[SueLab]

Ok I have a question to all of the folks discussing this issue: Are you qualified to go to this year's MN or have gone to others recently? Do you belong to a MNRC member club? Do you run HT's or only FT's?

In particular, Pleasent to Meet you, I know that you will not divulge who you are (from past history) but just what is your experience? What you are saying might be more interesting if your experience was known...

 

[SueLab]

Personally, I think that there is a much more important issue to be voted on this year.

Do you think that pros should be included to judge the MN?

What pros would give up running their client dogs to judge and set up tests for two weeks without any compensation?

 

[22899]

SUE LAB!!!

:shock::shock:

Gooser isnt Qualified!!! Gooser isnt Qualified!!

Thought everbody knew that already!!

I'll shut up now!!:razz:

Gooser

Go get em ART!! Slap Gloria on the fanny and giver her a high five fer me too!:razz:

Gooser

 

[22899]

P.S.

Gooser is Mike Baker!!

Not

Batman!

 

[Pheasanttomeetyou]

Ok I have a question to all of the folks discussing this issue: Are you qualified to go to this year's MN or have gone to others recently? Do you belong to a MNRC member club? Do you run HT's or only FT's?

In particular, Pleasent to Meet you, I know that you will not divulge who you are (from past history) but just what is your experience? What you are saying might be more interesting if your experience was known...

Yes, qualified for this year's MN.

Yes, have gone to other MNs. Have qualified for a lot more.

Yes, belong to MNRC club.

Yes, have run FTs but mostly HTs.

 

[Pheasanttomeetyou]

Personally, I think that there is a much more important issue to be voted on this year.

Do you think that pros should be included to judge the MN?

What pros would give up running their client dogs to judge and set up tests for two weeks without any compensation?

Don't have problem with PROs per say.

Do have problem with attitude of judges: are they setting up and judging to eliminate dogs or test them to the standard.

Who would give up running their client dogs? Probably the same ones who are willing to judge at weekend tests. But this is an ego driven sport, so who knows what sort of person you will find sitting in that chair behind you.

 

[T. Mac]

Question:

At the MN, do all participants run against a written standard. Is the test judged Pass or Fail?

Gooser

Ah, Gooser asks THE question.
Per the MNRC web site:

Master Hunters will be tested annually in a non-competitive manner at the Master National Stake to the maximum of the standard as set out by the AKC.

So the question becomes, what exactly is the standard per AKCs definition, and what is the maximum of that standard to make it fit MNRCs requirement? Ask 5 hunt testers (judges included) and you are likely to get a dozen answers!

If you consider that a hunt test is simply a QC sort of dogs meeting "the standard" I think the concept becomes easier to understand. Of course this may be because I spent a large portion of time employed doing QC on agricultural products (nuts).

If we focus on the MN and the proposed MNH title, we see a process of sorting occuring to winnow the number of retrievers down to those meeting the standard of MH. This winnowing starts with the requirement that to get to the MN the dog must have a MH title. As there are less than 600 MH titles awarded each year and assuming a 10 year window of eligibility (age), this initial winnowing results in around 6000 dogs from an initial eligible base of around 8 million (AKC registered retrievers).

Next the dog must pass 6 master level tests in the year of the test. This reduces the number to around 500 dogs of which 320+/- will enter the MN. Continuing on for the MNH title, of the 320+/- dogs entered at a MN, on average half will qualify, resulting in 160 dogs. To earn the MNH a dog must qualify at 3 MNs. This reduces the pool to 10 dogs per year earning the title.

In QC terms, this continued testing and winnowing is referred to as the rule of diminishing results. Each pass further eliminates a larger percentage of the product until such point as there is none left. The term is also used in accounting for about the same effect. Consider that if you add another MN qualification to the requirement for the MNH title, you would cut the expected number in third to about 3 dogs per year earning the MNH title.

Basically what you've done is made the probability of earning the MNH title the same as a random draw of the qualifiers at the MN, where 10 of the qualifiers are selected at random.

And to answer SueLab's questions: I have been (had dogs entered) at a couple MNs, but do not have a dog qualified for it this year. We took the first part of the year off for a litter of pups. Which brings up a whole slew of other drawbacks of the title requirements as it is presently designed in that bitches will be at a great disadvantage.

T. Mac

 

[Tim Carrion]

In QC terms, this continued testing and winnowing is referred to as the rule of diminishing results. Each pass further eliminates a larger percentage of the product until such point as there is none left. The term is also used in accounting for about the same effect. Consider that if you add another MN qualification to the requirement for the MNH title, you would cut the expected number in third to about 3 dogs per year earning the MNH title.

T. Mac

...and if they continue along this path and add still another MN pass the Master National Club/ AKC could award a Hunt Test Dog of the Year or the 2____ Master Champion without ever having to use that nasty competition word.

JMO

Tim

 

[tankerlab]

I don't think it enhances the Mission Statement...but the question is what does it hurt.


I've read most all the banter on here about this title and the tone isn't as much the title itself is bogus but that folks don't think they will be able to get it without a pro.....I mean its not like some lessor form of testing now all of a sudden counts toward an MH if you'll pay a fee or something. Retriever games are like little league, when I was a kid we practiced once a week and played once twice a week, now you have to sell a thousand bucks worth of candy bars to fund the hitting coach and overnight tournaments, this is just the games getting bigger. The more folks get in retriever games the farther they will be taken and farther they will get form the mission statement of being a measure of hunting abilities. As the games progress the most accomplished dogs will be more likely to have never seen a duck blind or pheasant field but will have further pushed the limit of what a dog can do.

Oh I think you could get the title without a pro... You just need to be a Doctor, or hit the lottery to be able to afford that many test to get there and THREE TIMES???

 

[SueLab]

The proper forum to change or to have your opinion known regarding the title, judges, or any other item of interest, is at the annual business meeting at the Master National... So for those of you who belong to member clubs, go to your club meeting, vote your opinion and have your rep vote the way your club desires...a forum just doesn't cut it!

Now, if your opinion is shared by the majority, then it will prevail...if not, someone else will have an opinion that will be accepted...

 

[Pheasanttomeetyou]

Personally, I think that there is a much more important issue to be voted on this year.

Do you think that pros should be included to judge the MN?

What pros would give up running their client dogs to judge and set up tests for two weeks without any compensation?

I've been thinking about this all afternoon.

One big problem is the potential conflict of interest. If you had a dog on the PRO's truck over the past 12 months, he cannot judge your dog. The MN determines which judges are assigned to each stake via a draw. That "judges draw" takes place at the MN, after the running order has been decided. It may well be that anyone whose dog was on the MN PRO Judge's truck within 12 months of the event is automatically disqualified from entering the MN.

 

[wojo]

They should have nothing to do with a hunt test title. And I would like to keep it that way. That is why I am opposed to the MNH title as proposed.

Pheasant
OK I got it, you want a higher Master title but not something the MN awards. Well the MN is here to stay, get over it and move on. If you choose not to participate here's a suggestion.. HRC they have a good points program that one can participate in after the HRCH title. If you have a proposal then submit it for a vote. Is your club in agreement with you on the MNH issue?

Will I pursue a MNH title probably not, its held during the hunt season.

 

[Rick_C]

Rick,

This would not provide you with any better indication of nice dogs. Judge shopping would be the result. I think that judge shopping was the reason the MNRC changed their qualification requirements.

Until, once again, every judge across the country judges exactly the same, you will not have uniform tests or results. I know of someone who got 5 straight passes in master with no fails. That person figured the pass percentage of the judges and traveled to run under only certain judges - the ones with high pass percentages.

Last season, I ran two master dogs in a master test (judged by FT judges). The first series was harder than most quals...only 6 dogs (out of about 40 as I recall) went to the second series - five (one crept past a designated line) passed the next two series that were so easy it stunk. It did not prove that those 6 dogs were superior.

In the first series, many had the third bird down where it was designed to fall and not in the most undesirable location that many got...The judges commented that their test would be done in one day and it was. The handlers meeting 2nd series was three people (3 dogs) with two other handlers (two dogs) at another stake. With tests like this one, 75% would be hard to get...without judge shopping...

This is actually a very good point that I hadn't considered. I'm not sure what the average pass rate is around the country but I'd put it at 35 - 45% here, which would make judge shopping not be not so beneficial it would seem to me. That said, again, I see your point.

Funny how this seems to have gone full circle in a way...hunt tests were designed to judge against a standard and to give the weekend guy/hunter something to do with their dogs in the off season and to be able to "prove" their ability, at least that's my understanding in a nutshell. Now we're talking about finding the "best" of the MH dogs which is what, in a nutshell, field trials were born from, the desire to prove who is the "best" dog. :razz:

 

[T. Mac]

I'm not sure what the average pass rate is around the country but I'd put it at 35 - 45% here, which would make judge shopping not be not so beneficial it would seem to me.

Here is a study of about a years worth of tests from a few years ago. Might give you some more info to work with.

http://www.tulemist.com/ht_national_eval.xls

T. Mac

 

[22899]

WOW!! TMac

Thanks for posting that,, very interesting, and eye opening for Gooser.

Colorado??:shock:

Gooser

 

[zeus3925]

I heard that Minnesota was tough. I didn't know it was that tough.

 

[Rick_C]

Here is a study of about a years worth of tests from a few years ago. Might give you some more info to work with.

http://www.tulemist.com/ht_national_eval.xls

T. Mac

Thanks for posting! Very interesting for sure.

 

[Pheasanttomeetyou]

Pheasant
OK I got it, you want a higher Master title but not something the MN awards. Well the MN is here to stay, get over it and move on. If you choose not to participate here's a suggestion.. HRC they have a good points program that one can participate in after the HRCH title. If you have a proposal then submit it for a vote. Is your club in agreement with you on the MNH issue?

Will I pursue a MNH title probably not, its held during the hunt season.

NO, YOU DON'T GET IT!

I actually do not want an advanced Master title. I think that it is meaningless, particularly since hunt test enthusiasts have other venues to choose from. Those those who feel their dogs are talented and well trained and crave something much more challenging can move up to Quals.

But if the ACK must offer an advanced Master title, it needs to be won at the AKC weekend tests!

This has nothing to do with the future existence of the MN.

And I really do not want to move on because I am interested in maintaining the integrity of the Hunt Test program ... and the MN for that matter.

Poll results as of today: 70% oppose the title. It is the MN that needs to move on.

 

[Pheasanttomeetyou]

Rick,

This would not provide you with any better indication of nice dogs. Judge shopping would be the result. I think that judge shopping was the reason the MNRC changed their qualification requirements.

Until, once again, every judge across the country judges exactly the same, you will not have uniform tests or results. I know of someone who got 5 straight passes in master with no fails. That person figured the pass percentage of the judges and traveled to run under only certain judges - the ones with high pass percentages.

Actually, the problem MNTC and AKC encountered was not judge shopping, but a realization that people would scratch their dogs mid test if they thought that their dogs may not be called back to the next series, or that the next series was too difficult for their dog. A scratch is not counted as a test failure, and the dog was still in the running for the 5-out-of-7 qualification.

I actually have a great deal of respect for the weekend tests. As you say, judging differs from test to test. So do judge teams: team dynamics will influence the difficulty of the test. As will the condition of the grounds. One judge who you found to be "easy" may put on a very different test of partnered with someone who prefers more challenging test design. An easy test design would be much more challenging if set in heavy cover or difficult terrain.

I also like the fact that no tests are set up and judged the same way. One of the fun things about the HTs is seeing how the judges will use the grounds. What concepts will be presented. How these tests affect the dog work. Many clubs invite judges from other parts of the country. This does add spice to the weekend tests.

You friend may have spent a lot of money crossing the country to find the easiest judge teams. But I doubt that a dog passing 5-6 tests in a row is mediocre. Any dog who passes 30 -45 weekend tests over the years (NAHRAs qualification requirement for GMHR and the 1000 point club), is not mediocre. This simply cannot be done via judge shopping.

Last season, I ran two master dogs in a master test (judged by FT judges). The first series was harder than most quals...only 6 dogs (out of about 40 as I recall) went to the second series - five (one crept past a designated line) passed the next two series that were so easy it stunk. It did not prove that those 6 dogs were superior.

In the first series, many had the third bird down where it was designed to fall and not in the most undesirable location that many got...The judges commented that their test would be done in one day and it was. The handlers meeting 2nd series was three people (3 dogs) with two other handlers (two dogs) at another stake. With tests like this one, 75% would be hard to get...without judge shopping...

Regarding your example of the 2 FT judges you ran under ...

In the first series, are you saying that the judges should have called "No Birds" on those third birds that ended up in the most undesirable location in the first series?

Were these "bad" throws a problem with test design? Bad shooting?

Are you suggesting that these judges used overly stringent criteria for line manners.

You noted that the judges commented that the test would be done in one day, are you suggesting that the first series was an elimination test?

Is this typical for weekend HTs that you have entered?

 

[Pheasanttomeetyou]

Now we're talking about finding the "best" of the MH dogs which is what, in a nutshell, field trials were born from, the desire to prove who is the "best" dog. :razz:

First of all, passing the MN will NOT show the "best" of the MH dogs, just those dogs that passed that years MN. Not all MH dogs go to the MN.

Secondly, identifying the "best" dog is not the purpose of the MH program.

It is wrong to move the MH program in that direction.

If you have a desire to prove that your dog is the "best dog", move on to the FT venue.

Just say'in