[captainjack]

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

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

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

 

[DarrinGreene]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[captainjack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[22899]

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent!!!

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

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

 

[22899]

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

Excellent again!!

 

[22899]

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

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

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

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

 

[captainjack]

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

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

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

 

[22899]

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

From the rules!!!

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DarrinGreene]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jhnnythndr]

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

 

[fishduck]

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

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

 

[John Robinson]

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

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

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

 

[captainjack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jim Danis]

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

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

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

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

 

[DarrinGreene]

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

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

I get what you're saying about faults also.

 

[DarrinGreene]

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

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

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

 

[John Robinson]

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

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

 

[chesaka]

I run hunt tests to get the title.

 

[wojo]

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

 

[Rick Hall]

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

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

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