[Guest]

I don't know John or his dogs.

John doesn't have to put down HT to try to make himself look better. If he thinks qual judges are stupid and put on dumb tests, just say it. Why all the "Hunt Testy" BS?

I'd probably like his dogs, it's the attitude that smells.

You are SO lucky he is a gentleman. I can guarantee you that John has nothing but the best of intentions for anyone who plays the dog games, no matter what flavor.

As he stated, he has played both the white coat and the camo games. And he is an experienced field trial judge as well.

What can you tell us about your experience?

 

[SamLab1]

John,

Maybe I'm too sensitive and your not sensitive enough by using the terms you used.

Regardless of that, I've tried both and like both games. Some of the attitudes get under my skin. The dogs are the same breedings for the most part with the biggest difference in preciseness in training and expectations of the dogs.

To be successfull the object of both is to get the bird in a direct route through factors with no hunt where ever it is thrown, short, medium or long. With dogs today, distance seems to be one of the easiest factors to train, it's all that stuff in between that gets ugly. Long doesn't make it a good test.

Normally the ones complaining about a test being "Hunt Testy" don't have dogs comfortable getting long or short marks so it's the tests fault. Just my opinion.

 

[Guest]

I've tried both and like both games.

And how is that all going for ya? What does "tried...and like" mean in terms of success?

Normally the ones complaining about a test being "Hunt Testy" don't have dogs comfortable getting long or short marks so it's the tests fault. Just my opinion.

You are so unprepared for this discussion. I guess you don't know that John had a dog with an Open win. Ever heard of a short check down bird? Probably not. I'm pretty sure his dogs are comfortable getting long and short marks.

 

[SamLab1]

You are SO lucky he is a gentleman. I can guarantee you that John has nothing but the best of intentions for anyone who plays the dog games, no matter what flavor.

As he stated, he has played both the white coat and the camo games. And he is an experienced field trial judge as well.

What can you tell us about your experience?

Melanie,

Once again, here we go. Can you read what was said and decide what you believe on your own? I only know what I read, you say nothing about what has been written....what are your beliefs on "Hunt Testy" quals or the "Hunt Testy" National Open a few years ago for that matter? I am assuming you have qualifications to have thoughts other than John is a good guy. I truly believe he is, we just look at the topic differently.

 

[Guest]

Hey Howard,

Our "friend" is gone. Think he got skeered? ;-)

Sorry SamLab, see you're back. Will read your post and might even respond.

 

[Howard N]

Felony, if someone isn't a skeered of you, they ain't got no sense.

 

[SamLab1]

And how is that all going for ya? What does "tried...and like" mean in terms of success?

You are so unprepared for this discussion. I guess you don't know that John had a dog with an Open win. Ever heard of a short check down bird? Probably not. I'm pretty sure his dogs are comfortable getting long and short marks.

Melanie,

I'm not sure you understand what is being discussed, maybe you should start at the beginning.

Your attempt to attack rather than have original thoughts says alot about you. I'm pretty sure we could have this discussion if you read what it is about.

 

[Guest]

I am assuming you have qualifications.

Qualifications? Hmmm, didn't know those were required to comment on a thread here. I figured it was a free for all.

 

[Guest]

Felony, if someone isn't a skeered of you, they ain't got no sense.

I have been trying to be so good (for two whole days now)...but this was just not right.

 

[Riverrun]

Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedure for Retrievers

“The purpose of a Non-Slip Retriever trial is to determine the relative merits of Retrievers in the field.”

“Hence, when the stake is completed, several Judges will arrive at their final decision about placings on the basis of which dog, relatively, did better work than another in each of the several series.”

Assuming that the particular Qualifying stake is comprised of dogs that are trained/talented enough to successfully complete both multiple marks and blinds on land and water, the specific tests only need to be difficult enough to adequately evaluate the dogs and place them, relative to each other. Whether the Derby, Qualifying, Amateur or Open stake, I feel the goal of the judges should be to adequately test that specific field of dogs so they can be placed relative to each other.

 

[John Robinson]

Sorry everybody, I was just trying to put the situation out for discussion that I was just in. My co-judge and I were taken to the grounds on set up day (thursday), shown our grounds, we were judging both the Qual and the Amateur. We were also told that this was an owner-handler Qual, and about half the dogs were hunt test people just trying out FTs and supporting their local club.

Both my co-judge and I thought this was very cool, as we need new blood in our sport and that is the way I started FTs. But then we discussed at length what kind of test to set up. Maybe it is my prejudice, but we both thought an "almost as hard as AA" qual test would be over the head of the average HT dog. On the other hand, first and second place will be QAA, so in our opininon, the test needed to be representative of that.

We ended up setting up hard test and let the chips fall where they may. We ended up with four out of 31 finishing, but a cool old black Lab MH got fourth and a two year old running it's first Q won it.

Now let me ask those of you HT follks just trying FTs. If you were running your MH in a Q would you want straight up hard Q test, or would it be nice to have little lighter test? Would it greatly discourage you to get blown out in the first series? Am I way off base even worrying about it. Like I said, I noticed quite a few, maybe 30% hunt test style quals when I was running them last year. That was the question I was trying to build a discussion around. Not put down HT or HT judging. I usually don't try ti insult people, so I'm sorry I wasn't more articulate.

Thanks for sticking up for me Melanie, just remember, everything will be ok in the end.
Thanks,

 

[Riverrun]

John,

I think we have a difference in philosophy when it comes to Qualifying tests.

On the other hand, first and second place will be QAA, so in our opininon, the test needed to be representative of that.

I do believe that at a minimum a Qualifying stake should contain at least one triple, one retired gun, and of course a land and water blind. The difficulty should be adjusted to adequately test the field of dogs. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the tests being representative of QAA? What about the tests being appropriate for the field of dogs?

We ended up setting up hard test and let the chips fall where they may. We ended up with four out of 31 finishing.

I'm happy to hear you finished 4 dogs, you must have been a little worried. I'm quite unimpressed when judges don't finish 4 dogs, particularly in the Derby and Qualifying. Without seeing the dogs or your tests, I'd have thought you would have finished more dogs and could have awarded some Jam ribbons in a field of 31 Qualifying dogs. As you know, Jam ribbons in the Derby and Qualifying mean very little except to the people that receive them. You mention wanting to encourage new participation in our field trials but I don't think you did that. If you were generous in your callbacks and just set up a very hard water test in the 4th series then I stand corrected.

Would it greatly discourage you to get blown out in the first series? Am I way off base even worrying about it. Like I said, I noticed quite a few, maybe 30% hunt test style quals when I was running them last year.

I think everyone is quite discouraged when they are blown out in the 1st series especially if it is your introduction to field trials. Depending on the number of entries and the available time, a judge should worry about losing too many dogs in the first series. From my experience, the best judges are able to adjust their tests and make them appropriately harder as the stake proceeds. When you refer to Qualifying tests that are more "hunt testy", do you just mean the length of the marks or the difficulty of the tests?

Cheers,

Tom Simpson

P.S. I remember your tests at our Fairbanks Field Trial being appropriate to our field of dogs. We enjoyed meeting both you and your wife.

 

[SueLab]

Thanks Tom for your input. Your take on the competition to determine placements within the field seems reasonable. I also agree with your assessment that wiping out the majority of the dogs in the first (or even second series) is discouraging. Tests every weekend like that would likely limit those who might be willing to become involved in FT community and are just testing the water - so to speak.

I guess that I was a little confused about this topic. (I am not critiquing anyone). I didn't realize that the qual and becoming QAA, indicated that dog is ready to compete in the Am or Open. And if that is the case, why even have Quals - why not just move into the championship stakes? I don't think that our QAA dogs would be competitive in the Am without continuing/stepping up their training.

My experienced FT friends have spent alot more time training their very nice derby list and QAA dog to prepare for competition in the Am. Also, it seems that many continue to run Qual even after they have recieved many 1st and 2nds...I had assumed it was to gain more experience since the dog really was not ready to move on. If that is not the case, why don't those succcessful folks move on?

 

[Doug Main]

I agree with Tom and disagree with John.

I am not really sure what a "hunt testy" qual is. However, I strongly believe you set the test up to adequately test the dogs entered.

I too began running FTs with my HT dog in the late 90's. I agree that you sometimes heard that the Qual was more difficult than the All-age test. Whether that was really true or not, is debatable. However, I think what has changed the most is the testing and judging of the All-age stakes. The stakes have become larger, the tests much more difficult and participants more accepting of being wiped out by a difficult test than penciled out by the judges.

The gap between an all-age dog and a qualifying dog today has widened dramatically. It was not uncommon for a derby dog to finish or place an all-age stake. Many of the qual dogs were double staked in the Am. or Open. Today that % is greatly reduced. My 1st 2 FT dogs obtained their QAA status by jamming or placing in Amateurs both after obtaining a MH.

There is just no need to make quals like today's all-age tests. The dogs aren't ready and the fields are not that big. Being QAA doesn't mean any more today than it did 20 years ago! What's the point?

 

[wojo]

There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

I am against the whole idea of paring a Qual with a Master HT. Those who want to run a Qual. should have to do so at a FT!!!!

john

Why John?
Think of the retriever club as being a store, providing a product. Like shoes or belts. The customer buying a hunt test entry is a regular customer. Offering an O/H qualifying may get that customer to do a point of purchase impulse buy of the Q entry as well. That customer may then like the Q and seek out more of them to enter. Meaning more entries for all clubs in the circuit. There will still be stores only selling shoes and only selling belts but in today’s economy, it is convenient to be able to buy both at the same time.


.

 

[Jim Harvey]

My experienced FT friends have spent alot more time training their very nice derby list and QAA dog to prepare for competition in the Am. Also, it seems that many continue to run Qual even after they have recieved many 1st and 2nds...I had assumed it was to gain more experience

Only allowed two Q wins.

A Qualifying Stake, or an Owner-Handler
Qualifying Stake at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs
which have never won first, second, third, or fourth
place or a Judges’ Award of Merit in an Open All-Age,
Limited All-Age, Special All-Age, or Restricted All Age
Stake, or won first, second, third or fourth place in an
Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-
Age Stake, or won two first places in Qualifying Stakes
at licensed or member club trials.

 

[Beverly Burns]

The qualifying stake should follow the AKC guidlines and the Master Hunt Test should follow thier AKC guidlines. Where it is presented-- be it a Field Trial or Hunt test shouldn't matter. You will always get variations of a stake due to the grounds, the field of competitors, and the judges preference of set-ups. That goes for all competitions. Frankly, anything you can do with your dog to promote learning, teaching, testing and the bond you share and develope with them is good. We are happy and have encouraged our home club of Ohio Valley to include a Q in their Hunt next spring.

 

[Chris Atkinson]

There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.

Hi wojo,

I know that I personally did myself a disservice for my first many years in dog games. I took some generalizations and opinions shared with me by some folks when I first got in the game, way too literally.

I spent several years thinking some very wrong things about Field Trial events and Field Trial people.

I'm glad I came around to giving it a try. I've met some wonderful friends at Field Trials, just like I did at hunt tests. I've also found that you can find clique-ish jerks in any group, be it a weekend hobby event, or in the workplace.

I'll be judging an HRC test and running quals both next month. I'm expecting to have a great time doing both!

Chris

 

[Buzz]

The biggest thing that still sticks out in my mind from the Q at the HT was that the gallery/handlers were clapping after good runs, right up until a FTer walked thru and said loudly and sarcastically that they could tell it was a HT crowd. After that, it got pretty quiet.


Respectfully,

I don't know, I see people clapping in the gallery at field trials all the time. The guy who made the comments sounds like a jack azz to me. Shame on everyone for going quiet because of anything that comes out of the mouth of a jack azz.

There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.

I'm new around dog games in general. I picked field trials because I just plain like the idea of picking winners and placements as opposed to getting passes. I don't know why I feel that way, I just do. I know the feeling you get by getting smoked in the first series. But it doesn't get me down. I feel that I have good dogs, and getting smoked just motivates me to redouble my efforts in training. To each his own.

Anyhow, when I first started showing up at trials, I never felt the insider vs. the rest type vibes. Who knows, maybe the experience one has is to some extent driven by their preconceived expectations...