# Master tests



## Cooper (Jul 9, 2012)

I hope the AKC master tests don't make their marks and blinds longer than about 150 yards. Otherwise the tests will simulate field trials with ridicules distances that no way resemble a day's shoot. It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. Qualified judges shouldn't have to resort to long distances in order to test dogs at their level. Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios. If you want to run long, stay in field trials.


----------



## 8mmag (Jan 1, 2010)

Cooper said:


> *It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials*


Since you think that's the case, you ought to run 'em sometime. And BTW good FT judges can make a 125 yard mark really tough too...distance isn't everything.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Get real hunt tests are not real senarios of hunting. Hunt test are long gone resembling hunting. Also you need to run some field trials. Distance is the least of the problem. Terrain, wind, suction, bird placement etc.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> Get real hunt tests are not real senarios of hunting. Hunt test are long gone resembling hunting. Also you need to run some field trials. Distance is the least of the problem. Terrain, wind, suction, bird placement etc.


Amen to that.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Hunt test should be about testing a dog's (and trainer's) skill sets, not imitate the hunt. Any dog worth running (and training) knows the difference between a hunt, a test and a training day by the time they are past the JH level anyway.

And as far as skill sets needed to hunt go, no one can convince me that having a dog that can't run blinds and marks well past 200 yards is acceptable has not spent much time hunting geese on wide open fields or divers in big open waters. Seriously, if 150 yards seems too much for you and your dog IMO you are not ready to run MH tests at shorter distances either.


Bert


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Cooper said:


> It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. .


Where did you get the idea that those who field trial are interested in changing hunt tests? You need to go to field trials and get to know those who do. They are too busy training for trials and running trials, changing hunt tests would be the farthest thing from their minds.

If hunt tests are being changed, they are being changed by those who participate in hunt tests. 

Helen


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

rbr said:


> Hunt test should be about testing a dog's (and trainer's) skill sets, not imitate the hunt. Any dog worth running (and training) knows the difference between a hunt, a test and a training day by the time they are past the JH level anyway.
> 
> And as far as skill sets needed to hunt go, no one can convince me that having a dog that can't run blinds and marks well past 200 yards is acceptable has not spent much time hunting geese on wide open fields or divers in big open waters. Seriously, if 150 yards seems too much for you and your dog IMO you are not ready to run MH tests at shorter distances either.
> 
> ...


I have witnessed more than a few MH titled dogs whose "skill sets" degraded exponentially in a hunting environment. A hunt test degree does not a hunting dog make. Today's hunt tests are a nearly sterile environment. Technical ponds do not duplicate or even resemble conditions on Chesapeake bay, Great Bay, Long Island sound or Cape Cod Bay, especially on the type of day when divers and seaducks are on the move. All of my dogs have had the alphabet soup of multiple Hunt Test titles and 2 of them were QAA. All needed a couple seasons of the real thing to become proficient waterfowl dogs.

And, to address the 200 yard big water retrieve of a diver, I'm firing up the boat. The fact that it is that far out means it more than likely is a cripple. I don't want to watch my dog swim around chasing a bird for 20 minutes that has an excellent chance of getting away.

I'm an 8 point Master judge and I have never set up a 150 yard mark in a Master test. It isn't neccessary.-Paul


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

rbr said:


> And as far as skill sets needed to hunt go, no one can convince me that having a dog that can't run blinds and marks well past 200 yards is acceptable has not spent much time hunting geese on wide open fields or divers in big open waters. Seriously, if 150 yards seems too much for you and your dog IMO you are not ready to run MH tests at shorter distances either.
> Bert


your example doesn't require a master level dog...let me know when you have a 150 yd blind sitting out in the open water out past the decoys at a test....I would love to run that one...

Big beach balls regards -


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

paul young said:


> I have witnessed more than a few MH titled dogs whose "skill sets" degraded exponentially in a hunting environment. A hunt test degree does not a hunting dog make. Today's hunt tests are a nearly sterile environment. Technical ponds do not duplicate or even resemble conditions on Chesapeake bay, Great Bay, Long Island sound or Cape Cod Bay, especially on the type of day when divers and seaducks are on the move. All of my dogs have had the alphabet soup of multiple Hunt Test titles and 2 of them were QAA. All needed a couple seasons of the real thing to become proficient waterfowl dogs.
> 
> And, to address the 200 yard big water retrieve of a diver, I'm firing up the boat. The fact that it is that far out means it more than likely is a cripple. I don't want to watch my dog swim around chasing a bird for 20 minutes that has an excellent chance of getting away.
> 
> I'm an 8 point Master judge and I have never set up a 150 yard mark in a Master test. It isn't neccessary.-Paul


I agree Paul. A good diver hunt on rough sea's can chew up any HT/FT dog. 

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

You should come hunt the Columbia River with me in a few of the only free flowing sections of the river if you never think a dog will have to run a demanding blind over 150 yards in a real hunting situation. Your dog retrieves your shots, mine will retrieve my shots. I guarantee we'll be sitting around waiting for you to finish shooting because you'll be in your boat picking up most of your birds if you shoot more than one at a time.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Cooper said:


> I hope the AKC master tests don't make their marks and blinds longer than about 150 yards. Otherwise the tests will simulate field trials with ridicules distances that no way resemble a day's shoot. It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. Qualified judges shouldn't have to resort to long distances in order to test dogs at their level. Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios. If you want to run long, stay in field trials.


Train or complain, you choice. Guns up....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You should come hunt the Columbia River with me in a few of the only free flowing sections of the river if you never think a dog will have to run a demanding blind over 150 yards in a real hunting situation. Your dog retrieves your shots, mine will retrieve my shots. I guarantee we'll be sitting around waiting for you to finish shooting because you'll be in your boat picking up most of your birds if you shoot more than one at a time.


Ok, Ok, Ok, now that i'm off the floor from lauging, lets not forget Chessies mostly retrieve sandwiches and lost duck hunting hats.... 

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Ok, Ok, Ok, now that i'm off the floor from lauging, lets not forget Chessies mostly retrieve sandwiches and lost duck hunting hats....
> 
> /Paul


yes, that's about as funny as big water and diver hunts in Eugene, OR.... lol


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> yes, that's about as funny as big water and diver hunts in Eugene, OR.... lol


We should do silt coos hunt this year, provided you can get out of bed early enough

/Paul


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Cooper said:


> I hope the AKC master tests don't make their marks and blinds longer than about 150 yards. Otherwise the tests will simulate field trials with ridicules distances that no way resemble a day's shoot. It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. Qualified judges shouldn't have to resort to long distances in order to test dogs at their level. Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios. If you want to run long, stay in field trials.


I hate to pile on a new poster, and I agree with him in that I believe HT judges should stick to distances stipulated in the HT rules whatever those are, but I agree with the many who have stated that long (over 200 yard) retrieves are quite common in real world hunting situations. I'd say that for me, one out of every three hunts involves a crippled bird sailing a long way before coming down and swimming out of sight. I'm pleased my dogs are able to mark birds that fall at a distance and handle well if they didn't see the bird fall. As to his opinion that long distance test are brought into hunt test by field trailers, I have no idea. I know that being a field trailer, I would stick to the rules if I were judging a hunt test. I know most field trial judges would take great pride in being able to set up tough short marks to test dogs without tricking them.

John


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I know very few HT judges who are "Field Trialers" and try to make a HT a FT. I do have some agreement that a test need no be long or, contain trickery and gimmicky stuff to be challenging for the dogs and test them to the "Standard". I have reservations about how some HT judges perceive their "interpretations" of the work performed. I have watched a few judges time and time again lack consistency in their review of a dogs performance and who gets an orange ribbon. Because of my opinion(only my opinion) I'd rather take my chances at losing to a really good dog than "failing" upon an opinion and interpretation of a written standard. 

AKC HT should have a simple book of approved test set ups, combinations and distances. Deviations should not be allowed to be a legal test. This would allow any joe-shmoe test chair to grab his book, confirm the test is legal and allow the HT to continue. 

This would give the amateur trainer a handy set up guide. It would also simplify judging and allow just about anyone to step into a position and perform an adequate job without having the grumbling and complaining about test set ups which seems to happen all too often.


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

I went hunting with Fishduck last year and our HT dogs made a few REALLY LONG retrieves, much longer than what one would experience at a HT.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Hunting the prairie or marsh, I'll wade out and pick up the decoy-distance birds if I have to. I want a dog for deep water, long cripples or sailers. 

I can tell you for a fact that long "real hunting" retrieves do occur.

The most impressive retrieve any of my dogs has ever been credited with (by others) was about 4 years ago on a Kansas pheasant hunt. We were (finally!) blocking on the long tip of a section corner and one of the walkers shot a rooster that sailed downhill back towards the middle of the field; his German shorthair was hunting the wrong direction and doesn't run blinds. My guy had marked it. Rolled him out there and he stepped on it. Easily 400 yds. That guy still talks about that retrieve.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I'm guessing this thread goes over 15 pages.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

copterdoc said:


> I'm guessing this thread goes over 15 pages.


been several others just like it go the distance....


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> Hunting the prairie or marsh, I'll wade out and pick up the decoy-distance birds if I have to. I want a dog for deep water, long cripples or sailers.
> 
> I can tell you for a fact that long "real hunting" retrieves do occur.
> 
> The most impressive retrieve any of my dogs has ever been credited with (by others) was about 4 years ago on a Kansas pheasant hunt. We were (finally!) blocking on the long tip of a section corner and one of the walkers shot a rooster that sailed downhill back towards the middle of the field; his German shorthair was hunting the wrong direction and doesn't run blinds. My guy had marked it. Rolled him out there and he stepped on it. Easily 400 yds. That guy still talks about that retrieve.


400 Yards in the ocean is a horse of a different color. The dog could get run over by a lobster or commercial fishing boat and the water is really cold any time after the middle of November. I don't want to stand on the beach and watch my dog die because I was too lazy to launch a boat. They don't have to prove themselves to me or my partners. When I was less experienced I sent dogs on retrieves that I shouldn't have, and I'm not proud of it, BUT I learned my lesson.

My dogs sometimes get long retrieves hunting geese in cornfields. That's not a problem.-Paul


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Cooper said:


> ...Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios....


 Let me ask you a serious question. Does the wooden toy gun make a Master test more realistic?

Hunt tests don't need to be real*istic*.

They don't need to be realistic hunts, in order to be *real *tests.
And yes, they DO need to be real tests.

When you try to make something that isn't real, seem like it's real, you only succeed in making it more fake.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Do any of you guys besides /Paul and me judge Master tests? 

I ask because with a 60 dog Master, a couple of 150 yard marks and/or Blinds is definitely going to affect the time management aspect of the test. Well placed marks and blinds under 100 yards will answer all the questions you should be asking as a Hunt Test judge. Quality always trumps distance, in my experience. I don't want to dumb down the final series because we chewed up too much time in the first two.-Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Let me ask you a serious question. Does the *wooden toy gun* make a Master test more realistic?


Hahahahaha - true story, at our HT this past year I had a handler's gun to be used at Master - it was a actual single shot shotgun that had a bad firing pin and a designated handler's gun for the club (spray painted orange on the stock). Anywho, I was getting the handler's gun when a handler pulled out a wooden gun toy - it was decided we should use it cause it was way lighter than a real gun, blah, blah, blah...I couldn't of cared less, but I did find it humorous! I also always found the "scenarios" briefing to be funny...yeah, right, we just happened to walk up and shoot, blah, blah, blah - just throw the marks so my dog can pick them up! 

HT are far from being realistic...


----------



## Swampbilly (May 25, 2010)

paul young said:


> I have witnessed more than a few MH titled dogs whose "skill sets" degraded exponentially in a hunting environment. A hunt test degree does not a hunting dog make. Today's hunt tests are a nearly sterile environment. Technical ponds do not duplicate or even resemble conditions on Chesapeake bay, Great Bay, Long Island sound or Cape Cod Bay, especially on the type of day when divers and seaducks are on the move. All of my dogs have had the alphabet soup of multiple Hunt Test titles and 2 of them were QAA. All needed a couple seasons of the real thing to become proficient waterfowl dogs.
> 
> And, to address the 200 yard big water retrieve of a diver, I'm firing up the boat. The fact that it is that far out means it more than likely is a cripple. I don't want to watch my dog swim around chasing a bird for 20 minutes that has an excellent chance of getting away.
> 
> I'm an 8 point Master judge and I have never set up a 150 yard mark in a Master test. It isn't neccessary.-Paul


Enjoyed your post Paul.

After huntin' on the Chesapeake for over 30yrs., I truely believe it's those scenarios you've eluded to on the Bay that lets' ya' know how well your dog truely marks birds, and how much drive he's really got.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

paul young said:


> Do any of you guys besides /Paul and me judge Master tests?
> 
> I ask because with a 60 dog Master, a couple of 150 yard marks and/or Blinds is definitely going to affect the time management aspect of the test. Well placed marks and blinds under 100 yards will answer all the questions you should be asking as a Hunt Test judge. Quality always trumps distance, in my experience. I don't want to dumb down the final series because we chewed up too much time in the first two.-Paul


Bingo.
Of course that assumes you have good cover/terrain to work with and not just a golf fairway. As for the long mark that is not untypical in hunting, the difference is that pup usually gets to watch that sailing bird from shooting range all the way to the north 40. Not just tossed in the air for a couple of seconds at 200 + yds. Dogs have to see a bird to mark it. I don't mind long marks as long as pup has a chance to see 'em. But Paul is spot on. They aren't needed if a judge knows how to use available factors to properly test the dogs. And you don't learn that at a seminar.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

paul young said:


> Do any of you guys besides /Paul and me judge Master tests?


I don't.

And I've never seen a 150 yard mark or blind in a Master test either. 
But, I'd rather see that, than some tricky BS that gets "answers" to questions that don't matter. 

I don't care how "realistic" a test is. I'm not there to make a movie, or play pretend dress-up.
Hunt tests are REAL tests. They don't need to be made "realistic".

If a Judge needs 150 yards in order to get REAL answers from a Master mark or blind, I'm fine with that.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

paul young said:


> 400 Yards in the ocean is a horse of a different color. The dog could get run over by a lobster or commercial fishing boat and the water is really cold any time after the middle of November. I don't want to stand on the beach and watch my dog die because I was too lazy to launch a boat. They don't have to prove themselves to me or my partners. When I was less experienced I sent dogs on retrieves that I shouldn't have, and I'm not proud of it, BUT I learned my lesson.
> 
> My dogs sometimes get long retrieves hunting geese in cornfields. That's not a problem.-Paul


For sure, I'm in the habit of always looking both directions for lobster boats before sending.

Probably a geographic thing.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> For sure, I'm in the habit of always looking both directions for lobster boats before sending.
> 
> Probably a geographic thing.


Yep, one of the fun things about this site and a duck boat forum I used to frequent is the huge difference in hunting from region to region. Duck boats are way different from big water sea duck hunts on the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound from what we use in shallow water lakes and river sloughs. Same with training, I shudder when I hear about gators, snakes and weather so hot and humid, even getting your dog wet doesn't cool him off. Those guys probably freak out with our stories of hunting next to a partially frozen river. I understand Paul, I don't have to worry about lobster boats, but rather than risk hypothermia having my dog swim a half mile in 36 degree water, I'll push the boat out of the reeds and go get that long cripple by boat.


----------



## labraiser (Feb 5, 2004)

paul young said:


> Do any of you guys besides /Paul and me judge Master tests?
> 
> I ask because with a 60 dog Master, a couple of 150 yard marks and/or Blinds is definitely going to affect the time management aspect of the test. Well placed marks and blinds under 100 yards will answer all the questions you should be asking as a Hunt Test judge. Quality always trumps distance, in my experience. I don't want to dumb down the final series because we chewed up too much time in the first two.-Paul


Paul,

Yes I do judge master, senior and junior. There is noway your going to do a 150 swim with a 60 dog master test. It would kill your time management. If you start with 60 dogs and do a 6 min a dog test. Your still looking at 300 min/ 5 hr series. That doesn't even take in rebirds, and other delays. I have always said good bird placement not distance makes a good test.

Scott


----------



## Thumbs Up (Nov 26, 2004)

Field Trials in as close as 1980 were easier than a weekend HT...Evolution of the sport is now 300 plus and everything in between...Ht's are headed that way...Why ? Dogs are better and training is better...90% of the dogs I use to run hunt and ran HT's ...they also ran FT's and SRS and any other dog game I could find ...most of them were MH/QAA...Cross training I feel makes for a balanced dog. It really bugs me that folks will bash any dog related sport...run what you want and be happy and enjoy what you do...Funny thing I just spent 2 weeks with the best amateur trainers of FT dogs at the Nat AM...you did not hear one word negative about HT. Why ? They are happy happy happy playing their sport and do not bother others who enjoy theirs. I judged in Corning Calif. this year..my co judge and I decided to do a challenging first series...we did what was for 90% of the handlers their first quad...there was alot of grumbling for sure...it was a land test with close to 60 dogs...we lost 5 dogs...the few that had problems tried to do the old standard of outside outside inside...I call it duck duck gooose  they handled on at least one bird...those that read the test ran it by picking up a double on each side did great...oh and there was a double blind up the middle of the marks...when setting up a hard test I judge it like Olympic diving ....the harder the dive the easier the scoring....we lost over 50% of the dogs on the next 2 series...they were triples  no blinds in one and a h2o blind in 1...go figure.....as for time management we were done 1/2 day before the other Master test...2 of the 4 marks were at the 150 mark and folks were proud that their dogs did it . Only complaint was that we had handlers put their ducks in a bucket UKC style...did this so we would not bother the handler working their dogs. Two maybe three people complained about that...I say run em long and run em short...the dogs that went out in the first series went out on the blinds...we all know blinds are a training problem not a test problem....I'm out


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Thumbs Up said:


> Field Trials in as close as 1980 were easier than a weekend HT


Will you start a new thread with that title?


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Cooper said:


> I hope the AKC master tests don't make their marks and blinds longer than about 150 yards. Otherwise the tests will simulate field trials with ridicules distances that no way resemble a day's shoot. It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. Qualified judges shouldn't have to resort to long distances in order to test dogs at their level. Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios. If you want to run long, stay in field trials.


To Cooper regarding his original post... he was concerned about marks and blinds longer than 150 yards. He was concerned that field trialers (handlers and trainers) would bring "the garbage" into hunt tests.

Cooper,

HT judges set up their master tests. The HT judges determine how long a mark or blind is. There are very few field trialers who judge hunt tests. Those who train and handle in field trials are not changing hunt tests. If you see any changes or if you are seeing some sort of trend to extend the distance in how HT master marks and blinds are being set up, those changes are being made by hunt test folks.

Your concerns about distances being increased may be valid, but placing the blame on field trialers is off base. 

Helen


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I would also mention that changes to the HT rules now state 150 yards vs 100 previously. I have already ran a variety of HT's where the marks where put out 150 yards or so, on grounds where they used to be 100. The goal was to help give HT judges the flexibility to utilize grounds better, however I do believe some judges are not just thinking 150 yard mark is necessary. FT's had nothing to do with this...

/Paul


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Cooper said:


> I hope the AKC master tests don't make their marks and blinds longer than about 150 yards. Otherwise the tests will simulate field trials with ridicules distances that no way resemble a day's shoot. It is so easy for handlers and trainers to participate and do well in field trials and then want to bring the garbage into hunt tests. Qualified judges shouldn't have to resort to long distances in order to test dogs at their level. Lets keep the master tests so that they actually are realistic to hunting scenarios. If you want to run long, stay in field trials.



Cooper, there are many differences between HT tests and FT tests beyond distance. Distance is not even the main difference. Distance just makes the rest of the factors harder.

But the real difference in the two games is the mindset you have when you step to the line. In a HT, you go to the line thinking, "what do I have to do to pass this standard". (you hear that question on this forum all the time ... "what do I have to do to get through ...".

In a FT, that question is not even relevant. Instead, you're asking yourself, "what do I have to do to be the BEST here today?". That's a HUGE difference in the way you approach the test AND in the way you approach training.

JS


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I would also mention that changes to the HT rules now state 150 yards vs 100 previously.
> 
> /Paul


Paul,

Do you recall how the new wording in the HT rules came about? I belong to two clubs who put on hunt tests. Both are members of the Master National Retriever Club. I don't recall that changing the wording in the HT rules was ever brought up and voted upon at the club level.

How do HT rules or wording get changed? Anyone know? 

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Thumbs Up said:


> ...2 of the 4 marks were at the 150 mark and folks were proud that their dogs did it .


Thumbs Up,
You said when you judged a Master at Corning, CA, 2 of your 4 marks were at 150. I am not faulting you for your test set up. You are a HT judge who used a longer distance than what has been typical. I am curious as to the "why" of the 150 for your test. Can you explain ? I assume you are not a field trialer trying to change hunt tests. 

Helen


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

The Hunt Test Advisory Committee Sub Committee on Rules takes submissions from the HT community. Anyone can send them something they think needs to be changed. They compile a list of recommendations and submit this to Performance, who send their recommendations to The AKC Board. So the way I understand it, there isn't really a club vote.

Also changes can come directly from Performance.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks for the explanation on the process for changing hunt test rules, Lady Duck Hunter.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

The 150 was voted on and passed, I remember the ballot. As judges were stretching them well beyond 100yrd. when that was the standard. Of course they'll be stretching them beyond the 150yrds. they were already pass the old rule. The new wording just opened it up to even longer marks, next year it will be 200 and they'll push it longer, because it's a "should not" not a "will not" wording. Judges discretion  IMO Bring them on, judges that need marks that long don't know how to put technics into their setup, give me a few easy straight forward 200 yrd marks, over close technical ones all day long. Distance does not a hard mark make


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

"Do any of you guys besides /Paul and me judge Master tests? 

I ask because with a 60 dog Master, a couple of 150 yard marks and/or Blinds is definitely going to affect the time management aspect of the test. Well placed marks and blinds under 100 yards will answer all the questions you should be asking as a Hunt Test judge. Quality always trumps distance, in my experience. I don't want to dumb down the final series because we chewed up too much time in the first two.-Paul "

I judge Master and fully understand the time management issue. If one of those "long" marks or blinds is needed for some reason, they are always placed in the last series where there are fewer players, or some other element is removed for time management. I try to be VERY efficient in the first 2 series so that the last series can include whatever mark/blind is needed.

But like others have said, there is much more to a mark/blind than pure distance if you have good grounds to work with.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I judge and run Finished/Master, hang around and train with some good FT folks, and I find the OP to be surreal on multiple levels. YMMV.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Hunt''EmUp,

Do you think HT judges are using longer distances to make the master test more difficult? 

Could this be an effort to cut back on the number of dogs passing master tests, getting the MH title, and qualifying for the Master National ? 

The MNRC Board's recent effort to make it more difficult to qualify for a master national failed. Clubs voted the rule down so the MNRC is still facing how to handle huge master national entries. The other day I saw that 710 had qualified to run this year. There will be more as there is still time to make the deadline. 

Helen


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

I've run some really tough master test and none of them had marks that were hard because of distance.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I wouldn't overreact to this, as I really don't know how much a problem this really is. I know AKC changed the rules allowing for slightly longer marks and blinds, but nothing like 200 yards. If somebody ran a HT with 200 yard or over marks, I'm sure that is a very rare event and I would expect the HT committee to step in.

John


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> The 150 was voted on and passed, I remember the ballot. As judges were stretching them well beyond 100yrd. when that was the standard. Of course they'll be stretching them beyond the 150yrds. they were already pass the old rule. The new wording just opened it up to even longer marks, next year it will be 200 and they'll push it longer, because it's a "should not" not a "will not" wording. Judges discretion  IMO Bring them on, judges that need marks that long don't know how to put technics into their setup, give me a few easy straight forward 200 yrd marks, over close technical ones all day long. Distance does not a hard mark make


I don't mean to belabor the point but the recommendations are not voted on by the clubs or their representatives. Here is the report from the Master National meeting where the new rules were discussed. http://2012mnrcreport.theretrievernews.com/2012_10_19_archive.html

Seems to me that there was a vote at Master National several years ago to allow the distance at the Master National to extend to 150 yards. Maybe that is what you are remembering?


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Brad B said:


> I've run some really tough master test and none of them had marks that were hard because of distance.


Amen. 

And some people just can't judge distances...I remember judging with a nice gentleman who insisted that we put a senior blind "next to that tree over there." I thought it looked a bit far and said so. He said no way that is longer than 85 yards. Well, I stepped it off and about half way there I turned around and said this is 90 paces right here. He thought I must be taking baby steps so he paced it off, too. We put the blind halfway to the tree. When someone arrived with a range finder, the blind stake was shot at 89 yards.


----------



## Bay Kingfisher (Mar 20, 2008)

*z*

Here is the link to the set ups at the last MN. I really wouldnt say distance was the issue!!

http://masternational.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/2012-master-national-test-diagrams/

Surely with so many dogs registered time restraints would not allow for the big marks. Anyway I wouldnt mind seeing big marks; Id rather them than the in your face memory bird!! Besides, my dog will see all of the above come hunting season!!


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Paul,
> 
> Do you recall how the new wording in the HT rules came about? I belong to two clubs who put on hunt tests. Both are members of the Master National Retriever Club. I don't recall that changing the wording in the HT rules was ever brought up and voted upon at the club level.
> 
> ...


The MNRC has NOTHING to do with the rules other than the fact that usually the Hunt Test Advisory Committee annual meeting is held in conjunction with the MNRC business meetings.
You can spend all the time in the world typing in opinions and whatever Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr you can direct those comments to these folks:
*The AKC Retriever Hunting Test **Advisory** Committee *

*2013 *

It is the responsibility of the RHT Advisory Committee to provide input to the AKC Performance Events Department with regard to the Retriever Hunting Test Regulations. This may involve clarification of existing Regulations or new Regulations that are felt to enhance the sport. Topics for Advisory Committee discussion may originate from RHT participants or from the Committee members themselves. The Performance Events Department may also direct ideas to the Committee for consideration.

The Performance Events Department values the input of the Advisory Committee but is under no obligation to agree or act upon their suggestions. The Department may also, on occasion, act without Committee input. 

*Members of the Retriever Hunting Test **Advisory** Committee are:

Term Expires at end of:

Eastern Time Zone Representative *

Robert Rascoe [email protected] 2016

242 Fairfax Drive 336-765-9420 (H)

Winston-Salem, NC 27104 

*Rocky Mountain Time Zone Representative *

Jeff Schoonover [email protected] 2013 

1432 Red Fox Circle 970-686-0714 (H)

Windsor, CO 80550 970-227-1284 (C) 

*Central Time Zone Representative *

Richard Pyka [email protected] 2014

W 235 N 262-229-3031 (H)

9544 Mt. Vernon Dr.

Colgate, WI 53017 

*Pacific Time Zone Representative *

Tom Quarles [email protected] 2015

12725 Jordan Road 360-691-2650 (off)

Arlington, WA 98223-9409 425-377-3793 (C) 

*RHTAC Chairman *

Bill Teague [email protected]

734 CR 630 936-559-9007 (H)

Nacogdoches, TX 75964 713-252-3918 (C)

Take it to the front office- the receptionist don’t give a **** regards

Bubba


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks, Bubba, for posting the info on the Retriever Hunt Test Advisory Committee. It appears that the change from 100 yds. to 150 yds. max. was a suggestion that followed this process before it became a new rule. It either was a suggestion made to the RHTAC who agreed with it or they thought of it and then passed the suggestion to AKC ... or the change originated within the Performance Events Dept. 

I knew I could not remember voting on it at any club meeting. This explains why.

Bubba makes a good suggestion. If you wish to express an opinion about the rule change from 100 to 150, contact your regional rep on the RHTAC and/or contact the chairman Bill Teague. Field trialers can't be blamed for hunt test changes and vice versa.


Helen


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

helencalif said:


> Hunt''EmUp,
> 
> Do you think HT judges are using longer distances to make the master test more difficult?
> 
> Helen


Nope, I think they're using it because they simply can, and they like to _freak_ out handlers. And freak out handlers it does, the dogs don't really care. I threw an out of order Flyer mark on one of those 200+ yrd marks, and yes we used 2 range finders, and a wheel to measure the distance, after the test. (maybe Judges can't tell distance ) We only had 1 dog that came up short and didn't make it to the area of the fall, the dog had other issues. The mark was a pretty good hunt, as it was in heavy cover and falling into a ditch, but the dogs got out to it, stuck to the area and brought it back. We had many backside the guns, but the gun was completely hidden behind one bush of several, and pretty tough to pick out. We had 4-5 dogs nose-dwn stomp it. 

The last 2 tests we've had in the area since the new rule came in; have had 1 or 2 marks skirting the distance barrier, seems like if you throw out a new rule people feel the need to use it. The only concern for me is handling a dog at such a distance, can cause problems, it's hard for a dog to pick out a handler who's in dark colors or camo, on a dark background, with a gallery of similar dressed people sitting watching. In FT where longer marks are the normal you can wear white, white is a No in HT. Seems unfair to grade handle on a dog that can't pick out it's handler.

You guys are right on the vote, the vote I'm thinking of was a distance change in HRC grand, I get them all confused
Side note everyone in HRC has a range finder, try to go beyond their distances and 4-5 people in the gallery will call you on it, and have the test thrown out as illegal, might hang the judge before the hunt-test committee gets there thou


----------



## Thumbs Up (Nov 26, 2004)

I Thumbs Up = Tellus Calhoun  We set the marks at 150 because of the factors = none ...very little cover and rollings hills. Kind of a reverse hip pocket on both sides...if you looked at the bird placement you could figure out how to pick them up...Time management was not a issue as the extra yardage took less than a min to cover....time is lost rebirding and waiting for guns to be set...I get the guns up and ready before the working dog has reached the line...you save 1 to 2 min per dog...that means in a 60 dog field 1 to 2 hrs per series with just making sure guns are up rather than waithing till the working dog is back to the line....we do it as pro trainers when working lots of dog. I do not think the distance hurts it shows marking rather than just getting to an area that is close and rutting around and calling it a mark. But a good judge should be able to set up a test in a parking lot and get answers with or without distance...but sometimes distance is needed....I start judging when a dog and handler as a team get in trouble....I want to see how well they get out and handle the situation....


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

In fact, the only Master test that I've ever had to scrap, once we were running, had three marks that didn't total a 150 yards.

I'm certain this will sound a bit trite but...yards are what you make of them. Both blinds and marks have three characteristics...a beginning, a middle, and an end. If all a judge can do to try to test a dog is to stretch out the middle, in most cases I would say s/he doesn't have much imagination.

Three round the horn regards,


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Eric Johnson said:


> In fact, the only Master test that I've ever had to scrap, once we were running, had three marks that didn't total a 150 yards.
> 
> I'm certain this will sound a bit trite but...yards are what you make of them. Both blinds and marks have three characteristics...a beginning, a middle, and an end.


Doesn't sound trite. Toughest blind I've ever run was 55 yards. Big downhill lie right to left, with a culvert, nasty wind also pushing right to left, lose dog in cover if a bit off line or down the slope. Judges said if you aim high and let dog drift to it you're done. ;-)

12 whistle 55 yards.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Nope, I think they're using it because they simply can, and they like to _freak_ out handlers. And freak out handlers it does, the dogs don't really care.


Seriously, if a handler is freaked out by a 150 yard mark or blind he really isn't prepared to run at the MH level.

I also don't understand the mentality of training strictly at HT distances. The only reason a dog would have difficulty beyond those distances is because a barrier has been created by the trainer who never stretches him out.

Bert


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

rbr said:


> Seriously, if a handler is freaked out by a 150 yard mark or blind he really isn't prepared to run at the MH level.
> 
> I also don't understand the mentality of training strictly at HT distances. The only reason a dog would have difficulty beyond those distances is because a barrier has been created by the trainer who never stretches him out.
> 
> Bert


Agreed , have watched a number of "cookie cutter" tests that never challenge a dog or its training. Cookie cutter definition, example triple and a blind up the middle, long bird the go bird over and over and over again. If you run or repeat something enough it will become second nature in training and will transfer to a hunt test. I put a tooth under my pillow last night, didn't tell anyone and a five dollar bill was in the tooth's place this morning. Most dogs with decent eye sight, not trained for field trial marks can do 200 yard marks with ease trained at the Master level. It's the handlers that have the issues. Trained with a HRCH dog for a number of months, dog would not look past about 100 yards. The owner handler kept telling me the dog couldn't see marks beyond that level. This guy used to repeat everything a half dozen times in training. After about a month or so of running longer marks the dog was marking out to a easy 300 yards. This was a six year old dog who had a steady diet of shorter marks less then 100 yards all it's training life.
I was always taught to train at a much higher level then hunt testing or trialing level. It used to amuse me at hunt tests, still does, at those who wring their hands at running blinds.If a dog can mark, ANY dog can be trained to run blinds. If they can't mark well, you can't teach em to mark but by gosh you can train them to do blinds. My thoughts just maybe instead of worrying about distance?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Criquetpas said:


> .....It used to amuse me at hunt tests, still does, at those who wring their hands at running blinds.If a dog can mark, ANY dog can be trained to run blinds. If they can't mark well, you can't teach em to mark but by gosh you can train them to do blinds.


 What about the dogs that can mark well, *OR *run really tough blinds?
But, they can't manage to do both in the same damn test!

That's what I have right now. And, I doubt that I'm alone.


----------

