that, they get the bird the judges pass them. Seems the rules of once the whistle is blown on a mark it is "suppose" to then be run as a blind it is no longer a mark, that means cast refusals should be scored way down and if the dog pheasant hunts to bird should be dropped but never are. Again always back to the money, judge to a Master Standard, you will not have many tests to judge and your career as a judge will be short one. You will be tagged as a "damn field trial judge" in a hurry.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Because those who have been there longest tend to listen the least.


As you know, particularly on this subject, everything looks easy if you've never done it. -Paul


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Tom Lehr said:


> It isn't necessarily limited to HT. I have seen Field Trials where the dog clearly failed the blind but is called back because it had good marks.


Are you saying a dog committed an eliminating fault and got called back or just a very poor blind?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

paul young said:


> As you know, particularly on this subject, everything looks easy if you've never done it. -Paul


Love ya Paul. Usually right on the money.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> Because those who have been there longest tend to listen the least.


Or they are freaking tired of doing the work while some of the new ones who whine and complain and tell them how it should all be done, from the comfort of their keyboards, don't seem able to offer viable solutions or aren't willing to sit in the seat and try to improve on the problems they are complaining about. THAT is the reality. I don't blame anyone for not going through the current hoops to get qualified to judge at the MH level. I think that particular rule change may have been well-intended but fell far short of the goals. NOW, make suggestions on how to fix it, and either pick up the pencil and judge, or shut up about it.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

For those of you that think HT are too easy, load up and come and run the ones in Minnesota where often single digits pass.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> Or they are freaking tired of doing the work while some of the new ones who whine and complain and tell them how it should all be done, from the comfort of their keyboards, don't seem able to offer viable solutions or aren't willing to sit in the seat and try to improve on the problems they are complaining about. THAT is the reality. I don't blame anyone for not going through the current hoops to get qualified to judge at the MH level. I think that particular rule change may have been well-intended but fell far short of the goals. NOW, make suggestions on how to fix it, and either pick up the pencil and judge, or *shut up about it*.


Geez Kim, bad hair day .

I do not agree that the 60 dog Master cannot fairly test dogs. In 18 years of working tests *most* of the judging panels we have used, have, along with the workers, done there very best to set up 3 solid series to test the dogs. Have we batted 100% ? No, but we have tried to learn who not to ask back and who not to pair together and always strive to set challenging tests that we as a club can be proud of. 

We held the first AKC Advanced Judges seminar in the country in 2009 with the hope that more consistent judging would result. That summer, and for several after, it did, for the most part. It was a step in the right direction but needs to be supported by the hosting clubs and that reflects in the judge choice. 

What seems to be the big problem are judges who do not know what a standard is or how to set up a test and the clubs who ask them to judge because they will pass 53 of 50 dogs.

You want to run a fair test that is a worthy Master test , not a show up and get a ribbon test. That just cheapens all of the hard work put in to training to a Master level.

JMHO


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Most fields in recent Master hunt tests have upwards of 50% Master Hunters and/or QAA dogs entered. I would expect most of these dogs to be able to average 7.0 or higher on just about anything set up within the regulations. When you see a lot of qualifiers in the test results, take a look at what the field was composed of that weekend. Chances are good that a lot of those dogs have 'been there and done that'.

Judges should not be setting up tests just to challenge those dogs that have already passed the standard a minimum of 6 times. That's not what Hunt Tests are about, that would be more like what Field Trials are about. -Paul


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Paul, that makes too much sense. How can I win the hunt test if it’s judged like that?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Are you guys saying it is possible that a pair of master judges (who mostly train and run fts) might set up or judge differently if they know other field trialers are also running their field trial dogs?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Tobias said:


> Are you guys saying it is possible that a pair of master judges (who mostly train and run fts) might set up or judge differently if they know other field trialers are also running their field trial dogs?


That is your take away? Another one who doesn't run AKC Master or FT. I have run under many judges that run both FT and HT and IMHO they are very knowlegible, they put on excellent tests, and they know the rules of both venues and follow them


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

ErinsEdge said:


> For those of you that think HT are too easy, load up and come and run the ones in Minnesota where often single digits pass.


Where were they and who were the judges?


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

Pretty new to this,could it be dogs are better and most judges are just fair.And don’t have agendas just trying to be fair
to all involved


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

paul young said:


> As you know, particularly on this subject, everything looks easy if you've never done it. -Paul


You act like good logistics and the ability to count is some sort of voodoo rocket science.

Just proves my point.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Or they are freaking tired of doing the work while some of the new ones who whine and complain and tell them how it should all be done, from the comfort of their keyboards, don't seem able to offer viable solutions or aren't willing to sit in the seat and try to improve on the problems they are complaining about. THAT is the reality. I don't blame anyone for not going through the current hoops to get qualified to judge at the MH level. I think that particular rule change may have been well-intended but fell far short of the goals. NOW, make suggestions on how to fix it, and either pick up the pencil and judge, or shut up about it.


Suggestion(s) - paid judges certified by an AKC field rep and assigned by AKC. No more clubs selecting judges. Judges names to be withheld until start of the test. Put an end to judge shopping and eliminate the current popularity contest. Higher entry fees to support better judging will have the natural effect of reducing demand somewhat but will increase the intrinsic value of the title.

Create a standard order in which the various challenges will be presented. May need some flexibility here but the idea being to make the first and second series run efficiently and save the more time consuming tasks for last series and therefore the least dogs. AKC to perform a time study to determine how to order tasks. 

AKC to approve grounds and eliminate tests that struggle to challenge dogs due to lack of terrain.

Reduce the number of elements being tested to focus on the most critical aspects of the retriever's performance. Example - if a dog handles well on land and in water does it not make sense that he/she would handle well on a combination of the two? Do we need a third blind? Hopefully we're also gong to see the transitions in some marks so - do we know enough about that aspect to eliminate that element (the blind)?

You could even start keeping records of where dog's typically fail at a given level and reduce/eliminate testing those items. Maybe spec 1-2 marks at close range. If a dog can sit through that, what's the likelihood they fail the honor? How many dogs fail the honor as it stands? How many hunters really care about it in the first place (survey?)? I've never been on a hunt where 9-9 birds fell 50+ yards from the guns so - that would only make matters a bit more realistic (another common complaint). 

The purpose of the AKC is to preserve the traits of the various breeds. Do we really need all the elements we currently test to determine the 4 key scores? What does a diversion bird really tell us and is there either an existing element that tells us the same thing or gives a very close indication of that skill? 

Summary - like everything else that morphs over time, changes tend to occur incrementally and sometimes things become unwieldy or inefficient. Maybe it's time to tear the whole system apart and decide if it's really running optimally.

MH puppies would be more valuable if there were less of them available. That's simple economics. 

I've never been a big advocate for reducing participation and I voted no in the poll based on my experience running and working 2-4 tests a year for about a decade, but maybe it's time to think more like a business and place a higher value on the product.

These are all examples designed to help people think. I don't know if any of them would work but then, Einstein once had a hunch, got his butt kicked by the establishment for decades and in the end... we all know the outcome.

If you ignore every person who doesn't judge you could potentially miss things that might be helpful. From the mouths of babes.

BTW no feedback required on these. Just laying them out there. No need to try and discredit me personally by tearing them apart. I don't care what anyone who would make that effort thinks.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

djansma said:


> Pretty new to this,could it be dogs are better and most judges are just fair.And don’t have agendas just trying to be fair
> to all involved


Yes. Valid point. Training is better, owners put in more time and learn better from all of the available resources these days, and I'd expect most pro-handled dogs to pass, so if big pro entries, then bigger pass rate is more likely. HT are to a standard, there is only so much you can do with marks with distance limits, etc, before the pass rates become higher with better trained dogs, or judges resort to really goofy tricky stuff to try to eliminate dogs, and that's likely when you start seeing more handles on marks as well. FT have become harder because dogs/handlers/training continually evolve, and to find the winner, get separation, the marks and blinds get more difficult, the judging tougher, the pencils sharper. Some of the Qualifying setups are what Amateur setups used to be. Retireds are the norm, even in O/H Q, at least around here. Sometimes, just backsiding a gun will drop you to a green.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

The rules and guidelines for MH level testing are fine, as is, issues that arise get tweaked as time goes on, sometimes for the good, sometimes it doesn't work and needs more tweaking. HT titles will always be looked down upon by a particular crowd. Run whatever floats your boat, but just leave off the public mocking and degrading of anyone's titles in whatever venue. Address the issues, we need more judges, more volunteers and they need to be trained and educated in the particular venue they are judging/working. That can be discussed without telling people their MH dog isn't worth feeding. I don't care for non-participants telling us what to do and how to do it either. I love our retrievers, I love our games, I will voice my opinion and stand up for them, if that makes me a bitch, well, woof woof woof.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

The tests that I have recently run have been judged very good. You get some that have easier marks in some series but harder blinds and some that have harder marks and the blinds may not be as hard. And some that have both hard marks and blinds.
I appreciate the time that the clubs and the judges that they pick put into the test so we can enjoy the time with our dogs. 

The bottom line is that AKC Hunt Tests are not for everybody. If You do not enjoy them....move on and find something that You like.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

From the AKC rules
_"Section 4. Marking and Memory of Birds. in Junior, Senior and Master Tests, marking and memory of birds are of primary importance. While dogs may be handled in all three levels of testing, this is undesirable in marking tests and should be utilized only as a last recourse to get the bird out of the field. A dog that goes to the area of the fall, establishes a hunt and finds the bird unaided must be scored appreciably higher than a dog that has to be handled to the bird."

_Clarification of this section in the rules could help in maintaining the standard. Just how undesirable is handling on marks at each level? There needs to be clarity on how it's to be scored and what constitutes a failed test at each level. If multiple handles on multiple memory birds are allowed how can it be said that marking and memory is of primary importance? 

_ "A dog that goes to the area of the fall, establishes a hunt and finds the bird unaided must be scored appreciably higher than a dog that has to be handled to the bird."
_This needs to be revised. Dogs are supposed to be judged and scored against a standard not another dog.

Listed in the rule as moderate faults;
_Failure to mark the area of the fall
Popping on a mark
Multiple whistle refusals
Multiple cast refusals
Excessive cheating_

All of these should be raised to serious faults at the master level. Dogs that have such faults should be running in senior.
This would make a clear separation between the senior and master levels.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

I agree to some extent, Drunkenpoacher. Though the minor and moderate faults are cumulative, if dog pops more than once, going to really get dinged, or should be, same with cheating, excessive and on repeated marks, should be scored so much lower as to be unable to pass. Excessive noise, creeping, all the "little ones" are supposed to add up if they happen more than once.

Used to be, one handle in MH, second one you'd rarely pass no matter what the circumstances. Now, two are common, I've seen 3. It's excessive sometimes. IF the marks are reasonable, then excessive handling should be judged accordingly, because it is supposed to be about MARKING. A quick handle in the AOF, not such a huge deal, but having to handle to the AOF because dog went nowhere near the correct area, different story. Multiple cast refusals are, or should be, pretty obvious, I probably wouldn't have a problem with some sort of reasonable judging guidelines as to how many CR constitute a fail. On both blinds and marks. But, judges also have to set up the marks responsibly. I've seen a triple thrown where all three birds could have come from one station, the AOF are so tight, not even a marginal little hunt could be allowed or risk being dropped for switching. That's not testing a hunting dog in my opinion. HT don't have to mean stepping on every mark, I don't mind seeing a little nose used to find the bird, in a reasonable area of fall, it also shows perseverance, to stick with digging out a bird that the dog knows is there somewhere. Should the rules be one handle at MH only, between all three series, or does that take too much "judging" from the judges, extenuating circumstances, weather, lighting, etc? Rules can be tweaked to define the parameters a bit more, but, still think educating on bird placement is a big deal, in evaluating dog work.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Suggestion(s) - paid judges certified by an AKC field rep and assigned by AKC. No more clubs selecting judges. Judges names to be withheld until start of the test. Put an end to judge shopping and eliminate the current popularity contest. Higher entry fees to support better judging will have the natural effect of reducing demand somewhat but will increase the intrinsic value of the title.
> 
> Create a standard order in which the various challenges will be presented. May need some flexibility here but the idea being to make the first and second series run efficiently and save the more time consuming tasks for last series and therefore the least dogs. AKC to perform a time study to determine how to order tasks.
> 
> ...








Really Darrin? I would love to see the look on an AKC reps face when you suggest those things to them. Your suggestions would involve waaaay too much extra work and cost AKC and or us a lot more and it would fix nothing. I haven't run HT for a few years now but when I did I really didn't have many complaints about the judging. When I did I would just shake my head and move on. My main complaint has always been why does it take two hours to break down one test and set up another. I have run some pretty easy tests and some pretty hard tests and a lot in between. My logic would suggest just the opposite of 60 dog limits causing substandard tests. I would think they would get harder so the judges could cut the numbers down to a more manageable level. Well that would cause an uproar too. I have said it before and I will say it again, the master national has ruined the hunt test game but that's not going to change so you just deal with it. If you really have issues get involved where it counts not just on internet. The way I see it there are 3 ways to deal with these issues. You can get involved at a level that really counts and makes a difference. You can run the tests and just deal with what you have been handed or you can just stay home. Pretty simple really.
I am sorry Darrin and I really mean no disrespect but man in my simple little mind you waaay over think things on this subject and dog training in general. But that's ok you do make valid points at times which makes me and others think a little more. Not trying to be critical just me and the simple way I look at it.
And Kim, "WOOF WOOF"HAHAHA.;-):razz:


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> I don't care for non-participants telling us what to do and how to do it either.


There's one of the issues - no one is telling anyone what to do. Earlier you asked for suggestions. I've spent about 10 years between training a dog and running/working tests. I have a background in organizing projects and logistics (corporate before dog training). I'm not running a dog right now so you dismiss anything I (or anyone else) might bring to the table that would be productive, because it challenges the norm you were part of creating. 

No one is saying anyone is "wrong" or "dumb" or that the work they do isn't appreciated when they ask these questions or make suggestions. They are simply trying to help. 

You generally won't get help if you refuse it and even less if the atmosphere is toxic. 

The sport won't ever have new judges if the path is littered with grizzled people who think they know everything telling the newbies to stand down and keep their opinions to themselves. 

Being a "bitch" while it makes you feel good for some reason, isn't a great way to influence others and improve things that need improvement. 

I doubt the new rules have done anything to improve test quality and everything to run people off. As long as judge selection is a club based popularity contest, there will be those who set simple stuff and pass dogs indiscriminately so their friends can get ribbons. 

You can argue that all you like but it's pretty much common sense. People keep judge lists. Clubs want participation so they being in "good" judges. People who would set tough tests and judge them accordingly sit on the sidelines because no one wants a challenge - they want a ribbon.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Rainmaker said:


> I agree to some extent, Drunkenpoacher. Though the minor and moderate faults are cumulative, if dog pops more than once, going to really get dinged, or should be, same with cheating, excessive and on repeated marks, should be scored so much lower as to be unable to pass. Excessive noise, creeping, all the "little ones" are supposed to add up if they happen more than once.
> 
> Used to be, one handle in MH, second one you'd rarely pass no matter what the circumstances. Now, two are common, I've seen 3. It's excessive sometimes. IF the marks are reasonable, then excessive handling should be judged accordingly, because it is supposed to be about MARKING. A quick handle in the AOF, not such a huge deal, but having to handle to the AOF because dog went nowhere near the correct area, different story. Multiple cast refusals are, or should be, pretty obvious, I probably wouldn't have a problem with some sort of reasonable judging guidelines as to how many CR constitute a fail. On both blinds and marks. But, judges also have to set up the marks responsibly. *I've seen a triple thrown where all three birds could have come from one station, the AOF are so tight, not even a marginal little hunt could be allowed or risk being dropped for switching. That's not testing a hunting dog in my opinion*. HT don't have to mean stepping on every mark, I don't mind seeing a little nose used to find the bird, in a reasonable area of fall, it also shows perseverance, to stick with digging out a bird that the dog knows is there somewhere. Should the rules be one handle at MH only, between all three series, or does that take too much "judging" from the judges, extenuating circumstances, weather, lighting, etc? Rules can be tweaked to define the parameters a bit more, but, still think educating on bird placement is a big deal, in evaluating dog work.





Kim you speak with logic but I must disagree with the bolded sentence. That's exactly what a hunting dog has to deal with along with going back to an old fall multiple time. Problem is when your hunting your not being judged. You can have 4 or 5 birds down all in a 20 yard area (not when I am hunting:lol but you handle if necessary to get the birds picked up and the dog back in the blind so more birds can come in. When your hunting your not being judged so it is efficiency that matters and who cares if you have to handle. In fact it is the thing to do.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, that's what I mean Steve, it's a hunting dog but within the HT rules, excessive handling means you shouldn't pass, nor can the dog hunt from one AOF to another, you don't care about that in hunting, but, against the rules in testing. So you can't set up true life "hunting" marks like birds dumped in a pile. It's not logical, but, that's testing vs hunting.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Steve Shaver said:


> Really Darrin? I would love to see the look on an AKC reps face when you suggest those things to them. Your suggestions would involve waaaay too much extra work and cost AKC and or us a lot more and it would fix nothing. I haven't run HT for a few years now but when I did I really didn't have many complaints about the judging. When I did I would just shake my head and move on. My main complaint has always been why does it take two hours to break down one test and set up another. I have run some pretty easy tests and some pretty hard tests and a lot in between. My logic would suggest just the opposite of 60 dog limits causing substandard tests. I would think they would get harder so the judges could cut the numbers down to a more manageable level. Well that would cause an uproar too. I have said it before and I will say it again, the master national has ruined the hunt test game but that's not going to change so you just deal with it. If you really have issues get involved where it counts not just on internet. The way I see it there are 3 ways to deal with these issues. You can get involved at a level that really counts and makes a difference. You can run the tests and just deal with what you have been handed or you can just stay home. Pretty simple really.
> I am sorry Darrin and I really mean no disrespect but man in my simple little mind you waaay over think things on this subject and dog training in general. But that's ok you do make valid points at times which makes me and others think a little more. Not trying to be critical just me and the simple way I look at it.
> And Kim, "WOOF WOOF"HAHAHA.;-):razz:


No disrespect taken Steve - know you better. 

I've never been big on accepting things "as they are". When I was in corporate life I was always innovating my work processes and getting incrementally better over time. I met the same resistance and many times had to wait for seeds I planted to bloom. Sometimes those seeds had to show up in someone else's garden to grow. I had many ideas stolen from me over the years and used to resent it but the company always got better so looking back - it was all good. 

Truth is simple for me and training retrievers. It's easy for people to sit and tell me "get involved" but reality is quite different. Like you, I run a training business that keeps me busy 50-60 hours a week. I don't have my own grounds. Between the drive time, networking and days spent watching other people's dogs run so mine can get 1-2 series of training, I just don't have time to train a decent dog. When I was - it was a 2 hour per day project and at least one full day on the weekend. 

What I do have time for is working 2-4 days a year for my local clubs and..

While people might dislike this part - talking to people about this stuff and influencing those I can. 

I get a lot of fan mail and a lot of questions from people. I get an equal amount of hate from the old guard.

It's cool. Nothing is ever easy and you're rarely liked by everyone.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> There's one of the issues - no one is telling anyone what to do. Earlier you asked for suggestions. I've spent about 10 years between training a dog and running/working tests. I have a background in organizing projects and logistics (corporate before dog training). I'm not running a dog right now so you dismiss anything I (or anyone else) might bring to the table that would be productive, because it challenges the norm you were part of creating.
> 
> No one is saying anyone is "wrong" or "dumb" or that the work they do isn't appreciated when they ask these questions or make suggestions. They are simply trying to help.
> 
> ...


Sooooo, in your world, good judges and tough tests are contradictory. Sad. Most I know prefer nice tests with good bird placement, that test to the standard, most I know, myself included, don't like being given ribbons for nothing or for poor work, any more than we like poor setups and poor time management. We wouldn't train the way we do, sacrifice what we do, if we just wanted participation ribbons. I drive 3-4 hours round trip in season to training grounds, 3-4 days a week. Most that I know running MH work hard, train hard when they can, I have friends who build training ponds, maintain grounds, all for dog training. Who spend weekends judging, who offer training groups and help. I have truly awesome pro trainers. I spend thousands upon thousands for winter trips for my dogs. So I can get participation ribbons? Please. Talk about judgmental. And insulting to the clubs as well. The people I know, the circuit I run, is full of dedicated dog people who like good dog work, whatever the venue.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Rainmaker said:


> Well, that's what I mean Steve, it's a hunting dog but within the HT rules, excessive handling means you shouldn't pass, nor can the dog hunt from one AOF to another, you don't care about that in hunting, but, against the rules in testing. So you can't set up true life "hunting" marks like birds dumped in a pile. It's not logical, but, that's testing vs hunting.







Yep! People just need to learn to separate the two. When testing you need to test the qualities needed for a good hunting retriever separately instead of all at once. I cringed when I here someone justify a test with the statement "it can happen in hunting".


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Steve Shaver said:


> Yep! People just need to learn to separate the two. When testing you need to test the qualities needed for a good hunting retriever separately instead of all at once. I cringed when I here someone justify a test with the statement "it can happen in hunting".


Yes! Exactly!


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> No disrespect taken Steve - know you better.
> 
> I've never been big on accepting things "as they are". When I was in corporate life I was always innovating my work processes and getting incrementally better over time. I met the same resistance and many times had to wait for seeds I planted to bloom. Sometimes those seeds had to show up in someone else's garden to grow. I had many ideas stolen from me over the years and used to resent it but the company always got better so looking back - it was all good.
> 
> ...




I do understand not having time to get involved but I do get involved more than 2 to 4 days a year, wish I could do more. I have to disagree with not having the time to train a decent dog. For hunt tests anyway field trials is another story. When I started running HT I was working a 50 to 60 hour work week. My first dog I got to a senior title and quit on him because of bad hips but my next one Master titled and I rarely saw home in the day light so a guy can train to the master level without spending a great deal of time.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The last thing you would want is AKC choosing the judges. Out of touch with reality and judging.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

To bring up a problem that someone has with a test as an example of the overall status of the Hunt Test game doesn't give a true picture in my opinion. In the last 7 years I have run 87 hunt Tests from the Midwest to the Southeast. This does not include 7 Master Nationals. 


75 Good to OK =86% 
7 needed changes = 8%
5 major Issues = 6%

From my experience if the hunt Test Committee did their job a small percentage of HT would be problematic. There has been several changes implemented that will need time to see the effect. Be careful of the unintended consequences ie the 60 dog limit. The Hunt Test game is still evolving not always as I would like ,but at 77 I'm along for the ride. If the game doesn't fit you go on to something else. Sniping doesn't help fix issues and comes across a small minded. This isn't directed at anyone. Seek peace and harmony and safe passage.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

For what it’s worth, there is a RHTAC in place to send suggestions. But, I suppose most would rather come on here and complain.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

DarrinGreene said:


> There's one of the issues - no one is telling anyone what to do. Earlier you asked for suggestions. I've spent about 10 years between training a dog and running/working tests. I have a background in organizing projects and logistics (corporate before dog training). I'm not running a dog right now so you dismiss anything I (or anyone else) might bring to the table that would be productive, because it challenges the norm you were part of creating.
> 
> No one is saying anyone is "wrong" or "dumb" or that the work they do isn't appreciated when they ask these questions or make suggestions. They are simply trying to help.
> 
> ...


Agree again Darrin, I am fairly new, had hounds for years, now labs/pointers for 7. Made my first two dogs MH no checks, trained and learned, still learning. I am retired military and have the time to judge, help, and went to a seminar for judging bout 9 months ago. I never followed through because the "old guard" as you say is there for sure.

Seeing FT now where open judges who have never ever even finished one single AA stake now judging opens? Excuse me, I in no way feel qualified to judge even a Qual having only finished two with limited trials, so seeing people judge with not one AA finish seems crazy to me.

Then I go to test where the same judge two different HT places the blinds in the exact and I mean exact spot as the old fall, did it in each test. Was done running under that judge. 

Want new blood to be involved and judge, stop the Ol' Guard from business as usual. I by no mean even a good trainer but I do place a standard on sitting on the whistle and cast refusals, cannot believe what I see at HT now at the Master Level. Whistles seem to be "suggestions" now for the dog. If FT dog can handle and stop in a dime at 400 yards out why can't a HT dog handle and stop at 70 yards?

I know I will get hate mail but how about a very very well know FT Pro whose dog leaves the line on an honor yet wins. Left the line, pays to know people I guess. The pro knew the dog left, the gallery knew the dog left, judges knew yet dog left, yet wins. Hard to stomach that.

No game is perfect agree 100% with that, but people would benefit from listening to others, talking without attacking would go a long way.

I guess the more expensive the game gets the more hunting looks better and better.

A plus note for AKC, they did encourage folks to contact your reps if test are bad or any other issues, they did seem concerned and ready to help so hat's off to AKC.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Can't say I've ever been a fan of the 60 dog test, even with good judges making the appropriate cuts; 60 dogs takes a long time. It's exhausting for everyone, workers, judges, participant alike. I figured a lot like most when the limits came in initially; that judge would have to make big cuts to keep it moving, but my experience is this is not the case. Now this maybe because as some have suggested there are a bunch of already MH dogs running. This might be because some judges are being lenient with the standard and getting a bunch of judging assignment (it does seem to be several of the same names over and over). In any case it's resulting in a bunch of people working long hours and getting pretty grumpy around the time of ribbons ceremony (after dark); I mean all these people are volunteers seems highly unfair; particularly if they aren't getting a true master level test. 

Solutions At least my solutions:
We have the grounds in our area to accommodate 2 flights. I believe most clubs do. I know of only one club; the one that petitioned for limits in the first place that actually needs a single flight master test (they also always have problems finishing 60 dogs; last year test went into Mon). So my club runs a 90 dog and splits. Most clubs in the area prefer a 60, their choice; but for my part, I will not work nor shoot a 60 dog test and they know why. 

I don't do the Entry Express hustle; where a 60 dog will close in 5 mins. If I'm going to signup I do it at the end if there is room; and preference is given to clubs that provide additional flights. Most of the time 60 dogs are unappetizing to me so I just don't go. When I don't go, I don't work. I have a goal this year which has required me to put into several tests including 60 dog entry. This is where I have been seeing to me shocking things, in regard to what is considered an Master series, and what is considered standard. I'm glad we have opened the discussion on the forum; even if it does nothing but only sharing other view points.

As one on here has suggested the AKC reps. and committees will indeed take call and they do send reps out to look into items. Perhaps voicing such concern to the proper people will make a difference. I have a couple of young dogs coming up this year, and I would like solid master level tests for them, and an earned MH title. Perhaps we will be judge shopping backwards .


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Sooooo, in your world, good judges and tough tests are contradictory.


No - I'm with you on that. I just know who's popular out here and why they're popular. Not saying those people are necessarily easy but rather that they are selected because people enjoy running under them. That's because of the way they manage callbacks and test set ups. I rarely, if ever saw people with a reputation for being "tough" in the chair. 

The thread is a discussion about people setting easy tests to handle large numbers of dogs, not what I think is good or bad in a judge.

I'd rather have it be hard and fail occasionally than than have it be easy and pass 90% of the time (**** still happens).


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> The last thing you would want is AKC choosing the judges. Out of touch with reality and judging.


That's pretty troubling, isn't it? The organization who approves judge's qualifications, does all the formal education and sets the standard for testing both dogs and judges is out of touch with reality?

Not a shot at you or a disagreement Nancy. For someone with your depth of experience to say that is... well... I don't know. Seems very troubling to me.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Darin #87 Keep the faith but it is difficult with the varying interests,


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> That's pretty troubling, isn't it? The organization who approves judge's qualifications, does all the formal education and sets the standard for testing both dogs and judges is out of touch with reality?
> 
> Not a shot at you or a disagreement Nancy. For someone with your depth of experience to say that is... well... I don't know. Seems very troubling to me.


Yes it is troubling. AKC is not even pro blood sports.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

I sent some of my comments to the MNRC, not that I expect it will do any good. It appears that curiously high pass rates and interpretation of the standards in master test get questioed a lot. 
An issue under consideration last fall; *"Requiring at least one ‘triple’ series in a master test to be ‘clean’, no handles".
*Made me laugh out loud when I read it. I was thinking one handle in an entire test was generous.
This year the are reviewing eligibility requirements for judges and the high pass rates in master tests.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I sent some of my comments to the MNRC, not that I expect it will do any good. It appears that curiously high pass rates and interpretation of the standards in master test get questioed a lot.
> An issue under consideration last fall; *"Requiring at least one ‘triple’ series in a master test to be ‘clean’, no handles".
> *Made me laugh out loud when I read it. I was thinking one handle in an entire test was generous.
> This year the are reviewing eligibility requirements for judges and the high pass rates in master tests.


Not sure who you are or if you've ever been through a judging seminar, or if you hunt but... 

There is "handling" and then there is handling. 

A dog can do a great job marking and run into any number of factors that require some help from the handler, AFTER they've demonstrated their marking ability. The ability to expedite what could be a protracted hunt is a VERY valuable skill. If a situation arises where that has to happen more than once in 9-12 marks it's not the end of the world. 

Being able to do "a clean triple" is entirely too arbitrary a measurement. 

It's no different than judges who have the "two handles and you're out rule". It's a bit of a cop out to save having to justify a more subjective score. 

Human brains love simplicity and systems. Hard fast rules avoid conflict. We don't like conflict. 

Setting up and judging tests isn't that simple.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I sent some of my comments to the MNRC, not that I expect it will do any good. It appears that curiously high pass rates and interpretation of the standards in master test get questioed a lot.
> An issue under consideration last fall; *"Requiring at least one ‘triple’ series in a master test to be ‘clean’, no handles".
> *Made me laugh out loud when I read it. I was thinking one handle in an entire test was generous.
> This year the are reviewing eligibility requirements for judges and the high pass rates in master tests.


What was the purpose of sending comments/suggestions to the MNRC?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> What was the purpose of sending comments/suggestions to the MNRC?


Where would you suggest?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

This poll has been up and running for nearly 5 days. There have been 76 respondents. Is it representative of the portion of the Hunt Test community which runs Master Hunt Tests? You decide.

Few tests actually start 60 dogs due to scratches. All of the tests I have judged which started more than 50 dogs took all of the 2 days we had allotted to complete.

In my opinion, A good Master hunt test consists of well placed marks that are spread out enough that it is *obvious* whether the dog has marked them or not. If a dog switches it's hunt that should be a black and white situation. The blinds should use terrain features, scent problems, courage, especially in the case of water blinds, and place(s) for the dog to get out of sight of the judges and handler if appreciatively off the line to the blind. There should be enough room, however, for a good handler to save the situation if the dog refuses A cast in one of these critical areas en-route.

In the case of judging, *SAFETY, TIME MANAGEMENT *and *FAIRNESS* are paramount. The dogs deserve safe tests. Judges need to use their time wisely, and not make manpower demands that the club cannot support in a timely manner. Every participant should feel like they and their dog were judged fairly and impartially at the end of their run, win or lose. Some on this thread have expressed their displeasure with how many dogs are carried to the next series. The rulebook tells judges they should be *GENEROUS* in their callbacks when time allows. I am one who tries to do this whenever possible.

Over the 20+ years I have been judging, my co-judge and I have had many participant's who *failed* approach us at the end of the day and thank us for a great test. In my mind, this is the greatest compliment judges can receive.

It's not rocket science, but there are *A LOT* of moving parts. One does not just wake up one morning and know how to accomplish what I have outlined. Experience is built out of successes and mistakes over years and dozens of judging assignments. Newcomers should consider what is actually going on before condemning judges as being inept or casting aspersions as to their fairness and impartiality. Paul


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

“Where would you suggest?”

The MNRC is not the rule making authority for Retriever Hunt Tests. The proper channel is to the RHTAC and they review and send to AKC if they feel your suggestion has merit. Your Region/zone has a rep on that committee. Also, the minutes of the RHTAC report is on the MNRC website since the report was given at the annual meeting.
All of this is on the AKC website. Sending to someone who might be able to make change is way better than complaining to RTF folks who can’t.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

paul young said:


> This poll has been up and running for nearly 5 days. There have been 76 respondents. Is it representative of the portion of the Hunt Test community which runs Master Hunt Tests? You decide.
> 
> Few tests actually start 60 dogs due to scratches. All of the tests I have judged which started more than 50 dogs took all of the 2 days we had allotted to complete.
> 
> ...


***********
Good post from a grizzled old timer who doesn’t know much. Safe travels.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

No I have not been through a Judging seminar but will if I continue to run hunt tests. I have hunted for many years and will not hunt birds without a dog.
I get that not all handling is the same and it can be useful in some situations. What I saw was dogs that were marking poorly in multiple series and getting passed. When handled to marks a good number of dogs handled very poorly as well.
Many of the people I train with have had quite a bit of experience with hunt tests. All but a couple don't run tests anymore because they see no value in the MH title. 
I don't mean to bash the judges, it is the rules and standard that need to be clarified IMO.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> “Where would you suggest?”
> 
> The MNRC is not the rule making authority for Retriever Hunt Tests. The proper channel is to the RHTAC and they review and send to AKC if they feel your suggestion has merit. Your Region/zone has a rep on that committee. Also, the minutes of the RHTAC report is on the MNRC website since the report was given at the annual meeting.
> All of this is on the AKC website. Sending to someone who might be able to make change is way better than complaining to RTF folks who can’t.


Thank you

None of my posts are meant to be complaints, especially to anyone here. I would like to run hunt tests but my initial experience was somewhat disappointing. As I said before the judges did a good job setting up the tests. All the test were fair and challenging with great use of the various factors available. My dog was near flawless in every series and got a pass. After seeing so many poor performing dogs get passed as well my respect for the MH tile has diminished.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

paul young said:


> Experience is built out of successes and mistakes over years and dozens of judging assignments. Newcomers should consider what is actually going on before condemning judges as being inept or casting aspersions as to their fairness and impartiality. Paul


In both HTs and FTs there is an eligibility requirement of success handling a dog at that level. Maybe that needs to be reversed: Requiring "X" number of judging points at the lower levels before you can run a Master or All-Age.
"Walk a mile in their shoes..."
There will be fewer complainers.

Tim


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Thank you
> 
> None of my posts are meant to be complaints, especially to anyone here. I would like to run hunt tests but my initial experience was somewhat disappointing. As I said before the judges did a good job setting up the tests. All the test were fair and challenging with great use of the various factors available. My dog was near flawless in every series and got a pass. After seeing so many poor performing dogs get passed as well my respect for the MH tile has diminished.


Just like school. Everyone isn’t an A+ student like your dog was that weekend.
C students pass too.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

paul young said:


> This poll has been up and running for nearly 5 days. There have been 76 respondents. Is it representative of the portion of the Hunt Test community which runs Master Hunt Tests? You decide.
> 
> Few tests actually start 60 dogs due to scratches. All of the tests I have judged which started more than 50 dogs took all of the 2 days we had allotted to complete.
> 
> ...


Maybe someday I'll get a chance to put a good dog in front of you Paul. I would in a heartbeat despite whatever disagreements we've had here.


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

DarrinGreene said:


> Not sure who you are or if you've ever been through a judging seminar, or if you hunt but...
> 
> There is "handling" and then there is handling.
> 
> ...


Ditto on this.

I haven't followed every comment on this thread so hope I'm not repeating someone else's remarks. We are testing hunting dogs! A dog that demonstrates a good mark, a persistent, tight hunt in the area and then a quick, clean handle and needs to do that on two marks on a weekend would get a ribbon from me more times than not.

If you want to say I need a clean triple to pass a Master test I'm okay with that too but you better guarantee me a triple in all three series so I have a chance to do it. Nothing I dislike more than a last series double with no thought put into it thinking it will be easy and a time saver then having a rodeo break out.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> Just like school. Everyone isn’t an A+ student like your dog was that weekend.
> C students pass too.


Understood, i just think the C students should be in the senior.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Thomas D said:


> Just like school. Everyone isn’t an A+ student like your dog was that weekend.
> C students pass too.


Tom, you hit the nail on the head. Hunt Tests are pass/fail. The ribbon isn't colored any differently for an A+ job than it is for a C- job. If that rubs someone the wrong way, then perhaps Field Trials would be more attractive to them.

I ran Hunt Tests for several years until I started seeing what I felt were sub-standard performances being called back and passing at some tests. I used to admire those dogs who had a MH title, but seeing judges pass multiple ugly handles and dogs that couldn't mark or take direction from their handlers, definitely watered down the accomplishment in my eyes. I'm not saying it happens at every test, but the fact that it happens at all is a shame and turned me off to the game. I also jusged hunt tests, but like others have said, unless you were very generous with callbacks and pass percentages, you don't get many invites. There are still quite a few talented dogs with MH titles, but I don't feel simply having the title is an indicator of true MH talent any more.

I happily moved on to running and judging Field Trials and couldn't be happier. Substandard work doesn't fly in trials and when you do finish in the ribbons, it's an accomplishment to be proud of, for sure. 

If someone is happy running hunt tests and gets enjoyment out of them, great. Keep it up. However, if you feel your dog is better than the rest and you need a little something more, I know where you can find it.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Understood, i just think the C students should be in the senior.


That’s where you misunderstand the judging standards of hunt tests. Have you read the rule book regarding scoring? Dogs that score 7 pass just like the ones who score 10.

If this system really bothers you, this might not be the game for you. Why spend time and money on a venue which you think the title means nothing and isn’t judged properly? Maybe continue with FT. Plenty of room there for new blood.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Dan Wegner said:


> Tom, you hit the nail on the head. Hunt Tests are pass/fail. The ribbon isn't colored any differently for an A+ job than it is for a C- job. If that rubs someone the wrong way, then perhaps Field Trials would be more attractive to them.
> 
> I ran Hunt Tests for several years until I started seeing what I felt were sub-standard performances being called back and passing at some tests. I used to admire those dogs who had a MH title, but seeing judges pass multiple ugly handles and dogs that couldn't mark or take direction from their handlers, definitely watered down the accomplishment in my eyes. I'm not saying it happens at every test, but the fact that it happens at all is a shame and turned me off to the game. I also jusged hunt tests, but like others have said, unless you were very generous with callbacks and pass percentages, you don't get many invites. There are still quite a few talented dogs with MH titles, but I don't feel simply having the title is an indicator of true MH talent any more.
> 
> ...


I have heard the same thing from quite a few experienced trainers. I'll take the advice and devote my time to field trials.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Just like school. Everyone isn’t an A+ student like your dog was that weekend.
> C students pass too.


THIS^^^^ is an excellent point. 

This is a game. Not all of us can train 5-7 days a week. Not all of us have anything other thanround farm ponds to train in. I do the best I can with what I have. Things aren’t perfect. Are some test ridiculous? Yes. Do dogs get freebies some days? Yes. Do you get screwed some days? Yes. Frustrating when series seem/are crappy? Yes. But then you have a kick ass awesome test the next weekend. 

It’s a GAME. 

I am also the hunt test secretary for our club. Time management is a challenge. Especially when you have minimal volunteers or those people you hired to help, walk off. Until you’ve been down in the trenches dealing with all this, you have no right to bitch. We do what needs to be done to get the test run. No one wants to run into another day. It costs $ to rent the grounds, to keep the judges (if they can stay), competitors can’t always stay. I know I can’t. 

YOU can make the choice to not run under judges that consistently put on wimpy tests. It’s that easy. If you think the dog work isn’t good enough for you? Go to Quals or field trials or whatever. It’s simple. 

Sue Puff


----------



## wsumner (Mar 5, 2004)

suepuff said:


> THIS^^^^ is an excellent point.
> 
> This is a game. Not all of us can train 5-7 days a week. Not all of us have anything other thanround farm ponds to train in. I do the best I can with what I have. Things aren’t perfect. Are some test ridiculous? Yes. Do dogs get freebies some days? Yes. Do you get screwed some days? Yes. Frustrating when series seem/are crappy? Yes. But then you have a kick ass awesome test the next weekend.
> 
> ...


Well said. As a person who has chaired numerous HTs, I agree completely. Some people are quick to complain but they are too busy to take on the job themselves. I do it because I love the sport and my dog. Not every test will be perfect but we try to make every one better than the last. I have NEVER selected judges based on their pass rate. 

Thank you for the work you put in as hunt secretary.


----------



## ZEKESMAN (Mar 22, 2008)

I find that the ones who complain about hunt tests being too easy and think there dog "won the test for that day" go along time without a ribbon in FT. Vic


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

ZEKESMAN said:


> I find that the ones who complain about hunt tests being too easy and think there dog "won the test for that day" go along time without a ribbon in FT. Vic


That's exactly the point. Do they have the patience to go a year or more without a ribbon as in FT's where opens and amateurs are often more than 60 entries? When I was for the MH Excellent just about no one but the author was for it. They don't want it to be harder, but they want to show they are better, most of those complaining haven't even run Master that long.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

ZEKESMAN said:


> I find that the ones who complain about hunt tests being too easy and think there dog "won the test for that day" go along time without a ribbon in FT. Vic


No complaints about the tests I saw. The judges did a great job of setting up challenging tests that took full advantage of the available factors. My disappointment was with the low standard for passage. I came into the event hoping to get the first of six passes for an MH. I left with a ribbon, no thought that I won and questions about value of the MH title. 
If every dog entered in the master "exhibited the qualities expected in a truly finished and experienced hunting companion" then all should have passed, but that wasn't the case. Unfortunately it seems doubtful there will be any improvement. The consensus seems to be pass out the ribbons and dismiss anyone who mentions standards or questions the acceptance of sloppy performance as a complainer. 

The wait for an FT ribbon was not long, my dog got two in the next event we entered.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I don't think asking if the 60 dog limit was making people do easier tests in later series is necessarily "complaining".

You can run a 60+ dog amateur stake in 2 days, why not a MH? 

I think the difference is that in MH if you end up with 10 dogs consistently in the last series you aren't going to get called to judge too frequently.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> No complaints about the tests I saw. The judges did a great job of setting up challenging tests that took full advantage of the available factors. My disappointment was with the low standard for passage. I came into the event hoping to get the first of six passes for an MH. I left with a ribbon, no thought that I won and questions about value of the MH title.
> If every dog entered in the master "exhibited the qualities expected in a truly finished and experienced hunting companion" then all should have passed, but that wasn't the case. Unfortunately it seems doubtful there will be any improvement. The consensus seems to be pass out the ribbons and dismiss anyone who mentions standards or questions the acceptance of sloppy performance as a complainer.
> 
> The wait for an FT ribbon was not long, my dog got two in the next event we entered.


All the above is your opinion which counts for very little unless you are holding the book that day.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> The wait for an FT ribbon was not long, my dog got two in the next event we entered.


Was it an Open or Amateur?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> I don't think asking if the 60 dog limit was making people do easier tests in later series is necessarily "complaining".
> 
> You can run a 60+ dog amateur stake in 2 days, why not a MH?
> 
> I think the difference is that in MH if you end up with 10 dogs consistently in the last series you aren't going to get called to judge too frequently.


Nor should they be.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> All the above is your opinion which counts for very little unless you are holding the book that day.


Entry fees count and there are many with opinions similar to mine.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

ErinsEdge said:


> Was it an Open or Amateur?


Derby and Qual, my dog isn't two yet.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

DarrinGreene said:


> I don't think asking if the 60 dog limit was making people do easier tests in later series is necessarily "complaining".
> 
> You can run a 60+ dog amateur stake in 2 days, why not a MH?
> 
> I think the difference is that in MH if you end up with 10 dogs consistently in the last series you aren't going to get called to judge too frequently.


I'm sure you're correct. The sad part is a lot of dogs could and would be much better if the standard were enforced.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

drunkenpoacher said:


> The consensus seems to be pass out the ribbons and dismiss anyone who mentions standards or questions the acceptance of sloppy performance as a complainer.
> .


If you are concerned the place to ask these questions and have a discussion is to the AKC reps. It is my understanding that they look into these trends, as well as the subject of judges who are getting large pass rates and a great many assignments vs. those that are not. I don't know if they can actually do anything or if they ever will do anything about it but from a couple of phone conversations they are at least investigating it. 

I had a judge one time tell me that he had to keep a 50% pass rate because he wanted to judge the Master national, this has been echoed by others, as well as looking at the records of those judges who are chosen for the job. Master national judges are voted in and in many ways it is a popularity contest. I remember sitting on club boards to vote for national judges; most members on those boards have no-idea who the nominated judges are, and they do indeed oftentimes look up pass-rate to decide who to vote for. I concur with the idea that the MNH has ruined the weekend hunt test, in a bunch of ways, judging pass-rate and judge shopping being among them. 

I've also been on boards for deciding on judges for different hunt tests, oftentimes pass-rates are a factor in choosing who to invite; particularly if the job is assigned to members who don't actually run master level dogs. Heck I've had members of hunt test committees tell judges, they were expecting at least 50% pass-rates. I'm not saying this is every club, or even the majority of clubs, but these discussions do happen.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

i would guess most clubs wouldn’t miss your entry fee. Nor would the 20 on the wait list.Sounds like you need to start judging and straighten this mess out.

Why not post your name so we can see exactly how many HT you have run?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> If you are concerned the place to ask these questions and have a discussion is to the AKC reps. It is my understanding that they look into these trends, as well as the subject of judges who are getting large pass rates and a great many assignments vs. those that are not. I don't know if they can actually do anything or if they ever will do anything about it but from a couple of phone conversations they at least investigate it.
> 
> I had a judge one time tell me that he had to keep a 50% pass rate because he wanted to judge the Master national, this has been echoed by others courting the national, as well as looking at the records of those judges who are chosen for the job. Master national judges are voted in and in many ways it is a popularity contest. I remember sitting on club boards to vote for national judges; most members on those boards have no-idea who the nominated judges are, and they do indeed oftentimes look up pass-rate to decide who to vote for. I concur with the idea that the MNH has ruined the weekend hunt test, in a bunch of ways, judging pass-rate and judge shopping being among them.
> 
> I've also been on boards for deciding on judges for different hunt tests, oftentimes pass-rates are a factor in choosing who to invite; particularly if the job is assigned to members who don't actually run master level dogs. Heck I've had members of hunt test committees tell judges, they were expecting 50% pass-rates.


Interesting, sounds like percentages are more important than performance. 
I'll voice my thoughts to an AKC rep. From the research I have done they have heard it all before but won't do anything because it could hurt their cash flow.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> i would guess most clubs wouldn’t miss your entry fee. Nor would the 20 on the wait list.Sounds like you need to start judging and straighten this mess out.
> 
> Why not post your name so we can see exactly how many HT you have run?


Once again I am new to HT's. I ran in one Master. 
I have more questions than answers but it's hard to discuss anything when some take offense to everything.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Interesting, sounds like percentages are more important than performance.
> I'll voice my thoughts to an AKC rep. From the research I have done they have heard it all before but won't do anything because it could hurt their cash flow.


I'm not sure you are right there's been a guard change with the AKC reps. Many of new hires are pretty well established in the Master hunt tests, they have actually ran them for years, still do. Most are pretty tough no-nonsense master judges in their own right. I know I've been failed by them a couple of times .

Probably the most impact a person could make is to get on the judges selection board for which ever clubs, your a member of. I guarantee the clubs will most likely put you in charge to the entire thing; or at least you'll have input. Doesn't mean you might not mess up with selection sometimes; but you can help direct the type of judges you'd like to see brought in. Also get on the selection committee for the Master National judges, ensure that the ballot is brought to the whole membership, with discussion and not just turned in by someone.


----------



## ZEKESMAN (Mar 22, 2008)

drunkenpoacher said:


> No complaints about the tests I saw. The judges did a great job of setting up challenging tests that took full advantage of the available factors. My disappointment was with the low standard for passage. I came into the event hoping to get the first of six passes for an MH. I left with a ribbon, no thought that I won and questions about value of the MH title.
> If every dog entered in the master "exhibited the qualities expected in a truly finished and experienced hunting companion" then all should have passed, but that wasn't the case. Unfortunately it seems doubtful there will be any improvement. The consensus seems to be pass out the ribbons and dismiss anyone who mentions standards or questions the acceptance of sloppy performance as a complainer.
> 
> The wait for an FT ribbon was not long, my dog got two in the next event we entered.


So your dog has derby points? Congrats! Vic


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Once again I am new to HT's. I ran in one Master.
> I have more questions than answers but it's hard to discuss anything when some take offense to everything.


Welcome to RTF, question by anyone other then the "Ol' Guard" will be promptly shot down and scolded. I am new as well I guess, titled my first two dogs with MH, run more you will see. Tough great Judges adhering to the standard will not have many gigs, their career is short lived. Money is the root cause.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I'm not sure you are right there's been a guard change with the AKC reps. Many of new hires are pretty well established in the Master hunt tests, they have actually ran them for years, still do. Most are pretty tough no-nonsense master judges in their own right. I know I've been failed by them a couple of times .
> 
> Probably the most impact a person could make is to get on the judges selection board for which ever clubs, your a member of. I guarantee the clubs will most likely put you in charge to the entire thing; or at least you'll have input. Doesn't mean you might not mess up with selection sometimes; but you can help direct the type of judges you'd like to see brought in.


I didn't phrase that well. I did not mean to criticize the AKC reps. I think the concern over cash flow comes from much higher in the ranks of the AKC. I met a couple reps at a trial. Nice guys but did not have the opportunity to talk with them much. 
I actually may be on the club's selection board soon. I told the secretary I'd help wherever needed and he is going to hold me to it. Meeting is coming up soon.

I hope I've made clear my respect for the work the judges put in. All the experienced trainers I know (and some here in my PM's) say that hunt tests have declined over the years. The judges are doing what is expected of them. I don't blame them considering the risk of crucifixion that exists for even discussing the issue.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> Welcome to RTF, question by anyone other then the "Ol' Guard" will be promptly shot down and scolded. I am new as well I guess, titled my first two dogs with MH, run more you will see. Tough great Judges adhering to the standard will not have many gigs, their career is short lived. Money is the root cause.


Thanks
I've already been told my money isn't needed because there's plenty more of it.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

ZEKESMAN said:


> So your dog has derby points? Congrats! Vic


Thank you 
Just a JAM in the derby but 3rd in a qual the day before. My faults cost us higher placements in both, I knew it and the judges confirmed.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> Tough great Judges adhering to the standard will not have many gigs, their career is short lived. .


I had surgery last week and have been a follower of this thread and somewhat unable to reply until today. 
I ran my first Master in 2004 and was fortunate to get a qualifying score with a very talented 2 year old. I have titled many since then and will state that in todays world, I would never dream of running her at her level of training, at todays level of tests and judging standards. The rules have changed very slightly, but not much. The dogs are better for a lot of reasons (totally different and already overhashed discussion), training methods much better and more talented individuals involved in the sport. 
Your "tough great judges" (and that's an oxymoron) probably don't get a lot of gigs because they are legislating a standard different from the published standard from the judges chair. It's a small world and word gets around who the "tough, great" judges are and people don't like wasting a weekend getting hammered by over the top and not to the standard test set ups or judgement. 
If the sport in general does not like the current published standard that some feel is leading to "too many " or "too high" of a pass rate, then the sport needs to band together and change the rules and standard. Until then, you get what you get.
MP


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

For those who disdain a 'high pass rate' ala 'gimme tests' - what would you say if the 'average' overall pass rate of one state, over the course of one hunt test season, was 65%....

is that too high, too low, just right? This is a state that has a good number of tests per year (more than 10, I think)... but only a handful were near 60 entries....

just curious....


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Tobias said:


> For those who disdain a 'high pass rate' ala 'gimme tests' - what would you say if the 'average' overall pass rate of one state, over the course of one hunt test season, was 65%....
> 
> is that too high, too low, just right? This is a state that has a good number of tests per year (more than 10, I think)... but only a handful were near 60 entries....
> 
> just curious....


I would say it was exactly right if, on average, 65% did the work of a "truly finished and experienced hunting companion".


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I would say it was exactly right if, on average, 65% did the work of a "truly finished and experienced hunting companion
> 
> So if 65% is “just right”, then less than 65% is too low and above is too many. Is that what you’re saying?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> drunkenpoacher said:
> 
> 
> > I would say it was exactly right if, on average, 65% did the work of a "truly finished and experienced hunting companion
> ...


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

I'll admit I'm a bit confused here. 

I thought hunt test were designed to judge a " hunting dog" and came about because the average weekend trainer could not compete in the FT trial circut. So if a dog and handler demonstrate that they can perform to the hunt test standard , they pass. So now we're talking about percentages, and if on any given day too many team pass , the test was a give me and the team truly didn't deserve the coveted orange ribbon. 

I say get over yourself train your dogs and run the test , if you want to searchout hard nosed over the top judges put you big boy/girl pants on and run trials. 

Cheers!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Thomas D said:
> 
> 
> > That is not what I said. My response was quite clear, read it again.
> ...


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

A team said:


> I'll admit I'm a bit confused here.
> 
> I thought hunt test were designed to judge a " hunting dog" and came about because the average weekend trainer could not compete in the FT trial circut. So if a dog and handler demonstrate that they can perform to the hunt test standard , they pass. So now we're talking about percentages, and if on any given day too many team pass , the test was a give me and the team truly didn't deserve the coveted orange ribbon.
> 
> ...


Or from a HT perspective, obtain an HRCH on your dog and run the grand. 1 cast refusal = 1s. 2 series with 1s(out of 5) and you go home. Same with handling on marks. If dog doesn't mark a bird well at all(ie: doesn't go in the general direction, it'll likely be a zero and you're dq'd. You're also judged that strictly in line manners. I guarantee you won't see sloppy work get passed there. Yearly average is about 20% pass rate.


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

bamajeff said:


> Or from a HT perspective, obtain an HRCH on your dog and run the grand. 1 cast refusal = 1s. 2 weries with 1s(out of 5) and you go home. Same with handling on marks. If dog doesn't mark a bird well at all(ie: doesn't go in the general direction, it'll likely be a zero and you're dq'd. You're also judged that strictly in line manners. I guarantee you won't see sloppy work get passed there. Yearly average is about 20% pass rate.


The difference between the grand and the master national, is that the grand has written rules that define the higher standard required from the weekend finished test. I'm not aware of any in higher standard in the rules required at a Master National to get the pass. Of course you and the dog has to hold it together for several more series than a normal weekend.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

Mike Perry said:


> I had surgery last week and have been a follower of this thread and somewhat unable to reply until today.
> I ran my first Master in 2004 and was fortunate to get a qualifying score with a very talented 2 year old. I have titled many since then and will state that in todays world, I would never dream of running her at her level of training, at todays level of tests and judging standards. The rules have changed very slightly, but not much. The dogs are better for a lot of reasons (totally different and already overhashed discussion), training methods much better and more talented individuals involved in the sport.
> Your "tough great judges" (and that's an oxymoron) probably don't get a lot of gigs because they are legislating a standard different from the published standard from the judges chair. It's a small world and word gets around who the "tough, great" judges are and people don't like wasting a weekend getting hammered by over the top and not to the standard test set ups or judgement.
> If the sport in general does not like the current published standard that some feel is leading to "too many " or "too high" of a pass rate, then the sport needs to band together and change the rules and standard. Until then, you get what you get.
> MP


Mike I am not talking about a "tough" as in difficult test. I am referring to the "standard" the HT dog is to meet. Slipping whistle after whistle, cast refusal after cast refusal, handle on a mark but then let the dog "pheasant hunt" in the area of the fall and still passing. A finished retriever and even a HT finished retriever should sit on a whistle with style, I see no reason for cast refusals at the very very short blinds of the HT game. That is what I am referring to a judge that holds the Master dog to the Master level.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> Mike I am not talking about a "tough" as in difficult test. I am referring to the "standard" the HT dog is to meet. Slipping whistle after whistle, cast refusal after cast refusal, handle on a mark but then let the dog "pheasant hunt" in the area of the fall and still passing. A finished retriever and even a HT finished retriever should sit on a whistle with style, I see no reason for cast refusals at the very very short blinds of the HT game. That is what I am referring to a judge that holds the Master dog to the Master level.


Well said, I absolutely agree.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Since 1984 the HT folks want recognition equal to the FTs. The argument continues.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Originally Posted by *TODD SCHMADL*  Mike I am not talking about a "tough" as in difficult test. I am referring to the "standard" the HT dog is to meet. Slipping whistle after whistle, cast refusal after cast refusal, handle on a mark but then let the dog "pheasant hunt" in the area of the fall and still passing. A finished retriever and even a HT finished retriever should sit on a whistle with style, I see no reason for cast refusals at the very very short blinds of the HT game. That is what I am referring to a judge that holds the Master dog to the Master level."



*DRUNKEN POACHER
*"Well said, I absolutely agree."

To which I say: You guys need to start your own game.-Paul


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

swliszka said:


> Since 1984 the HT folks want recognition equal to the FTs. The argument continues.


Who's talking about HT being recognized as equal to FT? I didn't see that anywhere and in fact, most are saying if you want "tougher" or more challenge, want to prove your dog is better than the other dogs, go to FT. Nobody said a MH is equal to an FC AFC. Two different games, much different requirements.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

Rainmaker said:


> Who's talking about HT being recognized as equal to FT? I didn't see that anywhere and in fact, most are saying if you want "tougher" or more challenge, want to prove your dog is better than the other dogs, go to FT. Nobody said a MH is equal to an FC AFC. Two different games, much different requirements.


Don't take offense to Stan's jibberish Kim. That's just Stanley being Stanley. He is very knowledgeable about everything and I do mean everything. Just ask him, he certainly will tell you.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> Mike I am not talking about a "tough" as in difficult test. I am referring to the "standard" the HT dog is to meet. Slipping whistle after whistle, cast refusal after cast refusal, handle on a mark but then let the dog "pheasant hunt" in the area of the fall and still passing. A finished retriever and even a HT finished retriever should sit on a whistle with style, I see no reason for cast refusals at the very very short blinds of the HT game. That is what I am referring to a judge that holds the Master dog to the Master level.


Have you ever watched a dog through every series that passed under such circumstances? When you say 'slipped whistle after slipped whistle' - how many slipped whistles is that? How many slipped whistles would cause you (if you were judging) to score a dog 'below average' --- or cast refusals? If a passing score is 70%, that means a dog can pass a blind without perfection? What is perfection? Perfection on a blind, to most people, would be sitting on every whistle and take a cast for a good distance that got the dog closer to the blind while also facing the challenges of the blind - or outright lining the blind. What would cause that perfect blind to score average (passing score)? (Not withstanding the fact that a dog can get a score lower than 7 on a blind or other component of a test and still pass that day, depending on the remaining series' performances)

also, there is this - taken from the regulations in the scoring section - pg 41-43 I believe

"From the stand point of a breeder or a person considering a breeding, natural abilities are of great importance while abilities acquired through training are of relatively less importance. "


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Raimanmaker I was a backer of HTs as a way to enter FTs. Courage and skill needed. How long have you done FTs and HTs ? I wrote extensively about it since 1984. Check the past RTF posts where people have argued this very point. Time waits for no one.

Oh Regie give up your asides unless you were there. I was. Since 1977. Being coy does not suit you.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

swliszka said:


> Raimanmaker I was a backer of HTs as a way to enter FTs. Courage and skill needed. How long have you done FTs and HTs ? I wrote extensively about it since 1984. Check the past RTF posts where people have argued this very point. Time waits for no one.
> 
> Oh Regie give up your asides unless you were there. I was. Since 1977. Being coy does not suit you.


20 years for HT, less than that for FT and I've never been an AA player for whatever that's worth. Nobody with a brain believes that MH is the same or equal to an FC AFC title. HT have their place, they are not meant to be FT or judged like FT. HT and FT have to work together, they are often the same club putting on tests and trials, working each other's events. My point is, why do HT have to be slammed? Does it make you guys feel better about yourselves?


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

swliszka said:


> Raimanmaker I was a backer of HTs as a way to enter FTs. Courage and skill needed. How long have you done FTs and HTs ? I wrote extensively about it since 1984. Check the past RTF posts where people have argued this very point. Time waits for no one.
> 
> Oh Regie give up your asides unless you were there. I was. Since 1977. Being coy does not suit you.


I've been in the FT game since 1973 there Stanley. I'm pretty well versed on things in and around the game.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

I watched dogs that were handled to marks in every series. I saw dogs refuse multiple casts and ignore multiple whistles. This occurred on blinds and on birds they should have marked to begin with (that's why they are called "Marks"). Most if not all those dogs had potential but were not at the level of a finished retriever and should have been running in senior. They were entered in master because they could get a pass with that level of performance, and most did. If average performance is all it takes to get a pass why call it Master?
Master; having or showing very great skill or proficiency, a skilled practitioner of a particular art or activity. How do C students fit the definition? Change the title to "Average Hunter"?

Everyone knows there are circumstances when the dog can't hear the whistle, can find the handler, mistakes a birds call for a whistle etc. Everyone also knows when their dog is being disobedient.
With a "finished and experienced" retriever there is *no excuse *for a cast refusal or ignoring a whistle.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Perhaps you can propose to the AKC to start a level called 'the ultimate retriever title' - In which dogs are expected to pass with a 90% score or better..... 

BTW - how many ph.d.'s out there BARELY passed their exams and still became docs? dentists? surgeons? etc????? We all would hope they would pass with flying colors... I bet we would be surprised by the numbers who did not.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I watched dogs that were handled to marks in every series. I saw dogs refuse multiple casts and ignore multiple whistles. This occurred on blinds and on birds they should have marked to begin with (that's why they are called "Marks"). Most if not all those dogs had potential but were not at the level of a finished retriever and should have been running in senior. They were entered in master because they could get a pass with that level of performance, and most did. If average performance is all it takes to get a pass why call it Master?
> Master; having or showing very great skill or proficiency, a skilled practitioner of a particular art or activity. How do C students fit the definition? Change the title to "Average Hunter"?
> 
> Everyone knows there are circumstances when the dog can't hear the whistle, can find the handler, mistakes a birds call for a whistle etc. Everyone also knows when their dog is being disobedient.
> With a "finished and experienced" retriever there is *no excuse *for a cast refusal or ignoring a whistle.


You've run 1 master test. I've run about 15-20, which I would still consider limited experience. I've never seen the leniency by the judges you are describing here. I have seen some judges much more lenient than others, but not to the degree you describe. I've never seen a test where a handle in 2 marking series that you weren't out. I think it's 100% wrong that you are extrapolating what you saw at a single test to determine that the entire MH title is meaningless. The poll is almost 80-20 against the premise of sub-standard master tests. So that tells you that the majority of others' experience is not like yours. 

I think if you seek out judges(ask pros who the tough judges are, look at EE pass rates, etc) you can find those tough tests and judges you're looking for. But something tells me that's not what you're looking for at all. You're just looking to belittle something that, by your own admission, you have VERY LIMITED experience with.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> You've run 1 master test. I've run about 15-20, which I would still consider limited experience. I've never seen the leniency by the judges you are describing here. I have seen some judges much more lenient than others, but not to the degree you describe. I've never seen a test where a handle in 2 marking series that you weren't out. I think it's 100% wrong that you are extrapolating what you saw at a single test to determine that the entire MH title is meaningless. The poll is almost 80-20 against the premise of sub-standard master tests. So that tells you that the majority of others' experience is not like yours.
> 
> I think if you seek out judges(ask pros who the tough judges are, look at EE pass rates, etc) you can find those tough tests and judges you're looking for. But something tells me that's not what you're looking for, you're just looking to belittle something that, by your own admission, you have VERY LIMITED experience with.


Exactly my thoughts. Where did you see this master test Mr Anonymous? My guess is you are so for a reason.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

Tobias said:


> Have you ever watched a dog through every series that passed under such circumstances? When you say 'slipped whistle after slipped whistle' - how many slipped whistles is that? How many slipped whistles would cause you (if you were judging) to score a dog 'below average' --- or cast refusals? If a passing score is 70%, that means a dog can pass a blind without perfection? What is perfection? Perfection on a blind, to most people, would be sitting on every whistle and take a cast for a good distance that got the dog closer to the blind while also facing the challenges of the blind - or outright lining the blind. What would cause that perfect blind to score average (passing score)? (Not withstanding the fact that a dog can get a score lower than 7 on a blind or other component of a test and still pass that day, depending on the remaining series' performances)
> 
> also, there is this - taken from the regulations in the scoring section - pg 41-43 I believe
> 
> "From the stand point of a breeder or a person considering a breeding, natural abilities are of great importance while abilities acquired through training are of relatively less importance. "


. I have watched slipped whistles alot, too much. For pete's sake have the time we are talking 70 yard or less blinds come on. Not talking a slipped whistle in the wind at 400 yards with a shot poison bird then refusing a cast into a head wind to water, talking 70 yard blinds. 

Watch at almost every single HT I have been to a handle on a mark becomes a pheasant hunt, one sloppy cast into the AOF then the dog hunts. Yes, have failed tests I should have, yes seen some darn good MH tests, many rely on BS set ups rather then well placed birds to let the dogs take themselves out.

You ask how I would judge, at MH level 3 tops slipped whistles, two obvious cast refusal you give a left and the dog goes right, blatant refusal, two and your gone, and as long as your asking me I would judge style like it should be. The dog that would rather not be doing the job and shows it, would be dropped.

I get pros love pass rates = happy clients, HT filled happy club $$$$$, test A has Judge easy peasy test fills up in 2 minutes, judge B holds dogs to standard HT does not fill, AKC only interest $$$$$ and the game goes on. Those who present ideas of making the MH really mean something the "Ol' Guard" comes out and hammers them.

The HT game is great especially for guys like me who do not write checks and hunt my dogs hard. We are just saying seeing a progression here making the MH title less valuable. And AKC is seeing that as well according to my latest seminar I attended.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> . I have watched slipped whistles alot, too much. For pete's sake have the time we are talking 70 yard or less blinds come on. Not talking a slipped whistle in the wind at 400 yards with a shot poison bird then refusing a cast into a head wind to water, talking 70 yard blinds.
> 
> Watch at almost every single HT I have been to a handle on a mark becomes a pheasant hunt, one sloppy cast into the AOF then the dog hunts. Yes, have failed tests I should have, yes seen some darn good MH tests, many rely on BS set ups rather then well placed birds to let the dogs take themselves out.
> 
> ...


The overwhelming majority of the master tests I've run/watched have been judged like you described. Multiple whistle/cast refusals = dropped. I've seen a couple of tests with more lenient judges and/or easier setups, but still if you had to handle on more than 1 mark don't expect a callback. So, it's not a country wide AKC problem, maybe it's just the judges in your area. I've run tests in 5 different states(AL, TN, GA, MS, KY)


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

I'm starting to figure out why most of the discussions here are about politics, current events, football or anything except retrievers. People are too easily offended in any discussion related to dogs. I'd have a lesser chance of hurting feelings encouraging my sister to lose weight. 
In my first post on this thread I expressed my disappointment in what was considered a passing performance in the master test. From what I hear, my experience was not uncommon. My sources of information are fellow trainers, people I have met at trials and some folks here. Most once ran hunt tests and enjoyed it but gave it due to more frequent passing off substandard performance.

My answer to the question, Are 60 dog limits resulting in substandard master tests? is no. The lowered level of what should be expected from a Finished Retriever is. That is my opinion and while it isn't worth much in itself, it is shared by many.

As far as my anonymity, I use the same nickname in places where anonymity is recommended or required and registered here with the same out of habit. In hindsight a poor choice. PM me if you want and I'll introduce myself.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Just because someone doesn't share your opinion or had the same 'bad' experience at 1 hunt test doesn't mean their feelings are hurt. I've spoken with several pros from my area and they feel the standard required to achieve MH is higher now than it was 10 yrs ago due to dogs being better trained, more pro-trained dogs in HT, wide availability of training programs, etc. Pros from our area have went to tests in the summer in other areas and said the quality of dog work wasn't near as good as we see down here. Maybe that's part of the problem. Not sure, just thinking out loud. Typical master tests callbacks in our area go about like 60-42-34-26. Have seen as much as 50% cut in the 1st. Most I've seen pass was 42/60 and well over 1/2 the field was already Master titled.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

bamajeff said:


> the standard required to achieve MH is higher now than it was 10 yrs ago due to dogs being better trained, more pro-trained dogs in HT, wide availability of training programs, etc.


I agree. I remember the test well as I marshaled a Master in 2004 and the water blind was in a small pond and the wb went across a point. All of the dogs that ran cheated at the point and bailed to the shore and ran around except for the pro run dog. This was a simple blind. I was happy to see a few years later that blind would have been done properly by most amateur handled dogs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Tobias said:


> For those who disdain a 'high pass rate' ala 'gimme tests' - what would you say if the 'average' overall pass rate of one state, over the course of one hunt test season, was 65%....
> 
> is that too high, too low, just right? This is a state that has a good number of tests per year (more than 10, I think)... but only a handful were near 60 entries....
> 
> just curious....


Running probably 35-40 MH HT in a stint of 11-12yrs. I would speculate that 65% pass rate for a master field is very high. Now I'm not saying it doesn't happen every once in awhile that judges put on a excellent test and the majority of the field pull through that day; prehaps a field of dogs that the majority are already titled. But in my experience a true to standard test, with 3 to standard series, a pass-rate that high is rare, and doesn't happen over and over again regardless of what dogs are running. Even good dogs mess up and sometimes will got out, Pro ran dogs will go out, Titled dogs will go out. It's rare to have a highly consistent dog who doesn't go out every once in awhile. If this were the case pros would only have to run 6 tests and then 4 every year after. I'd say vast majority of nice to Standard Master tests will usually have a 20-40% pass-rate, sometimes more, sometime less. This also tends to be the case when I judge (I've probably judged 15-25 tests in 3 venues NAHRA AKC HRC) and regardless of venue; I've have yet to have a pass-rate as high as 65%, in the middle-upper stakes. Most fall in the 20-40% categories. I don't think I've even had that high of Started or JH pass-rate. Not that I wouldn't have one if everyone that day showed up and did the job, just hasn't turned out that way yet.


----------



## wsumner (Mar 5, 2004)

drunkenpoacher everyone has a right to an opinion. One of the thing that is used to determine but how much weight I think someone opinion is worth is based on the amount of experience that person has had. One test is hardly enough to validate your opinion of the Master Hunt test program. Especially when I weigh it against those who have handled dogs, attended seminars, apprenticed, and judged numerous tests. I know you are going to say that others agree with you but the poll show they are a minority. If this program isn't tough enough for you and superdog maybe you shoould go to the SRS and show them how its done.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

wsumner said:


> drunkenpoacher everyone has a right to an opinion. One of the thing that is used to determine but how much weight I think someone opinion is worth is based on the amount of experience that person has had. One test is hardly enough to validate your opinion of the Master Hunt test program. Especially when I weigh it against those who have handled dogs, attended seminars, apprenticed, and judged numerous tests. I know you are going to say that others agree with you but the poll show they are a minority. If this program isn't tough enough for you and superdog maybe you shoould go to the SRS and show them how its done.


I've already been told how little my opinion means. 
The poll was whether or not 60 dog limits were resulting in substandard master tests. 
I and others with equally worthless opinions do not think the 60 dog limit that is the real problem. 
Passing and giving MH titles to dogs that are not up to the standard of a finished retriever is the problem.
It may bring in entry fees and make people feel warm and fuzzy but it discredits the sport and the dogs that have truly earned the title. 

While I appreciate the praise, what I and my superdog do or don't do has no impact on the value of an MH title.


----------



## TODD SCHMADL (Sep 14, 2016)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I've already been told how little my opinion means.
> The poll was whether or not 60 dog limits were resulting in substandard master tests.
> I and others with equally worthless opinions do not think the 60 dog limit that is the real problem.
> Passing and giving MH titles to dogs that are not up to the standard of a finished retriever is the problem.
> ...


exactly, I also will throw this out there. The dogs have progressed in breeding and in training no doubt about it. Look at the test for the Nationals FT in the 70's the average Qual today far more complex then back then. Yes dogs in the past have a great legacy, but everything has gotten much better, training and dogs. So why would the "ol'guard" continue to want the same standards reflecting days gone past?

FT naturally evolved d/t having to pick a winner. The test got harder and harder to separate ever better dogs. But the HT wants things the same as "years ago" as they say. For the HT and they guy who cannot afford to and enjoys training his own dog the HT game is perfect solution. Good debates are a good thing unless as they say in the movie Heartbreak Ridge, "we like the way things been all along sarge no reason to change"


----------



## Gatzby (Dec 16, 2010)

bamajeff said:


> You've run 1 master test. I've run about 15-20, which I would still consider limited experience. I've never seen the leniency by the judges you are describing here. I have seen some judges much more lenient than others, but not to the degree you describe. I've never seen a test where a handle in 2 marking series that you weren't out. I think it's 100% wrong that you are extrapolating what you saw at a single test to determine that the entire MH title is meaningless. The poll is almost 80-20 against the premise of sub-standard master tests. So that tells you that the majority of others' experience is not like yours.
> 
> I think if you seek out judges(ask pros who the tough judges are, look at EE pass rates, etc) you can find those tough tests and judges you're looking for. But something tells me that's not what you're looking for at all. You're just looking to belittle something that, by your own admission, you have VERY LIMITED experience with.


Thank you for this. I think many of us are thinking the same thing.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

TODD SCHMADL said:


> . I have watched slipped whistles alot, too much. For pete's sake have the time we are talking 70 yard or less blinds come on. Not talking a slipped whistle in the wind at 400 yards with a shot poison bird then refusing a cast into a head wind to water, talking 70 yard blinds.
> 
> Watch at almost every single HT I have been to a handle on a mark becomes a pheasant hunt, one sloppy cast into the AOF then the dog hunts. Yes, have failed tests I should have, yes seen some darn good MH tests, many rely on BS set ups rather then well placed birds to let the dogs take themselves out.
> 
> ...


You are on record on this forum telling us how you think they suck. Don't piss down the back of my neck and try to tell me it's raining. -Paul


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Hello folks, 'tis I, Madam Moderator.

Could we all please speak and discuss things respectfully?

Please no personal insults.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

There are some real examples of poor judging on both sides of the issue. One, passed 8 dogs of 60. Another passed 3 dogs of 60. The first one I won't run under unless he has a strong co-judge to temper his impulses. The second was banned from judging, I believe.

I don't have an issue with tough tests but they need to be fair. I live in the DFW area and believe it or not there aren't any close tests. The closest is 2 1/2 hours with most being 4+ hours away. With the cost for a hunt test being $300-400 (entry fee plus hotel room, etc) I expect a reasonable shot at a ribbon.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Wow 17 pages and still going. This thread itself is a big part of why I no longer run hunt tests.


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

I've read the majority of the thread and have yet to see the question posed. If the Master tests aren't limited to 60 entries what do you propose as an alternative?

Go to a mandatory 90 dog test and 3 days?? or go unlimited?? Both are a struggle with grounds and club help and wouldn't necessarily "improve" the quality of test as most 90 dog tests still end early/mid day sunday. Unlimited entry tests are rare in my area (OK/KS/southern MO and northern TX)


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

I don't think 60 dog number is an issue if good time management practices are adhered to by marshall, judges, workers. The tests that I've seen run smoothly have all shared common traits.
1.) Marshall had lineup posted on board and had 3-4 dogs lined up ready to move up to next holding blind at all times
2.) Judges did a thorough job of explaining each bird tech's role, what to look for, etc so no birds were minimized/eliminated
3.) Very efficient transition from 1 series to the next. Usually 30-45 min from the time last dog runs previous series until test dog in next series ran
4.) Judges and workers ate lunch on the go while they worked and kept the test running
5.) Marshall had volunteer workers from the entrants to throw birds so the test could run an extra hour or 2 if the bird techs had to leave at say 5:00.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

It really helps to have a marshal that knows most of the handlers and is a little more aggressive to get them lined up, know where the handlers are, communicate to other stakes.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

When I marshal, I mentally am prepared to be "that guy" all day. If the marshal is doing his/her job, they won't win any popularity contests. Logistics and time management are crucial. 

Not pointing any fingers but these are some failures I have seen in time management and logistics. Handlers entering many dogs in every stake at the event=waiting for that handler. Long walks to plant the blind=a minute to plant the blind adds an hour to the test. Too much talking with each handler=added time (very guilty of this one myself). Poor communication between stakes=too much down time waiting on handlers or dogs that scratched. Not meeting the requirements of the test level=extra series. Lack of awareness of time available to compete a test=Monday finish. Missed flyer or no bird=lost time. Attention to detail will alleviate any of these issues. There is no reason a fair, challenging Master test cannot be the normal even with 60 dogs.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

fishduck said:


> When I marshal, I mentally am prepared to be "that guy" all day. If the marshal is doing his/her job, they won't win any popularity contests. Logistics and time management are crucial.
> 
> Not pointing any fingers but these are some failures I have seen in time management and logistics. Handlers entering many dogs in every stake at the event=waiting for that handler. Long walks to plant the blind=a minute to plant the blind adds an hour to the test. Too much talking with each handler=added time (very guilty of this one myself). Poor communication between stakes=too much down time waiting on handlers or dogs that scratched. Not meeting the requirements of the test level=extra series. Lack of awareness of time available to compete a test=Monday finish. Missed flyer or no bird=lost time. Attention to detail will alleviate any of these issues. There is no reason a fair, challenging Master test cannot be the normal even with 60 dogs.


Totally agree Mark. The tests I've run that you have marshalled have all run very smooth. In fact, the last one finished all 3 series(minus about 5 dogs) on saturday. That was by far the most efficient transition between series that I've seen at any test.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Steve Shaver said:


> Wow 17 pages and still going. This thread itself is a big part of why I no longer run hunt tests.


Would you mind sharing the other reasons?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

bamajeff said:


> Just because someone doesn't share your opinion or had the same 'bad' experience at 1 hunt test doesn't mean their feelings are hurt. I've spoken with several pros from my area and they feel the standard required to achieve MH is higher now than it was 10 yrs ago due to dogs being better trained, more pro-trained dogs in HT, wide availability of training programs, etc. Pros from our area have went to tests in the summer in other areas and said the quality of dog work wasn't near as good as we see down here. Maybe that's part of the problem. Not sure, just thinking out loud. Typical master tests callbacks in our area go about like 60-42-34-26. Have seen as much as 50% cut in the 1st. Most I've seen pass was 42/60 and well over 1/2 the field was already Master titled.


If the standard is maintained at the tests in your area that's great. 
The pros have to make clients happy so of course they will say the standards are higher, the training is better and their dogs are superior.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Basically, you are a guy with no measuring devices telling us that what we have is too short. -Paul


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Dp, Where do you get your information? I know lots of pros and have trained with four on a frequent basis. And they do not act as you stated. Paul is right.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

By coming back and stirring the pot I'de say anonymous flamer.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

paul young said:


> Basically, you are a guy with no measuring devices telling us that what we have is too short. -Paul


So then you would represent the old guard labeling anyone who dares to question the status quo a fool or a heretic?


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

drunkenpoacher said:


> If the standard is maintained at the tests in your area that's great.
> The pros have to make clients happy so of course they will say the standards are higher, the training is better and their dogs are superior.


So, you can make wide spread generalizations about the MH title after running 1 test, and you can make assertions about quality of pros and their dogs in my area whom you've never met nor seen run? Wow. How does one even respond to that level of ignorance?


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Well I ve followed this thread from the beginning and it is surprising. 

The original poster indicated they were new and had run 1 master test ; then they had opinions. As the thread progressed it seemed disingenuous and was being used as bait. Perhaps the thread is to “ troll” but I don’t know. 

Our journey many years ago started with us knowing all and many stars in the eyes. Now years later it’s a more cautious eye and a more nervous hand. The wife and I have trained out ht dogs to many passes, earned those presious pewter plates, earned the Mnrc hall of fame and judged our fair share plus been chair, Marshall and janitor all all the positions in between. There are many like us throughout the retriever community 

Cut the new guy a bit of slack and if he’s real then he ll learn. If he’s baiting us then does it matter ? 

Now on to the Ft domain - we re up to our neck in that venue also. We now have our first amateur trained and handled AFC/ MH with another close. Earning the invite to both Ft Nationals and we judge our fair share there also 

The point being ( and not about us and pelts) rather it’s a journey It’s about training our companion and sharing those good times and defeats with our community 
It’s about all those prefect days out there with rain, snow, wind and yes sunny with warm temps while trying to improve. It’s about my team against the test at whatever level or venue 

OP I hope your journey is just beginning and you enjoy the success and failures ( yes failures) we don’t live in a prefect world nor or our dog tests always the best or prefect however I like the diversity and I ve learned that judges are out there giving up thier weekend and time and all these guys are trying to give you a good test. 
Stay in it long enough to contribute and smile when you remember the early days 
With Respect 
Dk


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I bet DP will be happy in FT. I hear there is no “old guard” over there to deal with and they would sure welcome any comments he might have to improve their sport (after running a handful of FT).


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

paul young said:


> Basically, you are a guy with no measuring devices telling us that what we have is too short. -Paul



Paul, Paul, Paul 

After all these years on RTF, I thought you would have learned - "Don't feed the trolls"

Happy Thanksgiving!

Ted


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

bamajeff said:


> So, you can make wide spread generalizations about the MH title after running 1 test, and you can make assertions about quality of pros and their dogs in my area whom you've never met nor seen run? Wow. How does one even respond to that level of ignorance?


First I stated that it was good to here that the MH standard was adhered to in the tests you have seen.
My second point is that a pro trainer would be foolish to say that his product, MH titled dogs, may be of lesser quality than in years past.
Your so eloquently stated comment, " Pros from our area have went to tests in the summer in other areas and said the quality of dog work wasn't near as good as we see down here." did strike me as somewhat condescending but maybe I'm just being ignorant again.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

drunkenpoacher said:


> " Pros from our area have went to tests in the summer in other areas and said the quality of dog work wasn't near as good as we see down here." did strike me as somewhat condescending but maybe I'm just being ignorant again.


Well, they went to 1 test, so according to you that gives them enough of a knowledge base to level criticism, make big assumptions and judge worth, right?


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Dave Kress said:


> Well I ve followed this thread from the beginning and it is surprising.
> 
> The original poster indicated they were new and had run 1 master test ; then they had opinions. As the thread progressed it seemed disingenuous and was being used as bait. Perhaps the thread is to “ troll” but I don’t know.
> 
> ...






Well said.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Dave (and Marty) are two of the hardest working people in the retrieving games. 

Well said!


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> So then you would represent the old guard labeling anyone who dares to question the status quo a fool or a heretic?


Deleted by author.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

If someone believes strongly in their opinions, they should be proud enough to put their name to them. Someone famous said that, I forget who.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul, Paul, Paul
> 
> After all these years on RTF, I thought you would have learned - "Don't feed the trolls"
> 
> ...


You hit that nail squarely on the head! I really am not very bright.








Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, Ted. -Paul


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Dave Kress said:


> Well I ve followed this thread from the beginning and it is surprising.
> 
> The original poster indicated they were new and had run 1 master test ; then they had opinions. As the thread progressed it seemed disingenuous and was being used as bait. Perhaps the thread is to “ troll” but I don’t know.
> 
> ...


Thoughtful post Dave. Easy to see why John B had such respect for you.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It has been a long time since I ran HRC. I have never run an AKC Hunting Test. I have run FT for over 20 years. So, you can take what I write with a grain of salt.

In the field trial game, the quality of a stake is largely driven by three factors

1. The quality of the judges
2. The quality of the workers
3. The quality of the property

If you have all three, it is typically a good experience, regardless of size. If you have the first two, it is typically a good experience. If you don't have the high quality of #1, it can be spotty. If you have low quality of #1, 2/3 don't matter

The moral of the story: the quality of a FT event is driven by more than just size. 

I suspect that HT are much the same

Ted


----------



## Mejdrich (Oct 8, 2014)

In reading through the many posts, it seems the main issue is how long it takes to run a Master stake (and the issues resulting from that time crunch). I’d like to respectfully submit a completely different thought that it appears may not have been considered:

What if the reason Master stakes take so long is because they are run inefficiently?

Bear with me....

First problem: pros vs amateurs. Nothing against either one, but they have different goals and needs. Amateur has 1, maybe 2 dogs whereas pros have multiple dogs.

Juniors takes roughly 15 minutes per dog. Amateur runs 1 or 2 dogs and is done. Pro runs a dog, returns it to truck, gets another dog, runs it, returns it to truck, etc. Then maybe has to run to another field to make his place in the “random order” in another stake, and then come back to Juniors.

People complain that they have to wait on pros, but often there is only 1 pro who must run multiple dogs in multiple stakes—and you can’t be in 2 places at once.

Now here comes the challenge to the status quo—are you ready?

What if it’s the random order that’s screwing things up?

Because of the random order, pros are having to drive back and forth between stakes, which holds up the flow of dogs to the line. The domino effect goes from Junior to Senior to Master. And because there are more dogs in Master than the other stakes, you get a “funnel” effect: too many dogs going in at the top and only a trickle coming out the bottom.

The first workaround was to increase the number of entries, which slowed things down too much. The next solution was to have two Master stakes (A & B). But like a traffic jam, even the slightest holdup on a field that big can cause backups, which it does every time. Master always takes the longest.

I agree judging is important and should be to standard. And I did take the class from Joe and I am a judge. I’ve also competed and spent literally DAYS watching all three stakes, marshalling and talking with trainers, club presiidents, AKC reps and HT organizers and volunteers.

AKC says random draw is not required and clubs can decide running order.

What if pros were run first in Junior, then packed up their dogs and ran Senior, then went on to Master?

With the smooth flow of dogs through the pattern, you’d reduce wait time. You’d be able to run more dogs in less time. 

To test my theory, I used an Excel spreadsheet to create a running order designed for each stake and based on whether owners were pro or amateur, running multiple dogs or just one. Guess what? Judges said it was the smoothest they’d ever seen. 

Maybe, with greater efficiency, we wouldn’t get the big clog of Master candidates. Maybe we wouldn’t have to limit fields. Maybe judges wouldn’t have to feel pressed for time? Maybe pros wouldn’t have to go stake hopping with a truckload of dogs? Maybe amateurs and judges wouldn’t have to chase pros down to complete a stake?

It’s worth considering...


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Mejdrich said:


> AKC says random draw is not required and clubs can decide running order.
> 
> What if pros were run first in Junior, then packed up their dogs and ran Senior, then went on to Master?
> 
> ...


This is a good idea. I can make this work at our spring test. 

One challenge that we seem to be facing this fall is the number of entries per person. At one point we had someone that had to go every other dog. They didn’t have any lower stake entrie, but others did. How do we make that work more efficiently?

Sue


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Mejdrich said:


> In reading through the many posts, it seems the main issue is how long it takes to run a Master stake (and the issues resulting from that time crunch). I’d like to respectfully submit a completely different thought that it appears may not have been considered:
> 
> What if the reason Master stakes take so long is because they are run inefficiently?
> 
> ...


Thank you for a very thoughtful and constructive post.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Mejdrich

Here are a few copy/paste from the rulebook that support your idea.

"Dogs may be run in an order different from the order in which they are drawn:"

"(a) When in the opinion of the Judges or the Hunting Test Committee such will result in a reasonable and desirable saving of time in the conduct of the event;"

The above quotes are from pages 12-13 in the rulebook. I think your ideas are supported by the rules and some clubs definitely use your logic. Waiting on handlers may be the most frustrating part of judging.

Very good idea!!!!


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

Seems like a novel idea and I certainly think that would save time in Junior or Senior tests. However, I rarely see a hold up in 60 dog master tests because a pro is not there to run his dogs. Normally the pros are requested to finish their dogs in Master before they go to another junior or senior stake. 

I do think there is a lot of wasted time at a Master test. For instance, I have never been to one that started “on time.” That might help. 

There never seems to be a sense of urgency until Sunday afternoon and suddenly we might not finish. I don’t ever think this is the clubs fault or the marshalls fault. It’s just a general lack of concern about time..until it’s too late. 


I have seen judges give extra long lunches. I have seen re-birds that take forever and a day. And the change over from one series to another always takes WAY longer than anyone anticipates. And most of the time they already know their setup, it’s just a matter of getting it set up. I think all of these things could improve time management if there was just a “sense of urgency” in all involved. 

And heck sometimes the judges just dilly-dally. They are having fun, which is important, and talking with handlers and talking with themselves but every minute counts. 

So, back to the original question about 60 dog Master tests. I think the answer is “maybe sometimes.” But it is very hard to justify. 

I would be more concerned about what DrunkenPoacher is seeing in a test versus having to resort to a double in the last series. Even on a double, a dog still has to do the work and do the work per the rule book. I don’t believe people/dogs should be getting thru with multiple handles and multiple slipped whistles or whatever. I don’t see that happening at the tests I have been to. It’s usually a pretty tough standard. I have seen easier tests and harder tests but that will always be the case. 

I have also seen some dogs that have a MH title that don’t impress me at all. Maybe this is because of their style (or lack of style) or something like that. But maybe they do all of the tests perfectly? Anyway, my point is, I think we have to remember that not all MH are created equal. Some may get a pass when not deserved. Some may pass with flying colors but are no fun to watch or run. It is what it is. 

So, in conclusion, if tests ran with a sense of urgency from the very first bird, these things would move much faster in my opinion.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

I respect your thoughts and ideas birddogn tc, even more I admire your bravery.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Dan Wegner said:


> Tom, you hit the nail on the head. Hunt Tests are pass/fail. The ribbon isn't colored any differently for an A+ job than it is for a C- job. If that rubs someone the wrong way, then perhaps Field Trials would be more attractive to them.
> 
> I ran Hunt Tests for several years until I started seeing what I felt were sub-standard performances being called back and passing at some tests. I used to admire those dogs who had a MH title, but seeing judges pass multiple ugly handles and dogs that couldn't mark or take direction from their handlers, definitely watered down the accomplishment in my eyes. I'm not saying it happens at every test, but the fact that it happens at all is a shame and turned me off to the game. I also jusged hunt tests, but like others have said, unless you were very generous with callbacks and pass percentages, you don't get many invites. There are still quite a few talented dogs with MH titles, but I don't feel simply having the title is an indicator of true MH talent any more.
> 
> ...



Well said Dan I agree 100% and feel the same way. 

I too have moved on to trials and it’s very rewarding and humbling at the same time !!!


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I respect your thoughts and ideas birddogn tc, even more I admire your bravery.


Thanks. Wasn’t trying to be brave. And certainly was not being rudely critical (or that was not my intent) so hopefully no one took it that way. I know it’s hard to put on a Hunt Test and keep things moving swiftly. 

I am still relatively new to Hunt Tests and I still get a great amount of enjoyment out of them even if they take a long time, or even if a dog passes that I don’t think did a “passable” job, etc etc. 

At the end of the day, it’s about me and my dog against the standard and I want to walk off the line knowing that there is nothing for the judge to “judge”. 

In all the junior, senior, and master tests I have run...I have never been borderline. It’s either we passed or we didn’t (and when we didn’t...we didn’t have to wait for callbacks, it was already known.) For me personally, I kind of prefer the black and white. If we passed with a “70” or a “C”, well, ok that is fair, but I wouldn’t be proud the work and would want to do better next time.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

birddogn_tc said:


> Seems like a novel idea and I certainly think that would save time in Junior or Senior tests. However, I rarely see a hold up in 60 dog master tests because a pro is not there to run his dogs. Normally the pros are requested to finish their dogs in Master before they go to another junior or senior stake.
> 
> I do think there is a lot of wasted time at a Master test. For instance, I have never been to one that started “on time.” That might help.
> 
> ...


Agree totally. The smoothness or lack thereof at Master tests I've been a part of is a direct result of good/poor time management. And like you, I've not seen multiple slipped whistles and cast refusals being called back. Hopefully that's not indicative of master tests across the country. Based on the poll results, I think it's the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

birddogn_tc said:


> Seems like a novel idea and I certainly think that would save time in Junior or Senior tests. However, I rarely see a hold up in 60 dog master tests because a pro is not there to run his dogs. Normally the pros are requested to finish their dogs in Master before they go to another junior or senior stake.
> 
> I do think there is a lot of wasted time at a Master test. For instance, I have never been to one that started “on time.” That might help.
> 
> ...






Agree but in that last sentence be careful what you ask for you might get it. Yes a sense of urgency should be there but hopefully a controlled sense of urgency. I have run events where the sense of urgency made for a bad event. I have trained many dogs that also let a sense of urgency get in their way


----------



## J.Nichols (Oct 31, 2012)

Bird placement is what I’ve seen lacking in a lot of master level tests. Solid bird placement in the first two series should reduce the number of dogs back to the water series, and if what you thought would eat their lunch turns into a cakewalk well then either you’re seeing an exceptional group of dogs or you goofed on your setup and you probably shouldn’t opt for a water quad with long swims. That goes back to the time management thing of course. But I feel that if more judges threw marks that stood alone by themselves as a solid mark there wouldn’t be the same rates back passing or to the water stake. But there’s judges left and right who haven’t ever even trained a dog themselves so what can be expected when it comes to reading a piece of ground and setting up a challenging but fair test ? I do know that a master title today is not the same master title from the 90’s.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

> But there’s judges left and right who haven’t ever even trained a dog themselves so what can be expected when it comes to reading a piece of ground and setting up a challenging but fair test ? I do know that a master title today is not the same master title from the 90’s.


I hear this quite a lot.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Wow. After reading 21 pages of this and the MH title is not worth anything? As an amateur, that mostly trains her own dogs, with limited grounds, no technical ponds without a 2 hour + drive and limited time, I’m offended. Wow. It’s blood sweat and tears here for every pass. Some days are a gift, some days are a hard won victory. Some days, even a failure is a success. 

Who gives a damn about pass rates? This is about teamwork and playing to a standard. If you don’t agree with it or are not happy, go somewhere else. I’m in it for the titles, the relationships with my dogs, with the people I’ve met putting on and helping at tests. We have choices. If you don’t like that someone puts on what you think are substandard tests? Don’t run under them. If you think they pass too many? Don’t run under them. Your ‘too easy’ test is someone else’s hard test. There are many other options out there to play in. It’s like this in every sport. Find something positive in Hunt tests. If the title doesn’t ‘mean’ much anymore to you, don’t cheapen for everyone else, go find something more challenging. If not, why bother?


----------



## wsumner (Mar 5, 2004)

But there’s judges left and right who haven’t ever even trained a dog themselves so what can be expected when it comes to reading a piece of ground and setting up a challenging but fair test ? I do know that a master title today is not the same master title from the 90’s. 



drunkenpoacher said:


> I hear this quite a lot.


The nerve of these people to give up their time to judge your dog when they should be home training their own dogs. Don't they know there is no way they can set up a test that is up to your standards. Just because there are two judges means nothing. The ignorance of the one with no dog training must control the other resulting in poor tests. If only YOU had the time to judge with your vast experience in Master test, you could fix everything.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't hear this any. I run with or train with many of the local judges.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I hear this quite a lot.


Since this has started have you contacted your rep at the RHTAC or your AKC Field Rep?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Thomas D said:


> Since this has started have you contacted your rep at the RHTAC or your AKC Field Rep?


Yes, thanks for asking


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Initial email response from RHTAC rep. 

"(The) AKC and the committee are aware of these scenarios and are tracking them to see what can be done." 

Sounds like it's an issue being discussed.


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

To quote EdA from another thread talking about judging the most recent National Retriever Championship in Kentucky, " We considered a good handle when the dog indicated some semblance of a mark and was handled to the bird"

Drunkenpoacher and some others want to call a Master test that gives a qualifying score to a dog that does this twice on a weekend test too easy?


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Illini Coot Killr said:


> To quote EdA from another thread talking about judging the most recent National Retriever Championship in Kentucky, " We considered a good handle when the dog indicated some semblance of a mark and was handled to the bird"
> 
> Drunkenpoacher and some others want to call a Master test that gives a qualifying score to a dog that does this twice on a weekend test too easy?


So hunt test dogs that have to be handled multiple times on multiple 70 to 150 yard marks are NRC caliber?


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

drunkenpoacher said:


> So hunt test dogs that have to be handled multiple times on multiple 70 to 150 yard marks are NRC caliber?


No of course not.
I'm saying in a non competative venue, like a hunt test, that a dog who does as Dr. ED A describes could earn a qualify score if this happens on couple marks out of 8-10 marks in three series. 

If your dog pins all the marks granted it did the better job but that's not what the hunt test game is all about is it?

Just so you know here is my experience with several HRC dogs, one Master/FT dog. With my current dog I went the FT route first and we earned QAA as a 3yr old then went back to the HT game. Got our HRCH in short order but the MH title proved pretty tricky for me. Between the wednesday night computer mombo to enter, and short marks/flyers it was a challenge. But hey I'm having fun and learning every day.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The problem is people recognizing when the dog has "shown a mark" vs. a flat out rule about 2 handles in the test or a "clean" series. 

2 quick handles on marks where the dog clearly showed it knew where it was going both in terms of line and distance shouldn't be considered disqualifying, which is why it's NOT written in the rules that way.


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> The problem is people recognizing when the dog has "shown a mark" vs. a flat out rule about 2 handles in a single test or a "clean" series.
> 
> 2 quick handles on marks where the dog clearly showed it knew where it was going both in terms of line and distance shouldn't be considered disqualifying, which is why it's NOT written in the rules that way.


And then there are those that have no idea or make no distinction between a dog who has shown an indication of marking, and those that have no clue. A handle is a handle according to these folks. Two of them and you're gone. Not my way of judging a hunting dog.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Significant time is spent on this in the judge's seminar. I don't think people completely disregard it but rather have their long standing opinion OR don't want to hear the handler's argument.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

DarrinGreene said:


> The problem is people recognizing when the dog has "shown a mark" vs. a flat out rule about 2 handles in the test or a "clean" series.
> 
> 2 quick handles on marks where the dog clearly showed it knew where it was going both in terms of line and distance shouldn't be considered disqualifying, which is why it's NOT written in the rules that way.


That's a good point. What would you say about a dog that repeatedly fails to mark, forgets memory birds or expects to be handled whenever it has trouble with a mark?


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

drunkenpoacher said:


> That's a good point. What would you say about a dog that repeatedly fails to mark, forgets memory birds or expects to be handled whenever it has trouble with a mark?


Should be a definite failure and would be a definite failure in any master test I've run or watched(20+ tests). I think your 1 test you ran was an anomaly if dogs like you describe got passing grades.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

bamajeff said:


> Should be a definite failure and would be a definite failure in any master test I've run or watched(20+ tests). I think your 1 test you ran was an anomaly if dogs like you describe got passing grades.


Maybe but some of them were already MH titled.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

drunkenpoacher said:


> *Maybe but some of them were already MH titled*.



Your point being ?


----------



## ZEKESMAN (Mar 22, 2008)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Maybe but some of them were already MH titled.


So by this standard a dog with FC in front of its name that blows up at the next trial isn't worthy? You do understand that they have good days and bad right? Vic


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

YUP! They turn into dogs every once in a while.

One of the funniest things I have ever heard at a test was 2 Pros talking back and forth between their holding blinds.

One was lamenting a poor performance by a usually stellar performer, earlier: "I just don't under stand why he blew up like that". To which the other Pro answered: "They're dogs. They'll screw their mama or daddy and they'll eat s--t." 

If they were perfect every time out of the box, it would be a VERY boring thing to go to line. -Paul


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

I get it, dogs have bad days and should not pass on those days. Just like an FC that gets cut in the first series. There is also a difference in a dog having a bad day and a dog that has been conditioned to expect handling anytime it has trouble with a mark.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I get it, dogs have bad days and should not pass on those days. Just like an FC that gets cut in the first series. There is also a difference in a dog having a bad day and a dog that has been conditioned to expect handling anytime it has trouble with a mark.


Well, that's a training problem, what does it have to do with judging/MH test setups? Or are you suggesting that's how it goes now, people just expect to handle on at least two marks in a MH these days and train accordingly? In other words, they are lazy or poor trainers because they know that's what flies in HT? I've run a long time and know alot of people running HT. I don't know anyone that WANTS to handle on a mark, regardless of the venue. If a MH-level dog is being handled often on marks in training, there probably needs to be some adjustments in that trainer's program. I don't know anyone I've met in person who wants their dog to start popping or lose confidence on a mark and expect to be handled. And in fact, many "good" marking dogs are often difficult to handle on marks, when they are out there on a roll. I would venture to say, many people wait too long to handle, wait until they are in trouble, where a quick handle earlier may have been better. People want to "save" that handle, most will try like heck not to use it up in the first series. But, if they are watching the field and see there is a trouble spot, the experienced handler will be on watch for that especially, whistle in mouth, get a quick handle in vs ugly hunt and maybe uglier handle later. That is smart handling and more pleasing to watch in a dog being evaluated for hunting ability. But that is different than "conditioning" a dog to be handled when it can't find a mark. I don't know or have any MH level dogs that WANT to be handled on marks, shoot, I wish mine were that compliant sometimes.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

Rainmaker said:


> Well, that's a training problem, what does it have to do with judging/MH test setups? Or are you suggesting that's how it goes now, people just expect to handle on at least two marks in a MH these days and train accordingly? In other words, they are lazy or poor trainers because they know that's what flies in HT? I've run a long time and know alot of people running HT. I don't know anyone that WANTS to handle on a mark, regardless of the venue. If a MH-level dog is being handled often on marks in training, there probably needs to be some adjustments in that trainer's program. I don't know anyone I've met in person who wants their dog to start popping or lose confidence on a mark and expect to be handled. And in fact, many "good" marking dogs are often difficult to handle on marks, when they are out there on a roll. I would venture to say, many people wait too long to handle, wait until they are in trouble, where a quick handle earlier may have been better. People want to "save" that handle, most will try like heck not to use it up in the first series. But, if they are watching the field and see there is a trouble spot, the experienced handler will be on watch for that especially, whistle in mouth, get a quick handle in vs ugly hunt and maybe uglier handle later. That is smart handling and more pleasing to watch in a dog being evaluated for hunting ability. But that is different than "conditioning" a dog to be handled when it can't find a mark. I don't know or have any MH level dogs that WANT to be handled on marks, shoot, I wish mine were that compliant sometimes.


Yes, it's a training problem, that was may point.
Are you saying there are no pros anywhere that put in the minimum amount of time and effort to achieve an MH?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Yes, it's a training problem, that was may point.
> Are you saying there are no pros anywhere that put in the minimum amount of time and effort to achieve an MH?


I see you added the second question on in order to keep stirring the pot, which is what this is all about, your opinions of one master. For one, I think you haven't a clue on how dogs are trained or what happens when they are tested. It is not linear, he knows how to run a double do he will* always *know where the marks are, and all you are doing is trying to outwit the people that are posting to show how smart you think you are. A good judge knows what dogs do after years of experience of working with them and he/she uses that knowledge to set up tests. Dogs run up hills, so if you place the bird near the base of the hill they may over-run the bird and not recover. If a dog is running and exhaling he may not scent the bird on the way up, and probably over. The smart dogs learn to come back and work their way back to the bird. If the trainer never handles the dog in training, they will take longer to learn this by themselves, so handling is useful as instruction. There are a lot of bad trainers out there and you don't need any instruction to call yourself a trainer and hang out your shingle. That's nothing new. There are poor judges and poor trainers, and you are just making a mountain out of a molehill after witnessing one test and at least 80% are saving they have not seen what you saw. To ask a question with "no" pros or "every" pro is just stirring the pot, and stated just to be argumentative and irrational


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Yes, it's a training problem, that was may point.
> Are you saying there are no pros anywhere that put in the minimum amount of time and effort to achieve an MH?


Accept my compliments again on your stirring ability. You are rapidly approaching Master Baiter status.

All pros have dogs with differing abilities. Some are superstars and some may not have what it takes. If you feel the need to "win" then hunt tests will never be a good fit. Personally, I am very happy running dogs in hunt test because I neither have the time, grounds or talent to compete in AA stakes.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

ErinsEdge said:


> I see you added the second question on in order to keep stirring the pot, which is what this is all about, your opinions of one master. For one, I think you haven't a clue on how dogs are trained or what happens when they are tested. It is not linear, he knows how to run a double do he will* always *know where the marks are, and all you are doing is trying to outwit the people that are posting to show how smart you think you are. A good judge knows what dogs do after years of experience of working with them and he/she uses that knowledge to set up tests. Dogs run up hills, so if you place the bird near the base of the hill they may over-run the bird and not recover. If a dog is running and exhaling he may not scent the bird on the way up, and probably over. The smart dogs learn to come back and work their way back to the bird. If the trainer never handles the dog in training, they will take longer to learn this by themselves, so handling is useful as instruction. There are a lot of bad trainers out there and you don't need any instruction to call yourself a trainer and hang out your shingle. That's nothing new. There are poor judges and poor trainers, and you are just making a mountain out of a molehill after witnessing one test and at least 80% are saving they have not seen what you saw. To ask a question with "no" pros or "every" pro is just stirring the pot, and stated just to be argumentative and irrational


So I'm a no nothing no it all just stirring the pot but you respond anyway. Did I ever insult you?
Still waiting to hear where those Minnesota test are with pass numbers in the single digits.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Yes, it's a training problem, that was may point.
> Are you saying there are no pros anywhere that put in the minimum amount of time and effort to achieve an MH?



Of course there are, but that's not the judge's or HT fault. The pros that run my circuit, you can tell the ones that train to a standard vs the ones that do the bare minimum (and pass fewer dogs consistently). Are there going to be tests that poorly trained or lackluster dogs pass? Yep. Nothing is perfect.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

They were a few years ago and those judges are probably not judging anymore because of it, (rightly so) or not being asked for various reasons. 

Answering is a mistake because Mr Anonymous, your agenda is to stir the pot and not gain knowledge about how dogs are trained, and its "know", not "no" it all.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Wow 23 pages, 225 replies and 17,238 views and still going. Might even catch the college football thread. 
Drunkenpoacher didn't even start this thread in fact he didn't even get involved till page 4 and not again till page 6 or 7 and now you guys are claim he is just stirring the pot by posting his opinion. I don't think this thread should have even gotten past 3 or 4 pages so I would say Poacher is not the only one stirring the pot. I guess some people just cant stand a difference of opinion. I could say a lot more about this thread and some of the contents but I would just be accused of stirring the pot if I agreed or disagreed with the wrong person. What happened to the beating a dead horse emoticon? It would be very appropriate right now.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> So I'm a no nothing no it all just stirring the pot but you respond anyway. Did I ever insult you?
> Still waiting to hear where those Minnesota test are with pass numbers in the single digits.


If you think the measure of a great test is that only a few dogs receive a passing score, you are way wrong.

I once ran a test where I had the *ONLY* dog to pass the test that day. Did not need to handle on a single mark and had very good blinds. I got no joy from that. In fact, I think it was one of the worst tests I had ever run. If your dog made *ANY *mistake at all, there was no recovery possible. Strictly an elimination test. There was no judging necessary.

No one I have ever trained with had the goal of meeting the minimum required to pass.

On another note, I have given failing scores to dogs which did not handle on a mark. Hunted all over hell's half-acre. They *SHOULD* have been handled.-Paul


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

"On another note, I have given failing scores to dogs which did not handle on a mark. Hunted all over hell's half-acre. They SHOULD have been handled."-Paul

One of the more intelligent remarks in all 23 pages of this thread IMHO.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

paul young said:


> If you think the measure of a great test is that only a few dogs receive a passing score, you are way wrong.
> 
> I once ran a test where I had the *ONLY* dog to pass the test that day. Did not need to handle on a single mark and had very good blinds. I got no joy from that. In fact, I think it was one of the worst tests I had ever run. If your dog made *ANY *mistake at all, there was no recovery possible. Strictly an elimination test. There was no judging necessary.
> 
> ...



But he found the bird


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

> If you think the measure of a great test is that only a few dogs receive a passing score, you are way wrong.


I don't think that so I guess I'm way right, thanks Paul.


----------



## ZEKESMAN (Mar 22, 2008)

drunkenpoacher said:


> I get it, dogs have bad days and should not pass on those days. Just like an FC that gets cut in the first series. There is also a difference in a dog having a bad day and a dog that has been conditioned to expect handling anytime it has trouble with a mark.


Yes I think a Master dog that is popping on marks should probably be dropped. Vic


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Zeke, the rules support you on this if there are multiple pops on marks. Interestingly, it is a minor fault on blinds.

If it happens repeatedly, it may justify elimination. However, if the dog has hunted for the mark for a considerable time, it may not.

Sometimes, though, I get the feeling that very few people have read and understand this portion of the regulations, even though they are the basis for evaluating dog performances in an AKC Hunt Test.

II. Moderate Dog Faults
Popping on a * marked retrieve*
 – stopping and looking 
back to its handler for directions on a marked fall* before it has **hunted for a considerable time.


*

III. Minor Dog Faults.
 Either severe or repeated or 
combinations of these “minor” infractions may summate into 
a “moderate” or even a “serious” fault. Also, they may be so 
slight as not to warrant any penalty at all. 

Popping on a* blind retrieve*
 – where there are no 
extenuating circumstances such as distance, wind, shallow 
(running) water or other conditions which make it difficult to 
hear the handler’s whistle.


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

But Paul, you keep quoting the written rulebook which as everyone knows is nowhere near as important as all the other rules everyone knows


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

red devil said:


> But Paul, you keep quoting the written rulebook which as everyone knows is nowhere near as important as all the other rules everyone knows


Now THAT made me chuckle, mostly because it is so accurate.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

red devil said:


> But Paul, you keep quoting the written rulebook which as everyone knows is nowhere near as important as all the other rules everyone knows


There's an interesting one...

We defend the old guard and tell participants to "shut up and judge" while on the other hand we admit there's a pervasive issue within the existing judge's pool....

Hmmmmmmm...

I hate then this happens - makes me out to be the bad guy every time.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

DarrinGreene said:


> There's an interesting one...
> 
> We defend the old guard and tell participants to "shut up and judge" while on the other hand we admit there's a pervasive issue within the existing judge's pool....
> 
> ...


You're taking a big chance on being labeled a pot stirrer.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> There's an interesting one...
> 
> We defend the old guard and tell participants to "shut up and judge" while on the other hand we admit there's a pervasive issue within the existing judge's pool....
> 
> ...


No one is defending poor judging or any "old guard", no one said there aren't problems with judging, good god the reading comprehension sometimes makes me shake my head. What is being asked is to have some knowledge and experience and maybe not quite so much condescension and disrespect, before someone new starts telling everyone else how it should be done and how crappy they've been doing it. I've seen several people who have actually run enough to have some credibility give their reasons for why they no longer care to run HT and went to FT or the problems they've seen in HT and they haven't been slapped for posting what they did. 

It's the same in every walk of life, every job, every organization. There are a group of people who have stuck it out, done the work, continue to do the work, trying to work around the flaws of the rules they are given for the job, because there are always flaws between what is written for the job description and what is reality. Then there are the two basic types of new hires, noobs for short, not to be offensive but because I'm lazy. Noob Type A tries to learn the job, not make enemies of coworkers, puts in the time, earns the respect and friendship of coworkers, does their best to continue to improve things as they can be and need to be, move up the ladder, without telling their coworkers outright that they are lazy stupid bad workers. Type B, after a day or two on the job, declares it's all messed up, they can do it better/faster/smarter. When the old fart workers don't immediately fall to their knees and kiss Noob Type B's feet, Noob B gets hissy, cries about the old guard not letting them in or taking them seriously, rants a bit, generally either leaves in a huff, never to be heard from again or continues to grumble and gripe, being miserable and making those around them less than charitable in response.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> There's an interesting one...
> 
> We defend the old guard and tell participants to "shut up and judge" while on the other hand we admit there's a pervasive issue within the existing judge's pool....
> 
> ...


Besides, what makes you think Red Devil only meant current judges? I myself took it to include all the Internet judging experts who obviously don't actually know the HT rulebook or the intent.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> Besides, what makes you think Red Devil only meant current judges? *I myself took it to include all the Internet judging experts who obviously don't actually know the HT rulebook or the intent*.



As did I Kim. 

Much easier to judges from a keyboard with or with out having a clue.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

> *the intent*


Some, myself included, think the intent is that an MH title is reserved for truly finished hunting dogs. 
Other disagree and that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

One thing that I continually work on in dogs and life in general is to worry about my own performance and try not to look at what others are doing. I go into a test with expectations of my dogs based upon how well they are schooled on a particular concept.
If I get a good performance on something that I know they are schooled on, I am happy. The ribbons are not that important. If somebody passes who You think is not worthy it does not affect me or my dog so....Let It Go!!!! You may think that it cheapens the title but that is somebody's opinion!!!


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

Somewhere in the 25 pages I think someone (I haven't gone back to re-read), maybe more than one person, mentioned that it's "all about the money for AKC" or something in that regard. Or in other words, they are implying that the AKC wants more passes in MH tests because it will keep people coming back. I just can't truly believe that is the case, but maybe I am naive? 

Is there some secret judges handshake after the judges seminar or a "wink wink" after someone becomes qualified to judge? And the AKC says "hey, we know you just went through all of the judges training and you studied the rule book, but please disregard everything you learned and pass as many dogs as you can cause we gotta keep these dogs coming back so we can make some money. Ok? Thanks." 

I can't imagine that is the case. But maybe I'm still too green in this sport and too naive. Sure, the AKC wants/needs to make money, that is a given. And I have no problem with that, it's a business. But I don't feel like there is some secret handshake to get judges to pass more dogs.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

drunkenpoacher said:


> Some, myself included, think the intent is that an MH title is reserved for truly finished hunting dogs.
> Other disagree and that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.


Still haven't read the regulations? And please define "truly finished hunting dog".


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

birddogn_tc said:


> Somewhere in the 25 pages I think someone (I haven't gone back to re-read), maybe more than one person, mentioned that it's *"all about the money for AKC"* or something in that regard. Or in other words, they are implying that the AKC wants more passes in MH tests because it will keep people coming back. I just can't truly believe that is the case, but maybe I am naive?
> 
> Is there some secret judges handshake after the judges seminar or a "wink wink" after someone becomes qualified to judge? And the AKC says "hey, we know you just went through all of the judges training and you studied the rule book, but please disregard everything you learned and pass as many dogs as you can cause we gotta keep these dogs coming back so we can make some money. Ok? Thanks."
> 
> I can't imagine that is the case. But maybe I'm still too green in this sport and too naive. Sure, the AKC wants/needs to make money, that is a given. And I have no problem with that, it's a business. But I don't feel like there is some secret handshake to get judges to pass more dogs.






I agree and disagree. As far as passes at a weekend tests I do not think it's all about the money but when it comes to the Master National I do think money is a driving factor. I have said it many times I don't like the Master National but it aint going away. Havent run a Master in awhile but when I did I really had no complaints about pass rates, usually around 30% if I remember right. With that being said with somewhere around 1000 dogs qualifying for the Master National makes me wonder.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

birddogn_tc said:


> Is there some secret judges handshake after the judges seminar or a "wink wink" after someone becomes qualified to judge? And the AKC says "hey, we know you just went through all of the judges training and you studied the rule book, but please disregard everything you learned and pass as many dogs as you can cause we gotta keep these dogs coming back so we can make some money. Ok? Thanks."
> .


I really don't think it's the AKC, although I think they do like when the HT brings them in Money; and the best investment they could've ever made was the MNH title. Where I have seen it is in the individual clubs. I have had people on hunt test committees approach me and state they need at least a 50% pass-rate (As we need to keep everyone happy and coming back, particularly this or that "high-input" handlers), and then they get all hottie when it's not close to that. Now does this affect some judges? Prehaps; but I think it more affects which judges certain clubs pick to judge. Not saying all clubs are this way, but there is a portion who really look into pass-rates when cherry picking judges. They get what they want, might be the same with the other venues including the FTs and particular clubs-judge combinations; but then that is definitely pot-stirring . Might also be added on the the "why" I don't run FT, anymore, or in at least stay away from particular locals...Whole different can of worms

I know sour grapes, only my dogs weren't even still in it. Just don't like dogs who are super clean with good blinds getting Jams, when dogs that have handled on birds get 2nd and 3rd. Multiple years in a row...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

drunkenpoacher said:


> You're taking a big chance on being labeled a pot stirrer.


They know me here


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Besides, what makes you think Red Devil only meant current judges? I myself took it to include all the Internet judging experts who obviously don't actually know the HT rulebook or the intent.


That's fair


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> No one is defending poor judging or any "old guard", no one said there aren't problems with judging, good god the reading comprehension sometimes makes me shake my head. What is being asked is to have some knowledge and experience and maybe not quite so much condescension and disrespect, before someone new starts telling everyone else how it should be done and how crappy they've been doing it. I've seen several people who have actually run enough to have some credibility give their reasons for why they no longer care to run HT and went to FT or the problems they've seen in HT and they haven't been slapped for posting what they did.
> 
> It's the same in every walk of life, every job, every organization. There are a group of people who have stuck it out, done the work, continue to do the work, trying to work around the flaws of the rules they are given for the job, because there are always flaws between what is written for the job description and what is reality. Then there are the two basic types of new hires, noobs for short, not to be offensive but because I'm lazy. Noob Type A tries to learn the job, not make enemies of coworkers, puts in the time, earns the respect and friendship of coworkers, does their best to continue to improve things as they can be and need to be, move up the ladder, without telling their coworkers outright that they are lazy stupid bad workers. Type B, after a day or two on the job, declares it's all messed up, they can do it better/faster/smarter. When the old fart workers don't immediately fall to their knees and kiss Noob Type B's feet, Noob B gets hissy, cries about the old guard not letting them in or taking them seriously, rants a bit, generally either leaves in a huff, never to be heard from again or continues to grumble and gripe, being miserable and making those around them less than charitable in response.


I get where you're going but this isn't a FNG (what we call noobs) situation. This is a client/customer who eventually decides to join the company (or not) based on how they are treated early on.

I know a bunch of people (no longer around) who quit FT after a dog or two because they perceived favoritism of certain pros and local, well known amateurs. True or false, that's what they thought and they're now gone. 

How we treat new people, especially when volunteerism is the goal, is critical to their longevity.


----------

