this is what I typed in that thread you speak of Paul. I feel is was right. It did happen to me but gdg and badbullgator were not dogs 2 & 3 but other than that it is purty much how it went down. Wasps included!

Don't give up gdg, Gosh ya gotta keep asking, we all do. Now it does say something about the score of a discontinued series shall not be used to evaluate dog. So, this is how I have SEEN it work in real life.
Myself, you and Badbullgator are dogs 1,2,and three. Test dog runs. I run my dog, STOMP THE TEST. You run your dog. He is vocal, hunts like a gorilla, eats the second bird and the pisses in one of the judges tote bag. The Badbullgator runs and his dog falls into the hole filled with wasps. The judges scrap the test. We all put everything into my truck (happens all the time, just ask) and relocate the test. Get everything ready and again run test dog. Now that clock has been going tickity tockity tickity and there are a lot of dogs left. So.... All your dogs issues are forgiven and forgotten and you re-run. Badbullgators dog is evaluated by the vet running dog 10 and is O.K. and gets a re-run. Judges look at the clock and recognize the fat bald guy with the Chessie that ran first and tell me I'm cool and get my butt out to the long bird station and throw.
That's how it works. Right, wrong, legal, fine print rule book arguments all aside..... that's how it works.
　
　
　
.

 

BTW it was an AKC senior and we crashed and burned on water that afternoon.

 

This is the closest I could find, it's on pgs 33-34 Chapter One of the General Rules in the AKC Hunt Test Manual.

The absence of competition allows more
flexibility for judges.
Because dogs are evaluated against a standard, a test
need not be exactly the same for every dog; however, it is
33

It's continued on page 34, the jist of it is that since it's not a competition it isn't manditory that each dog runs the same test, but the test should be very similar, ie a double and a blind for some dogs shouldn't become a single and a blind for other dogs. This leads me to believe that you could scrap a test after conditions have changed to make it an impractical test, score the dogs that ran the test and set up a similar test for the rest of the dogs to run.

John

 

so all double/blind tests are to be considered similar relative to difficulty? i have a problem with that one, John.....-Paul

 

Of course they are not all considered in difficulty. The rules recognize this and instruct the judges to set up test that are as similar as possible. If you have a problem with it change the rules.

 

Cant remember AKC. HRC says that if an element of a test is substantially changed, those dogs failing that element must be granted a rerun. Therefore a dog failing on marking would not be asked back if a blind is changed.

 

If a test has to be scrapped because of wasps or something and a new test is set up, logically this isn't any different than one set of dogs testing in Ohio while another set of dogs tests in California. The HT in California is supposed to be similar to the HT in Ohio, impossible to make them the same. Just like you don't expect the dog who passed the Cali test to also run the Ohio test, you don't need to have dogs that passed the original test, which was scrapped because of the hazard, to to run the revised test. If dogs failed the original test because of the hazard, they get a rerun. Its the judges decision.

 

This conversation always seem to surprise me when it comes up. Especailly in the HT game. The rules are pretty clear that its not a competiton and the judges could set up 40 different tests for 40 different dogs, no one dog is competing against the other. Obvioulsly grounds and time do not permit that. But I never understood in a non competitive game why anyone would care what the other dogs had to run. If i do my job and my dog does his, we will be fine and if we are not we have no one to blame but ourselves. I could care less how other dogs are judged, what they run, how they get their dogs ready in the field beside me. (training, fun bumpers, airing ect) I worry about my dogs and the test in front of me and nothing else. I have run tests where they start a series and run out of light and the next morning the conditions were just not good for that test...they set up another and picked up where they left off. I had two dogs pass that same series running two different test on two different days...so what...Most people didnt like it. I have run tests in that same situation where judges picked up with the same test despite the wind and lighting conditions and it made for a much much easier test and i had run the evening before...so what, that is the luck of the draw. But not each dog has to run the same test. I have not run a HT that was "scrapped", I have run FTs that were. But in a HT I would say if you have run, then you have run, no need to have those dogs run in the new test. They competed against the standard that was in front of them at the time.

Kevin

 

For clarity on rules issues, I suggest consulting the appropriate rule book instead of the interweb.

from RHTRET 2/11 chapter 3 section 4

"Judges may discontinue testing in a hunting situation before all dogs have been run in that situation, provided another situation is substituted. The score of a dog in a hunting situatiuon which has been discontinued shall not be considered for any purpose in the evaluation of the abilitiesof that dog."

Its no wonder why handlers come to the line so confused.

Clark

 

The section of the rules quoted above is under the heading...
Unusual Circumstances, "No Birds"
"If unusual and unplanned circumstances occur during the course of a marking test, the Judges can ask the handler to handle the dog, or otherwise compensate for the unanticipated occurrence. The absence of competition allows more flexibility for judges."

This is not in regards to scrapping the test which is covered on the same page under the heading...
Test Dogs
"Changing a hunting situation after a series has been started should be avoided if at all possible. One way of avoiding this, and of avoiding unforeseen and unpredictable situations that would weaken a sound
hunting situation, is the practice of running a test dog, in every series before any of the entered dogs are run. Use of a test dog is usual practice by some Judges, when they may entertain doubts about the exact way that the hunting situation may actually go. Use of a test dog is very often a time-saving device.

The test dog shall not be entered in that test, shall not be over qualified and should be able to accomplish the test.

When a series is discontinued after one or more dogs have run, the Judges shall exercise care to locate the new series in an area different from that which the original series was held. By doing so, they can fairly re-evaluate the abilities of the dog or dogs that have already run in the area used for the discontinued hunting situation.

Yes, according to the rules, if a hunting situation is changed after a series has been started, the dog or dogs that have already run should be re-evaluated (re-run).

 

The rules say "can fairly re-evaluate," which you have interpreted to mean "should fairly re-evaluate." The rules use of the word "can," means the judges are allowed to re-evaluate the dogs, but they are not required to.

 

Interesting discussion. I have always been under the impression that a new test required a re-run of all dogs, but given more thought it seems to make some sense that only dogs that failed to meet the standard of the element being replaced should have to re-run or be offered a re-run. Dogs meeting the standard before the test was scrapped should not have to re-run as they have already reached the standard.
Now when you start talking about "fairness" between dogs, re-running any dogs could fuel the argument that those who were re-run could be at a disadvantage in later test as they actually had to run one more series than others in the same flight.
Of course there is also the argument that some dog would be dropped for reasons other than failing to meet an element that was changed. Should a dog that was dropped for line manners be re-run in a new test that was changed because the original mark fell in a snake pit? The mark was not the issue that dropped the dog in the first place, so IMHO that dog does not get a re-run.

 

when i started this thread, i knew the answer and the regulation behind it. i put it up for the benefit of the newbie handlers and newbie judges so that this would be understood and that we would have more consistency in the way the judges would handle this rare situation when it occurs.

i was both happy and surprised that it only took a few posts to see the definitive answer with the quoted passage to back it up. thanks Glen!

 

when i started this thread, i knew the answer and the regulation behind it. i put it up for the benefit of the newbie handlers and newbie judges so that this would be understood and that we would have more consistency in the way the judges would handle this rare situation when it occurs.

i was both happy and surprised that it only took a few posts to see the definitive answer with the quoted passage to back it up. thanks Glen!

This is a way cool thread Paul.
So, way back when I shoulda told those judges "no I Ain't gonna toss that bird I need to run again?"
Seriously, though I type in jest often. What's a handler to do? What's a Ken to do? You personally know my tendency to scamper.
BTW you know both judges in my example and I think have even been paired up with one or both at my clubs AKC in Addison.
.

 

I thought the ch. 3 section 4 passage referred to a dog that was in the middle of a series...that he got fresh scores in the new one. Rereading it, and the passage in section 19, I concede.

"Section 19: Qualifying score. No dog shall be given a Qualifying score in Junior, Senior or Master Hunting Tests unless the dog has completed all series held for any dog in the event except a series that has been dis- continued."

The dog has to pass the new series, not the discontinued series, to get a pass.

 

Good thread Paul.

 

I dunno, I flunked. I think the thread was unfair, we need to run a new thread.

 

When I took my first AKC Judging seminar, the AKC Rep(now retired). told us that you could in theory set up a different test for each dog as long as each dog was judged fairly against the standard.

 

here's your stupid answer of the day....I would LOVE to have my dog be given the opportunity to re-run the test, whether or not he had passed the first time around. Double your pleasure for the same amount of money!

 

Barb, what if they ran half the dogs including yours and they all passed, then had to scrap the test for some reason or another, everyone who ran gets a re-run and your dog happens to fail the new test, that would suck. It would be fair and by the rules, but it would still suck.

John

 

I remember a debate years ago in a Senior NAHRA test.

The working dog in question had completed the very final retrieve of the day (water triple and water blind), but hit a submerged log hard and was injured. All of the other dogs did an honor at the end, while the next working dog ran the series.

NAHRA did not require an Honor as a madatory component at this level.

The owner took the dog to the vet and the Field Test Committee said the dog could not be passed. Their logic was that the dog did not complete the honor at the end, but the other dogs were required to.

Some present argued that since the honor was not a requirement at that level, and since the injured dog had made all required retrieves, and since it was not a dog against dog competition, and since the dog exhibited steadiness repeatedly on all marks, the dog should pass.

I know which corner I was in on that day.

I guess today, I could go either way...but why be a nitpicker over a pass/fail event where the dog got hurt at the very end after picking up all required birds?

While I can see the notion in rerunning all dogs on a scrapped test, I thought it was "chicken poo poo" that this dog did not pass that day due to the FT committee's belief that every dog had to run every test identically....

 

It's "chicken litter" Chris not poo poo.

Techtonically correct regards,

 

Here's the thread........

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8938

 

Here's the thread........

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8938

COPTER!
thought you didn't like old threads;-) ;-)


.

 

It seems to me that we are discussing two different issues.

1. If every one of 20 dogs has been given a different test, it would be techically legal.

2. Once a test is set up and started, the dogs are being expected to run roughly the same test. Scrubbing the test means all the dogs need to be run again. Arguably, each of the 20 got a slightly different test....wind, sun, time of day, etc. However, the elements would be the same and the dogs are expected to perform up to the standard while running the test.

How to reconcile the two? Well, in #1 if a test needs to be scrubbed, the dog that ran that test would be run again. The fact that it is just one dog would be irrelevant.

Eric

 

In AKC, We judge to a standard. If the first test was a fair test within the rules of AKC, and had to be moved or changed. A new test with the same components should be setup. Dogs in the books from the first test are done with that series, pass or fail. Run the rest and judge em!!!! This is no different than saying because flight A had a easier test, it was unfair to all the dogs in flight B. NOT SO!

 

This is not in compliance with the rule book Kyle.

Re-read post 12.

 

I don't have much experience on this, but this is what I've seen.

This was on a master test.

The test dog did kind of iffy but not too bad.

2 of the first 3 dogs had to handle on the marks. There were 3 marks and a blind in tall grass. One was in line with another. Many in gallery were complaining about the setup - too hard for the dogs to see the fall - grass was too tall etc.

So, they took one of the marks out of the test.

The guy that did OK didn't have to rerun, and the other 2 got to.

It was still a pretty tough test, and the handling was especially tough because it was easy for the dogs to get in places they couldn't see the handler because of the grass and terrain. But the judges seemed to take that into consideration on the callbacks, but said, they were a bit lenient on that test, but would be stricter on the next test, which did not present the same kinds or problems. Seemed fair to me, other than the first test should maybe have been set up better. There was plenty of good options on the exact same ground that would have been a good challenging test, but not have faced the visibility problems for the marks.

 

I don't have much experience on this, but this is what I've seen.

This was on a master test.

The test dog did kind of iffy but not too bad.

2 of the first 3 dogs had to handle on the marks. There were 3 marks and a blind in tall grass. One was in line with another. Many in gallery were complaining about the setup - too hard for the dogs to see the fall - grass was too tall etc.

So, they took one of the marks out of the test.

The guy that did OK didn't have to rerun, and the other 2 got to.

...

You will often see things happen at hunt tests that require the judges to take some action. The question is, did the judges follow the rule book in taking that action or did they not?