RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Hunt test distance change for master

27K views 122 replies 59 participants last post by  Wyldfire 
#1 ·
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
 
See less See more
#3 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#9 ·
Worry not about the judges who must use distance as a challenge but, those who use concept as a factor.
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
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.
 
#21 · (Edited)
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:D. 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.
 
#22 ·
Distance means nothing without good bird placement.
 
#25 · (Edited)
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.
 
#27 ·
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.
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#32 ·
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
 
#31 ·
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.
 
#33 · (Edited)
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
 
#34 ·
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?! :p

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. :D Or maybe we're hunting with some type of automatic weapon? I don't know enough about that subject to say! :D

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

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

Sue Puff
 
#37 ·
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?
 
#40 · (Edited)
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.
 
#41 ·
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.
 
#42 ·
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.
 
#45 ·
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.
 
#44 ·
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
 
#47 ·
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.
 
#46 ·
" 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
 
#48 ·
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.
 
#51 ·
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
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top