# shooter45



## shooter45 (Sep 17, 2010)

i like to know when are all the hunt test folks going back to running hunt test for the amateurs and hunters and not for the pros, if dog people want a pro to train there dogs for hunt test that's fine including the master national , but when it comes to qualifying they should have to run it themselves the owners. if the pros want the satisfaction of there hard work then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open think about it guys more money and that's the bottom line, isn't that why it was started in the first place think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]


----------



## Blueline (Apr 12, 2011)

Hello to you too Shooter. Welcome to the RTF...


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

What do ya say we boycott THIS THREAD!!!!!


----------



## shooter45 (Sep 17, 2010)

did shooter45 hit a nerve


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

Heck of a first post!!! Welcome to RTF... I think.

Some people are just too nervous and some lack confidence to run there own dog. I'm not a pro but I love talking to them at hunt tests and sometimes get some valuable training info from them. 

Me thinks you need to get over it. 

BHB


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

shooter45 said:


> i like to know when are all the hunt test folks going back to running hunt test for the amateurs and hunters and not for the pros, if dog people want a pro to train there dogs for hunt test that's fine including the master national , but when it comes to qualifying they should have to run it themselves the owners. if the pros want the satisfaction of there hard work then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open think about it guys more money and that's the bottom line, isn't that why it was started in the first place think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]


AKC did not take over from Nahra. Nahra still exists.

Nahra's problem was the leadership. They ran it into the ground.

I guess the real question is, why do you feel intimidated by pros in the HT game? You aren't competing against them.

WRL


----------



## Mike Smith (Mar 24, 2005)

History of Retriever Hunting Tests

In the 1980s hunters with good retrievers, but without the resources, or time, to be able to be competitive in field trials were anxious to have an avenue to test their dogs for hunting abilities. The Qualifying and then Hunting Dog stake at field trials satisfied that need for a while, but did not offer titles. Thus something more was desired.

http://www.akc.org/events/hunting_tests/retrievers/history.cfm


Why do you want to boycott his thread when he has legitimate question.
I am not complaining about pros. Heck I have benefited greatly from pros. The sport would not be as far advanced without them. But he has a legitimate point. There really isn't a venue I know of where an amateur like described in the above description can take his dog to compete. On an equal playing field
I have only competed in one HRC club event but I overheard a conversation between a pro and person who came to see what how to get involved in hunt tests. I am not kidding the guy told her "you really have to have a dog trained by a pro to compete in these events" 

Think about it, out of the dogs a pro runs in a stake how many owners actually run their dogs (or train them) and how many does he call on the cell phone to tell them how they did.

Just sayin,
By the way I remember this same argument back in 70's about field trials


----------



## Mike Smith (Mar 24, 2005)

WRL said:


> AKC did not take over from Nahra. Nahra still exists.
> 
> Nahra's problem was the leadership. They ran it into the ground.
> 
> ...


My question is have the standards changed? If they have was influenced by pros involvement?
I'm not intimidated by em they help me tremendously in learning how to train my dog.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

WRL said:


> I guess the real question is, why do you feel intimidated by pros in the HT game? You aren't competing against them.


Touchdown! ;-)


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

Why is the title of this thread shooter45? I thought it must be an introduction thread...well I guess it is, in a way, isn't it?


----------



## lizard55033 (Mar 10, 2008)

BHB said:


> Some people are just too nervous and some lack confidence to run there own dog.


shooter45 another way to look at it is:
~I know quite a few people that train their own dogs, and pay a pro to run the dog/s because of time or travel constraints...

~It seems you might be a bit jealous that some people can afford to send their dogs to pros and have them trained and ran to the desired level the client wants...

~I've got nothing wrong with people that send their dogs to pros as well as pro run dogs. For me I see it as a challenge to take my dog/s to an event and run them against a set standard and other dogs. My limited time and budget vs vast knowledge, time, and equipment of a pro...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

shooter45 said:


> i like to know when are all the hunt test folks going back to running hunt test for the amateurs and hunters and not for the pros, if dog people want a pro to train there dogs for hunt test that's fine including the master national , but when it comes to qualifying they should have to run it themselves the owners. if the pros want the satisfaction of there hard work then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open think about it guys more money and that's the bottom line, isn't that why it was started in the first place think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]


In field trials we are competing against each other, that's why we have separate amateur and open stakes. What would the benefit be of running different pro and amateur stakes in hunt test where the dogs compete against a standard regardless of who trained them or is handling them?

I started off in the HT game making two MHs with part time pro help. I never felt intiminated if pros were there as I wasn't running against them, I was just hoping my dog and myself were up to the standard that day.

John


----------



## Mike Smith (Mar 24, 2005)

Just felt sorry for the guy getting jumped on so quick.
Bottom line to the whole thing is "Train don't Complain"!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I am not kidding the guy told her "you really have to have a dog trained by a pro to compete in these events"


Assuming the lady had normal intelligence, *desire*, and resources available to train a dog; the pro lied!


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

lizard55033 said:


> For me I see it as a challenge to take my dog/s to an event and run them against a set standard and other dogs. My limited time and budget vs vast knowledge, time, and equipment of a pro...


Exactly my thought. I love showing up to a HT running one of the youngest dogs there. Trained by my dumb ass, and getting a ribbon at the end of the day. AND damn I love the adrenaline rush when your going to the line 

There is a guy in my RC that has been running dogs in FTs and HTs for 20+ years and he tells me he gets so nervous he feels like throwing up every time he goes to the line. He went on to say when that stop happening.... hes getting out of the game.

Run what you brung and save the crying for the drive home


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Howard N said:


> Assuming the lady had normal intelligence, *desire*, and resources available to train a dog; the pro lied!


I agree with Howard to a large degree. Among the resources needed are the grounds and everyone does not have that. I'm not sure you can train a MH without access to some really nice grounds or at least a wide variety of them. The pro was looking at her as a potential client IMO and that is why he said that.


----------



## shooter45 (Sep 17, 2010)

just for all you people who think shooter45 is intimated by the pros i have a master titled dog in 8 test which i train from a pup without sending him to a pro i also have a lot of pro friends. i guess you all feel that if you put the time in to train your dog and some one sends there dog to a pro u all deserve the same outcome don't think much of your affords i guess


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

shooter45 said:


> just for all you people who think shooter45 is intimated by the pros i have a master titled dog in 8 test which i train from a pup without sending him to a pro i also have a lot of pro friends. i guess you all feel that if you put the time in to train your dog and some one sends there dog to a pro u all deserve the same outcome don't think much of your affords i guess


I'm intimidated by anyone that refers to themself in the first person!


----------



## Travis Wright (Mar 3, 2003)

shooter45,

If you don't use your real name it leads me to believe that you are scared to have your identity known.

If you can't spell or use proper punctuation it leads me to believe that you are ignorant.

If you you don't like Professional Dog Trainers or people that send their dogs to them that leads me to believe that you are jealous of them, not as good as them or intimidated by them.

If you have a dog that is a MH, why the rant?

Gun Dog Trainer Regards,

Travis Wright


----------



## mallardtonetom (Apr 19, 2011)

I'm with you all the way shooter.


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

boykinhntr said:


> I'm intimidated by anyone that refers to themself in the first person!


you know it! Jason thinks shooter45 is da bomb!


Signed,

Jason

By the way, who the crap rated this thread as "good" I took the time to rate it "terrible" so as to at least remove one star.


----------



## torrentduck (Jul 27, 2009)

jtfreeman said:


> you know it! Jason thinks shooter45 is da bomb!
> 
> 
> Signed,
> ...


Torrentduck agree with Jason. Torrentduck is getting nervous about shooter45 presumed inflection and body language from post. Torrentduck going to look at more useful thread now.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

shooter45 said:


> i guess you all feel that if you put the time in to train your dog and some one sends there dog to a pro u all deserve the same outcome don't think much of your affords i guess


Aside from the fact that you come off as petty, jealous and as a functional illiterate, *you do realize that the DOG earns the title, not the handler/trainer don't you?* The dog has to do the work either way.

I agree that it is more satisfying if you train the dog yourself, but that is just an opinion and there are tons of reasons why people use a pro. I guess people who are too busy or don't have the training grounds, or are not physically able, etc., etc., don't deserve a well trained dog, huh?


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Gulfcoast likes pros! Pro gave Gulfcoast pork chop sandwich at last his master test. Other pro loaned Gulfcoast water for dogs, and gave Gulfcoast icy cold diet coke. Gulfcoast loyalty for sale: cheap! ;-)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

shooter45 said:


> just for all you people who think shooter45 is intimated by the pros i have a master titled dog in 8 test which i train from a pup without sending him to a pro i also have a lot of pro friends. i guess you all feel that if you put the time in to train your dog and some one sends there dog to a pro u all deserve the same outcome don't think much of your affords i guess


What's an affords?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> What's an affords?


Its those damn trucks with the bad paint jobs!

WRL


----------



## Gordy Weigel (Feb 12, 2003)

shooter45 said:


> Was that really called for?
> 
> "Aside from the fact that you come off as petty, jealous and as a functional illiterate, you do realize that the DOG earns the title, not the handler/trainer don't you? The dog has to do the work either way."
> 
> ...


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

WRL said:


> Its those damn trucks with the bad paint jobs!
> 
> WRL


OMG I just choked!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

jtfreeman said:


> ...By the way, who the crap rated this thread as "good" I took the time to rate it "terrible" so as to at least remove one star.


Something tells me, that it's not gonna matter.


----------



## Decoyin Drake (Jun 22, 2010)

Ok here is my two cents. I have the ambition to have a Finished/ Master Level dog. I am an avid waterfowl hunter and I enjoy good dog work. Its the dog that makes a day afield. There are limits on my time and as a result I use a long time friend thats a pro periodically. 

I have a job that takes me away from home Jan - Mid march on average of 20 days a month. The rest of the year its up and down but there are many week long travels. *I made a committment to myself and the dog that if Iam gone for a week or more he will go to a local pro.* He is not sitting on the couch and will be doing what he loves. Retrieving!!!! Is it fair to him to be neglected? I think not!

I have many nice places to train acquired by knocking on doors! When Iam home I train at least 5 days a week. I put my time in. As a result I have a very capable young retriever. There are times when the assistance, guidance and expertise of a professional is invaluable in working through complicated situations. We" Nash and I" work together as a team and he is my buddy. We travel hunting as much as we can in the fall but hunting seasons are so short. As a result we of the Hunt Test Game look for more. He "Nash" passed his frist master (a double ) at 21 months. I had an accident and broke my arm and could not handle "efficiently" for two months. I dont feel bad that a pro ran him when I could not. 

I ran him 2 weeks ago and put his third pass on him, but I had to go to TX last week on business an my Pro friend took him to OH and titled him(MH) at 2yrs and 4 months. Regardless of who is running him Iam very proud of this at such a young age. How do you take away from that?

I feel I have made a contribution to the breed by having a dog that has reached his potential ( not done yet) and we are striving for a higher level of 
achievement during each training session. 

I think you are missing the point that its about the team work and the dog picking up the birds regardless who is blowing the whistle.


Chris Sausman


----------



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

Bur Oak said:


> ...
> 
> Why the personal attacks?


Cause maybe he asked for it? He came in here moaning and groaning right off the bat about something that none of us has nor wants any control over.

Is that a troll under the bridge regards,


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

You're all so EASY for TROLLS to feast upon. See post #3.


----------



## Dixiedog78 (Jul 9, 2009)

shooter45 said:


> just for all you people who think shooter45 is intimated by the pros i have a master titled dog in 8 test which i train from a pup without sending him to a pro i also have a lot of pro friends. i guess you all feel that if you put the time in to train your dog and some one sends there dog to a pro u all deserve the same outcome don't think much of your affords i guess


You said you have a lot of "pro friends".... Have you ever trained with your "pro friends", gotten advise from your "pro friends", or trained with a training group that might have some of your "pro friends" in it? Do you have a problem with people having enough money to send thier dog to a pro and still claim that they own a MH? If I don't have enough time to train my dog then I am not going to have a dog.... I get satisfaction from training my own dog (with a group help) and I reap the benefits in the field and at tests. Some people enjoy the satisfaction of paying a pro to put a title on their dog. The bottom line is that this is a team sport and it is very rare for a ameture trainer who truely trains alone to make it very far in this game, we all need help at some point, and I am sure you have had help from at least someone at some point.

I would only have a issue with someone if they claimed to have soley trained / handled their MH dog when in fact the pro they sent it to did all the work. I think you will find that most people on this site can tell a difference in this situation.


----------



## Hunchaser (Jun 15, 2009)

I guess I can be called a semi-pro. When I retired from my real job I started to train dogs for hunters. I've slowly changed to mostly training my own dogs and selling them as hunting dogs. I usually run with about 10 dogs.

I'm all for the pros as they help to bring people into the sport and have a well earned place in the game. However, a good amature can beat a pro anytime of the day. The owner/trainer only has to worry about his/her dogs and they work as a team. A successful pro needs 20 dogs on his truck to make money. He usually can't pick his clients or dogs. With that number of dogs that means your dog on the pro truck only gets about 20 minutes training per day with little excercise. It has to be that way as the pro runs out of daylight. The Pros are going from sun up to sun down. They have to have a strong work ethic. 

It's difficult for a pro to beat a good amature as the owner/amature has time on his/her side. 

A pro arrives at the F/T or H/T with a truck full of dogs. That's a lot of money for the hosting club. If it wasn't for the pros I don't think there would be a game to go to. We as a group should have a little more understanding of what a pro has to do to make a few bucks.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Hunchaser said:


> I guess I can be called a semi-pro. When I retired from my real job I started to train dogs for hunters. I've slowly changed to mostly training my own dogs and selling them as hunting dogs. I usually run with about 10 dogs.
> 
> I'm all for the pros as they help to bring people into the sport and have a well earned place in the game. However, a good amature can beat a pro anytime of the day. The owner/trainer only has to worry about his/her dogs and they work as a team. A successful pro needs 20 dogs on his truck to make money. He usually can't pick his clients or dogs. With that number of dogs that means your dog on the pro truck only gets about 20 minutes training per day with little excercise. It has to be that way as the pro runs out of daylight. The Pros are going from sun up to sun down. They have to have a strong work ethic.
> 
> ...


I agree. Fear the educated, capable, well prepared amateur. A GOOD amateur is able to devote 100% of his/her time and resources into their dogs. Generally, the Am has a better working relationship with the dogs because of the time factor. He/she knows their dog inside and out. I am not saying that a pro doesn't know his dogs but its like coaching little league baseball. You may "know" your players, their tendencies, abilities, and defeciencies but if your own child is playing on that team i'd be willing to bet you know your own a whole lot better than the other kids. Pros bring a lot to the sport, aside from just money. Generally, they are very knowledgeable, and willing to help. Yes there are a few bad apples, but we shouldn't let them spoil the whole bushel. I can't thank the pro's who helped me along enough. 
Shooter45: Nobody said you had to like the pro trainers. Nobody said you had to train with them. But for you to lump all pros into one category and then berate them on a public forum, not to mention insulting the dog owners who have made the choice to send their dogs to a pro for whatever reason is uncalled for. Your attitude is whats wrong with this sport. All of us should be here for the dogs, personal prejudices aside. What happened to enjoying seeing good dog work? We all have a God given right to make our own decisions. Who are you to tell someone that their decision to use a pro is wrong? You need a reality check my friend. This is a sport enjoyed by all walks of life, pro and amateur alike. Everybody that is except for you...


----------



## Gordy Weigel (Feb 12, 2003)

M&K's Retrievers said:


> Cause maybe he asked for it? He came in here moaning and groaning right off the bat about something that none of us has nor wants any control over.
> 
> Is that a troll under the bridge regards,


So you are saying it is ok to verbally attack a person, because their view/opinion on a subject is different than your's?


----------



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

Bur Oak said:


> So you are saying it is ok to verbally attack a person, because their view/opinion on a subject is different than your's?


Nope. Not at all. If you read my post you will notice that I didn't say that it's OK. I was just offering a possible explanation as to why so folks are furred up over his remarks.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I wasn't offended by Shooter45's OP, I just thought he was missing the point in that it doesn't matter to me and my dog how many other dogs do well and get their title, nor whether they do it themselves, with the help of a pro or completely pro trained, since in a hunt test, I'm not competing against any other dog or handler. What matters to me is how my dog and I as a team perform against the standard that day. I will concede however, that I believe dogs have improved over the years, perhaps do to a lot of Pro training, and that I believe HT judges are setting up harder test than a decade ago, even though the written standard hasn't changed. I don't know if this has anything to do with pro involvement building better and better retrievers. 

That said, like others have said, it's hard to beat a dedicated, knowledgeble amateur for building the best retriever/handler team.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

"I think that many of you are misreading shooter45. I suspect that his real criticism is about what has happened to AKC Hunt Testing. It has certainly has changed direction."

I concur in that what is being required of "master " dogs is now what used to be a field trial a long time ago.They are even putting extreme tests together to eliminate dogs instead of evaluate.The weekend trainer doesn't have a chance.Howard put "desire" as a qualification.Before the master national I was able to train a dog to the master level working full time ,taking care of a family,and without a training group.Now it's nigh on impossible.I have no problem with using a pro and have done so in the past.I do believe however we have lost a lot of the flavor of what the hunt test was designed for.If my dog can make it to the master level in training than I will probably just run qual instead.

"Also, WRL, how long have you been involved with hunt tests?"
Lee has been around hunt tests before they had shotguns.Used to club em.
Actually been around and judged for many years.I have even passed a few of her tests. 



Just trying to help in the worst way 

Jeff G
__________________


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> I just wanted to know WRL's own personal experience. It's always good to know who you are talking to. I myself had been involved with Hunt Testing before the AKC had hunt tests. Having a personal friend who was in on the formation of NAHRA and personally witnessing the transition to AKC hunt testing, I can say that I understand shooter's comment. I was just curious as to how many others out there (WRL included) have the same experience. (BTW, I still have a copy of Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers July 9, 1985. It's in the gdgnyc archives.)
> 
> Also, I am not taking a position on this.


WRL's own personal experiences:

Hmmm.....well I believe I ran my first hunt test in 1988. I started in Nahra. There were no AKC hunt tests in AK at that time. I titled a couple dogs at the MHR level.

Moved outside (as we "Alaskans" call it) in 1992. Had a couple dogs I ran in Nahra in the Pac NW for a couple years. They had health issues so didn't get far with them. Took a couple years off while my son was young (and had the non-healthy dogs including one with epilepsy, I lived in Portland and couldn't have a bunch of dogs). 

Then picked up my first bitch Breezy in 1996. The previous dogs had been males (the very first dog I titled was a Flatcoated Retriever). And since then, have run a limited number of Nahra events (its been dying since, although with Jack gone it shows a little bit of new life) but mostly AKC HTs and some FTS.

I don't recall how many judging pts I have in Nahra, but have 5 Master pts in AKC and a slew of Junior/Senior judging pts.

Did you want more info?

WRL


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

gdgnyc said:


> I just thought that you may not know what happened when NAHRA started to get very popular. This was when the AKC wanted nothing to do with hunt tests.


I surely don't know that. Why not fill all of us in? What you have said thus far is different from what I've heard of the early history of hunting tests--tantalizing. Details?

Amy Dahl


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> WRL, thank you. I started maybe 1981. I kind of thought I might have been doing this a little earlier than you. I am not questioning your skills or credentials. I really am referring to shooter's comment about AKC taking over NAHRA. There is a reason shooter said that. I suspect that shooter may also have been there from the beginning because my friend says something very similar. If you already know what happened, fine. I just thought that you may not know what happened when NAHRA started to get very popular. This was when the AKC wanted nothing to do with hunt tests.
> 
> Again, not questioning your credentials. Not looking to make forum enemies. In case you would like a little more info, you can ask for it. I choose not to call out organizations on the forum.


AKC didn't "take over" from Nahra. Yes I know they had the chance to make Nahra "their HT program" and chose not to then later jumped in.

Nahra was the premiere HT program for many years. Jack shot the program in the foot and its never really recovered since then. Not having a registry is a huge problem.

But really, regardless of the HT politics during the beginning, Shooter45's comments have no basis. He does NOT compete against pros. So why does it matter if they run or not? Have HTs changed? Sure. So have all the other "sports" in the last 25 years. 

Just look at the last 25-30 years in the "real world" and see how that is changed? That is what happens. Has nothing to do with the "pros"....it has to do with people advancing their knowledge, whether its computer technology or dog training.

WRL


----------



## Laura Heyden (Aug 14, 2009)

Okay, gotta jump in here, please just shoot me with marshmellow guns. This past weekend, I ran a Junior Hunt test, with one very prominant Pro. He is the nicest guy and I totally respect him. Here's the rub, he had dogs in all series and 14 dogs in JR. Our test was basically completed, however we had to wait until he was done at the other series before we could complete the test. That's the way it's always been and I never expect to run my dog in the correct order. That being said, I there is nothing I'd rather do then hang with dog people so it's cool.

Here's an idea....Why couldn't clubs have enough flexability to have, say a time for the Pros to run the exact tests the amatures run, then move on to the next series, run there, then the next. This way, the AMs would know when they showed up, they could run in the catalog order and know approximatly when the brew could start flowin'?


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

gdgnyc said:


> afdahl, I will try to PM you with more info a little later.


I'd much prefer if you'd post. Then we can all compare notes.

Amy Dahl


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

boykinhntr said:


> I'm intimidated by anyone that refers to themself in the first person!


Not me but I am annoyed by them.

Bert


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Is this thread real?

Bert


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Shooter!
Open your mind!!

Pros give us all incentive to improve.

I wont take anything from your dogs accomplishments, but I'll just bet that dog is capable of more.

Sometimes a Pro can help many Amatures over that edge, and get them thinking differently about a miriad of things ie: How you dont attack your problems, how you accept behaviors because you feel they are already instilled, all kinds of things!

Pros also bring quite a bit to clubs in the form of pretty secure entries.
The Good ones always have a flock a dogs that clubs can depend on the revenue they bring.

If HT venues snubbed them, and asked them to go elsewhere,, How do you think the clubs would make up the revenue??
Maybe you gotta thicker wallet than Gooser!!

I enjoy Pros at HT. Most dont complain, make excuses, or drive a bus fer a living.
I have learned a great deal from sitting in the Gallery and watching Pros run, sometimes takin notes on the way their dogs handel situations. Maybe you is to good to see the forest through the trees??

Narrow minded for sure!!

Just so you know,, I dont have a dog with a Pro. But I will guaruntee you, there are several that have helped me improve immensly!
It took an effort to open my mind!!
Open Yours!!

Gooser

Oh By the way,, I DO go By Gooser,, but my real Christian Name is Mike Baker!! Wish we coulda met on a more respectful way!!

Gooser again!
P.S.

Are you a ribbon Chaser or a Dog Trainer??


----------



## geoles38 (Mar 8, 2008)

TripNDooley said:


> know approximatly when the brew could start flowin'?


Silly question, 8:00 am of course, unless your a gunner.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Shooter

One other point I'd like to make then I'm gonna go train,,, 

One of the Local pros in our area doesnt run dogs in HT or Trials. That person just TRAINS DOGS AND PEOPLE!! to a VERY high level I might add.
Those Dogs and People are Pro trained!
I hold her in very High regards!

You sir, are lumping that person within your narrow mind!!
I suggest you engage the brain before you release the cluch and let your mouth run!

THAT comes from Gooser!! 
Who knows derned well about runnin my mouth brainless!!

:razz:

Gooser


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

TripNDooley said:


> Okay, gotta jump in here, please just shoot me with marshmellow guns. This past weekend, I ran a Junior Hunt test, with one very prominant Pro. He is the nicest guy and I totally respect him. Here's the rub, he had dogs in all series and 14 dogs in JR. Our test was basically completed, however we had to wait until he was done at the other series before we could complete the test. That's the way it's always been and I never expect to run my dog in the correct order. That being said, I there is nothing I'd rather do then hang with dog people so it's cool.
> 
> Here's an idea....Why couldn't clubs have enough flexability to have, say a time for the Pros to run the exact tests the amatures run, then move on to the next series, run there, then the next. This way, the AMs would know when they showed up, they could run in the catalog order and know approximatly when the brew could start flowin'?


Marshal's have a tough job and if you can come up with a truely working formula every club would love to see it.

Bert


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

shooter45 said:


> i like to know when are all the hunt test folks going back to running hunt test for the amateurs and hunters and not for the pros, if dog people want a pro to train there dogs for hunt test that's fine including the master national , but when it comes to qualifying they should have to run it themselves the owners. if the pros want the satisfaction of there hard work then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open think about it guys more money and that's the bottom line, isn't that why it was started in the first place think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]


GDGNYC,

I never said YOU SAID AKC took over from Nahra. Shooter45 SAID IT....see the quote above? Its the original statement that started this thread.

WRL


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

gdgnyc said:


> WRL, I didn't say AKC took over NAHRA. I said that there is a reason that shooter made that statement. I am not looking to offend you but when I say that I was there at the beginning, when Wolters was trying to get retriever clubs into the program, I am just being a historian. I am what is called a primary source. I witnessed it.
> 
> afdahl, I will try to PM you with more info a little later.


Thanks for your history lesson and POV, but here's my problem with shooter's objection.
If he has been involved , as you suggest, from the early days why wouldn't he preface his post instead of somehow trying to drum up some controversy on the internet?

The current state of the AKC game has been what it is for a long time and pros are an economic neccesity to the clubs who need as many entries on their 2 weekends a year as they can get to remain viable entities.

Just like the individual test. The test is the test. If you don't like it don't run it.

Personally I don't see how an amature who does well amongst pros doesn't feel even better about the good work he has done.

Bert


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

shooter45 said:


> just for all you people who think shooter45 is intimated by the pros i have a master titled dog in 8 test which i train from a pup without sending him to a pro i also have a lot of pro friends. i guess you all feel that if you put the time in to train your dog and some one sends there dog to a pro u all deserve the same outcome don't think much of your affords i guess


Shooter, welcome to RTF.

The only thing that Chris is trying to figure out is why shooter45 refers to himself in the third person. 

I don't think the pro influence in today's hunt tests is going to change anytime soon. It's a two-sided coin. Many clubs and events would be sucking air financially if not for the entries that some pros bring in. 

Sometimes an event can be made or broken by whether or not one or two pros show up. At least that's what Chris thinks.

- Chris


----------



## shooter45 (Sep 17, 2010)

sorry i made so many good folks upset . i was just looking out for the poor guy who only trains for the fun of the game what hunt test was for in the first place if the old timers can remeber. o by the way i all most forgot sorry about my grammer i'am not a PRO writer




































































































































































































































































3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333+3place maybe the old timers forgot this


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

That's cool. Maybe you made some of think about why we are in this dog game. Personally I like pros and amateurs alike, but I really like watching good dog work no matter who is standing on line.

John


----------



## Laura Heyden (Aug 14, 2009)

rbr said:


> Marshal's have a tough job and if you can come up with a truely working formula every club would love to see it.
> 
> Bert


Oh, no doubt! The club and all involved are awesome, hard working folks. Let me clarify, I have NO problem with the pros, they, as has been said, can make or break an event. I'd much rather the club make money so they will continue holding hunt tests. It would just be nice, if we could accommodate the pros without causing such dissarry with the AMs. 

Maybe work something out for all those running in two or more series (I hope I'm one next year). When taking entries, note those with possible conflicts (hey make EE earn that extra $$ they are charging) and schedule early in Master, and late in Junior (or visa versa). I don't know, I'm just rambling. Maybe it's time to go to bed....


----------



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

shooter45 said:


> i like to know when are all the hunt test folks going back to running hunt test for the amateurs and hunters and not for the pros, if dog people want a pro to train there dogs for hunt test that's fine including the master national , but when it comes to qualifying they should have to run it themselves the owners. if the pros want the satisfaction of there hard work then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open think about it guys more money and that's the bottom line, isn't that why it was started in the first place think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]



Damn Pro's......


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2011)

shooter45 said:


> ...then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open...


Melanie would like shooter45 to understand that the National (Open) is *not* "for the pros." It's an event for dogs that qualify. Professional trainer or handler is optional.

Melanie wonders why, after driving almost 8 hours today, she is still awake and on the computer. Then again, Melanie wonders about a lot of things. She's a real thinker that Melanie.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

shooter45 said:


> sorry i made so many good folks upset . i was just looking out for the poor guy who only trains for the fun of the game what hunt test was for in the first place
> 
> How is eliminating pros helping the "poor guy who only trains for the fun of the game"?
> 
> ...


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Carol is wondering why Bert had to "quote" a whole page of empty space. Oh, I forgot, most of this thread is wasted space. Carry on!


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

2tall said:


> Carol is wondering why Bert had to "quote" a whole page of empty space. Oh, I forgot, most of this thread is wasted space. Carry on!


Scroll to the bottom of the post. For some reason shooter seperated the end of his quote at the bottom of the page. I tried to deleat the space but it didn't work. I'll try again.

Bert


----------



## Kevin Eskam (Mar 2, 2007)

You know I use to think the same thing, the pros make it hard for the little guy to pass, 
I was wrong. I was upset because my standard of training wasnt there!
Once I raised that standard now I use the pros as a benchmark to see if my training is progressing to a high standard like some of the pros. It is all good for the games.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Kevin Eskam said:


> You know I use to think the same thing, the pros make it hard for the little guy to pass,
> I was wrong. I was upset because my standard of training wasnt there!
> Once I raised that standard now I use the pros as a benchmark to see if my training is progressing to a high standard like some of the pros. It is all good for the games.


Exactly.

Bert


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

K eskam said quote:
You know I use to think the same thing, the pros make it hard for the little guy to *pass*,

I think there a many people who think this. 

When you run a HT you are running against a written standard, You are not in competition with thos Pro trained dogs.

While the Pro trained dog may very well meet that standard to the letter, get all 10's if you will, other dogs can still do an excellent job meeting that standard , but maybe to a lesser degree. Still passes.

If you see situations where where the PRO trained dog becomes the standard,, the problem isnt with the Pro, its with your Judge!

In HUNT TESTS!

JMHDAO.

Gooser

P.S.

And if you dont like that,, You are in the wrong game.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

It has taken me a long time to to "get" why mere Mortals run Field trials.

You see many of them run, and have a really tough time WINNING.

I never got that.

Its become more and more clear to me now.
If you can hang in there and do a competent job COMPETING with them big boys/and Girls, you have a pretty special animal, and you have done a remarkable job with your training.

I'm beggining to think, I'll take that over a ribbon.

To be able to take a dog that a person has trained themselves(figurativly) and go run a Pros Big dog set up, and do a credible job at it, and recieve a compliment from that Pro that they were impressed, would seem to *me* to be worth more than a ribbon. 
Gooser


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

shooter45 said:


> i like to know when are all the hunt test folks going back to running hunt test for the amateurs and hunters and not for the pros, if dog people want a pro to train there dogs for hunt test that's fine including the master national , but when it comes to qualifying they should have to run it themselves the owners. if the pros want the satisfaction of there hard work then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open think about it guys more money and that's the bottom line, isn't that why it was started in the first place think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]


Shooter, 

Chris started running hunt tests in the late 80's, very shortly after the hunt tests started. It seems there were pretty much always pro trucks with multiple client dogs at the events I've been exposed to, since day 1.

While I agree that the initial writings of Wolters and Tarrant can certainly give the impression that the hunt tests, made for Joe hunter, would not include a pro presence, it always has. 

It doesn't matter what game you pick. Jagoda was a pro. Driskill was a pro. AKC had a slew of them. 

*Quote: Kevin Eskam*


> You know I use to think the same thing, the pros make it hard for the little guy to pass,
> I was wrong. I was upset because my standard of training wasnt there!
> Once I raised that standard now I use the pros as a benchmark to see if my training is progressing to a high standard like some of the pros. It is all good for the games.


I agree with what Kevin wrote a lot. 

I personally think the pros add to the game. Many Joe average trainers will aspire to play at the level of the other guys they play with. I think many times, folks fall into poor training standards and methods because it is what they are exposed to. 

I've found that earning friendships with pros and being around pros has given me some opportunity to learn things that I otherwise would not have. If pros were not around the hunt test games I ran for so many years, I'm not sure that RTF would exist today, and I'm not sure that I'd have had any success in the games.

If your true goal is to get a second level of Master National added, or to get some special separation of pro versus amateur at a specific hunt test event, that's great. You can pursue that. It may be cool!

But to expect that all hunt tests may go to "average Joe Hunter" and be devoid of pros, that's probably not going to happen. And it never was that way. I really don't know that that kind of exclusivity was even what Tarrant and Wolters intended.

Chris


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

shooter45 said:


> i was just looking out for the poor guy who only trains for the fun of the game what hunt test was for in the first place if the old timers can remeber.


GulfCoast, who does not get paid a cent for training, trains "for the fun of the game" and to have a better dog. GulfCoast wonders why he does not see more of "the poor guy who only trains for the fun of the game" out running set ups at the break of dawn before heading for work like GulfCoast and other Ams? GulfCoast thinks they may be spending too much time obsessing over Pros instead.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

For Christ sake could you people leave the poor newbie to the RTF alone. 

He does make a valid point in that years ago there were very few pro's running trials and for the most part it was just us amateurs. Just spoke with a very well respected man in our game a bit ago, one who had a response in the latest RFTN, and he mentioned to me how tough it is to run against trucks with 15, 20 or 25 dogs. That wasn't the case in the 70's and 80's, now it is an every weekend occurrence. I understand he is talking HT's but none the less it is a tough thing to do.

I like having the pro's at the trials simply because one can pick up so much just from watching them. Conversations at trials is what picks up the boring time in between your time on the mat. However, if you are a student of the game watching the best run 20+ dogs in a day you will improve as a handler.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Wade said:


> I understand he is talking HT's but none the less it is a tough thing to do.
> 
> .


How so? It's not a competition. Like I said before, unless it asumes that the tests would be dumbed down in the absense of pros, the complaint makes no sense. And if the tests are dumbed down why bother?

bert


----------



## Dan Boerboon (May 30, 2009)

Dan thinks this post has been:twisted: actually Dan just wanted to speak in fisrt person Dan doesn't do this Dan thinks its ??


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2011)

FinnLandR said:


> I look forward to watching pros run. I might learn something. Yes, Melanie, I am capable of learning....


Melanie has always had faith in FinnLandR.


----------



## Brian Courser (Feb 10, 2010)

........your free to do it your own way, if it is done just as I say


----------



## cowboy46 (Apr 24, 2011)

shooter45 said:


> i like to know when are all the hunt test folks going back to running hunt test for the amateurs and hunters and not for the pros, if dog people want a pro to train there dogs for hunt test that's fine including the master national , but when it comes to qualifying they should have to run it themselves the owners. if the pros want the satisfaction of there hard work then they should have a master national for the pros like field trial have the national open think about it guys more money and that's the bottom line, isn't that why it was started in the first place think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]


well number 1 thang is that there has always been pro in the hunt test game
and your not running ageinst them your running againest the field 
the pro are there to run other people dogs who dont have time to come out and train all the time


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

cowboy46 said:


> well number 1 thang is that there has always been pro in the hunt test game
> and your not running ageinst them your running againest the field
> the pro are there to run other people dogs who dont have time to come out and train all the time


In hunt tests, you are not running "ageinst the field". You are being judged according to a Standard.


----------



## simcoe mtn (Mar 4, 2011)

I think that anybody that has ever trained a retriever knows the amount of work that goes into training a retriever. Even at a junior level. If an amatuer has a dog that he/she trained that qualified for master nationals, that is a real accomplishment. If a person has a dog that was trained by a pro, and that dog qualified for master nationals, that is still a real accomplishment. These dogs have met or exceeded a standard set by the AKC. Its been said a few times that its a standard that you are judged against, not how well the professionally trained dog before you performs.. I have not been to a lot of HT's, but the few that I have been to all the pro's have been more than happy to answer questions, and give advice when asked. We are all in the dog training game because we enjoy it. I dont mind spending a little while longer at a HT with people that are just as crazy about their dogs as I am mine. Would the OP feel the same about a pro that is running his own dog in a test, as opposed to a client dog? Personally, I really enjoy watching the pro's dogs run. I always seem to pick up on something that my dog and I can improve on. To the pro's that run HT's allow me to say thanks, from all the amatuers that don't think you've corrupted the HT world that we all love. 
Hope this makes sense, I've been up too long...


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

shooter45 said:


> think about it why did akc take over from nahra [ money ]


This is what gets me the most about this post. Shooter are you insinuating that clubs are padding their coffers and that pros who have found a way to make a living pursuing what they love (the definition of the American Dream) are somehow motivated by avarice?

I find that baseless and insulting to the folks who donate their time to keep clubs viable entities on the fees they get from 2 tests a year and dues collected. And to the pros who could all be making more money doing something else but chose to train retrievers for the love of the dogs and the games.

Bert


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

rbr said:


> snip
> 
> ..... are somehow motivated by avarice?
> 
> ...


Thanks, Bert. I learned a new word today! 

Who said this thread was worthless regards?

JS


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

GulfCoast thinks Shooter45 is off someplace googling "avarice."


----------



## Brian Courser (Feb 10, 2010)

FinnLandR said:


> I guess it is all in the Eye of the Beholder, isn't it, Brian?


Yes it is, very nice FinnLandR.  I guess I will have to come up with some better ones next time But it short of does fit this thread dosen't it


----------



## Brian Courser (Feb 10, 2010)

ok My fingers grip with fear. What am I doing here? Flash before my eyes. Now it's time to die......


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

JS said:


> Thanks, Bert. I learned a new word today!
> 
> Who said this thread was worthless regards?
> 
> JS


Glad to help.

Bert


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

GulfCoast said:


> GulfCoast thinks Shooter45 is off someplace googling "avarice."


Heck, BHB thinks that BHB better google "avarice"! 

BHB


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

Real quick; it's THIRD person that shooter45 is talking in, not first.

First: I, we, us

Third: He/she (when referring to oneself); shooter45, gulfcoast, agengo02, etc.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

So what is second person? You, Yall, and us'ns?


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

2tall said:


> So what is second person? You, Yall, and us'ns?


I don't know 'bout how ya'll think back there but us'ns got us a thread here that is about 1 beer shy of a keg... and being drained rapidly!

BHB


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

bpatton thinks this thread sucks, but bpatton still cannot PM so bpatton will waste some more space


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

bpatton wasting more space


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

bpatton thanks shooter45 for the ability to waste more space


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

bpatton has 5 to go


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

bpatton has 4 to go


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

bpatton has 3 to go


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

bpatton has 2 to go


----------



## bpatton (Apr 10, 2011)

this will be bpatton's last post on this thread...

reluctantly wasting space regards


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

GulfCoast said:


> Gulfcoast likes pros! Pro gave Gulfcoast pork chop sandwich at last his master test. Other pro loaned Gulfcoast water for dogs, and gave Gulfcoast icy cold diet coke. Gulfcoast loyalty for sale: cheap! ;-)


Now that is funny....Jay likes it !


----------



## Cleo Watson (Jun 28, 2006)

afdahl said:


> I surely don't know that. Why not fill all of us in? What you have said thus far is different from what I've heard of the early history of hunting tests--tantalizing. Details?
> 
> Amy Dahl


I started a new thread with a disjointed account of the History of the Hunt Tests. Hope some of this helps.


----------

