# The purpose of the gun



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

I didn’t want to hijack the other thread but it occurs to me that many people don’t appreciate why the requirement to “shoulder the gun” is in the rules. 

The intent of this requirement is to force the handler to look away from his dog while the birds are in the air, thus exerting less control (from the dogs perspective) and increasing the likelihood that the dog might break. 

Handlers who demonstrate to the judges that they are afraid to take their eyes off their dog while birds are thrown, should be scored accordingly. I consider the failure to realistically handle the gun to be poor sportsmanship, but I realize that I'm the only one who sees it that way.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> but I realize that I'm the only one who sees it that way.


nope! definitely not.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Right.

It's not a training aid or something...................


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Dave Flint said:


> I didn’t want to hijack the other thread but it occurs to me that many people don’t appreciate why the requirement to “shoulder the gun” is in the rules.
> 
> The intent of this requirement is to force the handler to look away from his dog while the birds are in the air, thus exerting less control (from the dogs perspective) and increasing the likelihood that the dog might break.
> 
> Handlers who demonstrate to the judges that they are afraid to take their eyes off their dog while birds are thrown, should be scored accordingly. I consider the failure to realistically handle the gun to be poor sportsmanship, but I realize that I'm the only one who sees it that way.


Be a good idea not to aimlessly shoot the gun esp in a real situation! Poor sportsmanship? but you might be marked down in HRC or given a warning to shoulder the gun. Safety issue. IMO


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

Dave Flint said:


> I didn’t want to hijack the other thread but it occurs to me that many people don’t appreciate why the requirement to “shoulder the gun” is in the rules.
> 
> The intent of this requirement is to force the handler to look away from his dog while the birds are in the air, thus exerting less control (from the dogs perspective) and increasing the likelihood that the dog might break.
> 
> *Handlers who demonstrate to the judges that they are afraid to take their eyes off their dog while birds are thrown, should be scored accordingly*. I consider the failure to realistically handle the gun to be poor sportsmanship, but I realize that I'm the only one who sees it that way.


Every pro (even the bad ones) I've ever trained with have instructed me to watch my dog, not the marks.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Like I said on the other thread, nobodies right or wrong on this. The reality is that in real hunting, and I hunt a lot, marks are either super easy ducks dropped dead in the decoys, or commonly not seen by my dog due to a variety of reasons. My buddy and I limited out last week just before the big cold front hit, 14 mallards. Of that I had three blind retrieves that my dog missed, one cripple that sailed 300 yards and landed in some cattails that we picked up at the end of the day by taking Alex over there on our way home, he found the trail and tracked the bird down about 40 yards from where it landed. 

The most impressive retrieve was another bird that sailed 300 yards across the pond and crashed. Alex saw this one so I sent him. Right after I sent him we saw a big Bald Eagle swoop in from stage right. Neil and I figured we better get the boat out as it was a long cold swim and I didn't want an eagle-dog fight. We due to a comedy of errors, part of our blind got wrapped in the prop etc, we were loosing the race. Alex was closing on the bird, the eagle had picked the duck up and twice dropped it as he tried to fly away. Thankfully the eagle gave up before Alex got there and retrieved the duck. By this time we had the boat going, so we gave Alex a ride back the last 100 yards before we started hunting again.

I guess my point to all this is Alex retrieved 14 birds without a miss due to the high level of training he has received over the years coupled with the drive he inherited from his parents. Through all that training I never once carried a gun, yet Alex was able to pick up on real hunting without a glitch. In real hunting it's not the end of the world if you have to handle on a mark, you just do what needs to be done to get the bird back in the boat as quickly as possible. Like I said the dogs are good markers, but it doesn't bother me a bit if he misses seeing a bird fall behind us or something as he's also trained to do blind retrieves.

This is how we hunt with Alex or Gus on the bow watching birds while we shoot from the boat blind, Alex could care less if I'm holding a gun or just smashing birds with telepathy...


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I didn’t want to hijack the other thread but it occurs to me that many people don’t appreciate why the requirement to “shoulder the gun” is in the rules.
> 
> The intent of this requirement is to force the handler to look away from his dog while the birds are in the air, thus exerting less control (from the dogs perspective) and increasing the likelihood that the dog might break.
> 
> Handlers who demonstrate to the judges that they are afraid to take their eyes off their dog while birds are thrown, should be scored accordingly. I consider the failure to realistically handle the gun to be poor sportsmanship, but I realize that I'm the only one who sees it that way.


+1 I couldn't agree with you more,, I see very few people do it correctly also

Pete


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I don't believe that adding fake props, accomplishes the effect of simulating realism.
It just makes the test seem even more fake.

Hunt Tests aren't fake hunts. They are real tests.
And I don't feel that the gun makes enough of a difference to the test, to justify it's fakeness.

Besides, I feel *real*y silly, standing there holding a fake gun, trying to pretend that it's real.
They should get rid of it. It's ridiculous.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Dave Flint said:


> I didn’t want to hijack the other thread but it occurs to me that many people don’t appreciate why the requirement to “shoulder the gun” is in the rules.
> 
> The intent of this requirement is to force the handler to look away from his dog while the birds are in the air, thus exerting less control (from the dogs perspective) and increasing the likelihood that the dog might break.
> 
> .


If that is the intent of the rule, then why wouldn't the rule say that you should watch the bird rather than to require you to shoulder the gun. I try to always shoulder the gun,while at the same time "watch my dog". 
Are you saying that I'm cheating?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I don't believe that adding fake props, accomplishes the effect of simulating realism.
> It just makes the test seem even more fake.
> 
> Hunt Tests aren't fake hunts. They are real tests.
> ...


I agree with you, but I guess _'when in Rome..._', if I run a hunt test with real or fake gun I'll play along. I can see there are people who feel that it adds to the test and obviously they have written the rules that way, so I'm not here to fight it, I just think it's stupid, but some of the stuff I see in field trials is way beyond stupid.


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> I don't believe that adding fake props, accomplishes the effect of simulating realism.
> It just makes the test seem even more fake.
> 
> Hunt Tests aren't fake hunts. They are real tests.
> ...


Could not agree more. I ran my first HT in 2003 and even then there was no resemblance to any kind of hunt I have ever been involved with. Hunting left the HT game a long time ago and continues to get farther and farther away.
IMO it is time to really realize that all of the HT's are actually retriever tests and hunting tests. We ask Junior dogs to routinely retrieve at 100 yards. Do away with the "gun" and the dress code in the other venue also. One (or two) less things to have to deal with and judge.
MP


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

There's already a game where you don't handle a gun & can wear whatever you like. 

Some guys in the 80's thought hunters would enjoy something a little different.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Dave Flint said:


> I didn’t want to hijack the other thread but it occurs to me that many people don’t appreciate why the requirement to “shoulder the gun” is in the rules.
> 
> The intent of this requirement is to force the handler to look away from his dog while the birds are in the air, thus exerting less control (from the dogs perspective) and increasing the likelihood that the dog might break.
> 
> Handlers who demonstrate to the judges that they are afraid to take their eyes off their dog while birds are thrown, should be scored accordingly. I consider the failure to realistically handle the gun to be poor sportsmanship, but I realize that I'm the only one who sees it that way.


Really?? So you find it markdown worthy and not smart handling? Let's be real about this...I'm holding a broomstick, pointing it in the direction of a dead duck being slung out of a mechanical slingshot by a 16 year old kid to a predetermined spot that by rule is supposed to be the same for everybody...and to make it more realistic you are advocating that if we look at our dog instead of the bird we should be marked down?? Since when did this game become about my acting ability and not my dogs work???


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

JoeOverby said:


> Really?? So you find it markdown worthy and not smart handling? Let's be real about this...I'm holding a broomstick, pointing it in the direction of a dead duck being slung out of a mechanical slingshot by a 16 year old kid to a predetermined spot that by rule is supposed to be the same for everybody...and to make it more realistic you are advocating that if we look at our dog instead of the bird we should be marked down?? Since when did this game become about my acting ability and not my dogs work???


It's supposed to be an evaluation of skills required of a Hunting Dog. 

Don't you agree that it's a higher standard to require a dog to be steady when you're not "connected" with him visually? The higher standard is a realistic expectation of a hunter in a duck blind. 

We've all become accustomed to playing right up to the edge of the rules to come home with a $2 ribbon but that wasn't the original intent of the hunt test concept.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Dave Flint;1274831 said:


> It's supposed to be an evaluation of skills required of a Hunting Dog.
> 
> Don't you agree that it's a higher standard to require a dog to be steady when you're not "connected" with him visually? The higher standard is a realistic expectation of a hunter in a duck blind.
> 
> We've all become accustomed to playing right up to the edge of the rules to come home with a $2 ribbon but that wasn't the original intent of the hunt test concept.


Thanks for making my point.


----------



## Brokengunz (Sep 3, 2011)

So ......u the judge says you must shoulder the gun........BUT....don't use the gun to point out to the dog where the bird is.......m.AH?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

What gun? 

Knows a frigging stick when he sees one regards

Bubba


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

John Robinson said:


> This is how we hunt with Alex or Gus on the bow watching birds while we shoot from the boat blind, Alex could care less if I'm holding a gun or just smashing birds with telepathy...
> QUOTE]
> 
> John,
> ...


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Everything Buzz said = A+


----------



## TDMITCH (Mar 24, 2006)

If your dog is paying any attention to you looking at him or how you are handling the gun at a hunt test he is not marking the birds! Thank you for your donation!


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

*Judges Scenario to Handlers*

A well know Master Judge scenario to handler's

" If I have to warn you about gun safety in the first series...that's gonna be your first warning...if I have to warn you about gun safety in the second series...that's gonna be your second warning...and if I have to warn you about gun safety in the third series.......YOUR GOING HOME WITH THREE WARNINGS"

That about sums it up.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

TDMITCH said:


> If your dog is paying any attention to you looking at him or how you are handling the gun at a hunt test he is not marking the birds! Thank you for your donation!


My dog FEELS my eyes boring into her skull! :razz:

Not.

Besides, it is not all that hard to shoulder the gun and watch the dog at the same time.

Oh wait, the judges can FEEL that my eyes are looking at my dog, and not looking at the fake bead at the end of the fake gun pointed at the bird that I am pretending I might shoot!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

I sorry, I be good now. :sad:


----------



## Willie Alderson (Jan 26, 2011)

I shoulder the gun like I'm shooting the bird, but my eyes are on the dog. I entered the dog in the test to pass the test. We are there to pick up the birds, and I'm going to make darn sure pup sees every mark. If she doesn't, then at least I know and can plan accordingly. I never want to be thinking while I send my dog, "Gee, I'm not sure Fido saw this mark. But im going to send him anyway and MAYBE he'll get lucky." Nope! Not I!


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

There is a lot of personal interpretation in judging. It adds variety to our game. Separating opinions from the written standard is why judges get paid the big bucks (sarcasm). The rules state handlers should shoulder the gun. Tracking & shooting at the top of the arch isn't mentioned although it is within the rules of another venue. No where in the rules does it state "sight down the broomstick". The ducks hit the ground regardless of where the "gun" is pointing. To ding someone who shoulders the gun for not carefully aiming is opinion & isn't supported by the rule book.

Opinion was inserted in the previous Senior hunt test thread also. Delivery to hand is now defined as dog at heel, sitting quietly and releasing duck at handlers command. My definition was simply dog putting the duck into my hand. 

There is some danger that opinions can become unwritten rules. I don't like them and think all the venues have enough of these already. Before you sit in the chair please contemplate whether these infractions are personal standards or supported by the rule book.

Judges, thank you for all you give back to keep these games thriving!


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dave Flint said:


> I didn’t want to hijack the other thread but it occurs to me that many people don’t appreciate why the requirement to “shoulder the gun” is in the rules.
> 
> The intent of this requirement is to force the handler to look away from his dog while the birds are in the air, thus exerting less control (from the dogs perspective) and increasing the likelihood that the dog might break.
> 
> Handlers who demonstrate to the judges that they are afraid to take their eyes off their dog while birds are thrown, should be scored accordingly. I consider the failure to realistically handle the gun to be poor sportsmanship, but I realize that I'm the only one who sees it that way.


Where did you come up with that? Where in the rules does it say that? If the intent was to have handlers look at the bird instead of at the dog, why does the rule say shoulder the fake gun instead of look at the birds?

As a judge, what is the penalty for not taking my eyes off the dog? Where is that in the rules?

How can it be poor sportsmanship to follow the rules, even if it violates your own personal unwritten rule? 

LOL. If I ever run under you, feel free to drop me for not looking at the birds and get the HTC together to write me up for my poor sportsmanship. I'd love to see how that one turns out.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> [Like I said on the other thread, nobodies right or wrong on this. The reality is that in real hunting, and I hunt a lot, marks are either super easy ducks dropped dead in the decoys, or commonly not seen by my dog due to a variety of reasons. My buddy and I limited out last week just before the big cold front hit, 14 mallards. Of that I had three blind retrieves that my dog missed, one cripple that sailed 300 yards and landed in some cattails that we picked up at the end of the day by taking Alex over there on our way home, he found the trail and tracked the bird down about 40 yards from where it landed.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> During an AKC seminar we were specifically instructed to shoulder ,and point the gun, aiming as if we we actually shooting a bird. Wayne Blazzard was the instructor.
> ...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Pete said:


> During an AKC seminar we were specifically instructed to shoulder ,and point the gun, aiming as if we we actually shooting a bird. Wayne Blazzard was the instructor.
> 
> My next question is do most people look at the their dog while shooting.? So actually there is a right or wrong answer. Or was Wayne telling stories,,,Or was that just Waynes's preference,,as opposed to other AKC reps?


No idea who Wayne is or his preferences but the rules say:


> In Senior and Master Tests, handlers shall always carry and shoulder an empty shotgun except when honoring the working dog or when running a blind. The gun shall not be used as a pointing device to direct the dog’s attention to the bird.


Where does it say one has to look at the birds? Maybe by looking at my dog, I am ensuring that the fake gun is not directing the dog's attention to the birds and thus I am being extra conscientious about the rules?

You want to make sure everyone looks at the dead birds when they point the fake gun, there is a process for changing the rules to require this.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Answer for judge who says you didn't shoulder the gun----That bird was out of my range so my buddy got it......


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

You should do as the rule book states and not try to spin it in any way or try to guess what the original writers of the rule had in mind. While I respect each of the FR's anything past the wording of the rule book is their opinion. 
If it is so important why not list it as a serious handler fault?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

jacduck said:


> Answer for judge who says you didn't shoulder the gun----That bird was out of my range so my buddy got it......


LOL. Or, there is a kid right there in front of me, so it wasn't safe to shoot


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> There is a lot of personal interpretation in judging. It adds variety to our game. Separating opinions from the written standard is why judges get paid the big bucks (sarcasm:grin:). The rules state handlers should shoulder the gun. Tracking & shooting at the top of the arch isn't mentioned although it is within the rules of another venue. No where in the rules does it state "sight down the broomstick". The ducks hit the ground regardless of where the "gun" is pointing. To ding someone who shoulders the gun for not carefully aiming is opinion & isn't supported by the rule book.


Sure that's true,,but
It also says no talking to your dog when the birds are signaled for by the handler and til your number is called.
So I can mumble and make growling sounds. ,,,because They never said anything about that in the rules

I think we all need to just interpret the rules that suit our way of hunting. So for me as long as my dog doesn't break I want my ribbon.

I also have a hard time with the gun rule, but it is a rule silly as it may be,we are evaluating dog work ,,,natural and trained abilities,, 
The statement Dave made is true whether anyone likes it or not

Pete


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Here's a few simple questions. How many "hunters" (when actually doing so) are looking at their dog when shooting? 

Hunt tests are supposed to simulate hunting. Why is it necessary to be looking at your dog all the time.....in a hunt test? Then again, along those lines, doesn't anyone have peripheral vision? 

When training you don't take your eyes off the dog so as to be able to establish high standards. That's kind of an unwritten rule. If the dog is trained well, the trainer's eyes should not not have to be totally glued on the dog when hunting....or in hunt tests. I've put my dogs in distant remote sits when hunting and I am NOT watching them all the time. If I go to a hunt test and feel it is necessary to have my eyes "glued" to the dog because of using a gun at the line....we're not ready to run....yet.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Right.
> 
> It's not a training aid or something...


My shoe is a training aid,,so a new rule needs to be made,,,,no shoes allowed at the line.
If your dog can't pick out these short marks without your help,,your not ready to run.

Unless you have a poor duck caller at 150 yards and no one can hear it,,then that's the judges fault


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

LOL. Or, there is a kid right there in front of me, so it wasn't safe to shoot

I look down my barrel nearly every morning or before I use it. Its called gun safety. Don't know if you know this or not,,,but an empty gun can't hurt you or a bird boy. Neither can a fake gun.

Pete


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> You should do as the rule book states and not try to spin it in any way or try to guess what the original writers of the rule had in mind. While I respect each of the FR's anything past the wording of the rule book is their opinion.
> If it is so important why not list it as a serious handler fault?


This is the bottom line, we'll said Tom. The argument isn't whether or you should shoulder the gun, that is settled in the rule book.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

A couple of comments:

1. At our AKC hunt tests, I have yet to see the handler properly shoulder the gun.
2. The judge at one test asked me to give a quick talk about gun safety and demo shouldering the gun. He told the handlers that he wanted to see the gun shouldered, wood to wood so to speak. Still, nobody shouldered the gun. I saw every variation possible.
3. Said judge did comment to me "I want to see if the dog is really steady". (Said judge was an original, started HT back in 80"s.)
4. I don't know what others do when hunting but I first take a quick look at my dog, then shoulder the gun and shoot---my eyes off the dog.
5. I train as if I were hunting.
6. Rule says shoulder the gun, I SHOULDER the gun. The rule is the rule.

I thought that the poor gun handling was largely due to lack of shooting experience. If these Hunt Testers fired a gun the way they shoulder the gun they would have bruised cheeks, possibly cracked sternums, wild shots, and injured friends.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

KwickLabs said:


> Hunt tests are supposed to simulate hunting.


Are they supposed to simulate hunting or are they supposed to test the dog on skills that would make it a good hunting dog.

If the former, they do a really terrible job, if the latter, pretty good.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

On the day of a test, a judges opinion is the one that matters. What is the penalty for "not aiming the gun"? Is it a 1/2 point deduction in trainability? In those cases only the true bubble dogs will be affected. Most will assume other issues caused them to fail. Is it an automatic fail? That will keep your phone from ringing.

The rule book states the gun should be shouldered. My contention is that this rule should be enforced. Any additional criteria are not supported by the rule book.


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

The first rule of gun safety is you never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot. Yet you want handlers to shoulder and directly point a gun at people throwing a bird less than one hundred yards distant? How does that possibly simulate a hunting situation? 

I never have not ever nor will I ever intentionally point a gun, even a wooden gun at people I do not intend to kill. 

It's a ridiculous rule with obviously even poorer judging interpretations arising from it.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> The first rule of gun safety is you never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot. Yet you want handlers to shoulder and directly point a gun at people throwing a bird less than one hundred yards distant? How does that possibly simulate a hunting situation?
> 
> I never have not ever nor will I ever intentionally point a gun, even a wooden gun at people I do not intend to kill.
> 
> It's a ridiculous rule with obviously even poorer judging interpretations arising from it.


 In all the hunt tests I have run, shouldering the gun didn't mean pointing it AT the gunners. It just meant throwing the gun up and swing to where the bird might land...


----------



## onastring (Jan 11, 2012)

DoubleHaul said:


> Are they supposed to simulate hunting or are they supposed to test the dog on skills that would make it a good hunting dog.


A distinction without a difference. 

The more a hunt test is like an actual hunting scenario, the better it is for testing the capability of a hunting dog. That is the whole reason hunt tests were developed. The fake gun is a ridiculous compromise. If you can’t shoot a real gun next to your dog without it breaking, you don’t have a good hunting dog. 

Too many non-hunters want to take the hunt out of the hunt test. As far as the "where does it say that in the rules" crowd, there are somethings that are inherent in the intent of a something called a "HUNT" test. 

That said, I doubt hunt tests could survive on hunters alone. So changes are made to appeal to a broader market. This debates happens because there are people with different motivations playing the same game.


----------



## alynn (Apr 5, 2008)

KwickLabs said:


> Here's a few simple questions. How many "hunters" (when actually doing so) are looking at their dog when shooting?
> 
> Hunt tests are supposed to simulate hunting. Why is it necessary to be looking at your dog all the time.....in a hunt test? Then again, along those lines, doesn't anyone have peripheral vision?
> 
> When training you don't take your eyes off the dog so as to be able to establish high standards. That's kind of an unwritten rule. If the dog is trained well, the trainer's eyes should not not have to be totally glued on the dog when hunting....or in hunt tests. I've put my dogs in distant remote sits when hunting and I am NOT watching them all the time. If I go to a hunt test and feel it is necessary to have my eyes "glued" to the dog because of using a gun at the line....we're not ready to run....yet.


if AKC hunt tests are supposed to simulate hunting situations, then (among other things) dogs should not get dropped for breaking and for handling. We are not hunting. We are paying $75 or more an entry, plus travel expenses. If our dog breaks, or if we make any other error because we did not know what the dog saw as s/he was walking to the line we get dumped. Watching your dog in a hunt TEST is not an indication of a poorly trained dog. It is a way of making sure all of your hard training pays off. 

In my world judges should come down much harder on issues such as noise, poor bird handling and general control of the dog. Again,I don't hunt. But I would imagine that a noisy, bird chomping, hyper dog is no fun to hunt with. But I have seen those dogs pass Master tests.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

When I hunt, I hunt. The only rules are the club rules and any I impose on my dog. A triple handle on 3 down birds is acceptable & encouraged if it expedites getting the ducks in the pit so we can shoot more. Dogs are placed in positions that may make marking tough or impossible. Marking is not of primary importance. Nobody judges or grades my dog unless it interferes with the hunt. What is acceptable in one blind may not be in another.

When I run a hunt test there is a written standard against which I will be judged. There is a set of rules that will be enforced. The standard should be the same regardless of area or judges. 

Not a whole lot of similarity between the two.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

onastring said:


> A distinction without a difference.
> 
> The more a hunt test is like an actual hunting scenario, the better it is for testing the capability of a hunting dog. That is the whole reason hunt tests were developed. The fake gun is a ridiculous compromise. If you can’t shoot a real gun next to your dog without it breaking, you don’t have a good hunting dog.
> 
> ...


I started in the hunt test game, put MH and NAHRA titles on my first two dogs before I switched to field trials in the mid 90s, I also take every season from October to January off to hunt my dogs. I totally understand and agree with the original HT programs as a backlash against to totally unreal field trial situations. I also like the judging to a standard idea. All these programs have led to much better hunting dogs out in the field than you used to see. Despite that, I think a distinction should be made between testing to a standard on shorter more realistic test than what you see in a field trial and an obsessive attempt to make HT absolutely _real_. I remember when I first started in hunt test being disappointed that I wasn't actually shooting passing overhead ducks from a blind. In my mind I tried to contrive safe way to do that, then slowly realized that HT scenarios were a game within themselves, and it didn't really matter how realistic they were, as long as they led to a true testing of abilities that carry over into real hunting.

As far as I'm concerned, and I know this from experience, the skills my dogs and I develop from no gun involved field trial training absolutely carry over into real hunting, so other than teaching some non-hunter HT handlers a little gun safety, I don't know what is accomplished with this rule. Whatever, like I said before, if you want me to carry a gun and swing at imaginary birds, no problem, but you can bet I'll be watching my dog out of the corner of my eye so I know if saw all the birds. I know I don't hunt that way, but the consequences of handling on a mark might get you dropped in a HT and just get you the bird in hand actual hunting.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Where did I say it was not necessary to look at your dog while walking to the line? 

I said, _"If I go to a hunt test and feel it is necessary to have my eyes "glued" to the dog because of using a gun at the line....we're not ready to run....yet."_

If one is comfortable using a gun properly (lots of experience hunting and training with one) it is perfectly normal to glance down at the dog occasionally. Most non-hunting handlers are often distracted by looking for the safety and wishing the whole gun thing would just go away. 

As for feeling that being able to spend the entire time during the test observing your dog because $75 and a lot of time might just be lost........I don't ever recall being all too concerned about "stuff" that doesn't impact the moment. 

Many years ago, I ran Gunny in a started HRC and informed the judges ahead of time we would be using the gun at the line. Much to my surprise I got all kinds of flack from the other handlers. The judges weren't exactly thrilled either because they had to give the gun protocol lecture at the handlers' meeting....to everyone. I wasn't there to worry about expenses and using the gun was more of a test to see if Gunny (along with me) were ready for the next level.

_"if AKC hunt tests are supposed to simulate hunting situations, then (among other things) dogs should not get dropped for breaking and for handling."_

That has me laughing.









_"Watching your dog in a hunt TEST is not an indication of a poorly trained dog."_

I don't recall even suggesting that. 

Lastly, you don't hunt and I do which probably explains the differences in perspectives.

edit: In a way, anyone running HRC will find the AKC use of a gun at the line *extremely* simple.


----------



## .44 magnum (Feb 20, 2014)

Man and dog works together on a hunt... and if man forgets to bring the gun hunting, dog and man are going to be unhappy.

Those who actually hunt for real know the joy the dog gets when the Shotgun comes out of the closet with the gun bag... as well as look the dog will give you when you miss the bird .. 

Gun dogs and guns go together.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

I would think it would only be smart handling to look at your dog and make sure he sees all the marks go down. If you don't know he is not looking where he needs to be looking you can't help him, and you wouldn't know that the "mark" he didn't see is now a blind for all intents and purposes. Most of the time this is not a problem because of the call-shot-throw nature of the marks in hunt tests. But it could be, for example if your dog locked on to the flier station that is the last bird of a triple. If you are not looking at your dog how do you know he didn't see the first two marks go down?

But don't take my word for it. I am repeating what Dave Rorem says - repeatedly - in his Art and Science of Handling Retrievers DVD.



Dave Flint said:


> It's supposed to be an evaluation of skills required of a Hunting Dog.
> 
> Don't you agree that it's a higher standard to require a dog to be steady when you're not "connected" with him visually? The higher standard is a realistic expectation of a hunter in a duck blind.
> 
> We've all become accustomed to playing right up to the edge of the rules to come home with a $2 ribbon but that wasn't the original intent of the hunt test concept.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Over the years, there have been many discussions about AKC HT regulations which should be ignored or deleted.

-dark or camo clothing should not be required.....
-hunting equipment such as boats and decoys should not be required and layout blinds and spinning wing decoys should never be used..... 
-distances for marks and blinds should be at the judges discretion.......
-handlers should be allowed to show the dog the locations of the areas from which the birds will be thrown..... 

And now, guns and the requirement to shoulder them should not be required.

IF these changes were made, With the exception of awarding placements to the top dogs, how would HT'S be different from FT's? Is this really what you people want????-Paul


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"I would think it would only be smart handling to look at your dog and make sure he sees all the marks go down. If you don't know he is not looking where he needs to be looking you can't help him, and you wouldn't know that the "mark" he didn't see is now a blind for all intents and purposes. Most of the time this is not a problem because of the call-shot-throw nature of the marks in hunt tests. But it could be, for example if your dog locked on to the flier station that is the last bird of a triple. If you are not looking at your dog how do you know he didn't see the first two marks go down?

But don't take my word for it. I am repeating what Dave Rorem says - repeatedly - in his Art and Science of Handling Retrievers DVD."_

Again, I see nothing contrary to my stated perspective. In a field trial there is no gun at the line.....handler focus is entirely on the dog. In most hunt test training sessions, a gun at the line is not necessary. 

In an HRC test, the "skilled" gunner at the line is well aware of what his dog is doing. He is not "glued" or extremely occupied with dealing just with the gun.

However, if a gun is rarely used in training and/or there is no real hunting experience it often becomes just a crude "pointing stick" (kind of sad when I see this) and resorting to Dave Rorems's training approach is just evading the issue. 

You're supposed to know what your dog is doing at the line and the gun does not eliminate this expectation if you are truly vested in the process. 

If you can't handle a gun properly in an AKC hunt test without complaining about being out of touch with the dog beside you....it's kind of like saying "I can't walk and chew gum at the same time."


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Does the DOG look or care as shots are being fired and birds are in the air whether or not the gun is shoulder? In real hunting and HTs we hope not.

Isn't that gun just a big heeling stick?

Tim


----------



## alynn (Apr 5, 2008)

KwickLabs said:


> Where did I say it was not necessary to look at your dog while walking to the line?
> 
> I said, _"If I go to a hunt test and feel it is necessary to have my eyes "glued" to the dog because of using a gun at the line....we're not ready to run....yet."_
> 
> ...


As I indicated in my post on the thread that I think began this one, I do not hunt. I think hunting is important and it seems like it would be a fun hobby. However I did not grow up in a hunting family, and am now so busy between work, family activities, volunteering and dog training I do not have the time to to learn to hunt and spend my time doing it. I can still comment on dog training and handling at AKC events. 

Fortunately for me and many of the people who enter AKC HTs, the AKC does not require people to hunt In order to train or enter dogs in HTs. Based on my observations, MANY (or possibly most) of the people who are sucessful at the MH level do not hunt and have never handled a gun outside of a HT. I know HRC and other venues have a higher percentage of active hunters entered and those tests are more realistic.I don't enter those tests because I don't hunt. I cannot comment on those venues as I only enter AKC tests. It sounds as if people who want to shoot over their dogs and have more realistic scenarios should enter non-AKC events. 

We can all get along. As the rules are written, I stand by my assertion that the use of the gun in AKC hunt tests is silly. It does not hurt or help a trained dog. If the day comes that the AKC requires the handler to shoot over a dog or anything else, then I will either learn to do that or move to FTs.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

I don't know 'all the rules' for your games over the pond.
The UK Field trial uses a gun at the line all be it the handler does not do the shooting! and there are no bird boys !Even this (imo) doesn't replicate a scenario of a walked up Hunt with dog and gun.
Surely the purpose of a Gun dog is to work with a gun?
Every one that comes through here goes through 'Gun' familiarisation just as an extension of waggon wheel drills for those on bumpers.
I don't look at the dog to ensure that it seen the mark . I expect the dog to look at the mark that the Gun supplied!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=928LyRBzQIM


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

alynn said:


> It does not hurt or help a trained dog. If the day comes that the AKC requires the handler to shoot over a dog or anything else, then I will either learn to do that or move to FTs.


Perhaps some should look beyond and try it?..It's the best game of all ....You may even like it ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moBXEEJcChs


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"We can all get along. As the rules are written, I stand by my assertion that the use of the gun in AKC hunt tests is silly. It does not hurt or help a trained dog. If the day comes that the AKC requires the handler to shoot over a dog or anything else, then I will either learn to do that or move to FTs."_

I understand your position. 

However, I do think the AKC is moving toward making the "fake gun" situation less silly looking. Secondly, whether the gun hurts or helps the dog is relative to whether the focus is on simulating an actual hunt or simply playing frisbee with ducks.


----------



## MissSkeeter (May 17, 2013)

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> Every pro (even the bad ones) I've ever trained with have instructed me to watch my dog, not the marks.


I agree..see Dave Rorem's DVD on the Art and Science of Handling Retrievers.

In AKC Master Hunter, I always swing the gun to the marks as a cue for my dog, but I watch the dog, not the marks.

That way I know for sure the dog got a good look at each mark. The AKC hunt test rules say nothing about watching
your dog instead of the marks, you simply need to swing the unloaded or fake gun towards each mark.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

The AKC Hunt Test program has a huge factor to contend with that HRC and NAHRA don't have to, the AKC BOD. The members of the AKC BOD for the most part are not involved with field events. They are however extremely concerned with Liability. They will not EVER allow a handler to shoot a live round, popper or even a primer popper in an official AKC event. For these reasons the handler gun has become nothing more than a prop. 

People (handlers, workers and judges) have no respect for props and it is clearly evident. It's not a real gun with real rounds and it's never going to be a real gun in this venue. Then as been noted earlier in this thread, some are now using the prop as a training aid, and you see the dogs react accordingly when the handler picks up the prop. 

If the handler can't carry a real gun or fire one, get rid of it.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I agrre that if you are one that ran any HRC tests,, that the gun thing is a very simple aspect to get use to when running AKC,, But In my situation,, The Gun,, has become an issue with me,,, I know I should shoulder it,, I am confortable doing it, except in one situation you encounter at every AKC test,, and that is the Flyer!

Considering you cant talk to the dogs when the birds are in the air,,and considering that SOMETIMES a flyer gunner will "ride" that flyer bird a long ways, or the gunners will have mulitple shots,and the bird flys quite a distance. You cant assume you are going to get a "No Bird" in this situation,, so,, its important to be able to watch the flyer with one Eye,, and the dog with the other.. You can really help the dog with birds that fly a distance, by stepping up or stepping back to help them follow the flight of that bird, if they are having trouble.. Shouldering the gun correctly,and following the flight of the bird with it,,distracts on being able to : 1. watch the dog,, 2.Watch where the flyer actually goes down, in case you have to have that clean handle to it.. I want to try and concentrate on #1 and #2,, so I forget about the gun,, or hold it in that very silly AKC position you see all the time.. 

I am really surprised that ONE of the ISSUES I have at the line is the Gun!!

We Never train with one on training days,,, I guess I should!


Gooser


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

KwickLabs said:


> _"
> However, I do think the AKC is moving toward making the "fake gun" situation less silly looking. Secondly, whether the gun hurts or helps the dog is relative to whether the focus is on simulating an actual hunt or simply playing frisbee with ducks._


_

Fine by me. They could change the rules to require that handlers actually shoot the ducks from the line or whatever. My point is that the rules do not say that nor do they say that a handler has to look anywhere or do anything besides shouldering the gun. You want to change the rules so it is exactly like simulated hunting, fine by me, have at it. But the rules now are the rules and pulling the "I am a hunter so I am allowed to enforce unwritten rules" is wrong and silly.

Some of us hunt and are happy to follow the rules as written when playing the games._


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I get flyers every week in training... But I am still asked on a continual basis. "Do you know where your flyer fell?" (Most of the time I dont)
Its very hard to watch the dog,, help the dog if needed,, and know exactly where the flyer fell in case you need to handle..

The gun,, for ME,,, is now in the way!

I think I have a very steady dog,, the issue isnt a braking scenario.. Its a MARKING scenario. I want to make sure she sees the bird,so she can mark it. I also would like to know from her actions,if she really didnt see it or marked it..

The rule book says,,, "Marking is of PRIMARY importance"


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Does the DOG look or care as shots are being fired and birds are in the air whether or not the gun is shoulder? In real hunting and HTs we hope not.
> 
> Isn't that gun just a big heeling stick?
> 
> Tim


Sure, use it as one at a test and see what happens next......-Paul


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

So the consensus here is my dog doesn't have enough training to see all 3 chip shots or my dog might break without my help so I better keep an eye on him ,,, 

The fake gun is the most realistic part of hunt tests which resemble hunting ,,why not keep 1 aspect (aiming a fake gun) so we can still call it a HUNTING TEST. This way we can tell if your dog saw the chip shots with out your help. After all do you help your dog like that when you hunt. I don't even pay attention to my dog when I shoot birds. No need to,,that's his job.

Because of that I do consider him a master hunter

Pete


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

My personal opinion is that the rules do not require me to put my cheek on the stock & aim down the broomstick. As long as the rules state "shoulder the gun", that is what I will do. Failing handlers for poor theatrical effect will do nothing to promote the game.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I think we have officially reached Dead Horse status. I don't run hunt test anymore. I don't remember it being a part of AKC back when I was running, I saw it occasionally in NAHRA. I don't think any of the old master hunters and NAHRA dog would have any problem moving into real hunting, I know mine didn't, but rules are rules. If I were to run master now and have to shoulder or even shoot a gun while handling my dog, no big deal, I'd do it and keep my mouth shut.

As for judges going a step further and marking down for not looking down the barrel properly, well whatever.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

onastring said:


> A distinction without a difference.
> 
> The more a hunt test is like an actual hunting scenario, the better it is for testing the capability of a hunting dog.......


 I disagree with every fiber of my being.

A Hunt Test, needs to test the dogs abilities that are relevant to a hunting dog. 
The difference between passing and failing needs to be something that matters.

A good Judge sets up a good test.
He doesn't trick the dogs into screwing up, by doing the things that a trained hunting dog would do.

A Judge isn't writing and directing a movie. 
So, the scenario doesn't need to have simulated BS for the sake of added realism.

It's *ALREADY* a *REAL* test. It doesn't need to be made real*istic*

When you try to make a Hunt Test realistic, you end up designing stupid tests.
And stupid tests work at dropping dogs. But, they drop the wrong ones.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

fishduck said:


> My personal opinion is that the rules do not require me to put my cheek on the stock & aim down the broomstick. As long as the rules state "shoulder the gun", that is what I will do. Failing handlers for poor theatrical effect will do nothing to promote the game.


 Well played!


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I disagree with every fiber of my being.
> 
> A Hunt Test, needs to test the dogs abilities that are relevant to a hunting dog.
> The difference between passing and failing needs to be something that matters.


Do you mean 'Like Hunting' ?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Do I get extra points for a 16 count manual of arms before handing gun to judge?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Dave Flint said:


> There's already a game where you don't handle a gun & can wear whatever you like.
> 
> Some guys in the 80's thought hunters would enjoy something a little different.


 Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Does whatever the dog does that makes the difference between a 1st and a JAM in any FT stake, (including Qualifying or Derby) ever make any difference whatsoever, to even the most anal of duck hunters?

If the answer is no, then what is actually being tested is irrelevant for a Hunting Retriever.

Does whatever the dog does that makes the difference between passing and failing a Master level Hunt Test matter to a duck hunter?

If the answer is yes, then what is actually being tested is relevant for a Hunting Retriever.


In neither case, does the realism of the scenario, or the wardrobe of the participants, or the use of simulated props matter one tiny bit. And it never will.

What matters, is that the test forces the dog and the handler to correctly answer questions that matter.
Questions that can't be guessed at, but require the application of at least some of the important skills and training that is needed in a Hunting Retriever.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Let me ask you a couple of questions.
> 
> Does whatever the dog does that makes the difference between a 1st and a JAM in any FT stake, (including Qualifying or Derby) ever make any difference whatsoever, to even the most anal of duck hunters?
> 
> ...



So you're watching your dog as the birds go down as you've been taught, & you realize that he didn't mark one (for whatever reason). Fortunately however, you line him up & he carries the line until he winds the bird so you've got all three without a whistle. 

Did your dog demonstrate Master level marking ability?


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> So you're watching your dog as the birds go down as you've been taught, & you realize that he didn't mark one (for whatever reason). Fortunately however, you line him up & he carries the line until he winds the bird so you've got all three without a whistle.
> 
> Did your dog demonstrate Master level marking ability?


I think that is master quality.
But I think a dog you can not take your eye off of for less than 3 seconds while sitting next to you for fear of him doing something that will compromise his ability to do adequate work to pass may not be.

Pete


----------



## MissSkeeter (May 17, 2013)

Pete said:


> I think that is master quality.
> But I think a dog you can not take your eye off of for less than 3 seconds while sitting next to you for fear of him doing something that will compromise his ability to do adequate work to pass is not.
> 
> Pete


see Dave Rorems excellent DVD: "The Art and Science of Handling Retrievers"


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I didn't know Rorem was a hunt test guy,, different game ,,different objectives,, you shouldn't have to fiddle much with a hunt test dog.
I guess thats why they don't want you pointing out the gun stations as opposed to FT's
Does Dave look at his dog also while shouldering his gun


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

onastring said:


> A distinction without a difference.
> 
> *The more a hunt test is like an actual hunting scenario, the better it is for testing the capability of a hunting dog. That is the whole reason hunt tests were developed.* The fake gun is a ridiculous compromise. If you can’t shoot a real gun next to your dog without it breaking, you don’t have a good hunting dog.
> 
> ...


Not sure I agree w/ this statement. The HRC venue is great but I would think that both HRC and HT are along way off from actual hunting. I have done just duck, pheasant and grouse and in no way do these events resemble the real hunting scenarios. JMHO


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

The idea that FT dogs somehow need more help than a hunt test dog does is silly. It might appear that way because the gunners are all wearing white coats, but I'd much rather try to pick up a hunt test mark from a hidden gun station than from a gunner dressed in white at twice the distance who disappears when the dog is making the first retrieve.

I agree with Copterdoc - it's not hunting - it's testing the skills that have been determined to be key to a Junior/Senior/Started/Finished/Master dog ought to have. The design ought to focus on doing that consistently and effectively. Making handlers wear camo, or handle a gun etc, have very little useful bearing on that - I can't think how a judge ever gets any meaningful information about the dogs skill level because there was a gun/stick etc. I can see that it makes it more like hunting, but what does the gun add other than theatrics - other than the possible use as an aid for dogs that swing with the gun?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Jerry Beil said:


> The idea that FT dogs somehow need more help than a hunt test dog does is silly. It might appear that way because the gunners are all wearing white coats, but I'd much rather try to pick up a hunt test mark from a hidden gun station than from a gunner dressed in white at twice the distance who disappears when the dog is making the first retrieve.
> 
> I agree with Copterdoc - it's not hunting - it's testing the skills that have been determined to be key to a Junior/Senior/Started/Finished/Master dog ought to have. The design ought to focus on doing that consistently and effectively. Making handlers wear camo, or handle a gun etc, have very little useful bearing on that - I can't think how a judge ever gets any meaningful information about the dogs skill level because there was a gun/stick etc. I can see that it makes it more like hunting, but what does the gun add other than theatrics - other than the possible use as an aid for dogs that swing with the gun?



So when will you and all the others on this thread who feel handling and shouldering a gun, fake or otherwise, circulate a petition to eliminate the requirement and present it to RHTAC for consideration? -Paul


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> I disagree with every fiber of my being.
> 
> A Hunt Test, needs to test the dogs abilities that are relevant to a hunting dog.
> The difference between passing and failing needs to be something that matters.
> ...


I must disagree.. Before running FT's, I started with my first dog in hunt tests. The more "realistic" it was, the more fun! And during a few tests with a particular judge, when handlers passed each MH scenario, we felt like we and our dogs were truly awesome teams.. Whether is was sitting on a bucket shouldering a gun, sitting in a layout blind, handler sitting in a holding blind while the dog watches the birds go down, all were fun. If you want to stand at the line showing the dog the birds, then you should play the game of white coats... Just my opinion of course...


----------



## onastring (Jan 11, 2012)

Jerry Beil said:


> it's not hunting - it's testing the skills that have been determined to be key to a Junior/Senior/Started/Finished/Master dog ought to have.


Silly me, I thought the original purpose of a hunt test was to see if a dog had the skills to be a good hunting dog. I don't know if its a coincident that you left out the word hunter/hunting from the titles you listed. Maybe we should clarify the current situation by changing the name to a "retriever test" and the titles to a "master retriever," etc. That way we can take away those silly guns and smelly ducks. We could hold the tests on golf courses and throw tennis balls out of chuckits for fido to run after.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> So when will you and all the others on this thread who feel handling and shouldering a gun, fake or otherwise, circulate a petition to eliminate the requirement and present it to RHTAC for consideration? -Paul


Did that 3 years ago and again every time I see an AKC rep.

Ditch the stick regards

Bubba


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

One way to deal w/this issue is to have a remote sit and send from the remote (no handler movement/no handler selection to dog). I hunt that way w/my FT dogs.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

onastring said:


> Silly me, I thought the original purpose of a hunt test was to see if a dog had the skills to be a good hunting dog. I don't know if its a coincident that you left out the word hunter/hunting from the titles you listed. Maybe we should clarify the current situation by changing the name to a "retriever test" and the titles to a "master retriever," etc. That way we can take away those silly guns and smelly ducks. We could hold the tests on golf courses and throw tennis balls out of chuckits for fido to run after.


That is the original purpose and I think is still the intent. I hunt, and in fact, that's how I got into retrievers in the first place. My point is that some of the trappings that go along with hunt tests (like the gun and the dress code) don't help determine if the dog has the skills or not. The "smelly ducks" on the other hand do help with that and have a clear purpose. Since we can't take the judge with us on however many actual hunts it takes to randomly go through all the situations that are tested for, then have him bestow the title, we need to distill the skills that have been determined to be important to a hunting retriever, and then come up with a way to test for those in an artificial situation as best we can.

As for contacting the AKC and requesting that the handler guns be removed, it's not that big of a deal to me either way. I'm not against handler guns, I just don't see that they aid the evaluation of the dogs skills.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

In reality the gun is an issue *for some*....and not so much for others. Anytime there is an "issue", it is normal to choose sides and work at creative ways to prove a point. More often than not logic becomes the thinking "person's" excuse. 

To put this in perspective, there will never be a unanimous decision about guns at the line in hunt tests. Here's a thought. A gun shy dog could very possibly pass a Master Hunter test, but would most likely have a problem in HRC. 

Here's another thought. I grew up with guns and am old. Having just received my CCW and lived through the increasing attempts to remove guns from society, hunt tests seem to be a good place to push this agenda. I don't go hunting with my hunt test dogs without a gun. Why would I want to test their skills in a "game" without one being "there"? 

Take a dog hunting and see how "they know" long before you load up for the trip. No gun at the line equals a different dog and probably an "easier" dog to deal with. Then again....maybe hunt tests are not so much about the dog.....*for some*.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

KwickLabs said:


> Take a dog hunting and see how "they know" long before you load up for the trip. No gun at the line equals a different dog and probably an "easier" dog to deal with. Then again....maybe hunt tests are not so much about the dog.....*for some*.


Really? Your dog doesn't get excited at a HT unless you have a gun in your hand?

Mine get excited when I get out hunting stuff too but they are perfectly fine to run a HT whether I have a fake gun in my hand or not. I doubt by the time they see all the holding blinds and gunners right there in front of them if they have ever noticed whether I had a fake gun in my hand or not. They certainly don't need it to excite them enough to do the work and it makes no difference one way or another to what they are going to do, unless they may happen to mistake it for a heeling stick or something.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

Take a dog to a hunt test or load them up to go train and see how they know... Heck, when I get out of bed, they follow me around the room. When I put on my running shoes, they lay back down. If I put on pants and boots to go train, or camo and guns they're bouncing off the walls either way. Personally I think it would be better if there were at least some shots from the line, and in that case, having a handler gun would make sense and be a factor in evaluating the dogs. Since there are not any shots from the line, and so the handler gun can be a toy or a stick, it serves no purpose that I can see. My dogs don't get more amped up to go hunting than they are at tests. They know we're not hunting when we're training or at a test, and they don't care if I'm carrying a gun or not.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Bubba said:


> Did that 3 years ago and again every time I see an AKC rep.
> 
> Ditch the stick regards
> 
> Bubba


how's that working out for you. LOL 

excuse me 

"regards"

#cabinfeveralready


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"Really? Your dog doesn't get excited at a HT unless you have a gun in your hand?"_ 

If it is real gun and I am shooting, there's a huge difference. If your dog is a hunting dog, a fake gun will add to the excitement. Of course, if your dog has been trained with "pablum" (no shooting at the line like in real hunting) probably not. 

So what do you want? A dog that is easier to handle at the line because the gun is not treated as if it were real? I'm sure a civil war reenactment would be probably less exciting if everyone carried fake guns....then again maybe they wouldn't need any guns at all. 

And to support your stance, there is no way to reach a perfect solution. It is still just a game. Frankly, my dogs are much easier to deal with at the line with fake guns. Make it easier for the handler and get rid of them. That would certainly make dogs easier to test. 

Then if you wanted to go hunting, you'd probably have to introduce a real gun and train them for real hunting. There is no easy solution.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

KwickLabs said:


> Then if you wanted to go hunting, you'd probably have to introduce a real gun and train them for real hunting. There is no easy solution.


Think we got that covered over here!
We do trials with live game and they are shot with a gun and a Gundog retrieves it.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

KwickLabs said:


> _"Really? Your dog doesn't get excited at a HT unless you have a gun in your hand?"_
> 
> If it is real gun and I am shooting, there's a huge difference. If your dog is a hunting dog, a fake gun will add to the excitement. Of course, if your dog has been trained with "pablum" (no shooting at the line like in real hunting) probably not.
> 
> ...


Jim Seriously?????

My dogs are much more excited at any test or trial than hunting. Doesn't matter if I'm carrying a real gun or not. There are always birds to retrieve when they get to the line at a test or trial. NOT so much when we are really hunting. 

The gun is just a prop. AKC/UKC doesn't matter, It's just there for the handler. The dogs could care less about a gun/a stick or whatever, for them, it's all about the birds!!!

Talk about making mountains out of molehills. 11 pages of this


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Doug Main said:


> ....Talk about making mountains out of molehills. 11 pages of this


 If you go to settings, click the general settings tab, and change it to 40 posts per page, it's only 3 pages of this.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

KwickLabs said:


> _"Really? Your dog doesn't get excited at a HT unless you have a gun in your hand?"_
> 
> If it is real gun and I am shooting, there's a huge difference. If your dog is a hunting dog, a fake gun will add to the excitement. Of course, if your dog has been trained with "pablum" (no shooting at the line like in real hunting) probably not.
> 
> ...


You say my dogs have been trained with pablum? I could retort that if yours need a gun to get excited that they lack desire, but that would be a bad peanut.

You are not the only one who hunts their dogs. Mine certainly don't have any problems with my use of a real gun when we are hunting (or when I am shooting flyers) and they do just fine at HTs if we hold a fake gun or at FTs if we hold nothing. Like I said before, the AKC rules require that one shoulder the fake or disabled gun, not look any particular place and certainly do not require one to shoot a real gun. I will play by the rules and if they change I will deal with the new ones. If you can't handle that, take it up with the RHTAC--I am sure they will get right on it as they have noticed all the problems not shooting at the line has caused with all the folks who take their dogs hunting.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

KwickLabs said:


> ....Here's a thought. A gun shy dog could very possibly pass a Master Hunter test, but would most likely have a problem in HRC.....


 I think it would be the opposite actually.

The primer loads that they shoot in the twenty-something inch long barrel of a pumpgun are barely even audible.
In Master, the flyers get shot with real shot shells. And are often sluiced again on the ground.

And the other marks are "shot" from the gunner's stations with FT blanks. 
Which are VERY loud indeed.

Perhaps the issue of gun shyness could be a problem in HRC Upland.
Probably not in Started, Seasoned, or Finished though.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_Jim Seriously?????_

Not really. It's a game. I'll try to be more of a peanut....sorry about the pablum comment. 

I just can't get too worked up about something that is unlikely to change in my lifetime. I've always chuckled about holding the fake, wooden gun in my hands. And laughed even more when watching someone standing there waiting for the dog to deliver a duck with a fake barrel resting on top of their foot....but I will play the game.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

I'm not sure where the disagreement comes in on this.

For those that think the guns serve a purpose, what is that purpose? What is accomplished by carrying a gun other than making it seem more like hunting to the handler.

Here's what I've gathered so far.

1. Dog can swing with the gun.
2. Dogs get more excited when the handler is carrying a gun
3. Makes it more like real hunting somehow and thus makes it more exciting and challenging for the dog.
4. It makes it more fun and exciting for the handler - like civil war re-enactors.

Did I miss any?

And for the record, I see added excitement for the dog as something that makes the test more challenging. I don't need one ounce more excitement in a test for my dogs. And for my dogs, it doesn't add excitement - they already know they're going to get to pick up some birds.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

KwickLabs said:


> _Jim Seriously?????_
> 
> Not really. It's a game. I'll try to be more of a peanut....sorry about the pablum comment.
> 
> I just can't get too worked up about something that is unlikely to change in my lifetime. I've always chuckled about holding the fake, wooden gun in my hands. And laughed even more when watching someone standing there waiting for the dog to deliver a duck with a fake barrel resting on top of their foot....but I will play the game.






I love taking the gun to the line wish they would let me do it in a field trial. My dogs look at it as a heeling stick.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Doug Main said:


> Jim Seriously?????
> 
> The gun is just a prop. AKC/UKC doesn't matter, It's just there for the handler. The dogs could care less about a gun/a stick or whatever, for them, it's all about the birds!!!


I shall have to disagree with this, simply because to a trained hunting dog a gun (even a stick) can be a rather good handler tool, which is why I'm completely aghast any handler would want to get rid of it. It's a 4ft long point devise, you can use in a test, no talking required, used to aid in moving a dog, and can absolutely tell your dog. Hey turn this way the next birds over here. A real gun with an pumping action, is even more of a que, (chick-chick) hey there's another bird coming, over this way. My first time with a young pup in a FT, unfamiliar with running off a mound, and a handler that didn't know it was a practice to actually show your dogs the stations before you called for the birds. I would've killed for a gun, kneeling down, swinging with empty arms, just doesn't have the same effect , the dog looks at you like your a little crazy .

Anyone truly familiar and comfortable with a gun can watch the dog, watch the birds, watch your hunting buddies, and watch the environment all at the same time, it's called hunters safety. If people using real guns and ammo don't pay attention to all these things, accidents happen. So handlers whining about it being too much to watch a dog (so you know he marks and doesn't break), the birds (so you know where the birds are in case you have to handle), and to properly handle a stick (a devise that can help your dog see the marks), really doesn't make much sense to someone that does it regularly with real guns, ammo and birds.


----------

