No. Dogs either do "the work" or not.

If more dogs can do it then all the better

 

Is the Master Hunter title reserved for dogs that only "Do the work?"

 

Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.

I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!

My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.

Where are the stastistics recorded that Master Hunt test pass rates are now exceeding 60-80%?

 

I took the average from 2 recent back issues of the RFTN . I came up with 56%. That is not exactly scientific, but revealing. You will find more and also lower pass rates.

 

There are other avenues with steep competition and more difficult setups to run your dogs on. They are called Field Trials.

Hunt Tests are not Field Trials, they are judged on a standard, so yes, if the dog 'just does the work', then they deserve a pass.

Travis

 

What standards would you propose raising?

 

To what purpose?

 

What is your concern? Is it that judges are more lenient, or that dogs are trained better?

I would guess that the situation is the latter. With the development of training programs and more sophisticated training tools, our competitive dogs have become better. Having run hunts in the 90s and then being out for awhile and coming back in 2006, I can tell you that the sophistication of the judges has increased also. Basically, the sport is evolving...

As long as judges stick to the rule books in setting up tests, I see no problem with a 5% pass rate or a 100% pass rate. It depends on the test and the dogs that show up.

I would hate to see a move to adjust the "standard" to make it "tougher". As stated already, if you want to move the bar up, then start going to field trials. Some judges already set up field trial "wanna-be" tests.

If our dogs are getting better, then that is a good thing... wasn't the original intent of the hunt test program to preserve the hunting qualities in our retrievers? Maybe we're just being successful at the original intent of the hunt test movement.

 

You bring up some excellent points. Training methods are much better today. More dogs are passing. I'm concerned about respect for the title. We as Americans are naturally competitive. Even if it is against a standard. Do you feel the same amount of accomplishment when you proved that you are "Better than Average"?

I'm not proposing a change in the rules, but higher expectations. For example a dog does great in the first series, then in the next series he hunts extensively between the marks of a triple, then trips upon one of the birds. Next the dog has a huge hunt on the last bird. Would you score that series with a "1" or a "ZERO", even though he hasn't handled on a mark.

On blinds, I generally don't count whistles in hunt tests, but isn't 10 too many with all of the information that there is now, on teaching a dog to cary a line, and get a good initial line?

In the future will you feel the need to prove that your dog is in the upper 70 percentile. Don't get me wrong, I would like to pass them all, if all of the work is good.

 

Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.

I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing.

Why do you think that the pass rate is a problem?
1) A person doesn't enter a Hunting Test unless he expects to pass it.
2) If a certain percentage of dogs have met the standard it means that they have qualified, it doesn't mean the standard should be changed.
3) If one's shooting is so poor that a dog's retrieves are that difficult then one should change the standard for his own dog, not everybody else's dog.
4) What is wrong with the present standard which is based on the qualities needed in a hunting dog and not on passing percentages?
5) It's only natural that as breeding programs improve and training gets better that you will have higher percentages passing. What's wrong with that?
6) If I teach an Honors Physics class I would expect to get 100% passing. My sample is not a randomly selected group just as the dogs entering a Master Test is not a randomly selected group. If you want lower passing percentages test a randomly selected group such as all Labrador Retrievers. Then you will get the percentages you want.

 

Why do you assume that the rise in pass rates is due to a lowering of sandards? More people are learning how to become more effective trainers and are looking to buy puppy's from more talented breedings.

More well bred dogs+ more well informed trainers = higher pass rates.

Bert

 

Why do you assume that the rise in pass rates is due to a lowering of standards? More people are learning how to become more effective trainers and are looking to buy puppy's from more talented breedings.More well bred dogs+ more well informed trainers = higher pass rates.

Bert

Your points sound good.
But then there is this ...

I don't run hunt tests, but I attended one recently and had the opportunity to be in the gallery and listen to handlers opinions about judges. Some judges were known to be "hard" judges who set up tough tests so entries under them were smaller than those entries for judges known to be "easy". Word to the wise to clubs: pick easy judges to get higher entries.

I also heard about sort of an unspoken "rule"... you can get by with handles. You can get by with more handles from certain judges. Word to the wise to clubs: pick those certain judges because they are more popular.

Not me speaking... I am just repeating what I heard in the hunt test gallery.

Helen

 

If the dog takes the casts and makes progress to the blind where is your problem?? If you want to compete on a different standard go run field trials.

 

In the future will you feel the need to prove that your dog is in the upper 70 percentile

So at what point do you start deciding which dogs are the best and winners and losers. Which is where you are going with this and when you start comparing percentages of dogs that pass and dogs that pass that is exactly what you are doing? Not judging against the standard of the rules of the test! If the judges decide the dog scored well enough of to pass?
So be it, give the dog a ribbon and let 'em go home. If you want the best dog out there and feel confident they are, go run a field trial. Step up to the plate. If you feel your dog can stomp marks and nail blinds and is better than most of the dogs out there that day, go for it.

 

My two cents....When the HT program was set up it was to give the ordinary hunter a venue to run his dog and hopefully to improve the breed. If the program really worked then a natural consequence would be improved dog work ( and that's what happened IMHO) and the only way to keep pass rates at some arbitrary number, say 30%, would be to raise the standards or make it more like a field trial which we were supposed to be moving away from. I'll leave it to folks at a higher pay grade than mine to decide what to do in the long run but if we want those ordinary hunters to run AKC hunt tests then we better be careful.
The first Master I judged had 12 dogs and none were handled by pros and I don't believe any were pro trained...now I've ran an event when 90 per cent were pro trained and/or handled...so I would expect the dog work to be better and I think it is.
Granted there will be some judges that are easier and others that are harder and still others that will succomb to playing some sort of " politics" and that will never change unless we take the judging out of it ( which oddly enough some judges do by being arbitrary about everything) by saying , you must run from that spot, you must go between that rock and that stick, you must not use more than 10 whistles, and so on and so on.
I tend to get upset about some folks who seem to forget, or possibly never knew, the original purpose of the movement and that includes some AKC higher ups.
A last thought. No one ever said that you could only have one, two or any number of handles and the rules cover that in many ways...BUT....not all handles are alike...a dog that leaves the line totally lost but kind of heading toward the mark and then handles is way different to me than one who brings the prior mark back while glancing over its shoulder at the next mark, sits down facing the next mark and takes off with certainty of purpose then gets a handle to avoid some disaster..as good as no handle?..probably not but is the dog a worthy hunting companion, even if it has two of those?...most likely.
I've actually sit and listened to a young pro griping about a dog that passed with two handles but had no problem with a dog passing whose handler had to get in a fight to get the birds from the dog..I know it's a judgement call but I knew which dog, on that day, I would rather hunt with...
That's my take without spending any more training time sitting here pecking away. Thanks for listening.
Bill Butikas
Blindfaith Retrievers

 

Evan Graham believes we need to improve hunt tests by creating a competitive portion.

http://www.refugeforums.com/refuge/showthread.php?t=899924


/Paul

 

Bringing more people and their dogs into the games is good for the games, and helpful for dogs and training to an extent.

If you want more people to play, you don't make the rules harder. Adding a competitive aspect to the game doesn't bring in new people, it keeps the people who have won so much they're bored with it playing.

 

I have seen in the past and done this in the past, judging against what I consider "my standard"..in other words judging according to what "my" MH can do not against the written standard. I have seen Master judges grade according to what their dog can do and not the standard. In other words "if my MH can do it then yours better be able to it, too" I have fallen into that trap myself...thinking a dog who earns an MH title should be at least as good as mine. But that is not fair, all dogs should be graded against a standard. Has your dog or one of your dogs earned his or her MH title? Maybe if more dogs are passing we as trainers have done a better job.

 

My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?

My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard?
Mark Land

 

BINGO! I agree with everything Mark said!

 

As a "trainer" with my first dog who has yet to run a dog in anything, I feel completely qualified to horn in on this subject.

I agree up to a point with what Mark says, as I usually do. But I must admit that, even given what HT was originally set up to be, which is not competitive field trials, it bothers me a little to hear that MH pass rates seem to be headed up over 50%. And it bothers me in the sense of after all the training and hard work I put in to try and train 2-3 times a week, what have I really accomplished if more than 50% of the dogs pass the test?

The more I think about it, the more I like Furball's idea of classes for those trying to title and for those trying to re-qualify for Master National. I would also consider maybe an Amateur and an Open class as well. Those of us who enjoy gettling humiliated could have that choice.

And Mark, when you get up off the floor from laughing at the very idea that my dog and I are ever going to have to worry about any of this, give me a call and let's train dogs.

 

Originally Posted by fishduck
My counter point is this. With the Master National requiring qualification every year more and more titled MH dogs are running tests. Are you honestly suprised that a titled MH can pass a Master test? This skews the percentages significantly. Many flights I see have 50% or more MH dogs. Most of these dogs are pro trained and handled. Why the surprise?

My concern is that a working class amatuer with a family who trains 2 to 3 times a week is facing this same attitude. Can that individual continue to meet the rising standard?
Mark Land



Probably not without making sacrifices that would affect his family adversly. Here in the northeast the game became about the professional trainers and their egos and not really about the dogs.

 

Here in the northeast the game became about the professional trainers and their egos and not really about the dogs.

Care to comment some more on that? I haven't found that at all.

 

Just a thought, every player in the NBA can "jam". No one ever suggested raising the height of the rim!

 

Actually it has been suggested.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/337237-height-of-an-nba-basketball-rim/

 

We've all seen the baby double on the third series in a Master Test on Sunday afternoon. Probably set up because the judges were short on time due to the large number of entries.

Put up 3 MH level triples and good stout blinds, judge to the standard as provided in the rule book. This may require limiting the number of entries per flight but that's another issue.

How many of the dogs that pass a given weekend hunt test do you think are at a point where they can not afford a handle or a BAH on even one bord in the last series? The pass rate would likely fall a few percentage points just by setting up the third series to be just as difficult as the first.

 

By the way the standard for Master Hunters has been changed this year. The rules now require 2 or more tripples or if a double is thrown it must have at least one more element.
Also the walk up rules has changed creating more of a breaking test.

 

If the standards are raised, you knock out us amaturs. I get to train only on weekends but so far if I pass a master test it is because my girl had done a good job. When you run a flgt of 70 dogs and 33 pass , with only 2 of the 33 being amatur handlers it feels great ,( right Mark, since it was you and I) but should they raise the standards again, I would hope not . The standards have been raised several times amoung the years. The dogs are just getting better.

 

Any problem (real or perceived) won't be solved by creating more classes or raising the standards. If some judges or clubs have a history of passing 50% or more, so be it.

 

This could be sort of a take-off from a earlier thread on the old days of the Hunt Tests.
As someone mentioned most of the dogs of the 1980's and even into the early 1990's were amateur trained. Now adays I would submit at the Master level many dogs are pro-trained. This is good to a point as it did raise the standard of training. There are more and better trained hunt tests dogs now then there were many years ago. Now from a personal perspective, we ran the Master level tests of old and have in recent years have put four MH titles on mostly trained field trial dogs. What I do is try to do the best I can do with my dogs to make the highest standard possible, In other words I compete against myself and my training (all amateur trained dogs) and it does give me satisfaction. If I have a poor performance at a hunt test, then I train harder for the next one. I also judge and like a pleasing eye performance when I see it and reward it by score.

The obedience game started with a minmum score of 170 and a possible top score of 200.
Why not look at the hunt test the same way? There are passes and there are passes, some are satisfied with a marginal score, others with a higher standard, others looking for that 200.

I thnk the Hunt Tests are fine they way they are (AKC) If you like true competition then run retriever Field Trials and we have ,even earning some titles along the way. I still believe if you set "realistic" goals for your dogs the amateur can still run against the pro-trained dogs, even with limited time, family and work commitments. It's all about "priorities" train , don't complain ,even find a good home for a not too good performer.

 

I am following this thread and wondering if the OP has been running Hunt Tests for a few years,( !0+) , or is relativly new to the sport.
I would remind him that there is a very large difference in a dog that get his /her MH with average scores (7.0) and a dog that qualifies with scores of 8,9,or 10.
6 passes/year to qualify for tge MNHT is 6+ Hunt Test entries.
The AKC wants as many dogs as possible entered at the MN. The road is "paved with GOLD" for the AKC.
Plus the NMH fees equals $$$ for the AKC.
I have been judging Hunt Test since 1984, and I believe that the MH title is an worthy achievement for the dog/handler.
The NMH, as it is now defined, is "fluff" and not practical for the Average Hunt Test owner/handler.
But a dog with 6 qualifying scores, (7.0) can enter the NMHT.
But as I stated earlier , there is a very large difference in the dog that qualifies with 7's and the dogs that qualify with 8's, 9's or 10.

 

I am following this thread and wondering if the OP has been running Hunt Tests for a few years,( !0+) , or is relativly new to the sport.
I would remind him that there is a very large difference in a dog that get his /her MH with average scores (7.0) and a dog that qualifies with scores of 8,9,or 10.
But as I stated earlier , there is a very large difference in the dog that qualifies with 7's and the dogs that qualify with 8's, 9's or 10.

I would agree with this, but in the end both dogs will be listed as MH with absolutely no way for anybody else to tell the difference. Think about what this also does to those folks looking for pups - the 7.0 dog and the 10.0 dog are indistinguishable at first glance. And yes, I know that you can't rely on that by any means; I am making a point.

All in all, I would like to see a class for Amateurs and an Open in the HT game. It seems like this would address the concerns of the weekend warriors (like myself) having to compete against pros, which is of course an absolutely valid concern. I would venture to say that this is about all that you could get traction for at this time.

 

Previous posts bring up two important points with regard to pass rates. First, the majority of dogs in Master stakes in this area are being run by pros who have the ability to train 5-7 days a week and train on quality grounds. Second, the increase in popularity of the Master National and now associated titles with passing that event has resulted in more people continuing to campaign already MH titled dogs. Seeing pass rates above 50% does not surprise me nor should it really "bother" anyone.

Going back to the original post, I get frustrated when I hear negative comments about dogs passing with more than one handle. As one post indicated, not all handles are the same and not all marking tets are the same. What is often lost in this discussion is in the ACK hunt test game is it all comes down to the score that is recorded for marking (and perserverance, trainability, and style). I would love to see the judges sheets and scores for dogs that are dropped simply because they handled on more than one bird over 3 series. When I judge it is my goal to setup (along with my co-judge) 3 quality tests that preferably include 3 solid triples and challenging blinds. If succesful in setting up 3 quality tests I normally find by the end of the weekend the dogs and handlers have sorted themselves out quite nicely and my cojudge and I are only having discussions about a relatively few number of dogs. If for some reason my tests were not as challenging as I had planned there is no logical reason to impose a more stringent scoring standard just to keep pass rates at some predetermined acceptable level.

 

Note: I bring this subject up for discussion with other Hunt Test enthusiasts, or anybody who has constructive input on the subject.

I'm concerned about the future of the Master Hunt Tests. Mostly because the pass rate is now exceeding 50%! It is not uncommon to see 60-70-80+ percent passing. People are expecting to pass if they only handle their dog on one mark. Most contestants have figured out, that if you keep your dog on line on a blind, you will not get dropped, no matter how many whistles you blow. 10 to 15 whistles on a 100 yard blind equates to a whistle every 20/30 feet!

My question is; Would it be healthier to our sport to raise our standards, and of so, where would you draw the line on what is acceptable.

My question to the OP is how many AKC Masters have you run to see 10-15 whistles on a 100 yard blind?

 

I also would like an answere to Nancys question.. I find that very hard to believe that the dog passed..
Whistles mean either cast refusal , not carrying the line that was given with the cast, caving to suction built into blind. Much of that,, wont pass at Senior level.. nevermind Master.


You folks that have Master dogs, have wonderful animals... All 60% of you..
MICHAELBAKER