[Steve Bean]

Unca Jerry,
... ALL I am getting at here is that to before becoming a hunt test judge of any sort, I believe a person ought to have been hunting with a retriever, preferably a trained one. And that is just my opinion, the worth of which I am well aware :wink:
Tina

Tina, I agree with you 100%...and so does the AKC. In at least two places the rules not only recommend, but strongly recommend that judge have extensive experience with retrievers in hunting. This has always been one of my gripes with some judges. These are HUNTING tests :!: Yes, the best judges have good or better dog smarts, and coupled with hunting experience makes a very good combination, and in all likely hood a good test. My argument is that as judges get more sophisticated in dog knowledge/training they then continue to transfer this over to their tests, raising the bar so to speak. Nothing wrong with training this way, but that is not how one should judge. There is a standard for which one needs to only meet. If you want to train beyond that standard, my advice is to do so....and then go run FT. The more hunting experience one has with dogs, more realistic hunting scenerios can be played out for the test with some practicality.

 

[Steve Bean]

...It boils down to using common sense. .Jerry

Now there's a rare commodity these days

 

[Steve Bean]

Jerry. speaking of riots. Do you think a MH should be able to lie down with you in a field of goose decoys? Should a MH be able to run out of a boat? Should it be able to sit on a stump and await the marks? I know that most on this board would answer 'yes' to these questions. In fact, these things are much more common in hunting than a dog marking a quad, but yet we don't test for this. We used to, but not now. I think one of the reasons is lack of field experience, and probably an overwhelming reason is the lack of time, in which we make up for it with extreme technical situations designed to eliminate dogs to save time, not to test to meet a realistic standard.

 

[Steve Bean]

Of course hunting and HT are different. I doubt you will ever see 20 live ducks released for each dog, 4 guys emptying their guns, and 1 duck falling (that is how it works for everyone, right :lol: :?: ) But we do need to stay true to the hunting theme, or just say OK, let's test for this or that and forget the camo etc., and just test the dog's performance.

 

[Steve Bean]

As I mentioned before, and echoing what Andre posted, the AKC also mandates that a judge have experience running a dog at the level they are judging. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think it says titled the dog at that level. It also says in a couple of places that judges have experience hunting with retrievers.

Now with that said, one hunt picking up several ducks or just a 30-40 duck year may not be enough experience, but if one does that routinely and builds that experience, it's just like judging itself is, the more experience the better one usually becomes...it's accumlative. And yes, there are always exceptions both ways.

What we should remember is that this is a HT! Not just another way to compete or measure dogs in general...but a way to measure the practical performance of a field dog. I'm not advocating the watering down of the standard, just using and judging what years of experience has demonstrated to me that a retriever should be expected to do at various levels.

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?