should each test be harder as you go?

[Juli H]

when setting up a hunt test... Is it fair to make each test more difficult than the previous one? Or should each test be 'just the right challenge' for the level of dog being tested?

Juli

[subroc]

are you a judge setting up a test for judgement or are you setting up a training test to evaluate the dog?

If the former, set up tests that evaluate the dogs fairly.

If the latter, challenge the dogs to the limits of the rules with the hope they will have been exposed to "everything."

[Kristie Wilder]

no, although it might end up that way sometimes. Just use the grounds you're given to set up tests that allow you to judge which dogs are "average or better" master dogs based on what an average or better master dog is supposed to be.

-K

[Juli H]

for a hunt test (not a training day)....

"Challenge the dogs within the limits of the rules..... "

so do you start out relatively easy and straight forward and go to technical and very challenging? Or, do you just stay moderately difficult? (within the parameters of the rules and expectations)

Sometimes I get the feeling (from what people write here) that it is not uncommon for each test to be a little more difficult than the preceding one...

Juli

[ErinsEdge]

My pet peeve is when they set up a ball-buster in the first series with everything but the kitchen sink and by the last series, usually on the water, it's a gimme because they don't want to lose any more dogs. Why not set up a good marking test in the first series and see if dogs can mark, and save the poison birds under the arc for a later test.

[brandywinelabs]

no, although it might end up that way sometimes. Just use the grounds you're given to set up tests that allow you to judge which dogs are "average or better" master dogs based on what an average or better master dog is supposed to be.

-K

Kristie,
I pretty much agree with you. In MH I try to consider the fact that probably 60% of the dogs entered probably have their MH title. There is always a co-judge. These tests are really for those trying to get their titles. If every dog that has their title passes so be it. A few will have their bad days.

[Kristie Wilder]

My pet peeve is when they set up a ball-buster in the first series with everything but the kitchen sink and by the last series, usually on the water, it's a gimme because they don't want to lose any more dogs. Why not set up a good marking test in the first series and see if dogs can mark, and save the poison birds under the arc for a later test.

I think that's a good point. I hate that too, Terrie. I PREFER to see a nice, straightforward, but challenging first series that doesn't take all day... Land series first. Get the honor out of the way while you have maximum number of dogs...

[Miriam Wade]

are you a judge setting up a test for judgement or are you setting up a training test to evaluate the dog?

If the former, set up tests that evaluate the dogs fairly.

If the latter, challenge the dogs to the limits of the rules with the hope they will have been exposed to "everything."

In a FT you're looking for a winner & the best dogs to follow, so -within the rules-it's expected to see the ante upped with each series.

In a HT-since virtually every dog could come away with a ribbon-why would you try and set up elimination tests?!? Set up challenging scenarios that test the dogs for the level they are running and let the dogs eliminate themselves.

Short answer-No-I don't see the point in upping the ante with every series. Dogs can either run Master level marks and blinds or they can't on that particular day, but it's your job as a judge to set up fair, challenging tests and judge them fairly.

M

[Uncle Bill]

In a FT you're looking for a winner & the best dogs to follow, so -within the rules-it's expected to see the ante upped with each series.

In a HT-since virtually every dog could come away with a ribbon-why would you try and set up elimination tests?!? Set up challenging scenarios that test the dogs for the level they are running and let the dogs eliminate themselves.

Short answer-No-I don't see the point in upping the ante with every series. Dogs can either run Master level marks and blinds or they can't on that particular day, but it's your job as a judge to set up fair, challenging tests and judge them fairly.

M

You can judge for me anytime, Lady.


UB

[brandywinelabs]

In a FT you're looking for a winner & the best dogs to follow, so -within the rules-it's expected to see the ante upped with each series.

In a HT-since virtually every dog could come away with a ribbon-why would you try and set up elimination tests?!? Set up challenging scenarios that test the dogs for the level they are running and let the dogs eliminate themselves.

Short answer-No-I don't see the point in upping the ante with every series. Dogs can either run Master level marks and blinds or they can't on that particular day, but it's your job as a judge to set up fair, challenging tests and judge them fairly.

M

As Jay Leno would say, "Exactly".