# Hunt test distance change for master



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

We just recently had this discussion...I was browsing through AKC secretaries minutes and BOD minutes. Here is what was said:

---------
Retriever Hunting Test – Retrieves Up To 150 Yards
The Board reviewed a recommendation from the Retriever Hunting Test Advisory Committee to amend the Regulations For AKC Hunting Tests For Retrievers to increase
the distance for retrieves in the Master level Retriever Hunting Test from 100 yards to “should not normally exceed 150 yards.” The Junior and Senior level test would remain unchanged. This will be discussed further at the October meeting.
--------from the AKC site.

How do we comment on this process? Can we even do so at this point? How do we find out who is on the RHTAC?

I still think this goes back to the whole MN qualifications.....among other things. It is an issue of concern for me. 

I reiterate what others have said, leave the weekend tests alone. AND for those that will say you need to train more.....I DO train.....and work with a group, belong to a retriever club, obedience and regional specialty club and am active in all. I also work full time and have limited training days and access to grounds. I'm really afraid that this sport is going to get to the point where hardworking people won't be able to get it done....not without spending a fortune...

Concerned....

Sue Puff


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

http://masternational.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/retriever-hunting-test-advisory-committee-report/

Bill Teague is chair. Your zone should have a rep on the committee.
Here is the AKC HT Homepage:
http://classic.akc.org/events/hunting_tests/retrievers/index.cfm


----------



## Dixiedog78 (Jul 9, 2009)

Don't be concerned.....if you do the training you say you are doing then it won't make a differnece, just make sure you are mixing in marks that are 200+ yards. Our training group ocassionaly throws 200-350 yard marks, if my dog sees 150 yard mark at a Master test then she should be underwhelmed. I am not sure what the HRC rules are for Finished but we ran a Finished land test the other weekend that had a go bird at 147 yards.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Dixiedog78 said:


> I am not sure what the HRC rules are for Finished but we ran a Finished land test the other weekend that had a go bird at 147 yards.


land 150, water 125, blinds 100.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

150 for land marks, 125 for water marks...all blinds are 100.

Blaine, you type too fast......


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Hopefully judges will use good common sense, factors and bird placement, rather than distance to create the required challenges for Master level dogs. I say this not because I'm in any way afraid of a 175 yard mark (cause that's what we're going to get), but rather because despite it being allowed, it's not a very realistic hunting scenario.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

The only long bird this weekend was a 144 yard blind this weekend, all the marks were under 100.


----------



## tripsteer1 (Feb 25, 2011)

I agree with Mr. Greene


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Worry not about the judges who must use distance as a challenge but, those who use concept as a factor.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Hopefully judges will use good common sense, factors and bird placement, rather than distance to create the required challenges for Master level dogs. I say this not because I'm in any way afraid of a 175 yard mark (cause that's what we're going to get), but rather because despite it being allowed, it's not a very realistic hunting scenario.


Exactly right. Barring very weak test grounds, there is no reason to have 150 yard marks for hunting dogs.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

dixidawg said:


> Exactly right. Barring very weak test grounds, there is no reason to have 150 yard marks for hunting dogs.


i wouldn't say NO reason...

hunt rice fields in Southeast Missouri on a real cold windy day with 30 mph cross winds and shoot a fast flying canvas back and watch him sail 200 yards across the field over a levee. happens all the time in hunting situations in the open fields.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Well, if you are able to watch him sail away for 200 yards, your dog can too. That is a significantly different mark and retrieve than one coming out of a winger at 150 yards.

Just because there MIGHT be a few real hunting retrieves at distance does not mean we can or should necessarily test for them.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

dixidawg said:


> Well, if you are able to watch him sail away for 200 yards, your dog can too. That is a significantly different mark and retrieve than one coming out of a winger at 150 yards.
> 
> Just because there MIGHT be a few real hunting retrieves at distance does not mean we can or should necessarily test for them.


alright then...we will just agree to disagree. 

I'm a hunter first. Testing is what i like to do during the off-season. I like training and testing way beyond what we'll see in hunting.

And I get the fact that you can set up very meaty tests without the long distances. I just like the variety. Heck we ran a finished test 2 weekends ago with my boykin and i bet none of the water marks on Sunday were over 40 yards (and it was a blood bath for most the dogs), and land marks were maybe 60,70,40 with the go bird being a 40 yard mark thrown straight at you. Very tough little test that was set up nicely. 

Obviously you DONT have to have long distances to test the dog. But its fun to run em long too.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

I agree. Some of the toughest tests I have run didn't have any marks more than 75 yards. Ate up LOTS of very good dogs.

And yes it is sometimes fun to run long, but I don't think it is necessary to evaluate a good hunting retriever.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Worry not about the judges who must use distance as a challenge but, those who use concept as a factor.


Not sure what you mean Paul? Given the tendency for multiple falls in a hunting scenario and the inability of judges to set the order marks need to be retrieved, why is the use of a concept as a factor problematic? 

Beyond that, how do you avoid it? A triple is going to be some sort of pyramid, indent or inline pretty much no matter how you try to avoid it.

I suppose you could have all equidistant marks but that's just lame.


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Worry not about the judges who must use distance as a challenge but, those who use concept as a factor.


Could not agree more.

The "Current" AKC rules say "should not".......exceed 100 when in fact they sometimes do anyway so why not just change the rule to reflect reality. The other factors of the mark will get you a lot quicker than the distance anyway.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

dixidawg said:


> Well, if you are able to watch him sail away for 200 yards, your dog can too. That is a significantly different mark and retrieve than one coming out of a winger at 150 yards.
> 
> Just because there MIGHT be a few real hunting retrieves at distance does not mean we can or should necessarily test for them.



You throw a quad inside of 75 yards and everything ends up being pretty tight, even if you have the dog swinging close to 180 degrees. Throw a blind or two into it and you have a lot of birds pretty much in a pile...

I probably shouldn't be commenting because I don't run hunt tests (although I'm thinking about it...), I would think that bumping out the distance a little would open up opportunities for good bird placement.

FWIW, I know I'm a bad shot because I have birds go down beyond 150 quite often.


----------



## Cleo Watson (Jun 28, 2006)

Concept can and is sometimes a factor for those judges who have never hunted.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Buzz said:


> You throw a quad inside of 75 yards and everything ends up being pretty tight, even if you have the dog swinging close to 180 degrees. Throw a blind or two into it and you have a lot of birds pretty much in a pile...



Quad are really rare in tests that I have run....never mind a close tight one.

but the scene you describe sounds like a pretty typical hunting scenario. Group of birds come in...bang bang bang bang and the retrieves are usually under 75 yards. Is that not a good hunting retriever test?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

dixidawg said:


> Quad are really rare in tests that I have run....never mind a close tight one.
> 
> but the scene you describe sounds like a pretty typical hunting scenario. Group of birds come in...bang bang bang bang and the retrieves are usually under 75 yards. Is that not a good hunting retriever test?



Didn't say it's not a good test. On a recent pheasant hunt we had 4 birds all on the ground at once, several different shooters, birds all falling at once. There were 3 dogs out and I had the only dog that could handle. My dog picked up one he saw drop, another dog picked up another. Two other birds were laying in a slough that the other dogs had no chance of getting to. I handled my dog to them, we got them quick and continued hunting. In the real world I want those birds picked up fast so we can continue shooting. In a HT, I would have used up all my handles.

But we're getting off track here...


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

First let me qualify this by saying this is my opinion. Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has a couple and sometimes they stink;-).

I would much prefer an increase in distance than increasingly tighter marks. Marking scenerios with very close areas of fall are sure to cause handles. When a switch means you are out then the handles come quicker and quicker. Judges are then faced with a decision of which handles were good enough. Two and sometimes even three handles can result in a qualifying score. Seems ironic when marking is of primary importance as the keystone of the rule book.

Adding 50 yards should allow my hunting dog to hunt. Not handle efficiently because I as a handler am intimidated by the old falls. 50 extra yards in many areas allows terrain to become a factor instead of the marking configuration set up of the day.

Lets face it. A well trained dog will understand hip pockets and mom/pops but this is a totally contrived concept. Regardless of the story told during the handlers briefing, I have never walked into a field with 3 blinds in plain view, who then flushed and shot ducks from their feet. It ain't hunting and that is fine. I just love to play the game.

Personally I would like to see more distance.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Distance means nothing without good bird placement.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Distance means nothing without good bird placement.


Amen! Nothing further to add.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Agree, but I might amend that to "marks mean nothing w/o good bird placement."


----------



## Meleagris1 (Dec 10, 2010)

Distance is just one factor, but assuming normal conditions and factors, IMHO a MH caliber dog should be capable of running a 150yd mark with ease. We are talking basically 1/3 the distance of a "relatively" long FT mark. I've also had plenty of opportunities to make 150 yard retrieves while hunting, especially geese, so again IMHO, its a practical skill for my dog to have and any MASTER caliber dog to have. Teach long, and you can easily hunt short, but not the other way around.


----------



## Larry Housman (Jun 4, 2012)

dixidawg said:


> Well, if you are able to watch him sail away for 200 yards, your dog can too. That is a significantly different mark and retrieve than one coming out of a winger at 150 yards.
> 
> Just because there MIGHT be a few real hunting retrieves at distance does not mean we can or should necessarily test for them.



As we get to page three on this thread, I think dixidawgs point is being glossed over. we all have long marks in hunting, but those marks are shot at less than 40-50 yards at the most and then sail out to 150+. I've never shot at a bird that was at 150 when i shot it. i just think 150 marks in a hunt test don't make a great deal of sense. Now what i do think makes sense is going out to 150 yards on blinds. that will represent those 150 yard sailers we have in hunting better than throwing marks out that far. As with many other threads here of late, if you want long marks get a white coat and have at it; don't try to keep moving hunt tests toward field trials. Nothing wrong with playing both but lets stop trying to incrementally move hunt tests to field trials. And I do run both so I'm not afraid of long marks; I just think field trials and hunt tests are two related but ultimately separate games, and lets keep them that way. Separate but equal didn't work so well in the 50's, but i think it would be great here!


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Are the current batch of MH's in the field today not picking up these long retrieves?

What is "broken" in weekend tests that would be "fixed" by going to 150 yards?

You can train as long as you want or need for your situation. You have a lot of long retrieves when hunting? Train for them. The VAST majority of the time they are under 100 yards. 

You want to be tested at longer marks, go run field trials. 

Leave the weekend tests alone.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Part of the OP question was to ask about the RHTAC and how club members could get involved in the process. While AKC has it on their website, and we know who the key players are, it appears as if the actual process is somewhat vague. If I understand it correctly, the RHTAC sends the recommendation they are about to make to the club presidents. Comments by the club presidents drive the recommendations to either be shelved or sent on to the AKC.


Maybe some club presidents could chime in and let us know if they receive those recommendations from RHTAC.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Dixiedog78 said:


> . I am not sure what the HRC rules are for Finished but we ran a Finished land test the other weekend that had a go bird at 147 yards.


Seems like the AKC's just keeping up with the HRC on this one, 150 yards is their distance for land marks in Finished. Wouldn't want to accused one venue, of allowing more marking yardage than another . 147 yards (very specific) I bet there was about 12 contestants out there with range finders ensuring that mark was in code. The gallery, usually has a fun time estimating, checking & correcting distance in HRC tests. One of the reasons, I bought a range finder when I started running HRC, was because everyone had one, it's almost standard equipment.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

JoeOverby said:


> 150 for land marks, 125 for water marks...all blinds are 100.
> 
> Blaine, you type too fast......


While I don't run many HTs, I do prefer the HRC set-ups (you use the gun & talk to your dog like you are actually hunting). But one thing I've never understood about the HRC rules is having blinds shorter than marks. Just doesn't seem logical to me.


----------



## duckwater (Apr 23, 2010)

This is great news!! Now if they would put a minimum on short marks,Say- nothing shorter than 50 yds. It is not the distance of the mark, it is all about placement. You can have a qualifying with 100 yard marks and get answers if you put the marks in the right place. I get frustrated when you go to a master test and don't see 1 mark over 50 yds. Our Retrievers these days are not made to do 25 yd retrieves.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Part of the OP question was to *ask about the RHTAC and how club members could get involved in the process*. While AKC has it on their website, and we know who the key players are, it appears as if the actual process is somewhat vague. If I understand it correctly, the RHTAC sends the recommendation they are about to make to the club presidents. Comments by the club presidents drive the recommendations to either be shelved or sent on to the AKC.
> Maybe some club presidents could chime in and let us know if they receive those recommendations from RHTAC.


Yup...and to generate discussion on the topic in general. Someone else said it....there is a difference between hunt tests and field trials. Lets keep them separate. If I knew I was capable of training and doing field trials myself, I would. I have no problem with EARNING my titles, so I'm not asking for easy master tests. I want to be able to spend a reasonable amount of time training my dogs to hunt and handle and prove them through titling. I unfortunately don't hunt except as pick up dogs at shoots. I want them to prove that they can mark, are biddable and thus can handle and can run down a cripple. I CAN'T train to field trial distances or whatever because I don't have the grounds, time or capability or to be frank, the money to send my dogs to a competant trainer.

*If all this is about making it harder to get to MN, then someone needs to stand up and say something. * If tests need to be more challenging, then someone needs to teach judges about bird placement and challenging marks/concepts/whatever. These are THREE different topics: Master National, Hunt Tests and Field Trials.

Regardless of what the rulebook says, there are a lot of judges out there that have never or don't hunt. I'm friends with them. I can't imagine that it doesn't affect test setups. I don't hunt, but train with people who do. When they look at a test we are entered in and tell me about all the possible things that can happen in a real situation I think it's great. Set it up! A lot of those scenarios don't include distance. Leave the white coats to field trials, let me handle my dog to a long bird that he/she probably didn't see because there were other birds going down all over.

I reread the rule book again this year since there are so many updates. They are putting more emphasis on marking....I don't know if I agree, because of the above last sentence. I think handling is just as important...What do I know? shrug...

Comments from a competitor who doesn't hunt, but wants dogs that can...and enjoys working them...

Sue Puff


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

So does anyone really think their dog has a magic distance beyond which they fall apart? Seriously if your dog can mark at 50 yards it can mark at 150 yards. If you have a master dog and you are worried about is a few extra yards you need to work on your head, not he dog. Unless your dog has a vision problem this is not going to matter. I bet if you could ask the dogs they flat out wouldn't care, it is just a mark be it 75, 125, 150, or 200 yards. Now if you could ask he goldens I am sure they would not be happy with a 125 yard water mark, but you know that is a whole different issue.....
Again bird placement makes the mark, not he distance. I see this more as giving judges more to work with since many clubs have limited grounds and cover. I can think of one test that is on spectacular grounds.....to live on, but It is like a golf course and extending the distance will give a greater opportunity to set up a nice triple where without the distance you would be hard pressed to fit a good double.
quit crying, put on your big boy/girl panties on and go train.

BTW - 150 yards ain't FT distance


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> quit crying, put on your big boy/girl panties on and go train.
> 
> BTW - 150 yards ain't FT distance


I didn't realize panties were required?! 

I know 150 yards aren't FT distance. But, as someone said earlier, do you really shoot birds at 150 plus yards? You may shoot them at 50 and then they fly that far, requiring you to handle your dog to them....so maybe we need to focus on both and not penalize for handling as the new rules state?

There is no way in hell that we can recreate a real hunting situation unless we all just go out and spend time really hunting....but theres no way either, that you're shooting a bird at FT distances....unless guns have changed that much.  Or maybe we're hunting with some type of automatic weapon? I don't know enough about that subject to say! 

Thanks for the discussion.....it's been good.

Still....back to my original question? How do we have an impact or voice?

Sue Puff


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

dixidawg said:


> Exactly right. Barring very weak test grounds, there is no reason to have 150 yard marks for hunting dogs.


I don't really agree with this statement. While it's true most birds will go down within 40-50 yards, I have hunted the flooded rice fields of Arkansas in high winds and have had snow geese flutter and sail down 300+ yards away and mallards ride the wind about as far on more than a few occasions. I've also done pheasant shoots with many marks that were easily approaching 200 yards as the birds finally bled out or were still wounded but just couldn't stay in the air any longer. At one of the pheasant shoots, a guy with his "just hunting" dogs had problems all day because they would only go about 40 yards before they turned and started hunting. They had simply never been taught that birds could go down any distance farther than that. He actually had to walk out from his station whatever the appropriate distance was to send his dog so that it was no more than about 40 yards to the bird. He and I talked about it afterward and he said it just never occurred to him to train his dogs to mark and hunt farther than that.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

J. Walker said:


> I don't really agree with this statement. While it's true most birds will go down within 40-50 yards, I have hunted the flooded rice fields of Arkansas in high winds and have had snow geese flutter and sail down 300+ yards away and mallards ride the wind about as far on more than a few occasions. I've also done pheasant shoots with many marks that were easily approaching 200 yards as the birds finally bled out or were still wounded but just couldn't stay in the air any longer. At one of the pheasant shoots, a guy with his "just hunting" dogs had problems all day because they would only go about 40 yards before they turned and started hunting. They had simply never been taught that birds could go down any distance farther than that. He actually had to walk out from his station whatever the appropriate distance was to send his dog so that it was no more than about 40 yards to the bird. He and I talked about it afterward and he said it just never occurred to him to train his dogs to mark and hunt farther than that.


Exactly what I was trying to say with my earlier post. We see it a lot like that. 
Saw it in a pit blind in Missouri last year when my older Boykin marked and picked up 2 specks that sailed 250+ yards. Had to handle him one time to push him over a levee on the 2nd bird but it sure looked good. but Guy and dog on other end of blind asked if he should go after it cause his dog didn't mark them. "No sir, we train for that..." 
IMO so much can be learned for hunting situations by training on long marks. Yeah you don't shoot them 250 yards away but I ain't found a way to simulate a wind blown cripple sailing that far with our current methods. It's about focus, concentration and the ability for the dog to "look out" far watching birds fall way out.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Someone asked a very good question and I haven't heard an answer yet. What is currently broken with Master tests that increasing marks to 150 yards will fix? If the answer is "nothing", then what's the reason for the change?


----------



## dr_dog_guy (May 25, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Part of the OP question was to ask about the RHTAC and how club members could get involved in the process. While AKC has it on their website, and we know who the key players are, it appears as if the actual process is somewhat vague. If I understand it correctly, the RHTAC sends the recommendation they are about to make to the club presidents. Comments by the club presidents drive the recommendations to either be shelved or sent on to the AKC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a club president I do not receive RHTAC recommendations. And I completely agree with the sentiment that there is nothing wrong with weekend MH tests and nothing needs to be fixed. Strikes me as nothing more than a move driven by the MN and is a rule change that should never be considered. Should I be accused of being fearful of long marks, I'll introduce you to my FC running in Texas this weekend. HT are not FT and the MN should never drive HT.


----------



## Meleagris1 (Dec 10, 2010)

Matt McKenzie said:


> Someone asked a very good question and I haven't heard an answer yet. What is currently broken with Master tests that increasing marks to 150 yards will fix? If the answer is "nothing", then what's the reason for the change?


Better dogs, better trainers, higher standards. Nothing is "broken", but then again nothing was broken with our local golf course when they moved all the tees back.


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

I have no problem with 150 yd marks. I like running and training on longer marks. We also train for short test and dont have a problem with that either. As stated earlier bird placment is the key to a good test. 

What I do have a problem with is the excuse of "it happens while hunting all the time" I just had a client text me from Ontario where he was goose hunting. He brought his 12 month old lab with him. They had a single come in and wing clipped it. The bird landed 150 yds away. His young dog saw the bird in the cut bean field so he sent her. The bird got up and flew to the tree line, 596 yds on the range finder, landed and ran into the trees. The dog followed and came back with the bird. Would that make a great test just because it happened while hunting? 

In Michigan we have a prvailing west wind this time of year. On a windy day with no cloud cover we set up looking into the rising sun. This happens way to often, should we run our HT looking into the sun at 8am? 

I have run HT and FT where we had an 8am start and we were looking into the sun. Running due east, boy was there some bitchin going on then and I was do some of it. 

Not all judges hunt, every judge at some point is inexperienced. If you need to be a long time hunter to be a judge we wouldnt have many judges. If you needed to be a long time judge to be a judge we wouldnt have any judges.

We need rules and guide lines to help keep test reasonable. We cant just say "that happens while hunting all the time"
Not all 150 yd marks are good ones just like not all 50 yd marks are good ones. 

I also think a HT or FT committee need to be some of the more experienced people and need to take more responsibility for what the judges do. There is just no beating common sense.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

As a hunter first, I would say that if my birds were consistently falling at 150 yards I have done something horribly wrong. Even 1 a day is an indicator of poor shot selection. True I have sailed snow geese as well as many other birds on rare occasion over the 62 years I have hunted. To add to my hunter qualifications I have hunted over 120 days per year for the past 6 years. So I feel confident that my experience afield is valid. 

I see nothing wrong with the ability to have an OCCASIONAL 150 yard mark in a hunt test but to make that distance the new standard is beyond common sense given the stated mission of HUNT tests. In a real hunting situation birds fall in all sorts of placements so that there is no way to decide what is good and bad placement. So if you really want to have a test that is common in the marsh give every dog a swimming cripple that dives when the dog gets close. That will separate the wheat from the chaff in short time if that is the true goal of a master test.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

I was thinking that perhaps we are looking at this wrong....Perhaps the since the clubs are supposed to pick people to judge with a lot of hunting experience that we should remove the distance ("should not normally excede 150 yards", and instead simply add "should not excede the distance birds are seen in hunting" In that other venue that allows 150 yards you really don't see a lot of really long marks (you do see some) because experienced hunters are really the ones they push to judge.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Matt McKenzie said:


> Someone asked a very good question and I haven't heard an answer yet. What is currently broken with Master tests that increasing marks to 150 yards will fix? If the answer is "nothing", then what's the reason for the change?


Matt I think I did answer the question, but I will try again. I don't think it is because anything is broken. Nowhere does the change say that you must use the increased distance. My take is it has everything to do with the limited grounds available to many clubs. I have judged in several locations that while beautiful grounds, they lack cover or factors and make it difficult to set good quality marks. Some times on grounds that lack features it MAY be necessary to use some distance to get a good mark. I am not necessarily suggesting that all the makes in a situation like this need to be long, but I have looked at numerous places where due to the golf course like grounds you may be able to work out two marks with good placement at less than 100 yards, but to get a third good mark (instead to a mark just for the sake of making a triple) you need to extend the distance. I think this is even more true in the case of water marks. It is difficult to set a good solid master test on a pond that is nothing more than a hole with pasture surrounding it. To throw a couple marks in the wide open water is not much of a test for a master dog, but to extend the distance out and make the mark across the open pond and onto the land a fair distance beyond the water will tell you something about a dogs perseverance.
ideally you have excellent grounds and with good grounds I can set a test with nothing over 75 yards that will be as difficult or much more difficult then anything you can set up at 150 in a wide open field. 
The big issue is grounds, grounds, grounds. Some areas are lucky and have an abundance of them. Others struggle to find enough to hold a test. This just gives judges another tool to make a good solid test of a dogs marking ability.
I also doubt you will see many using that much distance just because they can. Time is a huge factor when setting up a test and I personally don't want to watch a dog take 15 minutes to run each test and god knows I don't want to watch 50 dogs swim for an hour and a half. 
I think this is much to do about nothing.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

The AKC HT game started down "the slippery slope" MANY years ago. What we are seeing now is just the increased speed of that slide towards a game that has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.

Here's a short list of a few things that have changed over the last 21 years;

-judges no longer are required to evaluate and score a dog's "nose". Isn't this a requirement for a good hunting dog? If we don't test for it, how will we know?

-nearly exclusive use of ducks. Pheasants are a much more exciting flyer, and hen pheasant in particular, make for much more difficult marks at any distance.

-less hunters involved as participants and judges.

-fewer and fewer realistic scenarios. 

-water tests where trained technical behaviors are rewarded at the expense of what is actually required of a hunting dog.

-inappropriate or meaningless use of diversion birds; today's tests predominately use diversion shots instead of a true diversion bird.

-number and placement of decoys are inappropriate to what we would do hunting. most often, they are placed for convenience as an afterthought.

I could keep this up for quite a while. Maybe some other old-timers will add to this......

Now, some participants want to extend the distances at the Master level. They SAY that increased distance doesn't really change anything. To that point I submit the following famous quote by a very famous trainer; "distance erodes control". IT CERTAINLY WILL MAKE THE TESTS MORE DIFFICULT. My question to everyone is; WHY do we NEED to?-Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> I was thinking that perhaps we are looking at this wrong....Perhaps the since the clubs are supposed to pick people to judge with a lot of hunting experience that we should remove the distance ("should not normally excede 150 yards", and instead simply add "should not excede the distance birds are seen in hunting" In that other venue that allows 150 yards you really don't see a lot of really long marks (you do see some) because experienced hunters are really the ones they push to judge.


You would not want that. I have seen geese fall WAY past that 150 yards. I have seen duck end up well over 150. Anyone who has not has not hunted much or is full of crap. It happens. Just a couple of years ago we had a duck sail so far across a rice field that we had to take the dog on an ATV to get them close enough to send them to pick it up. I promise you every dog I own has picked up a bird while hunting that was over 150 yards away and in fact both of my boys have picked up geese over 300 yards. A trained retriever conserves game. 

I will ask the question again, Why are you so worried about a 150 yard mark? Do you really think your dog can't do it. Nonsense! Your dog will walk to the line and do what it is trained to do. Do you really think the difference in distance is going to be the deciding factor in weather your dog can run a mark or not? Here is a clue, dogs don't understand measurement, and I would bet my left testicle that they care far less about the distance than you.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

" Do you really think the difference in distance is going to be the deciding factor in weather your dog can run a mark or not? Here is a clue, dogs don't understand measurement, and I would bet my left testicle that they care far less about the distance than you."

Then why bother?-Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

paul young said:


> The AKC HT game started down "the slippery slope" MANY years ago. What we are seeing now is just the increased speed of that slide towards a game that has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.
> 
> Here's a short list of a few things that have changed over the last 21 years;
> 
> ...


Paul I agree with this. I will go farther and say the MAIN problem is non-hunting judges and participants. It is very important that judges set as close to a real hunting scenario as possible including decoy and placement. I always try to duplicate how I would imagine a hunt going in the location I selected to set a test or train. Most of the time I incorporate something I have truly experienced while hunting. A problem that I often find is the handlers that do the most complaining are the ones who do not hunt and have no clue what happens in a duck blind, field, or goose pit. I don't have a problem with non-hunter handlers running but their idea of what a test should be is often not at all similar to a day in the field. 

News flash, it is called a hunt test because we are testing dogs ability to hunt and handle hunting scenarios.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

paul young said:


> " Do you really think the difference in distance is going to be the deciding factor in weather your dog can run a mark or not? Here is a clue, dogs don't understand measurement, and I would bet my left testicle that they care far less about the distance than you."
> 
> Then why bother?-Paul


Paul your ..... That statement simply means you dog is not going to go to the line and give you a no go because the mark is 150 instead do 75. That statement has everything to do with a dogs ability to go a distance and nothing to do with quality of the mark. I think I was pretty clear in my previous post that distance does not make a mark.

you have run more than your share of dogs. Ever have one go to the line and no go on you because the mark was 150 instead of 125? Please try to keep things in context rather than nitpicking over you taking something out of context.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Matt I think I did answer the question, but I will try again. I don't think it is because anything is broken. Nowhere does the change say that you must use the increased distance. My take is it has everything to do with the limited grounds available to many clubs. I have judged in several locations that while beautiful grounds, they lack cover or factors and make it difficult to set good quality marks. Some times on grounds that lack features it MAY be necessary to use some distance to get a good mark. I am not necessarily suggesting that all the makes in a situation like this need to be long, but I have looked at numerous places where due to the golf course like grounds you may be able to work out two marks with good placement at less than 100 yards, but to get a third good mark (instead to a mark just for the sake of making a triple) you need to extend the distance. I think this is even more true in the case of water marks. It is difficult to set a good solid master test on a pond that is nothing more than a hole with pasture surrounding it. To throw a couple marks in the wide open water is not much of a test for a master dog, but to extend the distance out and make the mark across the open pond and onto the land a fair distance beyond the water will tell you something about a dogs perseverance.
> ideally you have excellent grounds and with good grounds I can set a test with nothing over 75 yards that will be as difficult or much more difficult then anything you can set up at 150 in a wide open field.
> The big issue is grounds, grounds, grounds. Some areas are lucky and have an abundance of them. Others struggle to find enough to hold a test. This just gives judges another tool to make a good solid test of a dogs marking ability.
> I also doubt you will see many using that much distance just because they can. Time is a huge factor when setting up a test and I personally don't want to watch a dog take 15 minutes to run each test and god knows I don't want to watch 50 dogs swim for an hour and a half.
> I think this is much to do about nothing.



One of my earliest posts saiid:

"Barring very weak test grounds, there is no reason to have 150 yard marks for hunting dogs."

Even with VERY limited test grounds here in New England, there are very few places that I have seen that would require distance to improve bird placement. I don't know what it is like in your neck of the woods, but I see this as a pretty rare situation. I think that lots of judges will use all 150 yards because they can. Maybe they don't understand good bird placement. Or maybe they have "0" hunting experience. Or maybe they train with a pro and see them running LOOOOONG marks in training. Or maybe they just do it because they think they should. 150 yard marks will become unnecessarily common.

This is a "solution" to a non-existent problem.

Leave the weekend tests alone!!!


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Paul your ..... That statement simply means you dog is not going to go to the line and give you a no go because the mark is 150 instead do 75. That statement has everything to do with a dogs ability to go a distance and nothing to do with quality of the mark. I think I was pretty clear in my previous post that distance does not make a mark.
> 
> you have run more than your share of dogs. Ever have one go to the line and no go on you because the mark was 150 instead of 125? Please try to keep things in context rather than nitpicking over you taking something out of context.


Sorry- I misunderstood the point you were making.-Paul


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I don't run many hunt test anymore, I run mostly Field Trials, so I have no issue with longer marks, but I really don't see the point of it as far as testing hunting dogs. That said, a wing tipped bird that sails off and fall more than 150 yards away is fairly common where I hunt, I still don't see a need to test for it though. I stand by my long time assertion, that a MH titled or QAA retriever will make a very high level hunting dog. Those are the kind of dogs that make duck hunters who haven't seen that level before go, wow! It might just be me, but I feel the mission creep of MH standards over the last two decades is unneccesary. My first dog earned his MH title in 1996 and if he were alive today I would proudly hunt him with anybody anywhere. I really don't see why a MH title should be harder to attain today than it was back then.

John


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

There was a female judge in Central Florida who wasn't getting any assignments. She heard a rumor that it was because she had NEVER hunted. Instead of complaining, she sought a local club member to take her hunting and teach her how to hunt over decoys etc. She did that for 2-3 yrs and told me that experience was 10 times better than any judges test, seminar etc she had been to.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

I have hunted flooded timber far more than open areas ..No 150 yard fall outs there that we could see....People need dogs to do different things in different parts of the country....The list of changes to the game didn't mention the use of bird being shot as the dog is going out to make a retrieve ....a mark in route so to speak..The last one of them I ran the judge told be it happened on the last hunt he went on ....all my dogs sat when the gun went off to watch it fall..I had to cast to pick up the fall of my choice....A real hunting set up but can't be used because judges and handlers get all hung up on how to judge it ...dog switched in route, use one of your allowed handles,dog pops....I believe we try to make this judging too hard ....Steve S


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

steve schreiner said:


> I have hunted flooded timber far more than open areas ..No 150 yard fall outs there that we could see....People need dogs to do different things in different parts of the country....The list of changes to the game didn't mention the use of bird being shot as the dog is going out to make a retrieve ....a mark in route so to speak..The last one of them I ran the judge told be it happened on the last hunt he went on ....all my dogs sat when the gun went off to watch it fall..I had to cast to pick up the fall of my choice....A real hunting set up but can't be used because judges and handlers get all hung up on how to judge it ...dog switched in route, use one of your allowed handles,dog pops....I believe we try to make this judging too hard ....Steve S


Do the rules even support a mark on the way to a mark?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Do the rules even support a mark on the way to a mark?


Nope- in fact it is specifically prohibited. AKA the Tommy Fairchild rule.

The rule changes nothing. Judges have always routinely extend the distance to include a factor as desired and I see that practice continuing. Still becomes a time management decision.

Much ado about nothing in my opinion. Better to spend the time and energy getting rid of the other stupid stuff.

Sameosamo regards

Bubba


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> Do the rules even support a mark on the way to a mark?


To start with I was talking about the post that mentioned all the different things that have change ,like the category of nose....There has been a specific rule put in place to prohibit the bird ( mark ) I mentioned ...A typical hunting situation but no longer allowed ....Just like the category of nose...dropped because of judging I believe...All changes are neither good or bad , they come in a mixed bag......Steve S


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Understood.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Nope- in fact it is specifically prohibited. AKA the Tommy Fairchild rule.
> 
> The rule changes nothing. Judges have always routinely extend the distance to include a factor as desired and I see that practice continuing. Still becomes a time management decision.
> 
> ...


I agree. More important to know where you parked the beer truck...

/Paul


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

BlaineT said:


> i wouldn't say NO reason...
> 
> hunt rice fields in Southeast Missouri on a real cold windy day with 30 mph cross winds and shoot a fast flying canvas back and watch him sail 200 yards across the field over a levee. happens all the time in hunting situations in the open fields.


Improve your shooting.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> Hopefully judges will use good common sense, factors and bird placement, rather than distance to create the required challenges for Master level dogs. I say this not because I'm in any way afraid of a 175 yard mark (cause that's what we're going to get), but rather because despite it being allowed, it's not a very realistic hunting scenario.


Say you're the judge, Darrin. You don't have to set up the 150 or 175 yd. mark.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> There was a female judge in Central Florida who wasn't getting any assignments. She heard a rumor that it was because she had NEVER hunted. Instead of complaining, she sought a local club member to take her hunting and teach her how to hunt over decoys etc. She did that for 2-3 yrs and told me that experience was 10 times better than any judges test, seminar etc she had been to.


Nice post and a very revealing statement by a judge.


----------



## hughest (Oct 5, 2007)

Bubba said:


> Nope- in fact it is specifically prohibited. AKA the Tommy Fairchild rule.



I know it's completely off topic, but seeing as how I'm on the board of the MTARC with Tommy, I just had to laugh a little at this. He is quite the character.


----------



## bmountain (Jun 22, 2009)

Why can't the hunt tests remain venues for testing hunting skills, rather than creeping into into field trial set-ups? "Not normally exceed 150 yards" will soon be 175-200 yards "because of the available grounds".


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

bmountain said:


> Why can't the hunt tests remain venues for testing hunting skills, rather than creeping into into field trial set-ups? "Not normally exceed 150 yards" will soon be 175-200 yards "because of the available grounds".


I agree...and...

I know...I know...multiple comments saying same old, same old and train more etc...but the more they screw around with the rules, the more some judges will take advantage of them. It happens, in all venues, not just HTs. Sounds like the FT world has its problems too. Leave well enough alone. With a busy work schedule some don't have the choice to avoid judges that do crazy stuff. 

Just got the letter from AKC. Its a done deal. Can't wait to see what the next four weekends are going to be like. Ah well. The dogs will have fun picking up birds and I'll enjoy my friends and the atmosphere. Wish I knew about this I. Time to comment. 

Back to my original question, an addition....for those club presidents that heard from the committee, did you get time to respond? I will find out from my area rep what commenting procedure is. 

Sue Puff


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Quote Originally Posted by BlaineT View Post
i wouldn't say NO reason...

hunt rice fields in Southeast Missouri on a real cold windy day with 30 mph cross winds and shoot a fast flying canvas back and watch him sail 200 yards across the field over a levee. happens all the time in hunting situations in the open fields.
Improve your shooting. 

I have ..That is why I don't see sailers...I trained a dog for a man that has some of those fields you are probably talking about ...He goes the distance...Picked up over 100 snow geese in one day too....tired puppy...Steve S


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

badbullgator said:


> Matt I think I did answer the question, but I will try again. I don't think it is because anything is broken. Nowhere does the change say that you must use the increased distance. My take is it has everything to do with the limited grounds available to many clubs. I have judged in several locations that while beautiful grounds, they lack cover or factors and make it difficult to set good quality marks. Some times on grounds that lack features it MAY be necessary to use some distance to get a good mark. I am not necessarily suggesting that all the makes in a situation like this need to be long, but I have looked at numerous places where due to the golf course like grounds you may be able to work out two marks with good placement at less than 100 yards, but to get a third good mark (instead to a mark just for the sake of making a triple) you need to extend the distance. I think this is even more true in the case of water marks. It is difficult to set a good solid master test on a pond that is nothing more than a hole with pasture surrounding it. To throw a couple marks in the wide open water is not much of a test for a master dog, but to extend the distance out and make the mark across the open pond and onto the land a fair distance beyond the water will tell you something about a dogs perseverance.
> ideally you have excellent grounds and with good grounds I can set a test with nothing over 75 yards that will be as difficult or much more difficult then anything you can set up at 150 in a wide open field.
> The big issue is grounds, grounds, grounds. Some areas are lucky and have an abundance of them. Others struggle to find enough to hold a test. This just gives judges another tool to make a good solid test of a dogs marking ability.
> I also doubt you will see many using that much distance just because they can. Time is a huge factor when setting up a test and I personally don't want to watch a dog take 15 minutes to run each test and god knows I don't want to watch 50 dogs swim for an hour and a half.
> I think this is much to do about nothing.


I agree that distance can be used to make a mark harder, and might be the only thing available given the grounds to make the mark harder, but should that be used? If the test is truly a HUNT Test, the grounds need to be appropriate for that. If you don't have grounds that allow you to emulate a hunting situation, just using distance to make it harder doesn't seem to be a very good practice. You can't test hunting dogs very well if the grounds are nothing like what would be seen in the field.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Jerry Beil said:


> I agree that distance can be used to make a mark harder, and might be the only thing available given the grounds to make the mark harder, but should that be used? If the test is truly a HUNT Test, the grounds need to be appropriate for that. If you don't have grounds that allow you to emulate a hunting situation, just using distance to make it harder doesn't seem to be a very good practice. You can't test hunting dogs very well if the grounds are nothing like what would be seen in the field.


so you are suggesting that many clubs simply don't hold test because you may have to use a long mark in a series?
i have run and judged all over the southern USA, and I can tell you grounds are one of if not he most difficult thing for a club to find. I would guess that to run 2 master flights a junior and senior you would need 400 acres minimum. That is a significant amount. 
Lets say your in Florida where most of the land is cattle pasture. Most of it is pretty much cleared with patches of cover. We don't hunt pastures much. Don't have pheasant or geese, so we don't hunt much In a field anyway. Doves are pretty much it for field hunting. If you are really worried that it is not a true hunting situation, why bother having a land test in Florida in he first place unless your going to get doves instead of ducks and pretend to have a dove hunt. 
Now what about water in Florida? Well most of us only hunt running water and wait until it is good and cold before thinking about taking our dogs along because we have two kind of water, water that has gators and water that will have gators. It is exceedingly difficult to find ANY water to train in or test in. Most of he clubs here are lucky enough to have water that for some reason or another remain free of gators, but we have what we have and work with it. Some in the state is very good and others are not much more than big open ponds.
i think we have all at this point gotten past the fact that no test will ever be a real hunt. We throw ducks in field even though we dont hunt that way here. We do it because we are testing hunting retrievers and some of those, including mine, will go to Arkansas or Oklahoma or Canada and will hunt fields every year. Those same dogs will also hunt timber holes, pit blinds, layout blinds, big water, small water... Just because grounds are not what you might normally hunt there is no reason you cannot test a dogs ability in made up situations. Some times, maybe not often, distance is all you have. Is it realistic? Not really but shooting dead ducks out of a slingshot with a popper gun going off at the bird station is not realistic either. Hell for that matter I have never been in a hunting situation that has anything like a flyer station. I shoot most of my birds with my dog beside me and they are not shot by multiple gunners 75 yards away. 
Just a game about picking up chickens......or not.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

gdgnyc said:


> Improve your shooting.


Easier to improve the dog. Time marches on, eyes and reflexes grow older. 
I promise I shoot as well as you or anyone else. It happens and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or doesn't hunt much.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

steve schreiner said:


> Improve your shooting.
> 
> I have ..That is why I don't see sailers...I trained a dog for a man that has some of those fields you are probably talking about ...He goes the distance...Picked up over 100 snow geese in one day too....tired puppy...Steve S


i dont have time to improve my shooting. too busy making sure my dog can pick up long marks...


----------



## Pigpen (Nov 23, 2008)

BlaineT said:


> i dont have time to improve my shooting. too busy making sure my dog can pick up long marks...


Oh my.....


Sometimes, you are not alone in a duck blind. Crazy thing about other people hunting with you is they, on occasion, shoot too.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Pigpen said:


> Oh my.....
> 
> 
> Sometimes, you are not alone in a duck blind. Crazy thing about other people hunting with you is they, on occasion, shoot too.


well thats too reasonable of an explanation but some people dont get that....

on another note. we both better make sure our dogs can pick up real long sailing birds if you shoot like you did last time in the dove field.


----------



## Joe Dutro (Nov 20, 2007)

I don't see a problem with the distance change. For those of you who don't hunt a 200+ yard retrieve is not abnormal around here. A bird sails off and you send the dog. Or even better yet you send the dog on a blind where you saw a bird go over the hill, 200+ yards (no idea where the bird is) and then give th dog a big back over the hill. In a few minutes the dog come back over the hill carrying a goose. One of my best memories with Dora. Yea thats hunting. 

That said if every mark is over 100+ of a triple then I say go to FT's. But in hunting its not abnormal to see a 150 yard mark.


----------



## Carol Cassity (Aug 19, 2004)

I debated on chiming in, but I can’t help myself. As has been stated numerous times: “we are not hunting, we are testing”. Yes, in hunting the bird can sail – but the dog sees the bird sailing and can follow the track for the mark. You can send the dog as soon as you can tell it is a cripple and they can track the fall if you want. If you don’t want to send right away – it is a blind that you can handle on without penalty. Why? Because you ARE hunting and not testing. The bird did not just start out at 150 plus yards from the dog, fly twenty yards against a dark tree line and expire. Personally I have no problem with long marks – IF THE DOG CAN SEE THEM. I have an issue with any mark that is not clearly visible, regardless of distance. Ah, but that is another thread.


----------



## Mark Teahan (Apr 1, 2012)

Very well said carol.
+1
I totally agree.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Really, it's to late to bitch about it, it's a done deal.

Did anyone know it was coming? I don't follow hunt tests to much anymore, but it took me by surprise.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Howard N said:


> Really, it's to late to bitch about it, it's a done deal.
> 
> Did anyone know it was coming? I don't follow hunt tests to much anymore, but it took me by surprise.


http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...e-Changes-RHTAC&highlight=AKC+distance+change

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...ed-rule-changes&highlight=AKC+distance+change


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

To the "does it happen in hunting" let me tell you about my 7 yr olds very first hunt when he was a pup. We're hunting a rice field, 5 of us in the blind. I'm on the left and Outlaw is on a stand just off my left shoulder. Shooting time hits and 2 woodies buzz he dekes and go over the right side of the blind. The far right hunter shoots both as they are climbing over the tree line behind us. Both sail into he next field. Dog was looking out front never saw anything. Ran 2 nice 100+ yd blinds to introduce him to hunting with slow people shooting. Not 10 minutes later a shoveler drake come bombing in and the 8 yr old in the middle of the blind shoots him with his .410 single shot and the bird climbs to about 50 ft above the water and heads out across the field. At the far side of the field all of the sudden the bird falls.(close to 1/4 mile, looked like a sparrow when it fell) He marked it and took off when I called his name. He gets out about 100 yds and a group of pintails fly over low so I blew the whistle and stopped him. We worked he pintail group through 3 circles but couldn't get them to commit. Looked out and he was still sitting waiting. Gave him a back cast and 5 minutes later he delivered a nice first kill for the kid. We ended up having a nice hunt but this scenario that played out in the first minutes of his hunting career is why I trained him the way I did.

I like training long, in fact have one guy that doesn't want to train too much with me because I throw much harder marks than he sees in hrc. However, in all honesty what does 25 yds add? I've worked with tons of judges and set up a bunch of stupidly hard test and not once did I ever have a judge say this mark would be better if it were 25 yds further. If there's only one factor in a field that you've got to use move up. Next spring I'll bet you hear more than once of marks being 200 yds in master.

Standards that were set to determine a master should be the same this year as they were 5,10,15 years ago. You're not trying to get a winner just testing a standard.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Distance means nothing without good bird placement.


Exactly! IMO good bird placement is an art...simply adding distance (which is just another factor); should be of limited consequence if good bird placement is first considered.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

BrettG said:


> Standards that were set to determine a master should be the same this year as they were 5,10,15 years ago. You're not trying to get a winner just testing a standard.


Amen, my feelings exactly...


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

badbullgator said:


> so you are suggesting that many clubs simply don't hold test because you may have to use a long mark in a series?
> i have run and judged all over the southern USA, and I can tell you grounds are one of if not he most difficult thing for a club to find. I would guess that to run 2 master flights a junior and senior you would need 400 acres minimum. That is a significant amount.
> Lets say your in Florida where most of the land is cattle pasture. Most of it is pretty much cleared with patches of cover. We don't hunt pastures much. Don't have pheasant or geese, so we don't hunt much In a field anyway. Doves are pretty much it for field hunting. If you are really worried that it is not a true hunting situation, why bother having a land test in Florida in he first place unless your going to get doves instead of ducks and pretend to have a dove hunt.
> Now what about water in Florida? Well most of us only hunt running water and wait until it is good and cold before thinking about taking our dogs along because we have two kind of water, water that has gators and water that will have gators. It is exceedingly difficult to find ANY water to train in or test in. Most of he clubs here are lucky enough to have water that for some reason or another remain free of gators, but we have what we have and work with it. Some in the state is very good and others are not much more than big open ponds.
> ...


Not exactly saying that. I'm saying that we shouldn't change the rules for a hunt test to allow the use of poor grounds. I don't think an occasional long mark is a bad thing, but if we make the norm at hunt tests 100+ yards, then even though we're TESTING not hunting, we're not TESTING the right things. In most hunting situations that I've seen, the vast majority of the marks are well under 100 yards. If the main factor available to make things challenging on a grounds is distance, then we probably shouldn't be having hunt tests on those grounds, not so much because of the distance but because you're really changing what you're testing. A titled hunt test dog should be able to handle kinds of retrieves that come up in an actual hunt. To me that means cover and factors other than distance should be the primary factors involved. To the extent we substitute factors that are less prevalent in a hunt, we get away from what we should be testing.

With the distance going to 150, I bet most of the master marks will end up being longer than they are now regardless of cover available. Judges will feel that they need to include a mark or two out to that distance not because they need to because of grounds, but because that's the proscribed distance in the rules.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

suepuff said:


> I didn't realize panties were required?!
> 
> Sue Puff


Oh man! PLEASE...somebody tell me they're required...PLEASE!!

What has always seemed crazy to me is the need of a rule restricting distance. Don't you wish there was rule prohibiting bad judges instead? 

Evan


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

You mean there are bad judges?


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Evan said:


> Oh man! PLEASE...somebody tell me they're required...PLEASE!!
> 
> What has always seemed crazy to me is the need of a rule restricting distance. Don't you wish there was rule prohibiting bad judges instead?
> 
> Evan


Thank you Evan, for finally seeing the attempt at humor in this thread! I was serious about my comments but thought we needed some humor! I too hope everyone is wearing their panties this weekend.....male or female!

Sue Puff


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

In my opinion the AKC Hunt Tests and thier senarios have long gone by the wayside. The AKC Hunt Tests at the Master level anyway are all about holding the standard to the highest training levels. The Pros in recent years have added to the training levels brought to the tests. In turn the amateur handlers who train thier own dogs have to subscribe to the level brought to the table or hunt tests. The distance level is a moot point in my opinion as the AKC Hunt Tests have become a sport. It is no longer about a days hunt no matter what the rules indicate. So one must have to train for it. 150 yards will become 200 yards etc. Like I have found judging (eight points FT and HT) one long swim (if you can stand to watch it) will get you all the answers you need.I might add one long mark with good placements will do the same thing and the well trained dogs will do it and Pass.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

suepuff said:


> Thank you Evan, for finally seeing the attempt at humor in this thread! I was serious about my comments but thought we needed some humor! I too hope everyone is wearing their panties this weekend.....male or female!
> 
> Sue Puff


Yes, Sue, if we can't have fun with this it's more trouble and expense that it's worth, isn't it?  

"I believe anyone who wants to wear a thong should have to go through an application process." ~ Bill Engval

Evan


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I have the official response which was sent to our club newsletter editor. I'll try to get it up tomorrow in its entirety.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I have the official response which was sent to our club newsletter editor. I'll try to get it up tomorrow in its entirety.


Somehow I'm sure you will...


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

JDogger said:


> Somehow I'm sure you will...


? Somehow you're sure I will what? Bill Teague replied with a nice letter explaining a few questions regarding the recent changes. Your response sounded sort of sarcastic? Just thought folks who were concerned or interested might like to read the official response we had when a question was brought up.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> ? Somehow you're sure I will what? Bill Teague replied with a nice letter explaining a few questions regarding the recent changes. Your response sounded sort of sarcastic? Just thought folks who were concerned or interested might like to read the official response we had when a question was brought up.


Thanks Paul, I would be interested in reading it. Something just dawned on me today. Would all MN clubs have received notification to comment? It seems no one really knows who was contacted by the RHTAC. I will be contacting my rep for some clarifications after I get done with the next three weekends of tests, but I thought I might be able to get some insight into how this is supposed to work, prior to that.

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. 

Sue Puff


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

"Would all MN clubs have received notification to comment? "


Whether a club is a member of the Master National club or not should have nothing to do with it. All clubs that put on licensed Hunt Tests should have been asked for comment. 

The Master National club is just another retriever club. People need to realize that .-Paul


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

John Robinson said:


> I don't run many hunt test anymore, I run mostly Field Trials, so I have no issue with longer marks, but I really don't see the point of it as far as testing hunting dogs. That said, a wing tipped bird that sails off and fall more than 150 yards away is fairly common where I hunt, I still don't see a need to test for it though. I stand by my long time assertion, that a MH titled or QAA retriever will make a very high level hunting dog. Those are the kind of dogs that make duck hunters who haven't seen that level before go, wow! It might just be me, but I feel the mission creep of MH standards over the last two decades is unneccesary. My first dog earned his MH title in 1996 and if he were alive today I would proudly hunt him with anybody anywhere. I really don't see why a MH title should be harder to attain today than it was back then.
> 
> John


Excellent Response John I must say I agree with your response as much and any this discussion


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Our newsletter editor sent a note just asking a few questions. Bill sent a very good response. My laptop is giving me heartburn this am so on the phone. Ill share the response via email if anyone wants to pm me. In a nutshell, the response stated the reason for additional length was due to area suffering from drought. The distances are not a recommendation. They are simply allowable if needed.


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

Drought Ha! Ha! I haven't had a bird go over 50yds hunting in so long. Granted we shoot only decoying birds and do not sky blast. The good news is it will be less of a strain on the dogs that get high as a kite putting them out their farther. My shotgun can't shoot 150 yards though. I am sure it has to do with folks that get way to excited about it. Should be fun though to see what some judges do. I have always felt hunt tests were judges on a curve for some reason. In some area's of the country their are alot of folks that run hunt test that wouldn't know what a morning of good duck hunting or goose shooting is.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

Unfortunately, we are getting further away from testing dogs in Hunting Situations which I believe was the intent of AKC Hunt Tests. It's getting tougher for a hunter with a good hunting dog to pass technical tests that are evolving today. We already encounter marks that are 150 yds. so I guess judges will push the 150 rule to 200 yds. An example of this is the walk-up rule. I ran about 4 tests this year and only one had the correct distance for a walk-up. 

Maybe it's time to check out other venues.

Tom


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Waterdogs said:


> I haven't had a bird go over 50yds hunting in so long. Granted we shoot only decoying birds and do not sky blast. The good news is it will be less of a strain on the dogs that get high as a kite putting them out their farther. My shotgun can't shoot 150 yards though.


Not the point, of course. But we've all heard that refrain. Hunters all across America - hunters of good conscience and shooting skill - have a bird sail now and then. The more geese you shoot, the more you'll see of it. But even _that_ is not the point.


Tom Lehr said:


> Unfortunately, we are getting further away from testing dogs in Hunting Situations which I believe was the intent of AKC Hunt Tests. It's getting tougher for a hunter with a good hunting dog to pass technical tests that are evolving today. We already encounter marks that are 150 yds. so I guess judges will push the 150 rule to 200 yds. An example of this is the walk-up rule. I ran about 4 tests this year and only one had the correct distance for a walk-up.
> 
> Maybe it's time to check out other venues.
> 
> Tom


Perhaps. Or maybe it's just time to improve your training. If you really believe you have a Master-*quality* dog, but that an extra 50 yards will cause him to fail in the field, you don't have a Master-*level* dog...yet! It's not the venue. It never has been. It's simply preparing your dog for a job that is, in reality, unpredictable.

"Just train the dog." ~ Rex Carr

Evan


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

Evan said:


> Not the point, of course. But we've all heard that refrain. Hunters all across America - hunters of good conscience and shooting skill - have a bird sail now and then. The more geese you shoot, the more you'll see of it. But even _that_ is not the point.Perhaps. Or maybe it's just time to improve your training. If you really believe you have a Master-*quality* dog, but that an extra 50 yards will cause him to fail in the field, you don't have a Master-*level* dog...yet! It's not the venue. It never has been. It's simply preparing your dog for a job that is, in reality, unpredictable.
> 
> "Just train the dog." ~ Rex Carr
> 
> Evan


Sure.. I get all of that... but where does it all end? We've heard that the rule change is because of drought, and this allows judges the flexibility to add some more distance. Well, we all know that "given the flexibility" that SOME judges are just going to use this new distance because they can even if it's not because of drought-impacted cover. So, if another 50 yds is indicative of a Master-level dog, then why not another 50... or 100? What is the limit?

I agree with John Robinson.... mission-creep of AKC Hunt Tests getting them closer and closer to Field Trials.


----------



## Tom Lehr (Sep 11, 2008)

Mike - You nailed it....

Evan- I routinely mix up the distances that I train my dogs. I just do not see the need to increase distance to test dogs in a hunting situations. I never said my dogs can't go another 50 yards or that I do not train for longer marks!!!


Tom


----------



## marion (Apr 18, 2008)

I feel like it is a move to push out the small amateur. Someone like me with one or two dogs, not a lot of money, not a lot of access to technical water and large areas, no machine to run out marks. The move is to limit the number of dogs that can pass and it is done by getting rid of the small guys. Field trials are a rich man' game. This moves Hunt tests in that direction.

The change was made with little effort to consult with the clubs on the ground. 

Sorry to be dismal but not only the change but the handling of it make it seem like a repeat of the changes that happened with Field trials even though there is already a the field trail venue for people who want it that way.

Marion Amidon


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

The Hunt Test Committee of every single club in the Nation can control their grounds and tests. If you don't want to see long marks, the Hunt Test Committee has absolute control over where the judges run, what direction etc. 

Local clubs still have absolute control. Get involved with your club. Volunteer to be on the Hunt Test Committee.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Mike Tome said:


> Sure.. I get all of that... but where does it all end? We've heard that the rule change is because of drought, and this allows judges the flexibility to add some more distance. Well, we all know that "given the flexibility" that SOME judges are just going to use this new distance because they can even if it's not because of drought-impacted cover. So, if another 50 yds is indicative of a Master-level dog, then why not another 50... or 100? *What is the limit?*
> 
> I agree with John Robinson.... mission-creep of AKC Hunt Tests getting them closer and closer to Field Trials.


Mike,

I don't know about the "drought" rationale. That sounds a bit weak, doesn't it? Droughts come and go. But that is still not the point as I see it. I never did see a purpose in distance limits, but rather more stringent requirements for judges to be educated. Yes, I know. The decades have gone by in trials, as well as tests, and judging continues to be a sticking point. But that should be the focus, not some mythical distance limit that makes the playing field level. It can't. 

The problem is judges who don't know what does what to dogs, and who operate more on the basis of their own fancies than on the directives of the rule books. If you really want to fix something in retriever field sports, find a way to educate the judges better. 

I think it's great that people give their time to judge. Nothing new about that. It's just that issues like this provide nothing more than a smoke screen, rather than anything close to a solution. Not just more seminars, although that's a component. But closer scrutiny and oversight. This will never be a perfect situation. But it can get better. Pretending that a hard barrier on distance will solve anything is not a solution IMO. What made distance an issue was placing a limit on it to start with.
Evan


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

I don't necessarily mind the distant change, but I thought the wording could have been improved, new rules state

"1. Distance in Master Tests. Test distances in the Master level test
should not normally exceed 150 yards. (Previously 100 yards.)"

Why not say, "Should not exceed 150 yards" vice "Should not normally"...


How far is "not normally"?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I think it would be interesting if judges were assigned to judge hunt tests at random and the clubs did not have choice to dictate over who was assigned to what test. Also, no choice in the pairing of judges. In some ways, this is like allowing a football team to chose which referee runs the game? 

my wacko-thought of the day...


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

marion said:


> I feel like it is a move to push out the small amateur. Someone like me with one or two dogs, not a lot of money, not a lot of access to technical water and large areas, no machine to run out marks. The move is to limit the number of dogs that can pass and it is done by getting rid of the small guys. Field trials are a rich man' game. This moves Hunt tests in that direction.
> 
> The change was made with little effort to consult with the clubs on the ground.
> 
> ...


My point exactly!

Sue Puff


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

As I posted earlier, bring on the distance. An issue I see is the constant use of training set ups used as tests. Teaching and proofing set ups used by pros are working their way into the testing framework. Access to technical water is almost a prerequisite to obtaining a MH. If adding distance will mitigate the technical aspect of the game then I am all for it.

The same complaints that spawned the hunt test movement are now directed at the upper level tests. Fewer and fewer true owner/trainer/handlers are around. This was not meant to be a spectator sport.

I very much appreciate every judge that gives up their weekend to sit in a chair with little reward except watching good dog work. Without judges that give of their time, these games cannot continue. Have we evolved to the point that a dedicated hunter training a good dog on lakes and round stock ponds is relegated to owning a JH?


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

> If adding distance will mitigate the technical aspect of the game then I am all for it.


I think that is a very big and wrong assumption!


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

dixidawg said:


> I think that is a very big and wrong assumption!


I have been wrong & wrong headed so many times in my short time training dogs that is very possible. I would hope that with the addition of distance some of the super tight areas of fall and technical tests would no longer be necessary.

I have listened to many complaints from the gallery. Never heard any complaints about distance.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I think it would be interesting if judges were assigned to judge hunt tests at random and the clubs did not have choice to dictate over who was assigned to what test. Also, no choice in the pairing of judges. In some ways, this is like allowing a football team to chose which referee runs the game?
> 
> my wacko-thought of the day...


As a judge I would agree to do that if the judges were not assigned until AFTER the closing of the test!

If I am going to spend the weekend watching dogs, it's going to be with someone I like.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I think it would be interesting if judges were assigned to judge hunt tests at random and the clubs did not have choice to dictate over who was assigned to what test. Also, no choice in the pairing of judges. In some ways, this is like allowing a football team to chose which referee runs the game?
> 
> my wacko-thought of the day...


GOOD DOG MAN, have you never been on a hunt-test committee that had to deal with judges who don't get on and bicker-bicker all day? I have it's terrible, setup take 3 times longer to setup, sometimes you got to setup something one told you just to take it down, then we got to call in committee members to referee. The day takes forever, Everyone suffers. Particularly the dogs-handlers who have to wait 2-3 hr. after dark while judges have it out in a car on who should pass and who should not, Each refusing to compromise, thus only 4-5 dogs getting passed out of 15 that went to the last series, most who it might've gone one way or the other, but you can't pass a dog with only one judges signature. Then you get to deal with upset handlers (NEVER AGAIN)


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

fishduck said:


> I have been wrong & wrong headed so many times in my short time training dogs that is very possible. I would hope that with the addition of distance some of the super tight areas of fall and technical tests would no longer be necessary.
> 
> I have listened to many complaints from the gallery. Never heard any complaints about distance.


Mark, I wish I could say that you are correct, however, I bet we will still see tight marks, overlapping AOF, only at a longer distance. We both run a lot of HT and see judges who no longer train their own dogs or train with pro occasionally. They don't know and can't predict what the factors will be on test day and then we can have bad tests. The judges I like to run under the best are the ones who are good trainers and still train their own dogs. When training with a pro, some see a set up and file away for next judging assignment no matter if the grounds or wind or lighting allow it to be a good test or not. 
Only solution for is to train to a much higher level than the standard and hope it is your lucky weekend. 
I believe we are headed to FT's without placements unless the wording is changed from "should" to "shall" and is reenforced by the committee.
JMHO
MP


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> GOOD DOG MAN, have you never been on a hunt-test committee that had to deal with judges who don't get on and bicker-bicker all day? I have it's terrible, setup take 3 times longer to setup, sometimes you got to setup something one told you just to take it down, then we got to call in committee members to referee. The day takes forever, Everyone suffers. Particularly the dogs-handlers who have to wait 2-3 hr. after dark while judges have it out in a car on who should pass and who should not, Each refusing to compromise, thus only 4-5 dogs getting passed out of 15 that went to the last series, who it might've gone one way or the other. Then you get to deal with upset handlers (NEVER AGAIN)


Just wish there was a better method of getting judges on the same page without having it be a requirement to have them be "Buddies" and see "Eye to Eye" on their differences to get a test set up and judged efficiently to get the day completed in a manner which is fair and follows the "standards".


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Amen to that, Mike. What will the weekend trainers do......go to another venue.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Adequate grounds can be a big problem. I think a bigger problem is judges who don't hunt.

It has been a while since I've run a test, even longer since I have been on a hunt test committe. The tests I remember as being the most enjoyable did not have long marks or blinds. Longer marks and blinds were usually used to incorporate some concept or feature a judge wanted to use. 

In the end, it is up to the clubs and committees to chose judges, grounds and dates. Committees should have at least one person who is not afraid the let judges know when inappropriate tests are being set up.

Tom


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I feel like it is a move to push out the small amateur. Someone like me with one or two dogs, not a lot of money, not a lot of access to technical water and large areas, no machine to run out marks. The move is to limit the number of dogs that can pass and it is done by getting rid of the small guys. Field trials are a rich man' game. This moves Hunt tests in that direction.
> 
> The change was made with little effort to consult with the clubs on the ground.
> 
> ...


Its the amatuer who runs the show. Why would an amatuer push out an amatuer? The only reason I can think of is" big fish in little pond syndrome". 

but,,, I think its just how things evolve over time. Hunt tests never really resembled hunting anyway. People just can't leave well enough alone. Its the nature of the beast. 

Pete


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Good post.

I have yet to run my first test, but even I have trained enough to know that you can either use factors/bird placement or distance to create a test. Some grounds don't have many factors or offer good bird placement, so the only thing left is distance.

Put another way, I heard a comment from a fellow who judges some hunt tests on this very issue. Mostly to the effect that this change would eliminate the need, on some grounds, to set up overwhelmingly technical stuff to avoid just throwing an around the horn triple. So there's at least one person who saw the new distance allowance as potentially taking some of the technical stuff out of the game. 



fishduck said:


> As I posted earlier, bring on the distance. An issue I see is the constant use of training set ups used as tests. Teaching and proofing set ups used by pros are working their way into the testing framework. Access to technical water is almost a prerequisite to obtaining a MH. If adding distance will mitigate the technical aspect of the game then I am all for it.
> 
> The same complaints that spawned the hunt test movement are now directed at the upper level tests. Fewer and fewer true owner/trainer/handlers are around. This was not meant to be a spectator sport.
> 
> I very much appreciate every judge that gives up their weekend to sit in a chair with little reward except watching good dog work. Without judges that give of their time, these games cannot continue. Have we evolved to the point that a dedicated hunter training a good dog on lakes and round stock ponds is relegated to owning a JH?


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Evan said: "What made distance an issue was placing a limit on it to start with." But distance is raised as an issue at several points in the regulations. There are multiple references to "true hunting situations" and an implicit reference to distance on page 33: "All birds should be within gun range so the Judges will be able to see and evaluate the dog under normal hunting conditions." I expect that the reference to a "normal" 100 yard limit was in support of the many references to "natural" and "true" hunting conditions and the reference to "gun range." 
Yes an occaisional bird will sail longer distances. My pup executed a 1/4+ mile retrieve when the wounded bird got caught in the river current and floated quickly downstream. But that it happened on a hunt does not necessarily make for a good and reasonable test scenario. 
I agree with those who call for engagement by the HT committee on test setups. Tests that are set up on an east-west axis, or have blinds with dogs out of sight for a considerable distance or otherwise go against the rules and spirit of the regs should be stopped by the HT committee, before the test dog runs. 

Having said all that a 150 yard blind does not bother me. But bird thrown against a dark tree line, 150yds away from a well hidden blind will not allow the dog to see the mark nor allow the judge to evaluate the dog's marking ability.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Just wish there was a better method of getting judges on the same page without having it be a requirement to have them be "Buddies" and see "Eye to Eye" on their differences to get a test set up and judged efficiently to get the day completed in a manner which is fair and follows the "standards".


I don't know if your wish will ever come true.

I don't have to be "buddies" with my co judge, but hopefully, we will look at things the same way and have the same general philosophy on the "standards". It's about so much more than just setting up a test and judging it.


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

The live flier or memory bird in sundays finished test seemed to be further than 100 yards, it might have seemed further due to the fact that I was laying in a layout blind. Great test and lots of fun!

This is pertaining to Southern California Prado Basin's HRC test last weekend.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

A team said:


> The live flier or memory bird in sundays finished test seemed to be further than 100 yards, it might have seemed further due to the fact that I was laying in a layout blind. Great test and lots of fun!
> 
> This is pertaining to Southern California Prado Basin's HRC test last weekend.



I thought they only handed out buckets to sit on at HRC tests?


----------



## JimB (Aug 31, 2012)

The areas that I hunt will usually have the birds fall within 100 yards. If it is longer than that, the dog can track the gliding bird all the way to the ground before being sent or be sent while it is gliding down to minimize the distance (not permissable under HT rules I believe). 

However, someone who normally hunts ponds may not own a layout blind and be invited to a field hunt a few times a year. This handler may have to hide in a tree line and do pass shooting while the people in the layouts are shooting decoying birds. Having the dog with you in the tree line allows them to mark every bird shot, but from a distance. If there is a bird shot from the layouts that glides 100 yards and you are in a tree line 100 yards away from the area of the shot, your dog now has a 200 yard mark. Having a dog that can handle this is truly a MH level dog...especially if there are some terrain/cover changes involved. 

Any birds that land within 20-30 yards of the layouts can be picked up by the gunners and the dog has to honor...only getting to retrieve the longer birds. 

As much as I believe in the shorter, well placed marks, there is a need to be able to mark and retrieve longer birds while on a real hunt. I just hope that distance is used properly in test setups.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

When I filled my truck up last week it said my range was 450 miles. Just because I could drive that far common sense tells me to fill up earlier. 

There might be a situation where the increased distance would help me put on a better test. Hopefully with good grounds this will be a rare instance.

What I think will really happen is that the poor judges will use it to hang themselves.

Scared? No. Does it change the game? Yes. 

I'm sure this is all about the MN. Not because it helps create a more realistic hunting scenario.


----------



## Wyldfire (Sep 24, 2003)

I don't understand the logic of the Master National causing the increase of distance. The Master National increases entries in the weekend tests due to dogs staying in the game after receiving their title. Larger entries causes judges to use shorter and tighter marks due to time restraints. People on this very forum complained that this years Master National series were to big and long because of the number of entries. So which way is it?


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

They increased the distance by 50%. Although distance by itself is not much of a factor, distance will increase the difficulty of most every factor in the field. Therefore, the difficulty of most concepts will increase by increasing the distance of the marks. Tougher tests equals smaller amount of qualifiers.


----------



## Wyldfire (Sep 24, 2003)

Jason Brion said:


> They increased the distance by 50%. Although distance by itself is not much of a factor, distance will increase the difficulty of most every factor in the field. Therefore, the difficulty of most concepts will increase by increasing the distance of the marks. Tougher tests equals smaller amount of qualifiers.


All true but going bigger takes more time. If the Master National causes larger entries doesn't it in turn cause shorter marks. Time is not an issue in a 10-20 dog trial. It can be in a 60 dog entry. Take the Master National out of the pictures entries drop. Judges then can do bigger marks, more blinds ect. I think many clubs would lose money and cease to exist if the National went away. We all would have less events to chose from.


----------

