[Rip Shively]

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.

 

[ErinsEdge]

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?

 

[Dave Flint]

In my mind, the question comes down to “what is the purpose of a hunt test”? If you really want the test to reflect the attributes of a “Master” hunting dog, you don’t need to increase the distances or degree of difficulty, you could dramatically reduce the passing percentage by simply grading harder on line manners, creeping, noise & “mouth”.

Somehow though I doubt this is the direction the OP would like to see things go.

 

[Bubba]

Once you know the percentage of dogs that pass any test (or combination of tests)= you have a total of ONE data point. Any extrapolation/assumption/prediction/conclusion reached on the basis of ONE data point is invalid.

r squared=zero regards

Bubba

 

[counciloak]

I as the original poster noticed several references to, "If you want higher standards, then just run field trials." I'm sorry if I mislead anybody into thinking that was the direction that I'd like to see the Hunt Test game go. Theirs is a different game, It's no better or worse than ours. I've participated in both and will always defend them both.

With that said, I believe that Rip Shively made some great points, and hit the ball out of the park on every one of them.

As the percentage of dogs that pass increases, I'm seeing the expectations of earning a ribbon also is increasing. I hope that just because a dog hasn't handled yet , that the judges/handlers believe that the dog has high scores in Marking. As far as blind retrieves are concerned, just staying on line doesn't always equate to a high score in trainability.

As far as raising the standard is concerned, on blinds, I believe that just staying on line is not the only criteria for a high score. A dog should be a team member, and flow through the blind. It should cast into the water with one cast, and stay in the water without any flack. It should be willing to get on and off points seamlessly, and arrive at the bird, not 20 off to the side of the bird.

On marking tests are concerned, not handling on marks does not always equate to a high score in marking. I have awarded many qualifying scores to dogs that handled on 2 birds in a hunt test, but you can bet that those dogs showed a habit of going to the area of the fall and demonstrated confidence that he knew where his bird was before needing to be handled back to it.

I don't believe that maintaining a high standard is a disadvantage to amateurs, nor do I believe that we need a separate category for non-titled dogs or pros. When your dog is ready, then the challenge will be there for you.

I never want to see the day that people expect to pass a hunt test.

 

[RaeganW]

I never want to see the day that people expect to pass a hunt test.

If you don't expect to pass, you must really like the club putting on the test.

 

[counciloak]

In my mind, the question comes down to “what is the purpose of a hunt test”? If you really want the test to reflect the attributes of a “Master” hunting dog, you don’t need to increase the distances or degree of difficulty, you could dramatically reduce the passing percentage by simply grading harder on line manners, creeping, noise & “mouth”.

Somehow though I doubt this is the direction the OP would like to see things go.

I'll admit that while setting up that I'd like to exceed the 100 yd. guideline, but I know that is not the hunt test game. My goal is to present a difficult challenge, not to arbitrarily reduce the number of dogs that receive qualifying scores. I would never feel pleasure in dropping a dog for creeping or whining, but I sure frown on dogs that show the results of misdirected pressure

 

[counciloak]

If you don't expect to pass, you must really like the club putting on the test.

No, that is a misquote. Passes are earned by hard work and dedication, they are not owed to you.

 

[TIM DOANE]

No, that is a misquote. Passes are earned by hard work and dedication, they are not owed to you.

I work very hard to get the most out of any dog I train. I feel I owe it to the dog and to my clients. I dont run a dog before I feel it's ready. I expect to pass every hunt test. That may not be everyones goal but I would not go if I didnt expect to pass.

 

[fishduck]

In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.

I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.

My assumptions about hunt tests may not be true. I have only played the games for 5 years so do not have a long term perspective. In the Master stake I see 90+% pro handlers. Of the number of amateurs, I see very few in the 3rd series. It takes a significant personal sacrifice to achieve the standard already in place. For someone training in round cow ponds or parks the standard may already be out of reach.

The field trial game has moved to a level that the "weekend warrior" has very little chance of success. In the short time I have participated in Master tests I feel the bar has been raised. This type of rhetoric is how the standards are changed. If you wish to see excellent dogs at the peak of performance run by the best trainer/handlers in the world then pull up a lawn chair at the Open. Please leave the working class guy a venue where success is possible. No one is looking for a give away but leave the written standard alone.
Mark Land

 

[ErinsEdge]

Counciloak, who are you and how many Masters have you run? It sure sounds like you want to make HT into FT, and I do both. I don't know how many hunt tests you have judged but they are plenty tough in the upper Midwest. Make them any more difficult and you make it entirely a pro game which it was never intended to be. Curious you show up with this thread just when Evan (see /Pauls link) brings up the same type of thread on the Refuge.

 

[clipper]

In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.

I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.

My assumptions about hunt tests may not be true. I have only played the games for 5 years so do not have a long term perspective. In the Master stake I see 90+% pro handlers. Of the number of amateurs, I see very few in the 3rd series. It takes a significant personal sacrifice to achieve the standard already in place. For someone training in round cow ponds or parks the standard may already be out of reach.

The field trial game has moved to a level that the "weekend warrior" has very little chance of success. In the short time I have participated in Master tests I feel the bar has been raised. This type of rhetoric is how the standards are changed. If you wish to see excellent dogs at the peak of performance run by the best trainer/handlers in the world then pull up a lawn chair at the Open. Please leave the working class guy a venue where success is possible. No one is looking for a give away but leave the written standard alone.
Mark Land

what he said.

 

[Angie B]

In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.

I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.

My assumptions about hunt tests may not be true. I have only played the games for 5 years so do not have a long term perspective. In the Master stake I see 90+% pro handlers. Of the number of amateurs, I see very few in the 3rd series. It takes a significant personal sacrifice to achieve the standard already in place. For someone training in round cow ponds or parks the standard may already be out of reach.

The field trial game has moved to a level that the "weekend warrior" has very little chance of success. In the short time I have participated in Master tests I feel the bar has been raised. This type of rhetoric is how the standards are changed. If you wish to see excellent dogs at the peak of performance run by the best trainer/handlers in the world then pull up a lawn chair at the Open. Please leave the working class guy a venue where success is possible. No one is looking for a give away but leave the written standard alone.
Mark Land

For someone who's been in this sport only a short time you're pretty sharp.

Angie

 

[sterregold]

In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.

I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.

My assumptions about hunt tests may not be true. I have only played the games for 5 years so do not have a long term perspective. In the Master stake I see 90+% pro handlers. Of the number of amateurs, I see very few in the 3rd series. It takes a significant personal sacrifice to achieve the standard already in place. For someone training in round cow ponds or parks the standard may already be out of reach.

The field trial game has moved to a level that the "weekend warrior" has very little chance of success. In the short time I have participated in Master tests I feel the bar has been raised. This type of rhetoric is how the standards are changed. If you wish to see excellent dogs at the peak of performance run by the best trainer/handlers in the world then pull up a lawn chair at the Open. Please leave the working class guy a venue where success is possible. No one is looking for a give away but leave the written standard alone.
Mark Land

Agree whole-heartedly!

Grading to a standard means that if the work meets the standard it meets the standard. Yes, that standard is open to the interpretation of the judges--so be it--judges are human and there will be some variation. I have seen murderous tests that decimated the field, and easy tests that most dogs sailed through. I have seen dogs dropped that made no sense to me, and seen dogs carried that I would have asked the handlers to pick up! I've been on the receiving end of the both the good and the bad breaks (as have most of us if we run enough dogs in enough tests!)

Assigning passes on a curve is not a solution--in a weak field, weak work will still get through, and in a strong field dogs would be eliminated who have done the work. That is not a direction I want to see hunt tests go.

As others have observed, the number of titled dogs running to gain their qualifying passes for the MN is going to affect pass rates--these are well-trained seasoned dogs who have seen a heck of a lot more scenarios than the amateur trained dog running its 1st, 2nd, 3rd Master test. And when I can get my amateur trained little fluffy through a test that HRCH, MH, *** dogs fail, you bet that I am damned proud that we met that standard on the day!!! If that bothers you, well, too damned bad!!

 

[Splash_em]

For someone who's been in this sport only a short time you're pretty sharp.

Angie

And a fine marshal, club member, committee member, flier shooter, bird thrower, etc...

This thread has been a topic of conversation over the last couple of weeks. It's interesting to know what someone's expectations are, listen to their personal standards, and compare them against the written standard.

Most people I've met running a master dog expect their dog to pass if it performs the work to the written standard. Does the same dog always meet their personal standard? Probably not, but they know what to work on when they get home. Will they still accept the pass if the dog didn't meet their standards? Yes - Ive yet to get a ribbon with knucklehead's average score wrote on the back of it.

If you want to go run a test where the standards are different than your normal weekend test, go to the Grand twice a year and have fun with Fido. Leave the other 50 weekends alone so that working class stiffs with family obligations can still enjoy the tests and have an outside chance of passing one occasionally.

 

[22899]

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

 

[Socks]

In your original post it was strongly inferred that you wished to raise the standard because in your opinion pass rates are too high. Most posters seem to be opposed to raising the written standard.

I don't wish to sound anti-pro because nothing is further from the truth. Without pros the hunt test game is not economically viable. The pros I know offer advice freely and allow amateurs to train with them. All they ask in return is that you throw a few birds. I have had pros help at every hunt test I have ever worked. From shooting flyers, rebirding gun stations or handling the running order most pros are happy to help. Truly they are an asset to our game.

My assumptions about hunt tests may not be true. I have only played the games for 5 years so do not have a long term perspective. In the Master stake I see 90+% pro handlers. Of the number of amateurs, I see very few in the 3rd series. It takes a significant personal sacrifice to achieve the standard already in place. For someone training in round cow ponds or parks the standard may already be out of reach.

The field trial game has moved to a level that the "weekend warrior" has very little chance of success. In the short time I have participated in Master tests I feel the bar has been raised. This type of rhetoric is how the standards are changed. If you wish to see excellent dogs at the peak of performance run by the best trainer/handlers in the world then pull up a lawn chair at the Open. Please leave the working class guy a venue where success is possible. No one is looking for a give away but leave the written standard alone.
Mark Land

Well said.

 

[RookieTrainer]

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

I am an old basketball player, and I think this is precisely what needs to be done.

Even so, now that everybody can dunk, do you really get all that excited about just a dunk? Does it take something really spectacular to get you out of your seat and yelling? It does me.

 

[RookieTrainer]

I guess what I am saying is that many people seem to think that there is too big a step between HT and FT, and maybe there should be something in the middle for those who want to take advantage of it. Surely we can come up with something to meet that need - assuming there really is a need. If there's not really a need then it would appear that the current system works just fine.

 

[ErinsEdge]

I guess what I am saying is that many people seem to think that there is too big a step between HT and FT, and maybe there should be something in the middle for those who want to take advantage of it. Surely we can come up with something to meet that need - assuming there really is a need. If there's not really a need then it would appear that the current system works just fine.

Qualifyings work, whether OH or not, if you want to be competitive.