[jacduck]

I normally don't tell anyone they are stupid, instead I use silly.

After many, many years of waterfowling as well as other hunting I have observed some gosh awful gun handling at the line of AKC tests. So much so that it gives me pause to think about the requirement of guns or fake guns on the line at all. So I ask for history from those who might know how this all came about and if it is time for a change.

1. Many handlers are not well oriented to gun use. As made obvious by the way they mount and point the guns in an attempt to point their dogs. Safety of handling or even a facsimile thereof is not a primary consideration.

Question; why are we forcing by rule this practice? Seems silly.

2. Very few of the birds that I have seen at tests are truly shootable by the handler. Example the 150 yard rule or even the walkup "presented from 35 to 45 yards" rule. Neither of these birds are high probability shots for anyone except the true "expert shooter" certainly not me or anyone I have hunted with in 60 plus years of waterfowling. I do give you the "golden BB" that we all have had, but that is no claim to excellence every shot. Add in the over your sholder from behind flop in front of you at 10 yards to cause the dog to break bird.

Question; why are we making handlers even have the gun if it is not a true hunting situation? Seems silly.

3. As a matter of practice for me, when working a young dog I rarely shoot. Instead I have a partner in the blind do the shooting so I can pay strict attention to calling and dog management.

Question; In most cases why would a handler be required to have a gun to point at a hunt test? I suspect many hunter/dog handlers feel the same. Rule Seems silly.

The handler gun carry/point rule in AKC should be gone!

I have made my points and will follow this discussion until it crashes with BS but probably will not comment further, rather try to have my mind changed or at least modified somewhat. So don't jump on me when I don't turn this into an argument.

Thank you for your thoughts!

 

[Labs]

If you don't want to carry a gun, run a FT...unfortunately, there are many running "hunt" tests that don't hunt....poor gun safety should be grounds for elimination in my book...

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

Rover is layin' on the kitchen floor. walk over and pick up the shotgun behind the screen door and see what he does.
Fang is sniffin' tires at a boat access, take the shotgun under the back seat of the truck out and see what he does.
A gun, a real gun, is a factor. Just like any other factor you can add to a test. However, yes giving the junior handler a gun is "silly" (I like that word) just as giving a master handler a painted plywood cutout is "silly". The use of the gun has been "silly-ed" up to the max in my opinion. Hunt test games have branched off from the original way back one and even judge the handlers use of the gun. But they all like that game so I say let um play what they like. If you want to use the gun as the factor it was made to be, be it akc, nahra or hrc, have it be real, freshly oiled and maybe even shot that a.m. so it is smelly like a good gun should be. And then watch ol' Fang and Rover dance to the line with glee.
I think more than a few akc judges have lost the thought that the gun itself is a factor, and others never had it to start with.

 

[HNTFSH]

If you don't want to carry a gun, run a FT...unfortunately, there are many running "hunt" tests that don't hunt....poor gun safety should be grounds for elimination in my book...

I agree, it's not rocket science and reasonable to have an understanding of gun handling. If for no other reason than there are often guns 'around' a hunt test. It is, after all, a 'Hunt test'. Let's not make it even less realistic than it is already in terms of a hunting retriever test.

 

[Huff]

Why don't they require a real gun at the line and the handler shoot one of the primer only load at the bird as its in the air. Not the popper that they shoot at the station but a quieter primer load. I have them and they are not loud at all. A gun that is not handed to the judges in a safe manner, action open, safety on, and pointed in a safe direction is automatic failure.

But then again its not like these tests are true hunting scenarios so just get rid of the gun and let the dog work be the thing judged.

Russell

 

[moscowitz]

John I think everything you say is correct. But it is a hunt test and not a hunting simulation . You want it to be a hunting situation go hunting. Oh yeah more important than the gun is our thermos.

 

[RetrieverNation]

I agree with you that observing the gun safety at these tests can be very disappointing but would also hate to see the same test turn into a "dog test" instead of a hunt test. I would push for education and leadership to continue to embrace the gun and put it in the spotlight instead of brushing under the table. Once there are enough non-gun types running these tests I would think that other standards such as real ducks would be next on the chopping block.

On another note, one of the more positive things of the HRC program is that almost all who participate will gain improved gun handling and gun safety skills due mostly to the amount of talking points gun safety gets and also the elimination factor if you are not safe.

 

[2tall]

Interesting timing for me. First off, I am not a hunter. Though I like target shooting pistols, I have never been comfortable or capable with a long gun. I do like dog training and handling. My husband who does hunt, is not really into the tests. So we each support the other in our interests. That being said, if we are really evaluating dog work, why bring the gun into it? I know that when I ran an AKC SH test last week, I would have been dropped on the walk up with my young dog if it had been HRC. As it was his first time to the line at this level, my entire being was focused on him, not the fake gun in my hands. As we came out of the holding blind, I had my eyes screwed down on the dog and I dropped the barrel of the gun down towards people. A quick shout of "gun safety" and I immediately snapped it back to my shoulder. But why do this? Since I am not at ease with shotguns, why is it necessary to split my concentration between dog and gun? I am not complaining and will work on all skills necessary. But like the OP, why? It certainly had no effect on the dog.

 

[counciloak]

As I see it if we are simulating a hunt, then we should cary a gun. Not a 2 X 4 painted orange! I can't respect for a board the same way as I can a shotgun.

We are given rules in this game, and I will abide by them as long as they are in effect, but in my opinion shouldering the shotgun in the direction of my hunting buddies is a perfect example of what gun safety is not! It is a negative habit transfer that could cary over to a real hunting situation.

Joe O

 

[Robert]

What? Do away with the wood gun!? Blasphemy!! What would we handlers do without that training aid going to the line

 

[Socks]

Interesting timing for me. First off, I am not a hunter. Though I like target shooting pistols, I have never been comfortable or capable with a long gun. I do like dog training and handling. My husband who does hunt, is not really into the tests. So we each support the other in our interests. That being said, if we are really evaluating dog work, why bring the gun into it? I know that when I ran an AKC SH test last week, I would have been dropped on the walk up with my young dog if it had been HRC. As it was his first time to the line at this level, my entire being was focused on him, not the fake gun in my hands. As we came out of the holding blind, I had my eyes screwed down on the dog and I dropped the barrel of the gun down towards people. A quick shout of "gun safety" and I immediately snapped it back to my shoulder. But why do this? Since I am not at ease with shotguns, why is it necessary to split my concentration between dog and gun? I am not complaining and will work on all skills necessary. But like the OP, why? It certainly had no effect on the dog.

The short answer is that you're training a hunting dog, not an agility dog regardless of whether or not you use the dog for hunting. I understand where you're coming from, but my dog goes silly when I get a real gun out and this makes the line manners at a HRC test more difficult vs his line manners at a AKC test. He can tell the difference between plywood and steel. No I'm not comparing AKC VS HRC before anyone thinks that.

 

[Mark Teahan]

A real hunting dog knows what a gun is, and what it means. The excitement level goes thru the roof.
When trap sees me pick up a gun he starts dancing, and gets to whining, and is all giddy.
IMO, it's more than just a controlled environment "let's watch our dogs retrieve dead ducks" show.

Hunt tests are a simulated hunt, and should have all factors involved.

 

[shawninthesticks]

Carol, I guess being a hunter before being in the games ,I see the opposite side of the coin. You are at the test to evaluate the dogs ability in a hunting situation. Maybe you need to add a gun to your setups to become more comfortable handling one ,maybe even take a state certified hunters safety course. We spend far more time on other aspects of training.

I can tell you that any true hunting dog, when they see a gun is has an effect on them,like Ken stated it is a factor. I would think that gun safety should be addressed at the handlers meeting and pour gunmanship should count against the team. Just like our dogs having trained responses through repetition ,safe gun handling will a trained response with proper training and repetition. (I am training my 10 year old son on these aspects now)

I think HT's are far enough away from true hunting situations now and by continuously taking out hunting scenario factors you only take away from the test.

 

[Dave Plesko]

If I'm out manning a gun station I do not want a real shot gun pointed in my direction, and if you intend to point it my way and pull the trigger you can find a new thrower.

Simulated guns are just fine. They accomplish the same thing SAFELY.

 

[rboudet]

The whole "gun gets my dog excited" thing I don't buy. Yes at home, the camp, the launch they will get a little amped up knowing whats associated with the gun and what it will lead to. But, when you get to the blind and pull the gun out do they start jumping in excitment? Mine don't, their eyes are glued to the sky. I have never seen a dog get more excited at the line when you pick up the gun. They are usually scanning the field looking for whats coming next. I have judged and watched many dogs in Qualifying stakes coming from HT that got pretty excited without a gun anywhere around. They are there for the birds and the retieve not the shooting. I think they would get just as excited if you were using a sling shot if birds are falling out of the sky.

 

[RookieTrainer]

The whole "gun gets my dog excited" thing I don't buy. Yes at home, the camp, the launch they will get a little amped up knowing whats associated with the gun and what it will lead to. But, when you get to the blind and pull the gun out do they start jumping in excitment? Mine don't, their eyes are glued to the sky. I have never seen a dog get more excited at the line when you pick up the gun. They are usually scanning the field looking for whats coming next. I have judged and watched many dogs in Qualifying stakes coming from HT that got pretty excited without a gun anywhere around. They are there for the birds and the retieve not the shooting. I think they would get just as excited if you were using a sling shot if birds are falling out of the sky.

All that may be true, as I don't think my dog has any added excitement because of the gun. But what about the potential breaking factor on the shot itself? I would think most dogs that get to the line have made the connection that gunshot = bird.

Now the question may be whether it is more appropriate to deliver that shot from the gunner station than from the line with a shotgun, and I might agree to a point. But if you move the shot to the gunner station, how do you then simulate the shot on the diversion bird?

 

[HNTFSH]

I think we should remove treats from the show ring. Improper treat handling is no reason to fail.

 

[Jennifer Henion]

For me, the fake gun is a factor - but it only effects ME, not my dog. Like was said earlier, when you're new to senior tests, with the nerves on edge, it's hard to divide your attention between the gun handling and the test. I got a tongue lashing at my last one for swinging the fake barrel in front of the judges as I was walking to the line and focusing on my dog's position and whether I put the leash in my pocket. One judge dropped to the ground in a panic. Guess he forgot it was fake. I was just thinking of it as a prop and that i wasn't on stage yet. At 43, I'm not very good at playing "pretend". But it was a good lesson I'll never forget.

Trust me, when I'm carrying a real gun while hunting, it's usually loaded and I'm very focused on where it's pointing and if the safety is on or not! If hunt tests made us carry a real break action gun with a popper load, I'd be paying a lot more attention to that and so would the dog. Then it would be a real factor.

 

[rboudet]

All that may be true, as I don't think my dog has any added excitement because of the gun. But what about the potential breaking factor on the shot itself? I would think most dogs that get to the line have made the connection that gunshot = bird.

Now the question may be whether it is more appropriate to deliver that shot from the gunner station than from the line with a shotgun, and I might agree to a point. But if you move the shot to the gunner station, how do you then simulate the shot on the diversion bird?

Dogs break on shots in the field all the time.

On the above post. I would not want my dog to focus on the gun in my hand. The action is in the field.

 

[2tall]

For me, the fake gun is a factor - but it only effects ME, not my dog. Like was said earlier, when you're new to senior tests, with the nerves on edge, it's hard to divide your attention between the gun handling and the test. I got a tongue lashing at my last one for swinging the fake barrel in front of the judges as I was walking to the line and focusing on my dog's position and whether I put the leash in my pocket. One judge dropped to the ground in a panic. Guess he forgot it was fake. I was just thinking of it as a prop and that i wasn't on stage yet. At 43, I'm not very good at playing "pretend". But it was a good lesson I'll never forget.

Trust me, when I'm carrying a real gun while hunting, it's usually loaded and I'm very focused on where it's pointing and if the safety is on or not! If hunt tests made us carry a real break action gun with a popper load, I'd be paying a lot more attention to that and so would the dog. Then it would be a real factor.

Hi lited = exactly my experience. Only change 43 to 58 and I'm even less good at pretending. Make no mistake, I will never forget the lesson for ME! So we are not complaining about the way the tests are run, but I do not think carrying a gun makes a test any more (or less) valid for judging dogs' abilities to a standard. For those of you that prefer it, there is always HRC where gun safety is a big part of the test. I can find plenty of other ways to fail without the drama.