[KRL]

Judging a HT has very little to do with hunting in my opinion. I hunt 40+ days a year (30-35 on waterfowl and the remainder on pheasants).

HT are not much like hunting and never will be. I don't think hunting experience helps very much when considering your judging ability. Setting up good tests to evaluate retrievers is MUCH more important thna hunting experience. I haven't seen a correlation between better tests from judges that hunt and poorer tests from judges who don't hunt.

 

[KRL]

I agree with steve bean that master dogs should not have a problem doing whatever you ask of them. THey should adapt to most situations and scenarios you listed with minimal fuss. THey should sit and stay where told and should stay till told what to do. Then they should be responsive to your commands.

ONe thing though Jim Person made a pretty strong comment that people who have never hunted shouldn't sit in a judges chair or something to that effect. So this question goes to everyone that feels hunting experience is imperative to being a judge. What SPECIFIC skills does a hunting judge posses that a judge that has never hunted but has extensive retriever training knowledge not possess? Or what skills is it impossible ot possess without having hunted that are importnat ofr evaluating retrievers? THis should be easy to answer if it is so imperative.

It seems to me that the people that hunt a few days a year and shoot 10-40 ducks per year are the ones that seem to think that hunting experience is imperative to judging. In my opinion shooting 10-40 ducks or birds per year is not hunting. ANything over 100 birds is hunting. YOu don't learn nor see in one year shooting a handful of ducks a year enough to help you judge a hunt test. THe only reason I run hunt tests is to have a better hunting dog and for fun. I don't feel having a judge that hunts helps with the test or the evaluation of my dog one bit. If the guy in the chair is qualified and understands retrievers I don't care if he never hunted in his life. I would rather have him than some smuck that shoots 10 ducks per year and thinks he is a hunter.

 

[KRL]

How could one feel that someone who has hunted several labs through the years, in various situations, and has titled one or more of those dogs wouldn't be more prepared to judge...all else being equal, than someone who doesn't have that experience?

Couldn't agree more. NOt sure how much more prepared but I would think this would be valuable experience that for sure couldn't hurt. I sure haven't learned a ton that would help me judge a dog in a hunt test by hunting. At least not that I couldn't learn as good or better in training. THe most important thing is understanding test set-up and how dogs react to factors. I have had VERY DARN FEW situations that involve 3 to 4 birds evenly spaced that didn't involve overlapping hunt areas. Yet hunt tests at the upper levels have this!!!

My hunting experience would tell me to dump 1-4 birds in the decoys with overlapping hunt areas and wing one off 300 yards or have it fly off perfect and die 300 yards out. SO I would pick up three gimme birds and run a 300 yard blind. These things don't help a hunting dog mark better not do they make meaningful tests. ANyone with hunting experience would know the things we run at master or finished are VERY unlikely in almost any real hunting. THey happen occassionally but not very often.

In the last three years I bet I have encountered 3 poison birds, maybe 2-3 diversions and I think no triples or quads with evenly spaced birds. I have had lots of multiple birds but not like you get in a hunt tests. I bet 15 times or so I have had 200+ yard blinds on stone dead birds. Yet the rules don't allow you to run 100+ yard blinds. I personally think a master dog should handle VERY well out to 300 yards. I don't care to mark out that far and think 100 yards is adequate but for blinds I feel I need much more.

Just my opinions.