Hunt Test Question. Pheasant in Master?

lvrgsp · Post by **lvrgsp** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:41 pm

I am not a hunt test guru, however I like them and think my dog should handle any game I hunt. I hunt them all, and hunt about a 100 days a year, that is my first priority. But I have no problem with multiple birds as far as the dog work goes, I agree with Dave that it may be somewhat troublesome with the judges and horses.

If I am training my dog for a MH ( which I am now ) and he comes across a pheasant and does not handle it properly, do I blame the club or my lack of training? I say bollocks........This is not a MH quail dog or a MH pheasant dog, this is a bird dog, to represent the true hunting situation, in any one day I may see quail, ducks, geese, woodcock, or pheasant, obviously the ducks and geese are handled differently, but a birdog all the same.
JMO,
Chip

Yawallac · Post by **Yawallac** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:07 pm

So what did the AKC pointing breed hunt tests take from NAVHDA, that didn't already exist in the AKC retriever hunt tests?

How about how to judge pointing, steadiness and search?

You have to remember that the Retriever Hunt test was in its infancy as well. It by no means was well established. Judging pointing dogs against a standard was well established in NAVHDA.

I don't mean to suggest that the AKC Hunt test for Pointers was "modeled" after NAVHDA, but it wasn't modeled after the Retriever's test either. There were certainly more things in common with NAVHDA and that should be obvious. Ken and members of the original rules committee talked to me and other NAVHDA folks at length during the initial phases about the differences in how NA dogs were judged vs the UT dogs in the field for example.

Judi Ware, the breeder of my GSP pup, was on the rules committee back then and I spoke with her a few weeks ago about what the test has evolved into. Some of it good and some not so good. The JH IMO needs work. The only positive thing about the JH is that it does get folks involved. Unfortunately too many use the title as an indication of hunting ability. Not so good.

BTW, the other NAVHDA judge with me that weekend was Dan Carter, who owned Woodland's Lord Hanschen, the GSPs very first MH.

Dave Quindt · Post by **Dave Quindt** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:50 pm

Yawallac,

I understand what you are saying but I still don't see any link to NAVHDA; I don't see the influence in the actual format or rules of the test.

Judging point, steadiness & search comes from field trials; it was just a matter of changing a competitive standard to a non-competitive hunting standard. The AKC hunt test is a glorified callback; even JH mimicked the old AKC field trial standard of callbacks for derby dogs. The retriever folks (AKC hunt test, NAHRA & HRC) all had gone through that themselves; changing an intense, highly competitive field trial standard to a hunting standard.

All I'm saying is that the AKC retriever hunt test program (JH/SH/MH for retriever breeds only, multiple passes for the title, etc) set the standard for AKC Hunt Tests and was carried forward in almost the exact same way to the pointers and the spaniels. The AKC retriever program was based on the NAHRA and HRC.

Judging against the standard was nothing new for the AKC; every field trial is judged against a standard as well - it's just that the placements are competitive in nature.

I'm outta here - I've got some grouse to scout this weekend.

Later,
Dave

Yawallac · Post by **Yawallac** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:55 pm

All I can do is tell you what I know from being there. Like I said, they probably drew from many sources, but what I do know is they asked us, as experienced NAVHDA members, a lot of questions and they used NAVHDA judges to judge the first test. I guess they could have asked experienced AKC Retriever Hunt Test judges, but they didn't. It's just a matter of connecting the dots.

phermes1 · Post by **phermes1** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:10 am

Yawallac,

Thanks for the insight - obviously I wasn't around when hunt tests were started - I think I was about 13 and had a cocker spaniel at the time

.

In either case, I guess really my main point on that post was that MH should NOT be made any easier, whether its purpose is to evaluate breeding stock or just give someone an opportunity to do something with their dogs. It had been suggested in an earlier post and I simply disagreed.

Good info, though. Thanks. Fwiw, I can definitely see many similarities with NAVHDA and could easily believe that they were used as a model, or at least one of a few models used to construct the testing format we use today.

parshal · Post by **parshal** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:39 am

phermes1 wrote:...MH should NOT be made any easier...

What the AKC hunt tests need more than anything is consistent judging. What is acceptable in one test by one set of judges is deemed unacceptable in another test. For instance, some judges expect a dog to point a dead bird while others expect it to be be picked up and brought to hand. I've seen both situations more than once and seen different expectations from the judges.

AHGSP · Post by **AHGSP** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:18 am

parshal wrote:
phermes1 wrote:...MH should NOT be made any easier...
What the AKC hunt tests need more than anything is consistent judging. What is acceptable in one test by one set of judges is deemed unacceptable in another test. For instance, some judges expect a dog to point a dead bird while others expect it to be be picked up and brought to hand. I've seen both situations more than once and seen different expectations from the judges.

AGREED! This was probably one of the toughest parts so far, of putting together a good Test. I've sought out Judges that have finished dogs at all levels, several FIELD venues and have been in the games for many years. The Judge's I've picked for this Test are involved and have been involved with AKC Hunt Test, Trials and NAVHDA. I wanted unbiased experience in the saddle to try an provide the most honest evaluation of ANY and ALL dogs run! I don't think most realize how tough it is to put together a quality Judges list!

phermes1 · Post by **phermes1** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:27 am

parshal wrote:
phermes1 wrote:...MH should NOT be made any easier...
What the AKC hunt tests need more than anything is consistent judging. What is acceptable in one test by one set of judges is deemed unacceptable in another test. For instance, some judges expect a dog to point a dead bird while others expect it to be be picked up and brought to hand. I've seen both situations more than once and seen different expectations from the judges.

They're at least taking a step in that direction with the upcoming, (if not already enacted) more stringent judging requirements for hunt tests - judges will be required to have handled X number of passes at the level to be judged, apprentice at least once, take a written test, etc.
It will make it more difficult for clubs to find judges, but at least any Joe Schmo off the street will not be able to jump in the saddle to judge. That's one thing that's always bugged me about hunt tests - people could judge without ever having even run a dog at that level. Ridiculous.

Of course, it still doesn't replace good old-fashioned experience, but it's a start.