Are hunt tests following the lead of Trials?

[Jojoe]

VERY interesting thread about the Trial Game changing - becoming tougher. There are now a large number of dogs being run in both Trials and Hunt Tests. Are we seeing a corresponding increase in the difficulty of the hunt tests? Or are the limitation that are place on the judges keeping the Hunt Tests from 'evolving' like the trials. Next question, whether you see these tests evolving or not...is this a good thing? Not trying to stir the pot, honest, I see any discussion on this to be health for the game.

[LeeW]

The hunt test are not getting harder.I belive that they are getting easier by the day.The standard is getting so that we require less of the dogs.So no one has to worry about the hunt test game going the way of the field trial.
I have been involved with the HRC for close to 20 years and I have seen this first hand ..
The reason we are seeing people go to field trails from the hunt test game is easy .How many dogs out there have thier title by the time they are 2 years old .Once they have got their title the owners are still looking for a chalange and go try a field trial.
The HRC hunt test people have beatin the crap out of the rule book so much that it has become easier for the compeitor and tied the hands of the judges so much that we are seeing the same test weekend in and weekend out.
I belive that a 2 year old HRCH is a very good dog and should be the best dog in the marsh come opening day.But the HR and the SHR dogs are on par with the WC WCI WCX dogs.

This was not posted to ofened anyone and if I did I'm sorry.The WC program is a good entry level sport. But it goes up from there not on par with ..

[sterregold]

Since hunt tests are standard referenced, they technically cannot go the way of field trials. You won't see a JH test with a double at 150 and 200yds because there are maximum distances set, and the marks have to be singles! This is a good thing--hunt tests are about establishing that a dog can do work of a certain standard, not about finding who can rise to the challenge BETTER than everyone else. The addition of the Master National is certainly one way it is evolving, but evolving through addition, rather than by changing the standards of the existing tests.

That said, tests are set up by judges, and judges apply their subjective judgement (and varied test and hunting experience) to the standards written in the rule books. That means one can see tests of wildly differing difficulty. Some of them are murderously difficult(at the advanced levels!), and others are a walk in the park by comparison. Some JH handlers come to line completely freaked out by a test that falls well within the rules because they have previously only seen tests so simple they verge on being a WC, and didn't anticipate have to train their dog to actually deal with things like decoys, tules, and mucky going. I don't think we need to have the standards "evolve." Rather, we need to ensure that the tests set challenge the dogs to live up to that standard.

[Misty Marsh]

I think that they are generally not getting tougher. You have around a 100 yard max range so that helps, but with that said I could set-up a tripple in a parking lot that would eat up 95% of the master dogs and 99% of the AA dogs who tried it, it's up to the judges. The only other thing in the HT game is anything goes as far as "props" and such as long as it's hunting related, so it can be a tough deal to train for whereas the usual weekend Qualy is predictable comparitivley.

[Hiscoke]

The talk around the gallery this summer was that allong with the rule change allowing you to talk to your dog (CKC), the max. length of the marks was also being extended. Can anyone confirm this? There was also much muttering about "the tests were going to get a lot harder".

That being said, I agree with Shelley that you can see some pretty extreme variations in test difficulty - both at Master and at Senior. The senior tests in 2006 were ridiculous - harder than Master in many cases. The judges can make a big difference.

We trial both in eastern Ontario and western and the difference in test style is pretty amazing.

Also, I believe that different dogs will do better at different types of tests. Some dogs will do better with the longer more technical type of tests but give them a short, breaky test with all the theatrics and it will eat them up.

Pam

[HeatherS]

Distances will remain the same in all levels - JH, SH, MH.

Muttering in the gallery is about as good as the paper it's not written on. There are no rule changes in the 2008 book that would indicate tests should or will be getting tougher.

Next year will remain the same as this year - lots of good tests judged by experienced, knowledgable, thoughtful people and some poor tests judged by people who don't understand either the intent of the hunt test game, the rulebook or dog work in general. It's up to both clubs to select the former type of judge and contestants to put their money where their mouths are and not run under the latter.

Just my opinion.

Heather Stewart

[sterregold]

You've hit the nail on the head Heather. Good judges selected by clubs will put on good tests--and there will hopefully be good dog work resulting from handlers putting in the time to train well and understand the tasks their dogs are asked to do.

Good to see you here.:clap2:

[luvmylabs]

Ran some MH tests this summer. First time in 4 years. Biggest thing I found was the amount of trickery some judges were adding to the tests. Why can't they just set up a good clean test? Either the dog can do it or they can't. Why add a lot of stuff to confuse the dog? Saw some good tests, a couple of brutal tests and a couple of moderate tests. Not much different than it was 4 years ago. The brutal tests were a little worse. The rest about the same. All depends on the judge. Some I will have to really think about before I run under them again.

Anne

[2goldens]

As Heather and others mentioned, there are judges that think that they are testing to "their standards" not to the book. I didn't think that I would ever "choose" a judge to run under or not but, it's getting to that point. I also think that it should be a requirement of Judges that they have a qualified/titled dog of their own in the level that they are allowed to judge at.

Matt