Gun Dog Forum

Tooling wrote:That's totally valid and definitely leaves things potentially ambiguous. I'm guessing that's the intent of AKC's advanced titles which still holds the same ambiguous flaw though...I think. Publishing the data would definitely be an equalizer.

Its all on the internet to see. I can look up all 13 of my MHA dogs legs and since it took 6 passes to get the original MH and 5 to get the MHA you can see that we failed twice. Count in the times we ran as a bye dog (which doesnt show up but we never failed one) and you can see that the dogs percentage of passing was high. You can also look up at what age they ran. I dont see how that is ambiguous.

I stand corrected then...I had looked for that at one time and couldn't find the info.
Have a link?

Tooling wrote:I stand corrected then...I had looked for that at one time and couldn't find the info.
Have a link?

Go to the AKC site, then Dogs Wins in the Store. You will need an account and the dog's name or registration number. It is all there for free. There are other reports available for a small fee, like Top Dogs for Field and Show.

Are you like this in other aspects of your life? Just stumbling along without a clue while making declarative statements. I will say again, it is not that you don't know, it is that you don't know you don't know.

Neil wrote:Go to the AKC site, then Dogs Wins in the Store. You will need an account and the dog's name or registration number. It is all there for free

I find nothing for hunt tests onlt ft's etc.

Ms. Cage wrote:

Neil wrote:Go to the AKC site, then Dogs Wins in the Store. You will need an account and the dog's name or registration number. It is all there for free

I find nothing for hunt tests onlt ft's etc.

Not sure what is wrong, it comes up for me.

Neil wrote:

Ms. Cage wrote:

Neil wrote:Go to the AKC site, then Dogs Wins in the Store. You will need an account and the dog's name or registration number. It is all there for free

I find nothing for hunt tests onlt ft's etc.

Not sure what is wrong, it comes up for me.

Every thing earned In AKC events becomes available on the internet.

Can't seem to find it either...all that it shows is that he passed (4) HT's He was entered in 5

The search function on events for AKC is nice, but as with Tooling I can only find a summary of passes for Hunt Tests, it does not provide me with number of times entered, or anything related to scores... is there something additional you need to get this information, or is it in a different location?

LincolnAlexander wrote:The search function on events for AKC is nice, but as with Tooling I can only find a summary of passes for Hunt Tests, it does not provide me with number of times entered, or anything related to scores... is there something additional you need to get this information, or is it in a different location?

That's all I find too.

It's been a very long time since I've sec'yed a hunt test, but I kinda remember that only the dogs which pass are recorded on the sheets that go back to AKC. If that's correct, then AKC would have no record of a failing dog's scores or even if he ran that day. And unless things have changed, scores weren't recorded on the papers, either. The purpose of scoring is allow the judges an aid to make a decision concerning pass/fail. Scores are judge's guidelines. Although scores are useful in determining in which areas your dog may need work, they aren't supposed to matter as far 'good dog' vs 'great dog' since the whole format is only pass/fail.

LincolnAlexander wrote:One of the things that bothers me, at least from a CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) perspective, is the disparity in ability between dogs that have the same title, and how difficult it is to find information on the testing.

You could have one dog that passed all its legs it entered, with high 90's in each leg, and another dog that had to try 30 times and eeked by with any of its passes, but both dogs have the same same title, and it is difficult to find details on the scores (both at a total level and in each category), and how many times the dog was entered. One of the reasons I like NAVHDA is the fact that you can see all of that detail.

I think the issue may be that you are comparing the scoring criteria of a something like Field Trial with that of a Hunt Test. Basically, he former is a competition with multiple criteria where the highest scorer wins while the latter has less criteria and is a pass or fail test.

It's like taking your driver's test: you either pass or you fail. The actual scores are irrelevant.

I understand it is a pass or fail system based on a standard, but I disagree that the scores are irrelevant as they can definitely provide insight into a dogs ability and performance.

Are you on a tablet or smart phone? Try a desk top.

LincolnAlexander wrote:I understand it is a pass or fail system based on a standard, but I disagree that the scores are irrelevant as they can definitely provide insight into a dogs ability and performance.

If you want "My dog is better than your dog" then enter a Field Trial.
Scores are inconsistent with the basic premise of the non-competitive environment.

I did not say anything about "my dog is better than you dog", I simply said I see value in knowing scores and how many times a dog had to run to complete its title.

LincolnAlexander wrote:I did not say anything about "my dog is better than you dog", I simply said I see value in knowing scores and how many times a dog had to run to complete its title.

The only reason for this would be to make a relative ranking of one dog against the other, which is "My dog is better than your dog", regardless of whose dogs they are.
It is a met/did not meet the standard concept. If you want to know more than that, ask the owner. Like I did when I was inquiring about the purchase of a FC male dog. I wanted something to be competitive with - this dog finished his FC in 3 years in walking shooting dog stakes. I passed on the sale.

Or the scores could simply give insight into the dog... For instance, a dog gets a 2 in search with NAVHDA; I don't look at the other dogs and say "those 3 other dogs got a 4 in search they are all better!", instead I think about what a 2 tells me about the dog. The dog could be lacking range, groundspeed, or does not intelligently check cover (or maybe just had a bad day). Being able to see scores can provide context about how that dog performs against the standard, which a simple pass/fail doesn't give.

slistoe wrote:If you want to know more than that, ask the owner. Like I did when I was inquiring about the purchase of a FC male dog. I wanted something to be competitive with - this dog finished his FC in 3 years in walking shooting dog stakes. I passed on the sale.

Definitely a good point. Asking the owner (as well as others you trust who have seen a dog work) can give very valuable information.

The competition is already pretty tough in the non-competitive events without having scores published, with all the first, only, youngest, oldest, least, most, etc brags folks make about their dogs I saw a guy in junior hunter nearly pull a judge off his horse yelling "What do you mean giving my dog a 7 in anything?? He's never had a score less than 9 in his life!!"

Gad, I couldn't imagine the drama posting scores would cause

shags wrote:The competition is already pretty tough in the non-competitive events without having scores published, with all the first, only, youngest, oldest, least, most, etc brags folks make about their dogs I saw a guy in junior hunter nearly pull a judge off his horse yelling "What do you mean giving my dog a 7 in anything?? He's never had a score less than 9 in his life!!"

Gad, I couldn't imagine the drama posting scores would cause

LOL I saw a competitor, mad as hops, go ripping across the field in his car to find the judge, because he had just heard that we were breaking for lunch.He wanted to have his brace before elunch.! He ended up leaving and hollering from his car, "I know where you live." He was a Conservation Officer. At field trials you get to see the "real person". LOL

LincolnAlexander wrote:Or the scores could simply give insight into the dog... For instance, a dog gets a 2 in search with NAVHDA; I don't look at the other dogs and say "those 3 other dogs got a 4 in search they are all better!", instead I think about what a 2 tells me about the dog. The dog could be lacking range, groundspeed, or does not intelligently check cover (or maybe just had a bad day). Being able to see scores can provide context about how that dog performs against the standard, which a simple pass/fail doesn't give.

Or the dog just had a bad day while under judgement.


There are other venues where you can compete with your dogs. Hunt Tests are not competition.

shags wrote:The competition is already pretty tough in the non-competitive events without having scores published, with all the first, only, youngest, oldest, least, most, etc brags folks make about their dogs I saw a guy in junior hunter nearly pull a judge off his horse yelling "What do you mean giving my dog a 7 in anything?? He's never had a score less than 9 in his life!!"

Gad, I couldn't imagine the drama posting scores would cause

Exactly. I have seen many a handler disagree with the scores their dog got simply because they "felt" the dog deserved a higher mark.

Again, I go back to what I said about it being pass or fail. The actual scores the dog got are only relevant to the judge and the handler within that context. If the dog "fails", then the handler can look at the scores and to see where the dog needs improvement in order to achieve a passing grade. But that's it. Publish them? Why? As long as h/s passed, what difference does it make? Unless you are going for an Advanced title, which is something else entirely.

What about the retriever AKC Master Invitational and the HRC Fall and Spring Grand? Do they give scores or rankings? Something? Or is it still pass/fail?