[Evan]

Gosh Pete,
I hunted for 'bout 30 years 'fore I even seen my first hunt test.
Purty sure I learned where the birds fall in the decoys, learned the dog needs to sit in the duck blind and how to hide my very large pale white back side in all conditions quite well long before I ever set foot on the field test grounds. I even asked a judge one time who musta went to your school of judging "Why did you put your decoys in that spot?" And she said "It was easy to toss them from that hard ground over there. It will not matter, decoys never affect the dogs"...........
Yup!!!!!!! Guess you are right Pete. You CAN learn all you need to know about hunting just by running a dog in a hunt test

Sad..... Just Sad


.

Ken,

I’m disappointed. I know you’re a bright guy. This example isn’t unique, of course. But it does little to illustrate anything beyond the need for better judging education. That lady could be educated about this and other important issues without her ever setting foot in a duck blind. I’ll grant you that had she hunted ducks a bit she would have seen for herself how decoys effect dogs, at least until they get some experience with them, although there is no guarantee of it. By the time my dogs are through Basics they will have seen enough decoy work that even very strategic uses and applications have little effect. Then, of course, a season of hunting really takes the magnetism from them.

But the larger issue is all the elements of hunting combined that a hunter should logically take into consideration that a non-hunter would not tend to recognize. I appreciate those things, and how they present to influence performance as a gundog. Where I think we differ is our overall view of the value of hunt tests in determining the quality of gundog breeding and training. And key contrasts in that consideration is that red devil (and I believe you also) just see it as a game to play, and that this was the intent of those who pioneered the sport. I don’t.

I remember it well, and it had a great deal to do with providing a testing venue that they believed had more to do with influencing future generations of gundogs than field trials, as they assessed them. As much as I enjoy discussing that issue, my interest here is focusing on maintaining a useful balance of meaningful testing, and an enjoyable and useful element of realism.

As someone who views the overall value of hunt tests as tests, I believe standard concepts of fieldwork should reign supreme, but should be dovetailed together with an appropriate measure of the look and feel of a hunt. My own extensive hunting experiences with retrievers have shown me clearly that even dogs with the greatest concentration of talent are better and more useful in game conservation than those with under developed field skills. That makes if vital to test these dogs in a balanced venue where they are truly tested in substantive ways that reflect abilities needed on a typical day’s hunt. I don’t believe that has to be done by trying to invent a scenario that looks cosmetically like a day’s hunt unless the components of that test lend to the actual testing.

In large part, I feel that way because I know it can’t be done. Only hunting is hunting. But I also hold those views because I know how easy it is for a skilled dog to adapt to conditions in the marsh and field, as opposed to just thrusting an under trained one into action, and relying on experience to make them steadier, or better at blind retrieves, or at effectively dealing with diversions, or any of the many other elements that make it so valuable to take a retriever hunting.

Whether or not someone is an avid hunter, teach them how to judge. In my experience, no one is doing that better than the HRC. But I’m willing to learn!

Evan

 

[Pete]

Well, I for one have gained insights while hunting that have greatly improved my ability to set up hunt test scenarios when I'm judging. Hunting has also helped me understand the validity of certain scenarios that I thought were pretty bogus when I first saw them in hunt tests.

No one has yet answered my question!!!! why because it doesn't exist. Or even its so insignificant it doesn't matter anyway.
Here is what I am starting to think about this.
There are alot of hunters whose ego's are puffing themselves up. Thinking that it is only hunters who can understand a scenerio at a TEST. This makes you bigger fishies. Since I have only seen a couple of tests over the last 2 decades plus,,, which had any resemblance of hunting,,, that through logical means I have concluded that only a couple judges have actually ever hunted.

Anyone who has run enough HUNT TESTS and trains their dogs alot and learns about dogs and how they behave at HUNT TESTS can learn to be a good HUNT TEST judge. If they hunt also great, Then and only then can they tell us a little story why the birds are landing where they land. and all about how we showed up late which is why we are picking up every bodies bird. Come to think of it as long as I remember thats the only scenerio I can think of. And most of these judges were hunters.:razz: HA! HA!

Pete

 

[jtfreeman]

I guess what I was trying to say is that the two (hunting vs. hunt testing) are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.

Do the skills we teach our retrievers in order to compete in hunt tests translate into skills that make them better gun dogs? Without a doubt.

Do the things our retrievers learn while hunting make them better hunt test dogs? For the most part, yes. Slippage on line manners can be a negative, but is rather easily brushed up with training.

But we were talking about the human side of the equation, not the canine side. I'll grant you that I know some pretty good judges who don't hunt, but I also know with abject certainty that the fact that I hunt has made me a better hunt test judge. :2c:

We agree on most.

I feel that training for HT makes my dog a better hunting retriever. I do not feel that hunting my dog makes him a better HT dog. I am not sure that hunting my dog makes him a better hunting retriever as it relates to those skills that impress your friends and retrieve those difficult birds. Hunting and training for the type of hunting you do, yes. But just hunting, no.

Now, back to the origional. I said earlier that hunting experience was not important to me for a Judge. I think it is great if they are hunters and it may make them a better judge in some situations but it is not something I think about when getting ready to run

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

..... If they hunt also great, Then and only then can they tell us a little story why the birds are landing where they land. and all about how we showed up late which is why we are picking up every bodies bird. Come to think of it as long as I remember thats the only scenerio I can think of. And most of these judges were hunters.:razz: HA! HA!

Pete

the "come in late" story is lame but often used.
Ones I like and use are.......

You been sitting in the blind for a long time and need to step out and water a bush. Yes you take your dog and gun with you, don't we all?

or

You been set up before first light and at shooting time some dork weeds who had snuck up on your spread open fire on your first flock of the day
Mad as heck you send your dog to get those birds


or

A decoy is out of place so you sit your dog and wade/walk out to right the decoy. Workers are told as soon at you touch the decoy all hell breaks loose. Calling and shooting and ducks hitting the water. You send your steady dog from the remote sit then scamper back to the line


and the best of the best, land series only...

Know how when you are done for the day and picking up your decoys a small group ALWAYS comes over. And know how there is ALWAYS one of your buddies who lugs his loaded gun all over the field while picking up decoys??? Well take a bland (who did we chafe to get stuck with this) field and stack about 3 dozen goose decoys in a heap in the middle with a great large worker pretending to bag um.... and boomity boomity BOOM!!
marks go down and dog goes past stack and large worker on both sides



Those are hunting stories that I just HAPPEN to use.... in some set ups


.

 

[Thomas D]

The best one that I ever heard was from two judges from WI who were judging the SH in South Florida.

"You were out hunting one day, walking thru the woods and came upon a bunch of people at a Hunt Test. So you thought you would give it a try."

 

[John Robinson]

Well, I for one have gained insights while hunting that have greatly improved my ability to set up hunt test scenarios when I'm judging. Hunting has also helped me understand the validity of certain scenarios that I thought were pretty bogus when I first saw them in hunt tests.

A perfect example is the poison bird scenario. While goose hunting several years ago, I knocked down two birds: a stone-dead snow about 100 yards out and a wounded blue about 40 yards past the snow. In that scenario, you need to get the dog past the dead bird to pick up the cripple first. I didn't have that kind of training in my dog at the time, but I sure do in all the dogs I hunt with now.

Before that incident, I always thought a poison bird was a meaningless trick thought up by judges who wanted to fail dogs. Not so, but if I hadn't hunted, I would never really have internalized the lesson. I've learned many similar lessons in years of hunting and running hunt tests.

Bottom line: If you hunt, you will see things that will make you a better judge across the board. Decoy/bird placement, use of terrain/wind/cover, concealment, dog skills...everything. Unless you get out and actually hunt with dogs, you can't fully understand what it is you're trying to accomplish at a hunt test.

If that weren't the case, we'd just call them "tests."

I believe that teaching your dog to handle off a poison bird well and handle well on blinds are the two most important skills a hunting dog needs to possess. I know marking is of primary importance in field trials and hunt test, and I insist on having good marking dogs because I can't compete in field trials without them, but with my dog hidden in the blind coupled with the general chaos of real hunting, dogs aren't able to mark well, and with birds splashing down within 30 yards they really don't need to. Having the ability to handle your dog on a missed mark is a great insurance policy.

The point that a judge learns to employ poison birds in his test even if his motive is to trick dogs, forces us all to train on them which makes a more complete hunting dog even if we don't hunt or really understand the utility of the skill.

John

 

[John Robinson]

The best one that I ever heard was from two judges from WI who were judging the SH in South Florida.

"You were out hunting one day, walking thru the woods and came upon a bunch of people at a Hunt Test. So you thought you would give it a try."

That is perfect!

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Ken,

I’m disappointed. I know you’re a bright guy. This example isn’t unique, of course. But it does little to illustrate anything beyond the need for better judging education. That lady could be educated about this and other important issues without her ever setting foot in a duck blind. I’ll grant you that had she hunted ducks a bit she would have seen for herself how decoys effect dogs, at least until they get some experience with them, although there is no guarantee of it. By the time my dogs are through Basics they will have seen enough decoy work that even very strategic uses and applications have little effect. Then, of course, a season of hunting really takes the magnetism from them.

But the larger issue is all the elements of hunting combined that a hunter should logically take into consideration that a non-hunter would not tend to recognize. I appreciate those things, and how they present to influence performance as a gundog. Where I think we differ is our overall view of the value of hunt tests in determining the quality of gundog breeding and training. And key contrasts in that consideration is that red devil (and I believe you also) just see it as a game to play, and that this was the intent of those who pioneered the sport. I don’t.

I remember it well, and it had a great deal to do with providing a testing venue that they believed had more to do with influencing future generations of gundogs than field trials, as they assessed them. As much as I enjoy discussing that issue, my interest here is focusing on maintaining a useful balance of meaningful testing, and an enjoyable and useful element of realism.

As someone who views the overall value of hunt tests as tests, I believe standard concepts of fieldwork should reign supreme, but should be dovetailed together with an appropriate measure of the look and feel of a hunt. My own extensive hunting experiences with retrievers have shown me clearly that even dogs with the greatest concentration of talent are better and more useful in game conservation than those with under developed field skills. That makes if vital to test these dogs in a balanced venue where they are truly tested in substantive ways that reflect abilities needed on a typical day’s hunt. I don’t believe that has to be done by trying to invent a scenario that looks cosmetically like a day’s hunt unless the components of that test lend to the actual testing.

In large part, I feel that way because I know it can’t be done. Only hunting is hunting. But I also hold those views because I know how easy it is for a skilled dog to adapt to conditions in the marsh and field, as opposed to just thrusting an under trained one into action, and relying on experience to make them steadier, or better at blind retrieves, or at effectively dealing with diversions, or any of the many other elements that make it so valuable to take a retriever hunting.

Whether or not someone is an avid hunter, teach them how to judge. In my experience, no one is doing that better than the HRC. But I’m willing to learn!

Evan

Evan, clearly for you the HT is purely about testing dogs. One mans opinion. I guess if you ran HT's and tried to judge it would of more importance. If the HT for you is just about the test, great. For many though a HT should be more than that. Sadly as we see less people actually hunting I fear the true aspect of the total experience will be lost.

/Paul

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

No one has yet answered my question!!!! why because it doesn't exist. Or even its so insignificant it doesn't matter anyway.
Here is what I am starting to think about this.
There are alot of hunters whose ego's are puffing themselves up. Thinking that it is only hunters who can understand a scenerio at a TEST. This makes you bigger fishies. Since I have only seen a couple of tests over the last 2 decades plus,,, which had any resemblance of hunting,,, that through logical means I have concluded that only a couple judges have actually ever hunted.

Anyone who has run enough HUNT TESTS and trains their dogs alot and learns about dogs and how they behave at HUNT TESTS can learn to be a good HUNT TEST judge. If they hunt also great, Then and only then can they tell us a little story why the birds are landing where they land. and all about how we showed up late which is why we are picking up every bodies bird. Come to think of it as long as I remember thats the only scenerio I can think of. And most of these judges were hunters.:razz: HA! HA!

Pete

Yep. What we get is a bunch of training scenarios made to look like a hunt.

/Paul

 

[Evan]

Evan, clearly for you the HT is purely about testing dogs. One mans opinion.

/Paul

Not purely, Paul. Just the primary point. I haven't said anywhere that HT's are purely or only about testing; just primarily, and there's an obvious difference. People should be creative, and have fun with any sport they choose, and the elements of perceived realism do a lot to create that.

I've really enjoyed listening to the judges instruction at the several HRC tests I ran this year. They clearly thought through what they set up, and gave clear explanations to the participants. That should be a model for all hunt tests.

I'm just not sure how you're missing my message of balance, rather than an 'all one aspect' being relevant approach.

Evan

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

Evan & Pete-

from the Mother of all rule books

SECTION 3: All tests will be judged by at least two judges.
a. The judges are representatives of the NAHRA hunting retriever program and its “standards” and will abide by the Regulations and Field Procedures and the Guidelines for Judging Hunting Retriever Field Tests.
b. The judges will set up all tests within the prescribed guidelines set forth in these Regulations and Field Procedures and must give paramount consideration to the simulation of actual hunting conditions.
c. All tests will be set up within the prescribed distance and cover limitations of each particular category.
d. Duck blinds, numerous decoys, boats, calls, and other hunting implements should be utilized in a manner simulating normal hunting.

.​

 

[Happy Gilmore]

while I was re-reading the rule book....there are numerous rules which basically "require" a judge to have hunting experience. Why would ANYONE who is or wants to judge try to circumvent the rules and compromise the integrity of a test? Per the rule book....to be a judge and adhere to this rule, you would need "some" hunting experience at minimum. If you do not have ANY hunting experience, how can you follow the rule book you expect all the dogs' running under you to follow?

"Ingenuity on the part of the Judges is always encouraged
not only in planning natural hunting situations, but also in
devising some that are unusual, while practical and realistic
and that would be encountered “in a true hunting situation.”
These situations might take the form of a type of hunting​

unique to the region that the event is held,"

 

[Happy Gilmore]

Litterally, the AKC rule book is page after page of references such as this....if you don't have hunting experience, how can you really follow the rule book?

Test Dogs.​

​

​

​

​

Changing a hunting situation after a series​

has been started should be avoided if at all possible.

Sorry- the font is wigging out on me....we are changing a "hunting situation" not changing the "test" if we run a test dog and need to make adjustments.....

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Ken/Happy - please don't be quoting the rulebook. I tried that. Deaf ears. Face it boys, the new generation along with creating new math have also created a new "Hunt" test that somehow doesn't involve "hunting."

Green ribbons for everyone. Wouldn't want anyone to go home unless they feel good about themselves.

Perhaps we should take handlers guns away, get rid of decoys, remove clothing requirements, get rid of the annoying rules about distance and just focus on the dog work. Oh wait, we did that already....

/Paul

 

[Stan b]

Evan & Pete-

from the Mother of all rule books

SECTION 3: All tests will be judged by at least two judges.
a. The judges are representatives of the NAHRA hunting retriever program and its “standards” and will abide by the Regulations and Field Procedures and the Guidelines for Judging Hunting Retriever Field Tests.
b. The judges will set up all tests within the prescribed guidelines set forth in these Regulations and Field Procedures and must give paramount consideration to the simulation of actual hunting conditions.
c. All tests will be set up within the prescribed distance and cover limitations of each particular category.
d. Duck blinds, numerous decoys, boats, calls, and other hunting implements should be utilized in a manner simulating normal hunting.

.​

I think a section of the upper level tests should include setting up a decoy spread while your dog sits quietly at honor though the process.

I mean that is part of hunting, right??;-)

Just askin'.....


RK

 

[Happy Gilmore]

I think a section of the upper level tests should include setting up a decoy spread while your dog sits quietly at honor though the process.

I mean that is part of hunting, right??;-)

Just askin'.....


RK

the rules are there to test the hunting skills of the dog, not the handler. We all know our dogs are usually way better than we are. No need to test the obvious...

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

Ken/Happy - please don't be quoting the rulebook. I tried that. Deaf ears. ....

/Paul

not gonna do it

NAHRA's purpose in establishing this concept is to discover and reward dogs that can fulfill the
hunter's needs in the field by performing in a manner consistent with the demands of actual
hunting conditions. The purpose is not to confront the dog with trick problems, but rather to test
the dog's natural ability and acquired training. NAHRA Field Tests utilize duck blinds, numerous
decoys, boats, calls and other hunting implements in a manner simulating normal hunting. Under
the NAHRA concept, the objective is to recover the bird as quickly and efficiently as possible, to
create the least amount of disturbance in the marsh and upland and to give the hunter the​

maximum amount of time to actually take game.

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

I think a section of the upper level tests should include setting up a decoy spread while your dog sits quietly at honor though the process.

I mean that is part of hunting, right??;-)

Just askin'.....


RK

Hi Stan,
see post 104


.

 

[dixidawg]

E Sadly as we see less people actually hunting I fear the true aspect of the total experience will be lost./Paul

Around here it is already lost. Anyone that has been gun captain (for AKC club) can attest that it is getting increasingly harder to find anyone that can gun at the tests. We end up relying on the same few folks gunning at most every test. I would say the number of handlers that are hunters are in the minority. By a LOT.

I'm guessing the judging ranks are headed in the same direction.

 

[Happy Gilmore]

Around here it is already lost. Anyone that has been gun captain (for AKC club) can attest that it is getting increasingly harder to find anyone that can gun at the tests. We end up relying on the same few folks gunning at most every test. I would say the number of handlers that are hunters are in the minority. By a LOT.

I'm guessing the judging ranks are headed in the same direction.

There is truth to that statement. I've been thinking about calling a few local gun clubs next year and asking if they have any members interested. Skeet shooters are typically terrible gunners for a while.