# What's your purpose in running hunt test?



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I wanted to start with my 1998 rule book, "Regulations & Guidelines For AKC Hunting Test For Retrievers". Most books like this would begin with a vision or purpose stated right up front as of prime importance. This book starts with gobbledygook about club eligibility, applications and other mechanical tidbits. I finally found the purpose of hunting test buried on page 16 in chapter three, four paragraphs down the page, so much for the importance AKC prescribes to "purpose". 

For what it's worth, the book states _"The purpose of a Hunting Test for Retrievers is to test the merits of and evaluate the abilities of Retrievers in the field in order to determine their suitability and ability as hunting companions. Hunting test must, therefore, simulate as nearly as possible the conditions met in a true hunting situation." _I remember reading that, and the similarly worded NAHRA booklet before I ever saw a real hunt test. I had visions of sitting in a make believe duck blind with a couple judges while birds flew in overhead from all angles and were shot to fall willy-nilly all around us. 

My original purpose was to refine the skills of my dog and give us something to do during the long offseason. Only later did I realize there was pride to be taken with every title, and that it could even effect our breed as one of the considerations people used in decided on who to breed their dogs to was based on HT titles.

So my purpose in running hunt test evolved beyond a fun fake hunt outing, to really trying to discern which dogs were good markers, team players, with heart. To that end, I now believe judges need to find a balance between reasonable hunting scenarios and testing of true marking, trainability, perseverance and style.


----------



## Windjammer (May 29, 2014)

If this forum had a "like" button, I would have clicked it. 

Nicely stated.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

To have fun with my dog(s)
To challenge myself as a handler and trainer.
To prepare for the hunting season.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

The free lunch!!!! After instructing bird technicians, lining up dogs, shooting flyers and rebirding the gun station, someone always brings me lunch in a brown paper sack! Where else can I go and see my friends, watch good dogs work, run my own dogs and still get a free lunch. It is the best game around!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I didn't state it in the OP, but I'm hoping people chime in on what they feel are the best ways to test our dogs for this. CaptainJack posted a diagram of a master test on the other thread that generated a lot of discussion. I'm in the school that believes a test like that, though it could happen in real life, is counterproductive toward testing the skills and abilities that produce a working retriever.


----------



## NBHunter (Apr 24, 2009)

I sure have not run as many HT's as most on here I'm sure, but I bet I've hunted as many days as most on here. I can tell you that in my experience, 95% of what happens in a real life hunting experience happens at the Junior level. Birds come in, we stand up, shoot at birds, birds fall within 10-50 yards of the blind, dog is released, picks up the bird and bring it back to hand. Every once in a while, a bird sails 100 yards and we have to run a blind if there were multiple ducks dropped at the same time and he doesn't see it go down. And once in a blue moon, the bird might said 200 yards. I've run HT's where my Junior dog was asked to pick up birds over 100 yards away...not very realistic. That all being said, it is "Fun" to see if my work with my dogs is up to snuff and I can stretch them out a little bit.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I run them for fun and to see whether the training I've done is paying dividends.

Edit: with regard to test set up, the rule book lists the natural and trained abilities that judges are to evaluate and states that the natural abilities are relatively more important. Although I don't judge hunt tests, I try to set up my training and field trial tests that allow dogs to exhibit the traits that the judges are supposed to evaluate without setting up something contrary that penalizes the trained response.

An up the shore mark (requiring dog to exit the water before reaching the gunner) or a mark thrown on land with water immediately beyond the bird are examples of a contrary marks. Both scenarios could happen in real hunting, but it's contrary to most folks training, so I don't set it up in a test.


----------



## jd6400 (Feb 23, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> I didn't state it in the OP, but I'm hoping people chime in on what they feel are the best ways to test our dogs for this. CaptainJack posted a diagram of a master test on the other thread that generated a lot of discussion. I'm in the school that believes a test like that, though it could happen in real life, is counterproductive toward testing the skills and abilities that produce a working retriever.


John,your sentiments are shared.Training methods (programs),good breeding available, and a high interest in tests have giving way to very large entries which in turn has made judges get away from reality in order to get "thru" the weekend......Handlers would not like me as a judge because the the "pigs" would be dropped regardless.Jim


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

NBHunter said:


> Birds come in, we stand up, shoot at birds, birds fall within 10-50 yards of the blind, dog is released, picks up the bird and bring it back to hand. Every once in a while, a bird sails 100 yards .


Almost every Junior test I have seen , must have terrible shots because the birds are always closer to 100 yards than 10-50.
Just saying
MP


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Much Prefer the HRC Rule Book; First sentence first page
The Hunting Retriever Club, Inc. and the United Kennel Club, Inc. are providing a program to develop the hunting retriever to fulfill its intended purpose in life hunting. 

Started dogs: This hunt test is for Started Hunting Retrievers and Handlers. It duplicates actual hunting conditions through out the local area. Judges will look for natural ability rather than trained performance. 

Seasoned dogs:This hunt test is for Seasoned Hunting Retrievers and Handlers. It duplicates actual hunting conditions throughout the local area. Judges will look for style and natural ability and evidence that the Seasoned Hunting Retriever exhibits a reasonable degree of control. These hunting tests have longer retrieves on both water and land than Started Tests. The Seasoned Hunting Retriever must be steady on line and retrieve to hand. The Seasoned Hunting Retriever in these hunting tests usually has a couple of seasons of hunting experience, and more training. 

Finished dogs: This hunt test is for Finished hunting retrievers. It duplicates actual hunting conditions * found throughout the country.* To pass these hunting tests the Finished Hunting Retriever must accomplish the tasks required with both style and accuracy. Judges will look for natural ability and a trained performance. The Finished Hunting Retriever must respond promptly to either voice or whistle commands and remain steady and under control at all times. The Finished Hunting Retriever should be a pleasure to hunt with* under any conditions*.

So sure most hunting in a particular area might be just a started-Junior marking test (which is why there's this level), and a controlled dog who can retrieve items it doesn't see is better to hunt with (which is why we have the seasoned-senior level). But a Finished retriever-master dog must be a creditable hunter, in "any" environment "any" conditions; and must be under the handlers control all the time. So if in some areas hunting is mostly easier-single marks, in other areas, longer retrieves, multitude of marks that can fall in any order, cripples-longer birds which must be retrieved prior to the ones floating in the decoys, occur with some frequency. I hunt flat ponds, flat terrain, also a club with a bunch of birds. It's not uncommon to get multiple birds, triples, scotch doubles etc. (haven't seen such in a test; think it's illegal ) so that I loose count. It's a common occurrence for them to land on both sides of the blind or hit birds sailing 300-400 yrs. away; into a different pond or 2 over. If it's geese longer, might have them scatter throughout the club (dang steel shot). In such situations it is nice to have a dog that can just do it, go for a particular one first, passing others, still remembers where they all are. So I can focus on shooting. Always fun when the dog is sitting waiting to retrieve a bird he knows is out there, and you don't. So IMO the lower stakes, should test regular-basic skill a hunting dog needs, but the upper stakes test for a dog that can do it all, regardless of what comes up. It's hard for me to get into an upper level retriever test should be about basic instincts needed for hunting; because somewhere across the country someone might encounter "unlikely" test worthy scenarios with some regularity; and a finished dog should still do a creditable job. I also don't buy into the handling on birds during hunting is not penalized, have been handling dogs on too many birds and have another group come in behind to where I can't shoot to believe that. Dogs that can retrieve without assistance are assets . Thus I run the tests, to gauge where my dogs are, so I can train them for items which I need, during the season. Whatever happens they can hunt on their own, I rarely have to handle them, so I can shoot; I also use the standard titles-test to gauge that other dogs across the country, are capable of doing the same; so I know what to expect of them if I was looking for a breeding candidate etc.

Good Discussion topic.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

If that were the only series in the test I would agree with you John but it is only 1 of 3 or 4 so as I said over there - I don't see it as a huge problem.

I wouldn't set it were I in the chair for the very reason that a thread like this would pop up on Monday morning but when I was running Ozzy if you threw it at us we would just run it and move on. I was never one for complaining about set ups though.

I ran HT for line time preparing for field trials - then all that went sideways when K2 came along and I haven't had time or interest to return.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

First I'll admit to knowing very little about HRC, but I suspect you are interpreting "found throughout the country" and "under any conditions" wrong, or at least more extreme than the original intent. Perhaps some HRC guys can chime in on this. I would imagine "throughout the country" to mean a hunt test to resemble typical hunting in that local, and "under any conditions" to pertain to weather conditions.

I do know AKC pretty well, I took three judging seminars, ran junior, senior and master, on my way to titling two master hunters before I moved on to field trials. Back when I was running a master hunter should be able to mark well on land and water, handle well on blinds, stay under control at all times, bull dogs, poison birds, walk ups, etc. One thing in HT's favor is that you aren't automatically eliminated if you handle on a bird, so that test we are talking about isn't as unfair as it would be in a field trial. I just don't see, from a judging standpoint what that tells you about the dog. These dogs aren't competing against each other, so against a standard I don't know how to judge that mark.

(this is responding to Hunt em Up)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> If that were the only series in the test I would agree with you John but it is only 1 of 3 or 4 so as I said over there - I don't see it as a huge problem.
> .


You're right, since in most hunt test you get one mulligan-handle, but I still don't see what a judge expects to get out of it as far as judging marking ability goes.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

I do it for fun. 

I do it because I really enjoy the relationships that develop with my dogs. 

I do it because I breed and I am a purist. A Labrador retriever was bred to be a working retriever. If they don't have the brains and the drive to work, they don't stay in my little program. 

I do it for the social aspect. I love the people at hunt tests and they are fun to be around. 

I like titling my breeding stock.


----------



## hillsidegoldens (Mar 28, 2009)

I run hunt tests to prove my training for hunting season. I am on golden retriever number 3 and 4. Plus testing extends hunting season.


----------



## NBHunter (Apr 24, 2009)

Mike Perry said:


> Almost every Junior test I have seen , must have terrible shots because the birds are always closer to 100 yards than 10-50.
> Just saying
> MP


LOL...my point exactly. Not very realistic hunting scenarios, so if you are doing it to see if your dog can pick up in a real hunting situation, then if you can pass a JH test, you're going to be good 95% of the time in real life hunting.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> You're right, since in most hunt test you get one mulligan-handle, but I still don't see what a judge expects to get out of it as far as judging marking ability goes.


I see nothing wrong wth the bird placement in that set up I posted. My issue is with the order the birds go down. 

1.Throwing the short bird first increases the odds of a dog not watching the longer bird, particularly when on the same line. 
As a FT judge, I strive to make sure dogs have every opportunity to see my birds. I realize that with the short walk up, judges feel pinned in to making it the first bird in a multiple. If I judged hunt tests, I'd throw the walk up like HRC, as a single on the way to the running line, or it may be cool to run your triple with a flyer, walk toward a different line where you will run a blind, and throw a walk up in route. Anyway unless mandated by rule to be part of a triple, I'd not do it that way. 
2. Throwing the go bird directly on line and deep of a shorter bird encourages a dog to run past a dead bird on the ground. This (ignoring a dead bird in a marking situation) is an undesirable trait. 

So, if I felt the grounds were right to test the dogs ability to mark an over/under (in ft speak this is not an inline), I'd throw the long dead bird first (the over), the short dead bird 2nd (the under), then turn an shoot the flyer as the longest bird last. Now you improve the dogs' chances of seeing all of the birds, you test how well the dog works with the handler staying poised at the line for the short bird, then turning for the flyer, and you test the ability of the dog to check down for the short bird after going long. This scenario has plenty of meat for the Master dog.


----------



## Zach Fisher (Jan 16, 2015)

The ribbons.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I have never understood why with the AKC walk up,, that Judges get so hung up with that required aspect of the test be incorporated soly in the MARKING situations..

IMHO,, the walk up with its distance requirement ,and no attention getting shot,, is a perfect diversion to set up a "poison" bird,,in the required "double Blind" of a master test..


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I suspect eventually the phrasing "_Hunting test must, therefore, simulate as nearly as possible the conditions met in a true hunting situation." _will be changed:

maybe like this....


_Hunting test _*should*_, therefore, _*present the entrants with*_ a _*fake*_ hunting situation.

_


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ya want to run a test that tests a HUNTING dog,,,, Ya better own a dog that is VERY comfortable with primary selection,,and also change you mindset that "X" number of handels will get you dropped...

also, about the local Hunting sentence..

We hunt rivers out here.... Better get used to not getting your panties in a wad if a duck "drifts" off from where the dog "Marked" it.. the dog better understand river current..
Its COLD here too... so I hope ya lessen your standards about cheating the water, to get TO a bird drifting away,,and then running the bank on its RETURN also..

When hunting,, I might deliberately,,and smartly send a dog down wind of where I THINK the bird fell,,and then applaud a "hunt em up..


I think HRC used to do a pretty good job mimicking a day in the field,, but slowly,, they Too are migrating away from it.
Ya know,, an Honor dog is part of that days hunt too.. He's not just there to sit and watch others work,, then go back to the truck..



Hunting dogs are treated to dairy queen after they pick up birds,,not leaving anything lost.

Testing dogs are given ribbons when evaluated on HOW they go about it..



My purpose was to accomplish a goal.. I cant really say the TESTS are fun... I am to nervous... Its reminds me of taking a shower with my wife..


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> I have never understood why with the AKC walk up,, that Judges get so hung up with that required aspect of the test be incorporated soly in the MARKING situations..
> 
> IMHO,, the walk up with its distance requirement ,and no attention getting shot,, is a perfect diversion to set up a "poison" bird,,in the required "double Blind" of a master test..


That'd be an excellent test for a master level dog.


----------



## gaustin (Apr 7, 2013)

MooseGooser said:


> Hunting dogs are treated to dairy queen after they pick up birds,,not leaving anything lost.


Best quote in a long time


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> You're right, since in most hunt test you get one mulligan-handle, but I still don't see what a judge expects to get out of it as far as judging marking ability goes.


I agree with you John. Where we may (and others obviously do) disagree is where a handle in a hunting test is a "mulligan". The rules actually encourage a quick handle as opposed to a protracted hunt, and then we arbitrarily penalize dogs for handling. Every mark we throw and every scenario we set need not be a marking test. 

Marking is of "primary importance" - OK no problem - we threw 9 marks in the test - 7 out of 9 were designed to test marking and two were used to test train-ability. Marking was still given primary consideration.

In literally every series I ever ran (6 MH tests with Ozzy) - I could have gotten things done quicker, cleaner and more efficiently if there wasn't someone behind me counting "handles". When the dog steps on 6 out of 9 marks and we handle on the other 3 to make things go more efficiently, do we really have a dog that can't mark or a judge with no hunting experience and little set up skills? It's hard to say on any given weekend when there is an (illegal) arbitrary way to judge marking (AKA number of handles). 

Always a pet peeve of mine it you can't tell. Are we testing hunting dogs or is this a field trial? Some people can't tell the difference.


----------



## pat addis (Feb 3, 2008)

the last two senior tests I have ran the dog had to go within 10 foot of the live flyer hide to get to the blind. not a lot of dogs did it including mine. I have never had to run my dog by a crate of noisy ducks while hunting. both akc and hrc are trying to set up tests that are not like you would see while out hunting .


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I would think a judge would want to see at least one 'clean' series? Of course much depends on the test, the marks, and the judges.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

I train and run tests and trials mostly for the fun of working with the dogs, but also to have that extra ability that is needed in a true hunting scenario, every once in a while.
Couple of times while hunting in N. Dakota we had a bird over 200 yards away from drifting in the wind while picking up other birds, or the dog and handler did not see the fall due to terrain. Being able to send my dog for a 200-250 water blind and get the bird in 2-3 handles helps save the bird, but gives me a tremendous sense of accomplishment. Of all the "great hunting dogs" (that never ran a test) I have heard of, they would never get that bird, but we can.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I do HT because there was a welcoming group of HT-involved folks who didn't mind having an ignorant, newby with a dog joining them. 

Friendships.

Labrador Retrievers

Challenge

A mental and emotional vacation, 180 degrees separated from my work/career


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> Fi
> 
> (this is responding to Hunt em Up)


Actually the bird order of the scenario, which is not realistically how I would run it (if I were to do something like this the go bird would be the outside bird or the back bird would be slightly off line not in-line). Still the order might be an HRC item;as they encourage that birds go down shortest to longest; idea that if a hunter were to shoot multiples they would most likely be further and further away from the gunner. Theory; birds avoid areas once they've been shot at. Now from what I've seen birds tend to go straight up when shot at, meaning they can fall pretty much where ever, and the long sailing bird can be any of them as with steel-shot who knows how far a particular shot bird will fly until it just falls out of the sky, the sailer might be a cripple which needs to be picked up asap or it might be stone cold dead. An experienced dog seems to know which it is and will go for the cripple over dead floaters. Still a good portion of judges take the longer bird later to heart.

As to what you will see when judging such a set-up, for those dogs that do it cleanly (and several dogs will) you definitely see superior marking, memory & training (intelligence, perseverance etc.), in some cases teamwork as a smart handler will work his dog to advantage. For those dogs that have to handle, you see some marking (hopefully they can remember the AOF of 2 ), control, team-work (handler will have to think to survive), trainablity or lack of; all items which a master-finished dog should have. In any test you usually see one of these type of series, they have marking-memory, but mostly they are about team-work, and control. As others have said you will get 2 more series (hopefully 2 more triples) to show marking, but marking is only one aspect to be tested of a Finished-master dog.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

It is funny how life and time change your perspective. My first experience with dog games was NAHRA. I have also run AKC hunt tests and field trials since then. Field games are not the only dogs games I have played. Initially, I was looking for a yardstick to measure my training ability and my dogs progress. Later pride developed in the accomplishments and a desire to go farther and achieve more. Then life changed and I stopped all dog games. I still enjoy training my dogs but have more confidence in my abilities and less concern of outside standards. My 13+ year old lab has never played a dog game. He did all I ever wanted of him in the field.

There is also the social component of hunt tests, or any dog game. Being around like-minded people helps build friendships that can be lasting. This may not be the first thing that comes to mind but is often what can be most valued over time.

I look back on the NAHRA tests I ran in the mid- to late '90's very fondly. There was just something about them that made them more enjoyable than the other dog games I have participated in. The filter of time tends to help us forget the bad and only remember the good.

I am not sure I answered your question John. But, thanks for the opportunity to dust the attic of my mind.

Tom


----------



## big trax (Mar 31, 2015)

I ran the first test out of curiosity. I was hooked from there. I have my beefs with both the AKC and HRC venues. Overall, I do it because I think any time spent with my dogs is good time and I've met a ton of like minded, good folks in the process.

I can't complain much because I am not a judge. Until I become one and donate my time to the cause, I don't feel like there is much room for me to criticize them - I'd rather run my dogs, but I have said many times, there is no way a hunt test can completely mimic a real hunt. We have folks in the dog games who never hunt and we have judges who haven't trained a dog in a long time. Some have dogs with pros and like being around dogs and know something about training so, they judge. I have run tests where I'm scratching my head and thinking, "Why on earth would you do that?" Just like someone above mentioned the proximity of a live bird crate to a line on a blind. I get it...control, but I personally think that is over the top.

I ran an HRC finished test once on grounds where many live birds were kept in a fly pen and barn. The money bird in that series landed within 100 yards of the duck barn and the wind was carrying scent to the AOF...the mark was about 135 yards from the line. Talk about losing some dogs...another head scratcher for me. 

We see threads here all the time during hunting season about QAA dogs or MH level dogs struggling during a hunt. The owner, who most often has bought the titled dog or has had the dog trained by a pro, wants to know why Fido is struggling with XYZ situation when he is a master hunter. We quickly point out that proficiency in the dog games does not equal proficiency in the marsh. They are two unique environments and I'd argue a MH dog has a better start toward becoming prepared for his first hunt than a dog who has never been tested, but still - two playing fields - two sets of rules and as many ideas about what is acceptable as there are people in the game.

I'm running my first derby this weekend. Instead of taking the "go see one" advice. I entered two pups cold. I am not expecting to win. I'm hoping to learn and most likely, will drive home humbled and in awe. That's ok. It will force me to go home and do what I love doing - learn to get better and have a better dog as a result. I like the tests, but we all know trials are much more difficult and require much more of both dog and handler at the upper levels. I want my dogs and I to be the best we can be. We may never get a ribbon, but if I learn and Fido gets better, we've won all we need to win.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

That is why since 1977 all my FT dogs must hunt first and field trial. Hunt tests are too easy and poorly set up these days to run . Not all but most. My experience and observation. Was a HT judge and go back to 1985. Pretty broad comment on the QAA/FT . Want to go hunting? Pass, blind, jump, decoy (water/field) regards.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Tobias said:


> I would think a judge would want to see at least one 'clean' series? Of course much depends on the test, the marks, and the judges.


 Once again - not in the rule book anywhere. In the scenario Glen posted the issue is the dog getting hung up in the short bird and that being interpreted as not marking the long bird. Well, they're on the same line and distance can be tough, especially when your nose tells you "it's here" having had 20-30 birds land in that stop and 20-30 sets of dog foot prints taking you there. So bottom line - if a dog picked up the flier then the short, went back to the short and immediately cast out of the area when instructed by his handler, was swiftly handled into the AOF of the long bird and or remembered where he was going once that instruction was given, that is - for ANY hunting dog, a clean admirable job. So - what are we testing in a hunting test? A top level hunting dog or a low level field trial dog? If you believe the former there's no problem with at series in the context of a 3-4 series master test.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

This may be something that hunters understand easily but may evade many. I run dogs for the great moments when the stars align and everything goes right. When hunting we spend countless hours in the woods waiting for the day when the ducks fall into the decoys, the turkeys come running and the bucks are chasing does everywhere. The shining moment in the dog world may be a water blind or a nice set of marks or a perfectly run test weekend. In those moments the world is right and all the unpleasantness fades away.

Most of us started this journey at the lower level of a hunt test. We were dragged to the line by an unruly beast never before encountered. The adrenaline was overpowering the urge to spew chunks. As the bird went into the air the dog almost pulled my arm out of socket. My dog spontaneously combusted and we failed miserably. The next day everything went right and the ribbon was a sweet prize. The words "Honor to who honor is due" struck a chord and I was on top of the world.

The moments when the world shines golden are fleeting and unpredictable. The friends you make are much more predictable. It has been my pleasure to hunt from South Dakota to Louisiana with friends I made chasing $4.50 ribbons. The ribbons are now an afterthought but I cherish the moments in the sun and my new found friends.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"What's your purpose in running hunt test?"_

This is one question that over the years has become more and more difficult to quantify/justify. There is a long list of things that I absolutely have
to do. Many are fun and some are not. Training a retriever and running hunts tests are not in the same category. I have not run a hunt test for several
years. I do hunt quite a bit and feel that is necessary.......my wife uses the word compulsive (rather than necessary). 

It became very clear that having a well trained dog makes hunting more fun. In addition, many will agree that having a retriever that can pass a Senior
AKC hunt test will mostly likely provide a very capable hunting dog (*after acquiring quality, real-time hunting experience*). 

So I am having some thoughts about why it seems almost necessary to continue testing which in turn relates to *what is "my" purpose in running hunt
tests?* It is often difficult to be blunt because that approach tends to be contrary to others' perspectives. Why is it that I (and many) are often driven
by what others think or do?

I totally enjoy training......and yet testing does not create that same emotion or need. In one hand "I have to train. I need to."......but in the other "Do I
really need to test?" Why do I have a hefty test schedule already written out (planned) when I really don't get a big kick out of testing?


----------



## Keith S. (May 6, 2005)

I like to run tests because I like to see how my dog does against other people's setups. I'm not a part of many training groups, but I imagine that you will see a reoccurring theme with set ups. I like to see the people I've become good friends with that I only see at hunt tests. Some of my best friends are people I've met through hunt tests. I like to watch other dogs work. I used to run a lot of HRC hunt tests but with a young family and my current job, it doesn't allow me to go to as many as I use to. I am running AKC master this year, never ran a master, have only seen a couple series and will probably go running home with my tail tucked between my legs, but I guarantee it will help show me the holes in my dogs training. Can't wait!


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

I find it interesting that a large number people with Master Hunters have never entered a Field Trial.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Breck said:


> I find it interesting that a large number people with Master Hunters have never entered a Field Trial.


Probably just as large a number of those who run FT's and have never ran a Hunt-test, or haven't ran one in many many years (the games evolve) ; different strokes different folks. But I believe it's mainly to do with color coordination and laundry; mustard stains really show-up on white, but blend in very well on camo .


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Why do I do hunt tests?

My club asked me to. They also asked me to become a judge. The hunt tests should help one to determine where they are in their training.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

I run them to see if my dog can catch the live flier before it hits the ground! As soon as he can do this, I will probably retire him and start a new a dog...


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Dave Farrar said:


> I run them to see if my dog can catch the live flier before it hits the ground! As soon as he can do this, I will probably retire him and start a new a dog...


HAHAHAHA!!!! Now You're talkin... Sit to flush over rated...


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> HAHAHAHA!!!! Now You're talkin... Sit to flush over rated...


And not afraid to say it!!!


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

DarrinGreene said:


> Once again - not in the rule book anywhere. In the scenario Glen posted the issue is the dog getting hung up in the short bird and that being interpreted as not marking the long bird. Well, they're on the same line and distance can be tough, especially when your nose tells you "it's here" having had 20-30 birds land in that stop and 20-30 sets of dog foot prints taking you there. So bottom line - if a dog picked up the flier then the short, went back to the short and immediately cast out of the area when instructed by his handler, was swiftly handled into the AOF of the long bird and or remembered where he was going once that instruction was given, that is - for ANY hunting dog, a clean admirable job. So - what are we testing in a hunting test? A top level hunting dog or a low level field trial dog? If you believe the former there's no problem with at series in the context of a 3-4 series master test.


Not in the rule book ... true... but it does say in there something about marking being of primary importance. How a judge perceives that will determine what he/she expects a dog to be able to do throughout the course of a hunt test.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Many judges have yet to figure out an "area of fall?" Judging seminars including reups should have physical field "show and tells." That equates to distances. How many people are clueless to range? Get those range finders out to teach "distance."


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Tobias said:


> Not in the rule book ... true... but it does say in there something about marking being of primary importance. How a judge perceives that will determine what he/she expects a dog to be able to do throughout the course of a hunt test.


 I agree but you don't get to make up arbitrary rules like "clean series" or "no more than 1 handle". You just don't. You're there to judge the dog against a written standard - not to create a standard on the spot. REally bunches up my panties when I hear judges say stuff like that.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

Just curious Darren....dog cleans two marks of a triple and on the third starts it hunt nowhere near the fall area and is handled to the bird. If it does it in the next two series I' guessing You wouldn't pass it as a judge?? So there is no rule but the scores You give the dog just will not add up to pass this dog in marking. Would You pass a dog who got close to the fall area but could not come up with the bird without being handled in all three series?


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

NBHunter said:


> I sure have not run as many HT's as most on here I'm sure, but I bet I've hunted as many days as most on here. I can tell you that in my experience, 95% of what happens in a real life hunting experience happens at the Junior level. Birds come in, we stand up, shoot at birds, birds fall within 10-50 yards of the blind, dog is released, picks up the bird and bring it back to hand. Every once in a while, a bird sails 100 yards and we have to run a blind if there were multiple ducks dropped at the same time and he doesn't see it go down. And once in a blue moon, the bird might said 200 yards. I've run HT's where my Junior dog was asked to pick up birds over 100 yards away...not very realistic. That all being said, it is "Fun" to see if my work with my dogs is up to snuff and I can stretch them out a little bit.


I disagree:

1) Junior dogs are not required to be steady and certainly not required to honor. Those are both requirements for the dogs I hunt with. If you are hunting out of a pit blind, the dog that breaks is muzzle high while the shooting may still be going on...recipe for disaster.

2) Junior dogs don't handle. I don't know what my ratio is of blind retrieves or birds that require a handle (maybe it was a mark but the bird dove and came up somewhere else) but it is a whole lot more than 1 out of 20 retrieves.

If you had said a HR or SH then I would agree with you. A really solid SH dog will get the job done the vast majority of the time with the caveat that dogs need time to adapt to new scenarios (hunting rivers, hunting out of boats, hunting pit blinds, certainly hunting layout blinds).


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Tom Lehr said:


> Just curious Darren....dog cleans two marks of a triple and on the third starts it hunt nowhere near the fall area and is handled to the bird. If it does it in the next two series I' guessing You wouldn't pass it as a judge?? So there is no rule but the scores You give the dog just will not add up to pass this dog in marking. Would You pass a dog who got close to the fall area but could not come up with the bird without being handled in all three series?


If I dropped the dog it would be because the scores didn't add up, not because he handled three times or didn't run a clean series. Every situation is different. That's the only point I was trying to make. My scenario would be more like - dog front foots mark 1, goes straight to AOF on mark 2 and misses slightly upwind. Begins to hunt - marking has been demonstrated. I see an easy opportunity to handle downwind and reduce the time, cover disturbance and memory loss on this bird so I take it... The rule actually encourage me to. We get a better chance now on mark 3, reduce the time the overall recovery takes and demonstrate solid, fluid teamwork. But.... it's the first or second series and I may need that handle later since there is an arbitrary limit, so I let the dog hunt, and hunt and hunt until he comes up with the bird... Then it hunts mark 3 due to memory burn... 

If we're looking to simulate a day's hunt and judge suitability as a hunting companion, the dog that pulls off my original scenario every time should pass the test, even if the handler chooses to execute every series that way. The rules not only allow for it but they encourage a quick handle vs. a protracted hunt. Once the dog arrives at the AOF and begins his hunt, it should be on the handler to step in at the right time - get it over with and move on. We don't test that way though because of arbitrary rules people make up.

Everyone seems to look for that detailed rule to point to in order to justify dropping a dog, or they make up an arbitrary rule to justify their scoring. Saves on arguments I guess. When I was attending, running and judging tests the dogs that were really master hunters were pretty easy to pick out of the crowd. A lot of others got ribbons also but the real ones were easy to spot. Everyone knows that I mean on that.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

I see Your point and agree with You. Part of the problem is at the judging seminars the AKC rep's tell You to give the dog zero for the mark if it is handled. I always give a dog credit for achieving the area of the fall even if it is handled.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Tom Lehr said:


> .dog cleans two marks of a triple and on the third starts it hunt nowhere near the fall area and is handled to the bird. If it does it in the next two series I' guessing You wouldn't pass it as a judge?? Would You pass a dog who got close to the fall area but could not come up with the bird without being handled in all three series?


 Dog 1 has proven to be a good Senior dog. It can mark 2 birds.
Dog 2:Why and when did they handle? leaving the area, switching, returning to old fall, popping/dog quit...The handler gave up on the dog to retrieve on its own, and handled 3 times for a reason(s).
Is that the performance of an elite dog?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Tom Lehr said:


> Just curious Darren....dog cleans two marks of a triple and on the third starts it hunt nowhere near the fall area and is handled to the bird. If it does it in the next two series I' guessing You wouldn't pass it as a judge?? So there is no rule but the scores You give the dog just will not add up to pass this dog in marking. Would You pass a dog who got close to the fall area but could not come up with the bird without being handled in all three series?


There actually IS a RULE!!

Dog must proceed directly TO THE AREA OF FALL,,and establish its first hunt THERE... What that defines,, is the dog "Marked" the bird...

Now,, handling IN the AOF is a LOT different that handling TO the AOF..

Someone stated something about some judges not having a clue as to AOF.. I agree,, and find it difficult to get "experience" people to talk about it.. Its sise, how the size changes due to factors,and what order the particular bird is..

Ted Shih does a great job.. But he is one of the few I have run into that will discuss it.. Most others express lack of experience if you even ask the question...

And yet... AOF is THE MAJOR part of describing a mark...... BY RULE..


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

By the way... If you handle TO an AOF after a dog hunted elsewhere first,,, That's a ZERO score ON THAT 1 BIRD in my mind..

That dog did NOT mark that bird..

Mine does it a LOT!!!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

swliszka said:


> *Many judges have yet to figure out an "area of fall?" *Judging seminars including reups should have physical field "show and tells." That equates to distances. How many people are clueless to range? Get those range finders out to teach "distance."


If they have they sure cant explain it to you.. 
I get that silly Porn analogy...


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Dog 1 has proven to be a good Senior dog. It can mark 2 birds.
> Dog 2:Why and when did they handle? leaving the area, switching, returning to old fall, popping/dog quit...The handler gave up on the dog to retrieve on its own, and handled 3 times for a reason(s).
> Is that the performance of an elite dog?


S
Dog proceeds Directly TO an AOF,,Establishes its hunt there,,but for some reason, cant come up with the bird... If the handel is quick, clean,,and gets the bird,,, NO HARM, NO FOWL..

Handler kept the dog from wasting time, disturbing the hunt and cover.. Annnd,, it marked the fall of the bird..

But the discussion is the very subjective definition of the AOF..


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

For the most part, this is way over my head, but I want to learn. 

Let's just say... oh, I don't know... hypothetically...There's a young dog, talented marker, very, very high drive and fast. Nails first two birds of the triple. But because the judge is very smart, he/she has used lots of factors to make the money bird very difficult. So fast/talented/high-drive lines up and looks exactly in the right place, but just misses up wind... and you know that the judge's hazard lies in wait, just beyond the AOF. 

Now maybe the dog will figure it out. In fact as a handler, you know she's been well schooled and you're pretty darn sure she will. But she's young and she's just about to drive through the AOF. 

Me, I'm nervous and paranoid... I hit the whistle, give an over ('cause by this time it's probably too late for an angle back) and she promptly picks it up. 

So the questions I have are:

1) How has she scored in marking and are we in deep doo-doo going into the next series?

2) Did the judge set up a test that disadvantages the high-roller?


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> I agree but you don't get to make up arbitrary rules like "clean series" or "no more than 1 handle". You just don't. You're there to judge the dog against a written standard - not to create a standard on the spot. REally bunches up my panties when I hear judges say stuff like that.


Exactly. There are plenty of arbitrary, made-up rules in the dog games. Even in field trials the book says a quick handle is preferable to a long hunt and disturbing lots of cover (paraphrased). But a quick handle is the kiss of death and one gut hunt could get you back if the other two or three marks are clean. I am guilty of not handling when I should because of the "rule" that a handle is an eliminating fault. 
In a real hunting situation, if I know where the bird is and the dog starts to hunt a little too long, I will handle to get the retrieve done and be ready for the next ducks to come in. That said, most of the time the dog is hunting up birds I cannot see and don't exactly know where they are, so she is on her own. I'll also let her get loose on the end of a blind to hunt it up or trail a cripple. The training is good and the tests/trials are fun, but not much like hunting.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

1tulip said:


> For the most part, this is way over my head, but I want to learn.
> 
> Let's just say... oh, I don't know... hypothetically...There's a young dog, talented marker, very, very high drive and fast. Nails first two birds of the triple. But because the judge is very smart, he/she has used lots of factors to make the money bird very difficult. So fast/talented/high-drive lines up and looks exactly in the right place, but just misses up wind... and you know that the judge's hazard lies in wait, just beyond the AOF.
> 
> ...



Whos AOF??? Yours,,,, or the Judges??

By the way,,, you didn't give the dog a chance to establish a hunt somewhere did you.. All the actions were Your decisions

To show the dog marked the fall... It must proceed directly TO the AOF,,and ESTABLISH a HUNT.. Following the rule book,,, how do you think the hypoinjectedly judge judge it?


The discussion in seminars should be how do all those factors you talked about affect the SIZE of that AOF? How does the fact it was the FBD affect the size of that AOF?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

1tulip said:


> For the most part, this is way over my head, but I want to learn.
> 
> Me, I'm nervous and paranoid... I hit the whistle, give an over ('cause by this time it's probably too late for an angle back) and she promptly picks it up.
> 
> ...


1) It's an out of the area handle, little credit is given to marking, because the dog; never identified the area of the fall, and thus wasn't allowed to illustrate marking. You didn't trust the dog, or the dogs training, to either remember depth of fall, nor to stay in the area; unaided. All the judges can do is judge what is shown them, handling shows them you didn't expect the dog to (mark) stop. The handler chose to show the judges handling, rather than marking. Not saying it was the wrong choice, but given the circumstances all the judges can judge is the handle, you can make it through a test with a handle to the area as long as it's done crisply and cleanly. A handle like that is much nicer than a dog over-running getting out into no-where land and then having to be handled back, but it's not nicer than a dog perhaps over-running a bit, coming back straight away remembering the AOF, & hunting it (that would illustrate marking).

2) I Don't believe judges setup tests to disadvantage any particular type of dog, just think particular setups can be more challenging to different individuals, which is why it's necessary to focus training to items that each particular dog is weaker in. A good test- set of judges will setup different series to test a multitude of different aspects, in some it might be an advantage to have a higher rolling dog (long water swims, heavy cover etc.), and others a disadvantage (short marks, in thrown birds etc.). The test is trying to prove that the dog is "standard" or well balanced in several different areas.

Best description of AOF and how to judge handles in and out of areas of the fall I've seen are in an HRC judges seminar, they actually put up pictures, and discuss how to establish the area, and what different aspects can affect that area, bird order; wind; cover; etc. Now they don't tell you that AOF is "This" , and "this" is how you judge it because AOF and circumstance are different in every setup. but they did offer good discussion on what aspects to take into consideration, even a bit of friendly discussion "argument" between different judges-styles . The answer to what it's considered when a handler prevents a dog from over-running was presented, scoring the dog is "marginal" in marking, you can have a marginal marking series, but in HRC you cannot have 2 marginal marking series, so the dog would be encouraged to do better in the next series . It roughly translates the same to NAHRA and AKC, however AKC has more marks and more series, which goes into the overall marking average, which by the end must average 7.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

On a mark I just send the dog. (providing the dog marked it) ..otherwise it's not a mark.
On a blind I send the dog and it will handle irrespective of what's on route. 
A mark , then another mark in the same line (route) . I want the dog to get the mark and closest then send for the longer one.
A mark of a cripple on the same line as a dead bird whether it's first down or second down or nearer or closer matters not a jot . The dog should be capable of being handled on that bird .
We call this Retriever handling in the presence of game . 
Rules set out by clubs or organisations or bodies throughout the world can set out a scenario for any contest they like . 
But that's what should happen and does happen with trained retrievers in the shooting field . 
Perhaps some should Test for that.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> 1) It's an out of the area handle, little credit is given to marking, because the dog; never identified the area of the fall, and thus wasn't allowed to illustrate marking. You didn't trust the dog, or the dogs training, to either remember depth of fall, nor to stay in the area; unaided. All the judges can do is judge what is shown them, handling shows them you didn't expect the dog to (mark) stop. The handler chose to show the judges handling, rather than marking. Not saying it was the wrong choice, but given the circumstances all the judges can judge is the handle, you can make it through a test with a handle to the area as long as it's done crisply and cleanly. A handle like that is much nicer than a dog over-running getting out into no-where land and then having to be handled back, but it's not nicer than a dog perhaps over-running a bit, but coming back straight away remembering where the AOF, hunting it and picking it up on it's own (which would illustrate marking).
> 
> 2) I Don't believe judges setup tests to disadvantage any particular type of dog, just think particular setups can be more challenging to different individuals, which is why it's necessary to focus training to items that each particular dog is weaker in. A good test- set of judges will setup different series to test a multitude of different aspects, in some it might be an advantage to have a higher rolling dog (long water swims, heavy cover etc.), and others a disadvantage (short marks, in thrown birds etc.). The test is trying to prove that the dog is "standard" or well balanced in several different areas.
> 
> Best description of AOF and how to judge handles in and out of areas of the fall I've seen are in an HRC judges seminar, they actually put up pictures, and discuss how to establish the area, and what different aspects can affect that area, bird order; wind; cover; etc. Now they don't tell you that AOF is "This" , and "this" is how you judge it because AOF and circumstance are different in every setup. but they did offer good discussion on what aspects to take into consideration, even a bit of friendly discussion "argument" between different judges-styles . The answer to what it's considered when a handler prevents a dog from over-running was presented, scoring the dog is "marginal" in marking, you can have a marginal marking series, but in HRC you cannot have 2 marginal marking series, so the dog would be encourages to do better in the next series .


Thanks. I think I understand. If I were running that test with both my dogs... I would let the older one roll. She's been there and done that. At this point, nope... I'd probably be quick to handle the young one before the danger-zone-noman's-land. Though we work on advanced concepts in training... we are not ready to run with the big dogs.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

polmaise said:


> On a mark I just send the dog. (providing the dog marked it) ..otherwise it's not a mark.
> On a blind I send the dog and it will handle irrespective of what's on route.
> A mark , then another mark in the same line (route) . I want the dog to get the mark and closest then send for the longer one.
> A mark of a cripple on the same line as a dead bird whether it's first down or second down or nearer or closer matters not a jot . The dog should be capable of being handled on that bird .
> ...


Y'all got that sort of testing pretty much covered on your island haven't you?, which is pretty outstanding for us over here as it allows us our flights of fancy. Good show old chap. 


As for hunt test- I don't run them, but I tried. Warfare and marriage are the only truly angst ridden activities that I participate in.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

jhnnythndr said:


> Y'all got that sort of testing pretty much covered on your island haven't you?, which is pretty outstanding for us over here as it allows us our flights of fancy. Good show old chap.
> 
> 
> As for hunt test- I don't run them, but I tried. Warfare and marriage are the only truly angst ridden activities that I participate in.


 well like everything in life and marriage , don't fight it . It ain't a war , just different ...............rules .;-)


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> I don't like to do this... Hang my dirty laundry..
> 
> Master land test.
> 
> ...


Right. She over-shot, worked her way back. And it seemed to me she diagnosed her position relative to the bird after a very brief amount of quartering. But (and tell me how I'm wrong) what was the hazard she might have run into when driving past the AOF? If there was something that would have taken her out of sight, or driven her into an old fall (she's probably too savvy to do that, though)... would you have stopped her before she ran up the hill?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Gooser has given a good synopsis of the HRC rules. It pays to know the rules of the game you are playing so I copied and pasted the rules for Senior and Master. As stated below handling is a "last recourse" and "undesirable in marking tests". I personally would find it very difficult to pass a dog that handles in every marking series of an AKC test. 

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


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

fishduck said:


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


Someone previously said that a dog that handles on a mark in AKC is supposed to be given a score of zero.
Is this true?
I don't run AKC, but the above statement would seem to nullify that belief. Maybe the dog doesn't score 8 - maybe he has one clean handle, picks up the bird. Does he score less than the dog that hunted the AOF, left the AOF, then came back to the AOF to finally dig out that bird? ...... Example - Went to the AOF hunted there for 30 seconds, did not locate the bird, switched, was cast back to the AOF and picked up the bird in 2 whistles. What's that mark worth in 'points'?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> By the way... If you handle TO an AOF after a dog hunted elsewhere first,,, That's a ZERO score ON THAT 1 BIRD in my mind..
> 
> That dog did NOT mark that bird..
> 
> Mine does it a LOT!!!


Here is what I said... I did NOT say if you handle on a mark.. I said,, if you handle TO the AOF once your dog hunted else where,, its a zero IN MY MIND,,, Dog did NOT mark the fall area,.. he showed you that by where he established his first hunt..


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Here is what I said... I did NOT say if you handle on a mark.. I said,, if you handle TO the AOF once your dog hunted else where,, its a zero IN MY MIND,,, Dog did NOT mark the fall area,.. he showed you that by where he established his first hunt..


Not to beat this to death, but we use the term "indicating a mark", that would be a dog as Gooser points out, who proceeds directly to the AOF. I have seen numerous dogs leave the line with no clue where the bird is, way off line, then get handled to the bird. The first example is a handle on a partially marked bird, the second is a handle with no indication of a mark. Others have said it, not all handles are equal. I could see a judge giving a zero on the second example.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Tobias said:


> Someone previously said that a dog that handles on a mark in AKC is supposed to be given a score of zero.
> Is this true?
> I don't run AKC, but the above statement would seem to nullify that belief. Maybe the dog doesn't score 8 - maybe he has one clean handle, picks up the bird. Does he score less than the dog that hunted the AOF, left the AOF, then came back to the AOF to finally dig out that bird? ...... Example - Went to the AOF hunted there for 30 seconds, did not locate the bird, switched, was cast back to the AOF and picked up the bird in 2 whistles. What's that mark worth in 'points'?


This is my opinion and I do not judge Master. My opinion is a dog can handle and still demonstrate marking. In your example the dog would get a poor score in marking, not necessarily a zero. 30 seconds may or may not be a long hunt for a judge. So you could get a poor score in perseverance.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

fishduck said:


> This is my opinion and I do not judge Master. My opinion is a dog can handle and still demonstrate marking. In your example the dog would get a poor score in marking, not necessarily a zero. *30 seconds may or may not be a long hunt for a judge. So you could get a poor score in perseverance*.


I look at AKC hunt test Perseverance two ways; 1) a dog who perseveres on a retrieve by punching cover or other hard going terrain, rather than shying off it. 2) A dog who sticks with the mark, keeps hunting and doesn't give up even when he doesn't find the mark right away. This last case works inversely of marking score, the longer and harder the hunt, higher score on perseverance, lower score on marking.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

fishduck said:


> Gooser has given a good synopsis of the HRC rules. It pays to know the rules of the game you are playing so I copied and pasted the rules for Senior and Master. As stated below handling is a "last recourse" and "undesirable in marking tests". I personally would find it very difficult to pass a dog that handles in every marking series of an AKC test.
> 
> "Senior and Master Tests, marking and memory of birds are of primary importance. While dogs may be handled in all three levels of testing, this is undesirable in marking tests and should be utilized only as a last recourse to get a bird out of the field. A dog that goes to the area of the fall, establishes a hunt and finds the bird unaided must be scored appreciably higher than a dog that has to be handled to the bird."



Interesting that you say my reference was to HRC ONLY... I did not think that at all..

heres why...

AKC rule book..

A dog that disturbs cover unnecessarily, *clearly well out of the area of a fall*, *either by not going directly to the area*, or by leaving it, even though it eventually finds the bird without being handled, must be scored low in Perseverance or receive *no credit* in Marking on that particular bird.* No credit* in Marking shall be given if the dog *fails to go to the area*, *establish a hunt and find the bird*; a low score in Perseverance shall be given if the dog goes to the area, establishes a hunt then leaves to hunt elsewhere. If it becomes necessary in either situation to handle a dog, handling must be done crisply and cleanly with full control being demonstrated by handling the dog to the bird.





So,dog *goes to AOF ,and establishes a hunt there*, but,for some reason, has trouble locating the bird... what ever reason.... the handler decides the dog is disturbing to much cover,or maybe on the verve of leaving the AOF,,decides to handle.. the HANDLE is quick, clean,obedient in nature... dog gets the bird... Now,,, Granted the dog will not receive a "10 or 8 or prolly not a seven,,, BUT,, I would think it would not be below a 5,,that will keep him playing... correct???

If the dog displays this trait throughout the test on other marking set ups,, I would Imagine that its AVERAGE overall on the scores would not allow the dog to pass..BUT,, the dog could get 5's in Marking,, and still MAYBE get a qualifying score ... Correct? 

Its all subjective on the judges part..

There ARE definitely Judges that will witness a dog go directly TO the AOF,, establish a hunt there,,BUT ,, if the dog has trouble locating the bird,,and even IF the handler handles quickly and cleanly,, they will give a score of below 5.... Its subjective..

IN MY OPINION>>>>>>> If a dog goes directly TO an AOF,, establishes a hunt there... the DOG MARKED that fall.. Now,, by RULE,, the dog cannot disturb the hunt, or to much cover.. IF the handler respects the disturb coverclause,,and performes a quick, clean handel, and the dog gets the bird,,NO HARM NO FOWL,,, "A quick handle is preferred over a big hunt"..

I know it seems as though we have gotten off topic.. but FOR ME,,, this stuff,,the subjectivity of it all,, and some of the sillytests I have seen,, and wittnessed HOW THEY ARE JUDGED,,is why I don't care to run tests any longer.. I will just train.. 

[/COLOR]


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I look at AKC hunt test Perseverance two ways; 1) a dog who perseveres on a retrieve by punching cover or other hard going terrain, rather than shying off it. 2) A dog who sticks with the mark, keeps hunting and doesn't give up even when he doesn't find the mark right away. This last case works inversely of marking score, the longer and harder the hunt, higher score on perseverance, lower score on marking.


I have exactly the same understanding of perseverance. But in this example the dog gave up and left the area.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I look at AKC hunt test Perseverance two ways; 1) a dog who perseveres on a retrieve by punching cover or other hard going terrain, rather than shying off it. 2) A dog who sticks with the mark, keeps hunting and doesn't give up even when he doesn't find the mark right away. This last case works inversely of marking score, the longer and harder the hunt, higher score on perseverance, lower score on marking.



Excellent! 

In post 63.. there is the Video I posted...

on that second bird down,, she did not mark the Fall area at all... But,, she perservered got her bearings,, and found the bird.... 

This was the first series.... I wasn't wanting to burn a handle right out of the gate... It was close,,, but I didn't handle... they carried me to water...

her MARKING score IN MY OPINION was a zero!!!  luckly the judges saw it differently.. I assume it was prolly pretty low though.. They did make a comment she had a "Smart" hunt...

Sometimes,, you have to just let the dogs mark,,and the Judges judge,,and stay out of the way of both parties as a handler... Especially true for me..


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

MooseGooser said:


> Interesting that you say my reference was to HRC ONLY... I did not think that at all..
> 
> heres why...
> 
> ...


Thank you for the AKC rulebook quote! The language you were using is word for word the briefing I give before a HRC test. It came either from the printed judge briefing or the seminar.


----------



## Old School Labs (May 17, 2006)

Mike,
I watched your You Tube videos, and have to say first, I have not run a HT for quite some time. Second there would have been no question for carrying the dog, on the last bird Flinch picked up. She was smart and knew she over ran the mark and came back very quickly, intelligent hunt in my mind. Going to give you a little crap though on the last video, setting up for the two blinds. Lot of fussing before sending and you know whom would give you hell. Sorry I just could not pass up the chance to rib you a little, I know I would get the same back. wink wink

_*FLINCH LOOKED GREAT*_


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Old School Labs said:


> Mike,
> I watched your You Tube videos, and have to say first, I have not run a HT for quite some time. Second there would have been no question for carrying the dog, on the last bird Flinch picked up. She was smart and knew she over ran the mark and came back very quickly, intelligent hunt in my mind. Going to give you a little crap though on the last video, setting up for the two blinds. Lot of fussing before sending and you know whom would give you hell. Sorry I just could not pass up the chance to rib you a little, I know I would get the same back. wink wink
> 
> _*FLINCH LOOKED GREAT*_


Thanks Mark.. I agree with fiddling.. And a little bird was sittin on my shoulder screamin in my ear! 

I ran Darn near last in that series.About half way thru the field.. the judge addressed the Gallery,,and cautioned, that these are Master level dogs,,and they (Judges) expect the dog to show Master level work,, that includes the initial line.. and challenging the blind.. The Judge,,as usual,, got in my head.. 

I'll just stick to bendin nails... 

The double blind.....  The second one's line was VERY close to the AOF of the Walk up.. Sure enough,, I got a bad initial line,,, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ssjjyRCKA


----------



## lorneparker1 (Mar 22, 2015)

I run them because they are fun for the dog and it gives us something to do the other 9 months when we cant waterfowl


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

My reasons are always changing. I've been blessed with incredibly talented dogs from the get go 16 years ago. I first started HTs because at the time it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen. It really built a relationship etween me and my dog. As we started to advance to Master level I found that it was as much of an experience for me improving as a handler as it was watching the dog advance (he was already much more talented than I). I was really a poor handler and found that the challenge exciting to become as good as my dog. Come hunting season (his third) it was incredible to hunt over a trained dog that year we never lost a bird. From there it just evolved I'm on my fourth great dog and am still trying to become as good at handling as my dogs are retrieving. As far as tests and trials I run them to see where we are and what we need to work on. And for me a great chance to socialize with friends old and new. Every now and then I run a test or trial that has a great set up often not. I respect the judges evaluation but I am more concerned with my own evaluation of the dogs work. About the time I say that a judge had a stupid set up that is unrealistic, I have a hunting event that reflects that test and I stand corrected.


----------



## Mark Couch (Jan 20, 2017)

Gooser I am not so sure about the AOF but I found the box joint hinge pretty interesting.


----------



## NBHunter (Apr 24, 2009)

HuntinDawg said:


> I disagree:
> 
> 1) Junior dogs are not required to be steady and certainly not required to honor. Those are both requirements for the dogs I hunt with. If you are hunting out of a pit blind, the dog that breaks is muzzle high while the shooting may still be going on...recipe for disaster.
> 
> ...


You are correct, a JH doesn't need to be steady and they don't have to be able to handle. The dog I primarily hunt with is in fact SH's so I guess I was just saying that this is what my dog has to do. 

I can tell you that where I hunt it's just open fields, and rarely do I have to handle my dog. Last year I killed over 100 birds and I don't think I had to handle 3 times. I can remember 2, but there was probably another one or maybe 2 in there, but not more. And I think that's about normal for each year.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> I look at AKC hunt test Perseverance two ways; 1) a dog who perseveres on a retrieve by punching cover or other hard going terrain, rather than shying off it. 2) A dog who sticks with the mark, keeps hunting and doesn't give up even when he doesn't find the mark right away. This last case works inversely of marking score, the longer and harder the hunt, higher score on perseverance, lower score on marking.


Actually the way it is defined in the seminars the dogs marking ability has to do with where he initiates his hunt. Coming up with the bird instantaneously isn't part of marking, it's knowing where to start - both line and distance. Jerry talks over and over about depth perception being an important skill. This type of interpretation is common. A dog that sets up 10 feet upwind on a 75 yard mark should get a good marking score but if they end up hunting a bit their score is dropping when they did a good job. If they hunt into the wind (naturally) and you handle them back you're now up against the arbitrary 2 handle rule... The dog pereservered against the factors to get within 10 feet, knew the distance and hunted systematically, all desirable, now handle to get the bird fast and move on (also preferable according to the rules) and suddenly judges are giving him a 3 in marking when he had an 8. If you go to the seminar then talk to a lot of judges your head will spin. Not all of course but it is very very common for people to have their own made up interpretation of the rules and how they are to be applied.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> Actually the way it is defined in the seminars the dogs marking ability has to do with where he initiates his hunt. Coming up with the bird instantaneously isn't part of marking, it's knowing where to start - both line and distance. Jerry talks over and over about depth perception being an important skill. This type of interpretation is common. A dog that sets up 10 feet upwind on a 75 yard mark should get a good marking score but if they end up hunting a bit their score is dropping when they did a good job. If they hunt into the wind (naturally) and you handle them back you're now up against the arbitrary 2 handle rule... The dog pereservered against the factors to get within 10 feet, knew the distance and hunted systematically, all desirable, now handle to get the bird fast and move on (also preferable according to the rules) and suddenly judges are giving him a 3 in marking when he had an 8. If you go to the seminar then talk to a lot of judges your head will spin. Not all of course but it is very very common for people to have their own made up interpretation of the rules and how they are to be applied.


Presumably a dog that gave in to the factors on the mark you described would end up down wind and get the bird without demonstrating marking or perseverance. This is not to say that the dog doesn't possess marking ability and perseverance, just that he didn't need to use them. Poorly constructed mark. 

Of course the dog you described did not find a bird it should have found, so there are likely a number of serious faults present without the need to say the dog is out for two handles.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

captainjack said:


> Presumably a dog that gave in to the factors on the mark you described would end up down wind and get the bird without demonstrating marking or perseverance. This is not to say that the dog doesn't possess marking ability and perseverance, just that he didn't need to use them. Poorly constructed mark.
> 
> Of course the dog you described did not find a bird it should have found, so there are likely a number of serious faults present without the need to say the dog is out for two handles.


If it is a decently designed mark the dog is going to have to fight the factors to end up within 10 feet, even on a 75 yard (short) distance so - if they got that close - they have perseverance. If they set up a hunt within 10 feet they know the line and distance - they have done a decent job of marking. If they hunt into the wind - they are honoring their nose and using their (useful) hunting instinct. The question is - how long do you let that dog hunt before you handle? If you judge it based on the rules and seminar you would handle fairly fast - which would actually demonstrate train-ability if done cleanly. 

If we were hunting and my dog did a good job getting to within 10 feet of a bird I really wouldn't allow much, if any hunting. I would almost immediately handle, get that bird, get the dog back and get after the next retrieve or get set up for the next light. I wouldn't stand around and watch the dog disturb cover and flare birds for more than a few seconds before I intervened. I have stood and watched my senior dog hunt a 40 yard square area because of arbitrary handling rules when there's NO WAY I would allow it in the real world. I think that's problematic. The dog passed the test that day and was one of the best in the field despite having trouble with one out of 4 marks (that penalized a fast, high drive dog). I was surprised that after that performance the judges let him by but in watching the other dogs they passed that day he was better both naturally and training wise than most of the passing field. I thought the dog should have failed and that I had actually caused it by not handling him in the first series when I should have (he nailed everything else). I remember the judge actually saying to me on the last mark "you have a handle left, don't mess around". Truth is I should have handled on the first series and let the dog hunt that second mark (he was gonna be downwind). Arbitrary handling rules didn't allow me to do that, however.

This is the conflict with hunting tests judges not applying the rule book and seminar knowledge in favor of easy explanations to handlers that get dropped. It is clearly stated in the seminar over and over and over again - where the dog begins his hunt is what determines the marking score, with the tolerance for error growing as distance and factors become more complex (larger AOF for the memory than the go bird). Perseverance includes both fighting factors en-route and hanging in for a tough hunt if one is necessary however - this is offset by the rules stating that a "quick handle is preferable to an extended hunt". 

I'm not sure how we arrive at a dog missing a mark by 10 feet suddenly means there are other serious faults to be considered. If a 10 foot miss is all you got you didn't do a good job setting up marks. The question is - how quickly and how often do you handle when such a minor miss actually happens. On a "days hunt" which is supposedly what we are simulating you would handle quickly, be efficient and not worry about how many times you helped the dog. 

The rules and seminar actually support handling in this fashion but arbitrary judging doesn't. As a judge you should be able to show the participant your diagrams and easily justify a pass/fail decision without needing "less than two handles" and "a clean series" as a (made up) rule to rely on. Maybe more participants need to go to the seminar and pass the judge's exam.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> If it is a decently designed mark the dog is going to have to fight the factors to end up within 10 feet, even on a 75 yard (short) distance so - if they got that close - they have perseverance. If they set up a hunt within 10 feet they know the line and distance - they have done a decent job of marking. If they hunt into the wind - they are honoring their nose and using their (useful) hunting instinct. The question is - how long do you let that dog hunt before you handle? If you judge it based on the rules and seminar you would handle fairly fast - which would actually demonstrate train-ability if done cleanly.
> 
> If we were hunting and my dog did a good job getting to within 10 feet of a bird I really wouldn't allow much, if any hunting. I would almost immediately handle, get that bird, get the dog back and get after the next retrieve or get set up for the next light. I wouldn't stand around and watch the dog disturb cover and flare birds for more than a few seconds before I intervened. I have stood and watched my senior dog hunt a 40 yard square area because of arbitrary handling rules when there's NO WAY I would allow it in the real world. I think that's problematic. The dog passed the test that day and was one of the best in the field despite having trouble with one out of 4 marks (that penalized a fast, high drive dog). I was surprised that after that performance the judges let him by but in watching the other dogs they passed that day he was better both naturally and training wise than most of the passing field. I thought the dog should have failed and that I had actually caused it by not handling him in the first series when I should have (he nailed everything else). I remember the judge actually saying to me on the last mark "you have a handle left, don't mess around". Truth is I should have handled on the first series and let the dog hunt that second mark (he was gonna be downwind). Arbitrary handling rules didn't allow me to do that, however.
> 
> ...


A dog that handles on a mark has failed to find a bird they should have found. That's a serious fault in the rules. It's not a marking fault and it's not a perseverance fault, but it is a serious fault which, by definition, in and of itself justifies (not mandates) elimination from the stake. Surely doing so three times cumulates into elimination for most, and even two times does so for many.

Edit: actually it could be a marking failure or lack of perseverance, but it isn't automatically these.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> If it is a decently designed mark the dog is going to have to fight the factors to end up within 10 feet, even on a 75 yard (short) distance so - if they got that close - they have perseverance. If they set up a hunt within 10 feet they know the line and distance - they have done a decent job of marking. If they hunt into the wind - they are honoring their nose and using their (useful) hunting instinct. The question is - how long do you let that dog hunt before you handle? If you judge it based on the rules and seminar you would handle fairly fast - which would actually demonstrate train-ability if done cleanly.
> 
> If we were hunting and my dog did a good job getting to within 10 feet of a bird I really wouldn't allow much, if any hunting. I would almost immediately handle, get that bird, get the dog back and get after the next retrieve or get set up for the next light. I wouldn't stand around and watch the dog disturb cover and flare birds for more than a few seconds before I intervened. I have stood and watched my senior dog hunt a 40 yard square area because of arbitrary handling rules when there's NO WAY I would allow it in the real world. I think that's problematic. The dog passed the test that day and was one of the best in the field despite having trouble with one out of 4 marks (that penalized a fast, high drive dog). I was surprised that after that performance the judges let him by but in watching the other dogs they passed that day he was better both naturally and training wise than most of the passing field. I thought the dog should have failed and that I had actually caused it by not handling him in the first series when I should have (he nailed everything else). I remember the judge actually saying to me on the last mark "you have a handle left, don't mess around". Truth is I should have handled on the first series and let the dog hunt that second mark (he was gonna be downwind). Arbitrary handling rules didn't allow me to do that, however.
> 
> ...




Excellent!!!

And discuss that AOF,,, so that If,, after the test, we look at my dogs work,,and the drawing on your sheet clearly shows a tight hunt in the AOF,,but I handled, and you drop me because it was my second time in the total test.... you and me judge,,, are on different pages.. I wont complain,,,, I just wont run your tests anymore..

It really works better for me to just go run the tests, and judge my own dogs work.. I know if I am happy or not.. I know if I have something to work on... if I get a ribbon,, fine... If I don't,for some silly excuse,, I don't really care cause I know I am satisfied about our work..


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Actually the way it is defined in the seminars the dogs marking ability has to do with where he initiates his hunt. Coming up with the bird instantaneously isn't part of marking, it's knowing where to start - both line and distance. Jerry talks over and over about depth perception being an important skill. This type of interpretation is common. A dog that sets up 10 feet upwind on a 75 yard mark should get a good marking score but if they end up hunting a bit their score is dropping when they did a good job. If they hunt into the wind (naturally) and you handle them back you're now up against the arbitrary 2 handle rule... The dog pereservered against the factors to get within 10 feet, knew the distance and hunted systematically, all desirable, now handle to get the bird fast and move on (also preferable according to the rules) and suddenly judges are giving him a 3 in marking when he had an 8. If you go to the seminar then talk to a lot of judges your head will spin. Not all of course but it is very very common for people to have their own made up interpretation of the rules and how they are to be applied.


Excellent again!!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

captainjack said:


> A dog that handles on a mark has *failed to find *a bird they should have found. That's a serious fault in the rules. It's not a marking fault and it's not a perseverance fault, but it is a serious fault which, by definition, in and of itself justifies (not mandates) elimination from the stake. Surely doing so three times cumulates into elimination for most, and even two times does so for many.
> 
> Edit: actually it could be a marking failure or lack of perseverance, but it isn't automatically these.



Who says he failed to find it??? TO me ,,he failed to find it if the dog comes back with out it...  if the dog proceeds directly to the AOF,,and establishes its first hunt there,,, the dog MARKED period.. the MARKING part of the test is over... Now the hunt begins..... If the dog hunts,and picks up the bird immediately WONDERFUL.. But,, if the dog has to hunt,,and the HANDLER decides the dog is disturbing to much cover,, and he handle handles,,,, If his handles are quick, clean, and to the bird.... Dog met the WRITTEN STANDARD... He might not have met YOURS,,, but he met the written standard...the RULES!!! 

That's MY opinion,,,and in the HUNT TEST game,,,as far as I am concerned its just as valuable as the Judges.... the ONLY difference is I might not get that silly ribbon ,,but I'll be happy with our work...... I'll ty harder next time.. to get your ribbon...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> Who says he failed to find it??? TO me ,,he failed to find it if the dog comes back with out it...  if the dog proceeds directly to the AOF,,and establishes its first hunt there,,, the dog MARKED period.. the MARKING part of the test is over... Now the hunt begins..... If the dog hunts,and picks up the bird immediately WONDERFUL.. But,, if the dog has to hunt,,and the HANDLER decides the dog is disturbing to much cover,, and he handle handles,,,, If his handles are quick, clean, and to the bird.... Dog met the WRITTEN STANDARD... He might not have met YOURS,,, but he met the written standard...the RULES!!!
> 
> That's MY opinion,,,and in the HUNT TEST game,,,as far as I am concerned its just as valuable as the Judges.... the ONLY difference is I might not get that silly ribbon ,,but I'll be happy with our work...... I'll ty harder next time.. to get your ribbon...


You said he failed to find it when you blew the whistle to handle. If he did find it, why didn't he bring it to you? If he did find it and left it, he either blinked it or gave up on the hunt. These are both serious faults as well.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

captainjack said:


> You said he failed to find it when you blew the whistle to handle. If he did find it, why didn't he bring it to you? If he did find it and left it, he either blinked it or gave up on the hunt. These are both serious faults as well.


From the rules!!!

*The evaluation of a dog’s abilities can never be precise; it is not an exact science. However, the primary purpose of a Retriever is to get the birds to hand as quickly as possible in a pleasing, obedient manner

**along with,,,, **a clean handle is preferred to a big hunt..*
The hunt test game,,and Judging dogs is subjective... Opinions, egos,,, most definitely come into play.. Its all part of it... 

Some would say my inexperience is the problem... others would say This is why I don't run tests anymore... Ya just have to decide whats important to you..


I have had people tell me my dog doesnt deserve our Master Title... and yet 10 AKC judges dis- agree with them... I have had people tell me I am a horrible handler( I agree) but 10 AKC Judges dis agree with them and me...

I have had people tell me that I ran 7 Master tests and passed 5 to get a title... YOUR master dog doesn't compare to a dog that has run 60 and passed 55.. 
or until you get a place setting for 4,, you dog is just "typical"..  SOMETHINGS been Lost for sure...

From comments made,,and egos listened to..... the master Title we worked so hard to get has become a event that compares to kissin your sister...

Kinda like listening to the folks that denigrate the HRCH Title..... 

After awhile,,,,, ya get to wondering was it worth it all..

In training,,,,, I REALLY appreciate comments (Good and bad) coming from people that I know, and respect.. I'll just stick to that..

I know my dog... I am VERY happy with her.... Despite the fact she cant Mark!! 

The more I am involved.... I am slowly coming to the realization,, Competition is the answer.. I am just not at the Pro level to compete..


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

captainjack said:


> A dog that handles on a mark has failed to find a bird they should have found. That's a serious fault in the rules. It's not a marking fault and it's not a perseverance fault, but it is a serious fault which, by definition, in and of itself justifies (not mandates) elimination from the stake. Surely doing so three times cumulates into elimination for most, and even two times does so for many.
> 
> Edit: actually it could be a marking failure or lack of perseverance, but it isn't automatically these.


^^^ just an overly complex way of saying "no more than two handles"

Maybe you're just not understanding what my scenario would look like Glen - or field trial thinking has you looking at things another way. 

My dogs NEVER hunt when we are actually hunting - they get close and I handle them the last 10 yards , get r done and get back in the boat NOW. 

They have good manners in the boat, they don't break, they take direction and play as a team very well, they know where the birds the see fall are located - they demonstrate all 4 of the attributes we test for according to the seminar teachings and the rule book but... 

I might have to let them run around like idiots in a hunting test to prove they can find 9 birds without handling more than twice. 

It's no longer anything close to the real world at that point.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Plenty of good reasons listed here in the thread To neither run nor judge hunt test. As far as the "got to the area good" = "marked the bird" well as opposed to "went where sent" one of the indicators I'm looking at when deciding the quality of a mark is the dogs first move when he sets up his hunt-if dog gets "to the area" and then breaks away from the bird following his nose upwind- and you handle back to the bird- all I know from watching him run is that he knew what bird he was being sent for- not where it was. And that he will handle on a mark. I've learned more about training than marking- because of handlers decision. Field trial is easy, do a great job relative to the field or go home. It's very difficult to test for the lowest common denominator. Far easier to test for excellence.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

You guys must be better shots than my crew. When I hunt someone on the other end of the blind says "I knocked one down over there". My dog is then expected to go "over there" in usually the thickest, nastiest cover on the property. That dog has to hunt on its own because #1: I can't see the dog and #2: I have no idea where the bird is anyway. The dog that gets to the area but doesn't have a good enough nose to find the bird is of limited use.

I think a dog with a good nose that can dig a cripple out of cover is very useful. A dog that has to be handled multiple times after making the area of fall may not be so useful. Real world hunting.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

fishduck said:


> You guys must be better shots than my crew. When I hunt someone on the other end of the blind says "I knocked one down over there". My dog is then expected to go "over there" in usually the thickest, nastiest cover on the property. That dog has to hunt on its own because #1: I can't see the dog and #2: I have no idea where the bird is anyway. The dog that gets to the area but doesn't have a good enough nose to find the bird is of limited use.
> 
> I think a dog with a good nose that can dig a cripple out of cover is very useful. A dog that has to be handled multiple times after making the area of fall may not be so useful. Real world hunting.


Same thing up here. I didn't keep track of numbers, but I don't believe my Gus dog lost a bird in the last six years of hunting. About 70% were easy, dead ducks dropped in the decoys, but the other 30% sailed wide and far, landing who knows where, sometime's Gus and I had to take a long walk searching every piece of cover in the area until Gus came up with a dead bird or cripple hidden in cover.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> ^^^ just an overly complex way of saying "no more than two handles"
> 
> Maybe you're just not understanding what my scenario would look like Glen - or field trial thinking has you looking at things another way.
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is there are many serious faults in the book that in and of themselves justify elimination from the stake. If you handle on 2 or 3 birds in 3 series it may not be the handle that gets you dropped, but rather the reason you needed to handle. If my dog handles on that many marks and gets a ribbon, I'll take it, but I certainly wouldn't expect it and I would not moan about judges having arbitrary or made up rules.


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

fishduck said:


> You guys must be better shots than my crew. When I hunt someone on the other end of the blind says "I knocked one down over there". My dog is then expected to go "over there" in usually the thickest, nastiest cover on the property. That dog has to hunt on its own because #1: I can't see the dog and #2: I have no idea where the bird is anyway. The dog that gets to the area but doesn't have a good enough nose to find the bird is of limited use.
> 
> I think a dog with a good nose that can dig a cripple out of cover is very useful. A dog that has to be handled multiple times after making the area of fall may not be so useful. Real world hunting.


Feel the same here. More often than not in that type of situation I'm sending to the area and then turning him loose to hunt on his own.

My purpose for running HT's has evolved over the years. At first it was a means to gauge where my dog was training wise and to keep him in shape during the off season. Then it evolved fairly quickly to obtain a MH title and pass the Master National. Now I still want to pass the MN but I'm edging more and more into FT's. Right now I run both MH test and Q's. Eventually I'd love to have a competitive Open/Amateur dog and gain those titles. However, regardless I'll always hunt my dogs.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

captainjack said:


> What I'm saying is there are many serious faults in the book that in and of themselves justify elimination from the stake. If you handle on 2 or 3 birds in 3 series it may not be the handle that gets you dropped, but rather the reason you needed to handle. If my dog handles on that many marks and gets a ribbon, I'll take it, but I certainly wouldn't expect it and I would not moan about judges having arbitrary or made up rules.


I wouldn't moan about it either but I certainly make handling decisions based on what I know those rules are - even if they're not in the rule book or seminar. This all started with people saying the series you posted was crap when it looks like a day's hunt to me... Even when I was running and testing actively I said the program had lost it's way... The first time someone shot a tandem (working and honor dog both moving) walk up pheasant, 100 yards away, 90 degrees left of the dogs and flying backward the way we came... I knew I was in the wrong venue... yes - that actually happened.

I get what you're saying about faults also.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

fishduck said:


> You guys must be better shots than my crew. When I hunt someone on the other end of the blind says "I knocked one down over there". My dog is then expected to go "over there" in usually the thickest, nastiest cover on the property. That dog has to hunt on its own because #1: I can't see the dog and #2: I have no idea where the bird is anyway. The dog that gets to the area but doesn't have a good enough nose to find the bird is of limited use.
> 
> I think a dog with a good nose that can dig a cripple out of cover is very useful. A dog that has to be handled multiple times after making the area of fall may not be so useful. Real world hunting.


All true - here is the same - but we don't test for quartering or hunting it up in an AKC test.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> All true - here is the same - but we don't test for quartering or hunting it up in an AKC test.


That's why I like NAHRA so much, the quartering, trailing and steady to shot test really apply to actual hunting.


----------



## chesaka (Dec 13, 2007)

I run hunt tests to get the title.


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Why run HT? cuz I can, cuz I want to, cuz I like good hunting dogs,cuz I like training.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

I joined one of the first HRC clubs in the mid '80s, before I even owned a "retriever," per se, to learn more about those available in my then new area and their training. Made a lot of new waterfowling friends, got to hunt over some really neat (and some not-so neat) dogs, including a half-brother to the pup I eventually purchased, went to training days and seminars (and learned the then very harsh mainstream retriever training methods weren't for me), and enjoyed setting up, running and working the then real as we could make them hunt tests. (I've long since given the photos I took of early HRCers brushing up blinds and so forth to one of the two pioneering clubs I belonged to, but I suspect many who've tested since might get a kick out of our efforts if I could post some here.)

Still, I never managed to catch the retriever game bug, the new wore off, test days became excruciatingly long days, even when busied by helping with their grunt work, and I found myself just testing my next three youngsters as a means of holding my procrastination prone training feet to the fire. Lot harder to put off training for an upcoming test than a months distant hunting season, and I've no doubt whatsoever that not testing set my most recent project well back from where his predecessors were at comparable age. Perhaps the next...

Meanwhile, I'm content to let the good folks who've kept the program alive determine its course, but thankful the HRC has kept it one this hunter has, at least so far, been able to jump in and out of without making the game a major part of his life or seriously deviating from training toward his own ends to keep from looking the complete fool when he does so.


----------

