JH, SH, MH

nowicki2005 · Post by **nowicki2005** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:04 pm

What is a rough timetable of when you would expect that you could first try your dog in a junior hunt test? How old are the dogs that are normally competing in the MH?

Post by **kninebirddog** » Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:42 pm

JH anytime after 6 months

the rest is more about the training then age don't want to push them to young but you may have one that is more natural then another and can do it younger

so training and being prepared is more important then age

phillipsgsp · Post by **phillipsgsp** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:46 pm

I agree with k-9, better to wait and have the dog doing what it needs to be doing reliably before running it in a sh or mh leval. If the training is not there you most often will have the dog fail and just be throwing cash away in entry fees. most of my dogs start sh at about the age of 2. This spring I was able to have my 2 1/2 yr old female go 5 out of 7 in sh. she will be ready for mh in the fall.

Chad

phermes1 · Post by **phermes1** » Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:09 pm

If the dog is hunting and able to find and point birds, it's basically ready for JH. We had our pups running in JH as soon as they were old enough. We ran Buffy in NA at 5 months and she came out with a prize II.

SH/MH - don't be in a hurry.

bwjohn · Post by **bwjohn** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 6:33 am

Most advice that I have gotten, is to wait until you are absolutely confident that your dog can do and in training does the tasks required to pass a level. It is not a good time to hope that he/she will perform. The last thing that you want to do is mess up someone else's chance at a pass.

Also, if you are not confident then the dog will see that, I have trouble with this. I only have the JH and it is not difficult to get but he is my first bird dog and my first experience with everything so I get a little nervous.

All that being said, in the short time that I have been doing this, I have seen dogs from 2 to 6 or 8 getting SH or MH titles. There are to many variables to take into account to decide when your dog should be ready or will be ready to take a test.

I have even seen dogs 2-5 taking the JH test.

Good Luck w/ training,

brandon

nowicki2005 · Post by **nowicki2005** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:09 am

This is my first bird dog as well and in all honestly, I would be pretty happy with myself and dog just getting the JH title.

phermes1 · Post by **phermes1** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:17 am

One other thing: my main concern with JH would be making sure your dog is introduced to gunfire beforehand and doesn't have a problem with it. If you have any doubt as to your dog's sensitivity to gunfire, don't enter. And don't go into the test just to 'see what happens'; if they're not properly introduced to gunfire, you increase the chances of making them gunshy which is a big problem that you do NOT want.

And either way, even if your dog is fine with loud noises, when you enter JH, keep an eye on your bracemate and watch where your gun is pointing when you fire it. A lot of new and/or nervous handlers are so anxious about getting the blank gun out and firing when their dog is on point that they don't think to look and end up shooting the gun off in the face of their bracemate, which is a really good way to make that dog gunshy. Or in the face of the judge's horse, which doesn't usually end well.

TrueBlu Shorthairs · Post by **TrueBlu Shorthairs** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:46 am

My 2 cents, yes, make sure your dog has been fully and properly conditioned to the gun, including shotguns. Run the dog, if he points and hunts reasonably well, he will get a passing score in most cases. Still, shoot the gun when the dog is in full chase, even at the test, and he'll be fine.

I tend to tell people to decide between SH and MH by first deciding how much advanced training they will put on the dog. If you are eventually going to steady the dog to the kill, then don't run SH at all. Put the JH on your dog, hunt him for a full season, break him when he's around 2 or so, then run MH when he's ready. No real point to the SH if you will fully break the dog. If you want him breaking on shot anyway, then put the SH on him and realize that it is going to be geometrically more difficult to fully break him after he has been allowed to break on shot.

To me, JH and SH don't mean much. But, the MH title is a very nice title.

phillipsgsp · Post by **phillipsgsp** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:27 pm

I would run the dog in all levels and work up to the MH. If this is your first dog, there is a ton of stuff you can learn in SH to help you become a better handler. I also think that SH is a great stepping stone for the dog if a MH title is what you are after. A SH dog has to do pretty much everything a MH dog has to do, but can be coached along more so the MH dog. I try to have my dogs broke to the point that if they break on the shot I can whoa them and then send themfor the downed bird. Having them to that point helps the transition to MH smoother. The more tests and different test situations they are put in the better they will handle and make good out of bad situations in the feild(poor flying bird, having their point stolen, honoring dog breaking in on the bird, missed bird, ect.) the more seasoned the dog is the easier passing at the MH level will be. IMO

Chad

daddyfid · Post by **daddyfid** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:44 am

Run JH so you can see what the tests are all about. Each time you run you will learn a ton from the judges, other handlers and you will become a better handler. The only time we did not pass in senior was because I screwed up. The judges told me after the fact what I should have done in the situation. The down side to running in JH is that your dog might pick up on some bad habbits. I would run all levels the first time through and then on your second dog you could skip JH or SH. Good luck.

PS. It would be nice if there was a handling training tape you could buy.

monksmom · Post by **monksmom** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:59 pm

I am a first time bird dog owner too. My dog tested in NAVHDA first (due to the age limit thing) and prize 2, but some of my friends were also doing AKC so I thought I'd try JH. I was told to be careful, that it could cause bad habits, especially since you are running with another dog who may not be experienced or trained at all. At the point of his first JH, he was already 98% steady to flush and shot...so I had a lot that could be undone. And he had never hunted quail. But I had a blast, my dog had some great experience, and actually was steady throughout except for his very first bird, to my astonishment honored a Brit on point in the third test, and pointed 4 birds and stayed steady while a bird ran to allow for the other dog to have a chance to get some birds pointed(sigh). The people were nice and the judges, especialy at JH level, want to see your dog pass if at all possible. I also had a chance to do a little education and ambassadorship of my breed (Spinone) I plan to do SH this fall in prep for MH. So I agree totally with the last 2 posters except to say that if you have been training the dog well, you shouldn't undo anything. Go for it...it is lot of fun!

snips · Post by **snips** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:41 pm

I agree totally with Chad. I like to do JH to give them the exposure. SH is great for experience before going on to the next level, for you and your dog. It is then not that hard to fine tune for Master. I like to get the SH then go on to FT's, it is not that much of a jump.

CherrystoneWeims · Post by **CherrystoneWeims** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:09 pm

snips wrote:I agree totally with Chad. I like to do JH to give them the exposure. SH is great for experience before going on to the next level, for you and your dog. It is then not that hard to fine tune for Master. I like to get the SH then go on to FT's, it is not that much of a jump.

One thing I am going to add to what Brenda said. If you want to FT your dog don't train too much for obedience as needed for MH. I made this mistake with Pearl. It really shortened up her run. She's fine for walking trials but not as good for horseback trials. I'm working with Scarlet totally differently. Much less obedience and we'll do the FT stuff first and then go for MH.

Get the experience of running in every level. It will make you a better handler by running in SH and then going on to MH. There are a lot of "tricks" that you will learn also.

I still remember my second time running in SH and Brenda was my bracemate. I learned where to stand so that the other dog would have a better shot at honoring my dog!

snips · Post by **snips** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:55 pm

Pam, did I hollar "get outa the way?"

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:36 am

IMHO such as it is.

JH :
1)is good for a novice dog handler to become comfortable with handling a dog under judgement.
2)Is good for a dog to be used to working a field with another dog and other people around.
3) Good for a dog that has not seen many birds.
4) Good to get some of the show dog people on our side in the fight against the anti's.
5) Other than that it is a waist of time and money.
6)Unless one is a breeder and all the pups and generations test before 2 years old to show consistant ability, the JH is a joke. IMHO

SH:
1) Good test for un finished dogs or for folks who wish to stop for perceived practical reasons, to show their abilities.
2) Good test to help slower developing dogs gain confidence under test conditions (and the handler).
3) Fair repensentation of the MH test.

I go right to MH because I am cheap and I want my training to have a flow. I think that the SH test can be in the way of training to a higher level, in timely fashion.

Not trying to wrinkle anyone just my feelings

CherrystoneWeims · Post by **CherrystoneWeims** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:19 am

snips wrote:Pam, did I hollar "get outa the way?"

Something to that effect!

One other thing that I am going to suggest. DON'T train for Senior level. Train for Master level if you are going to only do HT's and not field trial. You'll have a much easier time going through SH (do this for YOUR experience) and will be able to concentrate on your handling skills and not have to worry quite as much about your dog since he/she will be more reliable.

Something else that will help you. Take the AKC Hunt test judge's seminar. It will really get you to see what the judges are looking for and understand the rules.

phillipsgsp · Post by **phillipsgsp** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:12 am

I use to totatly agree with rick, but now feel that running SH gives the that extra amount of being exsposed to the game and can encounter more of those sticky situations that the handler can talk a dog through and still pass. Where in MH the addition handling would not be allowed. In my opinion it is like training the dog for the majors. I am cheap and do not like to spend $$$$ on entry fees if the dog does not have a good chance of passing but I totaly think the $$ spent running SH to prepare for MH is well spent $$$. Evan if you only run SH 2 or 3 times then moove up it really helps prepare the dog.

imo

Chad

Post by **ezzy333** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:24 am

I thinkit comes down to what your goals are. If you want tosee the initials behind your dogs name, I would start with the MH title.

However, if you enjoy:

doing things with your dog

meeting people

seeing other dogs work

seeing your dog perform

providing experience for your dog

talking dogs with other people

exposing your dogs to other breeders

enjoy competion

enjoy living a long and happy life doing things with a birddog

then start with the JH to judge the natural ability, and once he passes that then start the training to finish it to the SH and then the MH levels.

Ezzy

phillipsgsp · Post by **phillipsgsp** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:05 am

This may be off topic, but what is everyones opinion on the MH title and would you say it is more or less difficult to obtain than a AFC or FC? THis is not intended to turn into a "cheap titles thread" or anything of the sort. Just wanted to get feelings on in true aspect of foot hunting dogs what is a greater value or degree of difficulty in everyones eyes. If I am looking at pedigrees I feel seeing SH and MH standout to me more so than a FC. Not to discredit any FC dogs as they truely are bird finding machines, just think that the MH focuses more on what I am trying to put out and what I take into the feild to hunt with.

Chad

Post by **ezzy333** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:38 am

I imagine it is just everyones personal feeling but the FC is more impressive to me since I see the SH and MH titles more as a training title and not physical ability tests. Just to be clear, I think both are good but what we are talking about is what do they mean to you.

Ezzy

zzweims · Post by **zzweims** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:37 pm

I never liked the MH title. There are plenty of MH dogs that make fine hunting dogs (after you un-train them) and a few that can be fine field trial dogs, but too many I see have the fire, desire, and independence trained right out of them. Also, the amount of training it takes for the MH title, is time I'd rather spend hunting with the dog. A Senior Hunter, on the other hand, is a joy to hunt and work with. I run my dogs through JH, then take them hunting for a season. Then we will either do SH or Gun Dog or both, depending on the dog.

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

phermes1 · Post by **phermes1** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:28 pm

ezzy333 wrote:I thinkit comes down to what your goals are. If you want tosee the initials behind your dogs name, I would start with the MH title.

However, if you enjoy:

doing things with your dog

meeting people

seeing other dogs work

seeing your dog perform

providing experience for your dog

talking dogs with other people

exposing your dogs to other breeders

enjoy competion

enjoy living a long and happy life doing things with a birddog

then start with the JH to judge the natural ability, and once he passes that then start the training to finish it to the SH and then the MH levels.

Ezzy

Well put, ezzy.

snips · Post by **snips** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:05 pm

I agree 100% with Aline. That is why I do SH, then go on to FT's. You never know what you will have left after Master...

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:02 pm

Knowing that a dog is extremely well trained does not tell me everything I would like to know . I like to see all the levels (of a dog's progress) and know how the dog progresses to get there. I like to see dogs run JH if the owner is not a hunter or is a hunter but not a "dog trainer." [especially if the dog did not go to a trainer to get to the JH level] It tells me the dog has some innate abilty that was not "trained." But then I also like to see a SH or MH later and that tells me the dog can do well with higher levels of training. But some of thge BEST hunting dogs I know are just "darn good dogs" not SH or MH not steady beyond the flush, but retrieve EVERy bird, find hundreds of birds, hunt hard, and all day and act well, and most of it merely shaped from actual hunting. These are GREAT dogs to and should not be "just JH" dogs. They put birds in the bag and work for and with their owners, and that is important to me.

The hunt tests are games. Fun games. and help show what you can do with your dog. but they are not the end all be all of what a dog is or can be. I like em, and plan to run more with my dogs. I get really tired of hearing that JH means nothing or a MH is "too" trained. That FC are too high strung, or NAVHDA dogs are too methodical or whatever else someone might come up with. Everybody has their own preference on the details they want out of the hunting buddies. My dog is my dog. He is not defined by his JH or SH title or show title or whatever, but it tells you a little of something about him. Just a piece. Does the fact that I have a Biology degree make me better or smarter? No. Just the educational path I chose. Neither does it mean that I know nothing about other disciplines. But I still put it on my resume.

I did work very hard for it and am proud of it. But alot of folks without it are much smarter than I, and it does not define me by any means.

Thank goodness.

So play the games, take your dog hunting, love your dog and have fun with the games you like. And brag about the ones you succeed at. I mean bragging is fun too!

Post by **Sharon** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:03 pm

In Canada we have JFD, FD and FDX - similiar requirements.

My first foray with a dog was in Field Dog Junior. I was scared to death. Forgot to fire the gun. Left the field. Judge called me back and said, " Lady, you need to fire the gun." The dog passed!!!!!

These are great events to get new people started.

Now I participate in AFTCA field trials. Quite a difference. ( I still forget to fire the gun sometimes. LOL - but the judge doesn't help me anymore. LOL )

NE Vizsla · Post by **NE Vizsla** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:11 pm

snips wrote:I agree 100% with Aline. That is why I do SH, then go on to FT's. You never know what you will have left after Master...

After Master you'll have a Master same as after Senior you'll have a Senior.

Brushbustin Sporting Dogs · Post by **Brushbustin Sporting Dogs** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:22 pm

I've had the privelage to hunt behind several finished Masters. I have yet to see one that has the "fire taken out" or has nothing left so too speak. I've got a young dog that is a finished Senior and I will run her in both Master and Gundog stakes this fall. I have done lots of obedience training with her to help keep her in a bird field but she hunts and goes where the birds are I see no problem with running dogs in both and if your going to break your dog out for FT's whats the difference from Master???

Robbie

snips · Post by **snips** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:48 pm

One big difference is the dog has to stand there thru ANYTHING without saying much if any caution. I have seen the bird shot right over a backing dog and fall much closer to him than the pointing dog, And pointing dog making a blind retrieve... Seen dogs have to stand thru difficult to impossible retrieves with lots of commands, ect, and backing dog stand there. It takes a step up for a dog to handle this stuff IMO.... A dog can be cautioned more in a FT and SH, and backing is not as big an issue, matter of fact I see it avoided more than not in a FT. I fully understand a dog can make it thru this just fine, but it may also make a robot out of him. I would rather have a dog that makes a grab at a bird flying at his face than a dishrag that is suppossed to stand there thru anything.

CherrystoneWeims · Post by **CherrystoneWeims** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:54 pm

snips wrote:One big difference is the dog has to stand there thru ANYTHING without saying much if any caution. I have seen the bird shot right over a backing dog and fall much closer to him than the pointing dog, And pointing dog making a blind retrieve... Seen dogs have to stand thru difficult to impossible retrieves with lots of commands, ect, and backing dog stand there. It takes a step up for a dog to handle this stuff IMO.... A dog can be cautioned more in a FT and SH, and backing is not as big an issue, matter of fact I see it avoided more than not in a FT. I fully understand a dog can make it thru this just fine, but it may also make a robot out of him. I would rather have a dog that makes a grab at a bird flying at his face than a dishrag that is suppossed to stand there thru anything.

I totally agree with Brenda. MH training can take some of the independence out of a dog as it requires soooooo much more obedience. I saw it with my own dog. Pearl was much more independent before I stepped up her training for MH. She ran much more "on the edge" so to speak. She is still a great hunting dog and not a dishrag but will never make it as a FT horseback dog.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:11 pm

I see the two as being almost opposite in what is required of the dog. MH is in a small field and the dog has to find a bird and handle it to the point of almost being mechanical. In a FT you are looking for a dog that is independant and hunts a large area going to objectives that the dog thinks is where the birds are, finding a bird and waiting for you to find him. If you make him mechanical first you normally don't get the independence back.

Ezzy

Brushbustin Sporting Dogs · Post by **Brushbustin Sporting Dogs** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:22 pm

It is so different from dog to dog and I've seen so piss poor mechanical hunt test dogs but they are not all that way. I started out wanting to run hunt test. I bought a pup out of All age stock and all my work revolved around hunt test. When I started looking at field trials I didn't think she would run enough for them and was kinda bummed. She is MAster broke now does all the work she needs to to pass at the MAster level I finished her Senior this spring andran her only once in master where we failed more so me than her but anyhow. She didn't start "running" till this spring when she turned 2. She runs aroound real nice ran her in one horseback gundog stake where we would have been put up, probably 3rd, had we found a bird but thats that. But she does everything needed to be a great field trial dog even though I'm probably a horrible handler. I honestly think dogs can be great in both games. She very indepedent and runs around alot. So Ezzy I don't think your thoughts on what a hunt test dog should be are accurate. Yes again there are some dogs that you see that are mechanical in there mannerism this disgusts me and I hate to watch that dog in callbacks get a pass after it looks just horrible but we've all seen it happen. But I think if you have a good dog it isn't that hard to get them around clean in both games. But again not all dogs can do it.

Robbie

phillipsgsp · Post by **phillipsgsp** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:12 pm

I don't think MH dogs lack the independance or lose the range. My MH dog has always run on the edge, when we hit the bird feild he seemed to always be at the other side of it when he found birds, he usualy had to stand a few minutes before I got to him. MH dogs are still judged on hunting ability seeking objectives and finding birds. I would have to agree with Brushbustin, most all the finished MH dogs I have hunted behind do not lack drive and desire and are running and placing in gun dog stakes. I guess I hav ethe answer to my question of which is more difficult to obtain, sounds to me MH takes more training and time. What ever the title, MH or FC it still means you have one heck of a dog and it is somthing to be proud of for sure and they are dogs that are definitly at the top of the barrel when all is said.

Chad

NE Vizsla · Post by **NE Vizsla** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:51 pm

snips wrote:One big difference is the dog has to stand there thru ANYTHING without saying much if any caution. I have seen the bird shot right over a backing dog and fall much closer to him than the pointing dog, And pointing dog making a blind retrieve... Seen dogs have to stand thru difficult to impossible retrieves with lots of commands, ect, and backing dog stand there. It takes a step up for a dog to handle this stuff IMO.... A dog can be cautioned more in a FT and SH, and backing is not as big an issue, matter of fact I see it avoided more than not in a FT. I fully understand a dog can make it thru this just fine, but it may also make a robot out of him. I would rather have a dog that makes a grab at a bird flying at his face than a dishrag that is suppossed to stand there thru anything.

Whats wrong with a dog that will stand through anything? When i say whoa that dog better whoa, when he establishes a point that does not mean keep relocating on your own, when he stops for a honor that means honer..not go ahead and retrieve the bird since it dropped closer to me then the pointing dog, A dishrag...i dont think so.

A dog that stands through anything to me is a broke dog.

phermes1 · Post by **phermes1** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:58 am

NE Vizsla wrote:
snips wrote:One big difference is the dog has to stand there thru ANYTHING without saying much if any caution. I have seen the bird shot right over a backing dog and fall much closer to him than the pointing dog, And pointing dog making a blind retrieve... Seen dogs have to stand thru difficult to impossible retrieves with lots of commands, ect, and backing dog stand there. It takes a step up for a dog to handle this stuff IMO.... A dog can be cautioned more in a FT and SH, and backing is not as big an issue, matter of fact I see it avoided more than not in a FT. I fully understand a dog can make it thru this just fine, but it may also make a robot out of him. I would rather have a dog that makes a grab at a bird flying at his face than a dishrag that is suppossed to stand there thru anything.
Whats wrong with a dog that will stand through anything? When i say whoa that dog better whoa, when he establishes a point that does not mean keep relocating on your own, when he stops for a honor that means honer..not go ahead and retrieve the bird since it dropped closer to me then the pointing dog, A dishrag...i dont think so.

A dog that stands through anything to me is a broke dog.

Not having that verbal caution or a hand on the collar, IMO, puts more pressure on the dog. He's having to ignore all of his natural instincts with little or no guidance from his handler. If you have your hand on his collar, then there's basically nothing he can do wrong, nothing to correct him for, and the experience remains positive for him.
I don't feel putting a MH on Shooter affected him all that horribly, but I can tell you that the one thing that probably bothered him more than anything was having to heel away from a bird without me collaring him. We didn't have many big issues anywhere else. He did it just fine, but I think it confused him quite a bit. I was asking him to do something that just plain didn't make sense to him and I think it took a little zip out of him. He's since gotten over it and is fine, though.

Anyway ... I think MH is a very good title, but it does take a good bit of training and it CAN negatively affect a dog. As many a bird dog person has told me, the good dogs screw up and take out birds once in a while.

phillipsgsp · Post by **phillipsgsp** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:02 am

Well said NE Viz. Nothing wrong with have a well trained dog that you know is'nt going to steal a retreive, point, not honor. The AKC standard says a MH dog is a true gentlemans brag dog and should be judged with that in mind, so I would think not having to yell and hack the dog through any situation is a good thing. Who wants to hack at your dog all day when you are out hunting. With a MH dog needing to be of best quality, top of the line and handle all its birds with no errors, I do not see any dishrags passing here in NE. This spring I failed a dog for this same reason, no style, not leaving a 15 yard radius of the handler. I hope dogs like this are not passing in other parts of the country. Remember we are talking about a dogs that must be stylish, have plenty of drive, and do it all to perfection, a top notch dog. IMO
Chad

snips · Post by **snips** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:37 am

It is really not a requirement that the dog be stylish in hunt tests. A Rep gave a small seminar the eve before a hunt test I was at and said the best hunting dog on earth may flag, may drop on point or hit a point low or sitting. He said it should not be penelized to flunking, only scored lower. He did say the dog should not drop when the handler goes in to flush, but if that is how the point was hit, so be it. This is a test of a dog you would want to take hunting, not a test on style.

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:31 am

IMHO.

I am a little surprised about some of the comments about a dog loosing desire, independence, being mechanical, no style, range etc. in MH. I think everyone knows that each of these things is a training issue or your dog never had style, never had desire or independence. Unfortuately one can pass a poor dog in MH through Training. Seen it a few times. All the things you all are talking about can and do happen. But if your approach is right. You should have no problems.

I have two MH at the House now, and another that will be starting the MH test in the fall. each of these dogs has all of what one would want in a good fun hunting dog. Only one (my GSP) is one I feel could have any chance at Horse back trials. (We will never know) They all do NSTRA well. I think if your dog has it and you don't beat it out of them, it has it & then there is no problem you retain all that is good. If your dog did not have it then, it may be mechanical , a real close worker, not to flashy etc.

To cap it off, there are many breeds that don't have the flash or range etc. But they are still good hunting dogs. (Just not what I would want).
(Foot note)
I feel there should be an average range minimum that a pointing dog should be judged on. In other words if a dog hunts the cover properly and thouroughly good, but if there is open field or woods then the dog should range out some not be in Shot gun range all the time. ( This may be a bit hard to set up or judge ) Flushing dogs are for shotgun range.IMHO

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:16 am

Brushbustin Sporting Dogs wrote:...I see no problem with running dogs in both and if your going to break your dog out for FT's whats the difference from Master???

Robbie,
There are several differences in requirements between MH and broke dog stakes in field trials. In my experience, there are also differences in the way the dogs end up being judged.

I've gunned for probably 300 SH and MH dogs at hunt tests and seen more than that. Being a newcomer to field trialing, I've probably only seen about that many dogs run in walking and horseback FT.

In short, my impression is that, relative to each other, a MH dog has to be more broke/mannered while a FT dog has to have more style on the go and on point. It's nice to see dogs with both MH and FC.

Just my $0.02, but you might want to be a little slower to dismiss Brenda's (snips) experiences. She's been very, very successful in several different formats as have hundreds of her clients.

Greg J.

NE Vizsla · Post by **NE Vizsla** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:15 pm

Greg Jennings wrote:
Brushbustin Sporting Dogs wrote:...

Just my $0.02, but you might want to be a little slower to dismiss Brenda's (snips) experiences. She's been very, very successful in several different formats as have hundreds of her clients.

Greg J.

Just my 02 but maybe certain people should be a little slower to dismiss our experiences as well. Some of us do attend trials/tests as well. I dont have any clients but i do know a few people in the dog world as do others commenting on this..so we are not all rookies as some might think.

Dave Quindt · Post by **Dave Quindt** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:41 pm

snips wrote:It is really not a requirement that the dog be stylish in hunt tests. A Rep gave a small seminar the eve before a hunt test I was at and said the best hunting dog on earth may flag, may drop on point or hit a point low or sitting. He said it should not be penelized to flunking, only scored lower. He did say the dog should not drop when the handler goes in to flush, but if that is how the point was hit, so be it. This is a test of a dog you would want to take hunting, not a test on style.

Brenda,
If this is what an AKC rep is telling folks, things have gone from bad to worse. What's the point of scoring a category lower if it's still a passing score?

I agree that style shouldn't be a requirement to pass a hunt test, but some of what this rep said isn't about style, but about intensity. And intensity is a requirement to pass, at least MH.

If this AKC rep wants to tell folks that flagging is fine, then someone needs to change the rule book. If they want to change the rules, so be it. But the AKC needs to step up and inform folks that they are allowing judges to pass MH dogs even though they display what the AKC itself calls "a fault".

Where in the rules or guidelines does it say that intensity is less important that anything else?

Section 4. Instructions and Test Requirements
for Master Hunting Test.

(3) POINTING: This category, graded from “0” to “10,” reflects a dog’s intensity and staunchness. A Master hunting dog must be steady to wing and shot on all birds. A dog shall not be commanded to retrieve until positive steadiness has been demonstrated. A dog that breaks cannot receive a Qualifying score. It is permissible for the handler to caution a Master hunting dog on point. Cautioning, if any, is expected to be quiet and infrequent. No intimidation or physical restraint shall be permitted.

Guidelines for Pointing Breed Hunting Tests
3. Pointing:
Pointing is more easily defined than Hunting and Bird Finding Abilities. Scoring in this category should reflect the style (intensity and staunchness) of the dog and its ability to pinpoint birds, especially with difficult or confusing scent patterns.

Flagging (lack of staunchness) on game is generally a fault and should be reflected in the score of any dog. This could be a dog which has only stopped with a soft stance on a bird. A dog with a low stance should not be scored lower than a dog with a high stance if it demonstrates staunchness and intensity, particularly in difficult pointing situations. Some breeds may not carry as high a head and tail as others, and this should be weighed in determining a score.

As to:

This is a test of a dog you would want to take hunting, not a test on style.

I would agree, but remind folks of how the rulebook describes a MH dog:

Section 3. Master Hunting Test.
A Master hunting dog must give a finished performance and demonstrate clearly that it deserves to be qualified as such.
.
Intelligent use of the wind and terrain in locating game, accurate nose, and intensity on point are essential.

I know you are just relaying what you were told, and hopefully there are enough good bird dog folks in the judging saddles who will ignore such nonsense.

JMO,
Dave

CherrystoneWeims · Post by **CherrystoneWeims** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:51 pm

I attended a judge's seminar this past Sat. Things have gone down for requirements for a MH title. I was appalled actually! Yep flagging was not a disqualification when the slideshow was presented. Another thing that shocked me was that a delayed chase is not a DQ anymore!!!!!! It is to be penalized but not held as a DQ. To me a MH should never do a delayed chase.

zzweims · Post by **zzweims** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:30 pm

CherrystoneWeims wrote: Another thing that shocked me was that a delayed chase is not a DQ anymore!!!!!! It is to be penalized but not held as a DQ. To me a MH should never do a delayed chase.

This is one of the reasons I stopped running my dogs in Master. We hunt coveys. Only coveys. If 20 birds get up and only one or two are shot (or none

), you better believe I want my dogs to do a 'delayed chase' to pick off some singles. Even if I encounter and miss a single, I want my dog to re-point it. Expecting my dogs to heel away from known birds, then asking them to find fresh birds, knowing full well that we might go all day without another find, was just ridiculous.

On the other hand, if several birds are shot, I don't want my backing dog to just stand there and watch while the other dog makes multiple retrieves. I will release the backing dog to assist with the retrieving or I will send the backing dog on ahead to pick off singles or find another covey.

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

phermes1 · Post by **phermes1** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:45 pm

A delayed chase has never been an 'official' DQ by the rulebook - but perhaps the AKC chose to clarify and ease up on the interpretation of that rule.
Throwing a dog out for a delayed chase all comes down to trainability anyway. If the dog is truly a MH, and you tell it not to head in a particular direction - then it should not be going in that particular direction. It's just another way to demonstrate control over the dog. I also think it's a rule that has been applied way too harshly or ignorantly in both field trials and hunt tests.
I guess I see both sides of the issue; a delayed chase as an automatic DQ seems harsh, but if a dog totally blows its handler off en route to a delayed chase, then yeah, it needs to be nailed pretty hard for it. jmho.

I don't know if anyone realizes it, but the rulebook also does not specifically say that you're not allowed to collar a dog away from a point or an honor in MH. It's just another one of those rules that exists only in practice and not in writing.

Dave Quindt · Post by **Dave Quindt** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:57 pm

Ruffshooter wrote:I feel there should be an average range minimum that a pointing dog should be judged on. In other words if a dog hunts the cover properly and thouroughly good, but if there is open field or woods then the dog should range out some not be in Shot gun range all the time. ( This may be a bit hard to set up or judge ) Flushing dogs are for shotgun range.IMHO

There is languange in the rules for application (or lack thereof)

Standards for Junior, Senior and Master Hunting Tests - Section 3. Master Hunting Test.

A Master hunting dog must show a keen desire to hunt, must have a bold and attractive manner of running,
and must demonstrate not only intelligence in seeking objectives, but also the ability to find game.

This is straight from the rules, not the judging guidelines.

It's really an amazing statement if you think about it. It says that a MH dog MUST ("must" is the strongest term the AKC uses) show the following traits:
* keen desire to hunt
* bold and attractive manner of running
* demonstrate intelligence in seeking objectives
* demonstrate ability to find game

We've all seen dogs that have failed for not locating game, but have we seen dogs failed for "not showing intelligence in seeking objectives"?

IMO, part of the problem is that there are certain traits and terms (i.e. desire, seeking objectives, application, intensity, attractive manner of running) that are incorrectly only associated with field trials and field trial judging, when in reality they are traits perfectly consistent with the performance of a high quality, well bred, well trained birddog. NAVHDA has fallen into this trap; and it sounds like AKC hunt tests are going in the same direction.

JMO,
Dave

TrueBlu Shorthairs · Post by **TrueBlu Shorthairs** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:21 pm

I posted earlier, but somehow it never showed up, so a synopsis was that in this area a dog must seek objectives, must actually run, cannot potter, run roads, hunt upwind sides of objectives, etc. to actually be an effective hunting companion as they say. A dog must show, and MUST is the perfect word, a dog MUST seek objectives and use the wind properly. A dog that runs constantly upwind of objectives, runs the roads, but points a bird just off the road, or by sight from upwind, and is dead broke, STILL is not an effective hunting dog. A dog MUST show a keen desire to hunt? You bet!! How many run a dog in JH, the dog walks beside the handler, happens to point a bird, often by being hacked to it, and the handler is upset his dog didn't pass. He says, "but he pointed a bird". Guess what, his dog didn't hunt a step, much less for the 20 to 30 minutes solid. I do believe they are working toward dogs being effective hunting companions versus being on a sunday walk and pseudo pointing a bird being enough to pass.

So Dave, I agree with your assessment. Traits that make a dog a potential FC are the same traits that should make a dog a MH candidate. Hunting Tests should truly be for effective hunting dogs, not for show people to pretend their CHs will pseudo point a bird and be titled with a field title.

phillipsgsp · Post by **phillipsgsp** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:39 pm

Trueblue, Well said!

snips · Post by **snips** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:11 pm

I agree with everything said, I was just repeating what was told me when the new "guidlines" were put into place. It does cheapen the title, as many people use these titles as a breeding standard. If the dog got the title flagging or any other possible genetic pointing flaw, it is saying to many people this is breedable. I like to put a hunt test title on my dogs, but like anything, you should know the dog before breeding....just because they have the title, from FC to MH, does not neccessarily hold the qualities you think you are automatically getting...

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:32 am

I've seen good tests and bad tests.

My contention is that a "bad test" is due to one or more of three things: 1. Negative judging versus looking for positive qualities. 2. An inadequate course. 3. Poor birds.

So, I claim that if clubs focus tightly on those three things, they'll have a great test.

Of those three, judging is the toughest. There are just not enough people that have an opportunity to hunt extensively on wild birds to go around.

That includes me which is why I refuse to judge.

Greg J.

TrueBlu Shorthairs · Post by **TrueBlu Shorthairs** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:04 am

I kind of disagree Brenda with the idea that hunting tests are used to pick breedable animals. I have said for years, that MH dogs should be excellent examples of effective hunting dogs, they should be intelligent, biddable, should have speed, desire, style, show their ability to be trained beyond an average level, etc. However, very few look to a dog with a MH title for breeding, but to the latest greatest NFC and often an FC. So many say it's that they are trying to put run or style into their breeding program. However, the FC is far more often the near total package, where a MH is far too often a dog that was able to be trained to be dead broke and does not necessarily offer much more to someone's breeding program. If HUNTERS judged hunting tests instead of show people who have finished one pro trained MH, then we might have better MH dogs. If style, speed, desire, truly a dog dog that was exciting to watch, are considered in MH tests by judges, we' d have better dogs. If judges truly would ask themselves, would I be proud to own and hunt over this dog? We'd have better SH and MH dogs. If pointing a bird wasn't enough to finish a dog as a JH, then the JH title might mean something more than a field title put on show dogs to show their limited desire to seek game.

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:30 am

Unfortunately, around here folks seem to pass a dog in a hunt test by walking it around the course, barely getting out of spitting distance. I have seen dogs pass that did not do anything the first 15 minutes through the back course, just running the road and pissing here and there.

The basic premise of the test is proper but the actual application of the test is inconsistent at best. It is nice to have a judge that understands hunting. I would rather have a judge that has wild bird hunting experience and decent gundogs than a person who does not hunt or just preserve hunts and has a MH. There is a differeent mind set.