[Andr? Fendlason]

HRC Requirements for judges are very clear on this issue.

Among the list of requirements is one which says that HRC judges must also be an "AVID" waterfowl and/or upland bird hunters.

In this case the word "Avid" intends that persons who "have been hunting" do not automaticaly meet this requirement.

Non-hunters don't judge HRC events.

Andr

 

[Ken Newcomb]

It's important for judges to be hunters. Nothing about this makes them good judges, they still have to have the ability to judge. If you are not a hunter how can you understand the hunting situation you are about to set up.

Not all hunting situations make good tests.

The best tests I have seen were ones where when you went to the line you thought, "Yes, I could imagine being here, hunting and seeing this situation."

One of the best at this IMHO is Uncle Bill. He spares nothing at making you feel that this could really be hunting.

 

[Miriam Wade]

But what about the avid hunter who can't get his dogs to perform successfully at hunt tests? As much as I agree 100% that a judge should have hunted over a retriever, I also expect him to walk the walk in hunt tests. The excuse that "My dog picks up x amount of geese/ducks per season" doesn't cut it when they can't demonstrate that they can run the test level they are judging. The amount of control asked for in a Master/Finished blind or marking situation is far different than what you may find acceptable when it's you & the dog hunting & getting birds in your bag however you choose.

Disclaimer here-I am not hell bent on judging myself, so I'm not arguing the point in my defense & yes-I hunt.

Someone mentioned Uncle Bill as an example of a good judge who is also a hunter. In my neck of the woods I'd say Paul Young & Paul Stuart are of the same caliber. Again-though "just" being a hunter doesn't cut it. Show me you can walk the walk with your retriever & I'll respect your test a whole lot more than if you just tell me how many birds you bagged last year. M

 

[Andr? Fendlason]

it ain't all bad...

Miriam

HRC has a relativly complete list of requirements to become a judge.

As to your specific question HRC judges are required to have owned, trained and run a dog successfuly at the level which they are judging. Proof of having done so is required prior to being allowed to judge as an apprentice.

The judges must also start at the bottom level and work their way up. Working your way up also requires being recommended to do so at each level by the individuals local club officers. After that they have to be invited to judge the events to become licenced.

There are numerous other requirements... all of which are printed in the rule book and covered in the judges seminars.

Check it out and you will probably agree that not much more could be added to the written rules that could make the situation much better. There comes a time when more rules actually accomplish nothing...

Andr

 

[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?

 

[Golddogs]

No one part is going to make a good HT judge. It requires all of them. It requires a knowledge of dogs and how they work. It requires an understanding of the rules and regs of the govening body. It requires an idea of what a typical hunting ground might look like and what one might expect to see there.

To set and judge a good test all of these parts should be present and you only get there by learning and doing.

The biggest benifit of a hunting backround is the knowledge of what can occur in the field. I know for instance that a duck or pheasant can sail out 100+ yards before dieing of laughter at my shooting and dropping into some of the uglest cover ever seen. I can use this knowledge in selecting grounds for a test.

Or that we might drop 3 birds hard out 40yds right in front of the blind. And while the dog is heading back with 1 drop another off to the side.

All of the experience gained in the field should help, not hinder, in setting a clear and challanging concept for the dogs to play with.

JMO
GD

 

[Swampcollie]

I have had the opportunity to have several Co-judges who have never hunted with a Retriever in their lives. With some it was a real battle because they really didn't understand dog work at all. With others I found outstanding Judges who were very dog-wise and knew how to set up a good test.

The lesser judges without fail wanted to set up breaking tests series after series. They didn't have a clue about bird placement or how factors effect the dogs. To them, it was all about steadiness.

 

[RickF]

UKC = For Hunters by Hunters

 

[KJB]

Sometimes I think that is what happens. "Well this happened to me once, so it's a valid test."

One of the WORST HT judges I know of prefaces every scenario with that remark. He is so hung up on "realism" and has no clue about how to really test dogs, and so most of his tests have some element of the absurd and on at least one occasion was an illegal test.

It boils down to using common sense. Test all the dogs on a given week-end and Judge them fairly. Nothing more, nothing less.

If only it were that simple! 8)

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?

That's my question too!

I think the BEST judges are judges who have trained and run their dogs. Hunting experience is a plus....but those hunters that pay pros to train their dogs don't necessarily have a clue about how to set up a test to TEST the dogs to the best of their abilities. I don't care how many days they spend in the field or how many birds they have shot.

I agree, but still think a judge can only benefit from having actually seen a retriever hunt. I don't like to see judges judging who have never trained a dog or run a dog in a test, either, even if they're a legendary duck hunter. I think a person might well be a good judge if they've never hunted, but I would not feel I was being straight up with the handlers whose dogs' "suitability as a hunting companion" I was judging, if I'd never actually seen a retriever hunt in any shape, form, or fashion. JMO

 

[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.

 

[Guest]

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.

Thankfully, I've seen MORE of this type of stuff in the last year. We've run from dog stands, even in waders, with buddies in the blind, out of coffin blinds and even some other fun stuff in the past year.

As others have mentioned, I think a good judge has a balance of hunting and dog training experience. And, when in doubt, I'd err on the side of the person with dog experience that understands how to set up tests that actually test what we're looking to evaluate -- I think that's the key. To know how things affect the dog and which types of tests are best to evaluate a dog in marking, perserverance, style and trainability.

-Kristie

 

[SamLab1]

I would much rather have a judge that is currently training and running dogs than one with just hunting experience. We're testing dogs in AKC HT's not playing hunter and accepting any work the dog does as in other HT's. :roll:

I know many self proclaimed avid hunters that go with a guide using a meat dog 2 or 3 times a year. Do they really know retriever work? I hunted almost daily from Nov to Jan for 25 years before I came in contact with "really" good dog work. I then learned more in 2 years about training, setups and factors than I had in a lifetime of hunting. I'll take the amateur judge that has and is training & running dogs to the level we're testing and is giving back to the sport.