Interesting Article

[barry581]

Barry, I can't see your article. It looks like I have to be a member of Canine Chronicle to see it?

Not sure. You can put in my email address: barry581@verizon.net. No password required.

[TuMicks]

I guess the thing about the article that bothered me is that it appeared in a mag visited mostly by NON-field people. It promoted the stereotype about field dogs being crazy and hard to train. The implication is that other labs are NOT crazy and ARE easy to train. Everyone who visits this site regularly knows that ALL labs are high energy, and need consistent attention to their obedience. So, I guess that's the impression I got. I'm not sure if it was a fair reading of the piece... it was just one of the things I took away from it.

Rocket Dog is as field bred as field bred can get with really, a royal pedigree in many ways. Dense with FC's, AFC's NFC's, CNFC and so on and so on. But, around the house, she is a slug. Very mellow.

So... I agree with some of what was said, but sorta felt a little bit slandered (though that is likely too strong of a word.)

[Labradorks]

I guess the thing about the article that bothered me is that it appeared in a mag visited mostly by NON-field people. It promoted the stereotype about field dogs being crazy and hard to train. The implication is that other labs are NOT crazy and ARE easy to train. Everyone who visits this site regularly knows that ALL labs are high energy, and need consistent attention to their obedience. So, I guess that's the impression I got. I'm not sure if it was a fair reading of the piece... it was just one of the things I took away from it.

Rocket Dog is as field bred as field bred can get with really, a royal pedigree in many ways. Dense with FC's, AFC's NFC's, CNFC and so on and so on. But, around the house, she is a slug. Very mellow.

So... I agree with some of what was said, but sorta felt a little bit slandered (though that is likely too strong of a word.)

I think these things have to be read at a high level. Everyone is biased in some way and most of us are not even conscious of our biases. Dogs bred on both side of the extremes are bred outside of the standard and are both physically and temperamentally not the Labradors they are traditionally supposed to be. And, there is truth in numbers. The fact that you can go to a hunt test and the vast majority of handlers are pros speaks for itself.

[TuMicks]

Well... I wouldn't say "vast". I have the running order for Senior this weekend (shew!!! I'm number 19) Of 27 dogs, 10 are listed as being run by an owner/amateur and a pro. If EE has had the dog listed with a pro in the past, unless the amateur changed that setting, it will come up as pro and/or amateur as handlers. I changed mine in EE. So, maximum for Senior is 10 out of 27. Probably fewer than that in reality. In our Master A there are 39 dogs listed. 12 have pros by their names... some might be run by the owners.

Certainly many, many are pro-trained and run. I believe the Master Invitational (Master Amateur Retriever Club) may shift that even more to the amateurs.

NOW... having said that... it is the work that +R people are doing in field sports that will bring even more amateurs out of the shadows.

[IRISHWISTLER]

If it is a test of the dog's natural ability, why do people send their dogs to a pro? Why do pretty much only pros run Masters? About half, if not more, of the Senior dogs are run by pros. And seriously, like a third of the Junior dogs are also run by pros. It's a pass/fail situation so it's not that amateurs are competing against pros, but if the tests are set up to be a challenge to the typical handler, which is a pro, it certainly makes things more difficult than they need to be for an amateur. Many of the dogs are trained and handled with a remote control aka e-collar, so what does anyone expect other than a dog to run like a robot? And what does the e-collar have to do with "natural ability" anyway, especially when you have to force the dog to fetch, hold or go into water? Dogs are being bred without natural ability because you can always depend on the e-collar to make them do it. Such is life though; we humans are always looking for shortcuts and convenience, even when it means we must pay in other ways!

Barry,
I did not read this article because I could not open it as formatted. Given the responses of other posts in this thread and some from folks I respect, it sounds as though the article was slanted and far from scientific (again I did not read it so I admit that is an assumption on my part). That said, it is well known that I make use of e-collar conditioning as an integral part of my training program / strategies. I see virtually zero difference in labeling the use of an e-collar nor the use of edible reinforcement ( i.e., spitting "cookies) as having more or less to do with "natural ability". I would challenge anyone that sees any dog that I have trained to say that the dog runs in a robot like manner as the dogs I train are known to run with high drive, wonderful style, and an obvious joy for working. Most of the dogs I have trained are from amazing pedigrees that are deep in field performance bloodlines and a natural retrieve is demonstrated by the far majority of them as is a soft mouthed carriage of game birds. Myself and many, many of those like me elect to "FORCE FETCH" for a conditioned retrieve by compassion as we depend on our dogs to recover wild birds and crippled birds under actual field conditions while hunting - not exclusively in dog games. Retrievers are an important factor in not losing precious game birds and I would suggest that a retriever that has been properly force fetch conditioned is far less likely to blink birds be it in dog games or in the field where it actually counts toward the recovery of precious wildlife resources. As for having to "force a dog to fetch, hold, or go in the water", I have never had to do so, I do however once such behaviors are exhibited regularly, condition those behaviors to be dependable on my command and not at the whim of the K9. I can't wait 5 years for a dog to make JH because I have to negotiate with the dog to perhaps perform rather than to hit the ground running with a joyful drive for working cooperatively with me or it's handler as a team player. I could really care less about folks that choose to train absent e-collar and prefer to spit cookies at their dogs to motivate them. If such methods work for them and fills their needs - then good for them. I do however get annoyed by their continual shots at those of us that elect to e-collar condition.

As for "the majority of dogs from junior stakes to master stakes being handled by pro trainers", I just don't see that in the Northeast part of the USA, it might be elsewhere, and so what? There is no magic potion shared amongst pro trainers. Largely the methods used are the same that are employed by many amateurs seeking to get the most potential out of their retrievers. I will concede that more pro's have access to better grounds, birds, and equipment, but that is not always the case. Some folks just have a much better connection to K9's and know how to communicate with them and I have known amateurs that are better at doing so than some so-called pro's.

The dog sports be it field trials or hunt tests have evolved and training methods have evolved to keep pace with the expected standards. I love to see new folks getting involved with and wanting to participate in retriever games and I do what I can to foster opportunities for those wishing to do so. Do I have a bias toward including e-collar conditioning and Force Fetch in my program? Yes, no doubt I do, but then again, I have a liking for efficiency and dependability too.

Irishwhistler

[windycanyon]

I'll add something about pros. They aren't all that intimidating to run against! In JH, it's all dog and very little "handler". In fact, I seem to see far more UNDERTRAINED (wild) dogs being run at JH and SH by pros than by the amateurs. I'd estimate both the JH and the SH stakes this weekend will be 50% potentially pro handlers. As the marshal, it'll be a lot easier for me at least, but what I'm more disappointed in is the lack of show bred labs entered other than mine by the looks of it. Maybe it's too early in the year (it IS early... and I'm taking a chance myself, esp since cover is high, and conditions are far more extreme in the spring in W. WA). I insisted that tonite's land set ups were much shorter marks as I think that's what we'll see w the heavy grass cover. And that could kill my dogs...

I only could read what I saw on FB (half the article probably) but I'm not feeling that affected by it. Most hunters I know don't even require their dogs to deliver to hand! So JH being what it is (longer than typical hunting retrieves, delivery to hand, etc), if that's "all" you can do, it's still a great start. I put a SH on Rosa years ago when I had better access to private ponds, but also got creative w/ public areas for blind work etc. It can be done if you have the time and as said earlier, the obedience on the dog. Anne

[barry581]

Mike here's a brief synopsis:

1. HT were designed as a non-competitive test of a retrieves training and capabilities
2. The tests have become so difficult, even veteran field trial competitors are amazed at what the dogs are required to do to get an orange ribbon
3. The tests no longer simulate what a hunter would normal find in the field
4. HT have become competitive and dominated by pro trainers
5. Because of the difficulty of the test, HT are now just another version of FT
6. The difficulty of the tests have lead to much higher pressure training
7. Early on in the AKC or the HT committee came up with there should be "quotas" on a percentage of entered dogs should pass the test (article stated this was passed down at early judging seminars, but not written in the rules) initially 10% at a master test. The turned HT into a competitive event, basically against AKC regs as it basically creates a placement system. The article states this is not mandatory, by percentage pf judges took this as "gospel"
8. This recommendation has been phased out of time, but judges still use it, with experienced judges passing it down to new judges
9. Competitors (Master level) are mainly pros while amateurs put on the tests
10. The difficulty of the tests has driven out the amateur handlers
11. Getting in to a master test has become almost impossible, with available slots filled within minutes of opening for registration (people I train with who are at the master level complain about this)
12. The "Entry Express" reg system allows pros to enter a truckload of dogs with one click
13. Separate test for dogs working on a MH title vs dogs who already have their title
14. The article goes on with recommendations on ways to fix the problems.

To sum it up, the article brings up many issues that plague the program and how it's become what it was never meant to be, that is a competition of dog against dog, rather than dog against the test.

[IRISHWISTLER]

Mike here's a brief synopsis:

1. HT were designed as a non-competitive test of a retrieves training and capabilities
2. The tests have become so difficult, even veteran field trial competitors are amazed at what the dogs are required to do to get an orange ribbon
3. The tests no longer simulate what a hunter would normal find in the field
4. HT have become competitive and dominated by pro trainers
5. Because of the difficulty of the test, HT are now just another version of FT
6. The difficulty of the tests have lead to much higher pressure training
7. Early on in the AKC or the HT committee came up with there should be "quotas" on a percentage of entered dogs should pass the test (article stated this was passed down at early judging seminars, but not written in the rules) initially 10% at a master test. The turned HT into a competitive event, basically against AKC regs as it basically creates a placement system. The article states this is not mandatory, by percentage pf judges took this as "gospel"
8. This recommendation has been phased out of time, but judges still use it, with experienced judges passing it down to new judges
9. Competitors (Master level) are mainly pros while amateurs put on the tests
10. The difficulty of the tests has driven out the amateur handlers
11. Getting in to a master test has become almost impossible, with available slots filled within minutes of opening for registration (people I train with who are at the master level complain about this)
12. The "Entry Express" reg system allows pros to enter a truckload of dogs with one click
13. Separate test for dogs working on a MH title vs dogs who already have their title
14. The article goes on with recommendations on ways to fix the problems.

To sum it up, the article brings up many issues that plague the program and how it's become what it was never meant to be, that is a competition of dog against dog, rather than dog against the test.

Barry,
Thank you for catching me up to speed on the article. I am somewhat curious as to whom the author is and their overall participation level / experience in HT's. I do concur that the sport has evolved and one might find widely variable levels of difficulty relative to whom the judges are for any given stake. I have run a number of Senior stakes where a number of respected trainers and folks that are veteran handlers have stated that a particularly "meaty" blind more closely resembled that which ye might find in a Master stake. I don't know that there is a "fix" to the situation as being the judges are human there will always be associated subjectivity as a factor. I realize that there are problems in getting a dog or dogs registered for Master stakes and that is a problem that is not likely to go away soon, unfortunately, it has chased some very fine folks out of the arena.

As I stated in my post, there has certainly been an evolution of the hunt tests themselves, the degree of difficulty having increased. The original objective of running the dog against a prescribed standard is seemingly still a purpose of the test, I just think the "standard" has evolved or been tweaked and whether that was intentional or not is unknown to me. I am not certain I agree that this evolution of standard can be directly correlated to an increase in training pressure. My own training methods / style has surely evolved over the years to reflect both current literature specific to how dogs best learn, my own abilities having become much stronger based on a much expanded experience base in working with a number of dogs having individual needs and my own desire to meet those needs for the dogs. The availability of training related informational resources and "tools" have certainly evolved exponentially since my introduction to "formalized" training techniques promoted by Richard Walters well over 35 years ago. I do agree that we are far separated as to what one would find under "real hunting conditions" and have often laughed to myself when a judge that has obviously never set foot in a hunting blind nor experienced actual hunting on even a minimal level, proceeds to give an explanation of the "hunt scenario" to all the handlers just prior to running the test dog. Way too often the test is far from anything I have experienced whilst afield as a passionate waterfowl hunter of near five decades. That said, I do not specifically advocate for "off the charts" test standards, but I do feel that being able to meet such challenges with a dog makes for better proficiency for my retrievers whilst afield and a totally enjoyable time whilst hunting over them, for me, that is a major factor as to why I choose to participate in tests. Additionally to keeping dogs sharp during the "off season", I really enjoy meeting with other trainers, handlers, and owners for the common interests we share as retriever enthusiasts, the social aspects of the events, and the barometer they provide me as I introspectively measure how I stand as a trainer and as to how I can continually improve myself for the dogs I work with. In general I choose to chalk up the the organizational generated doings as largely out of my control and something that will be decided well above my pay grade. My only fear is that folks with minimal resources are being chased out of the HT games which on face value were not meant to be competitive, that could have a critical impact on the survival of HT related events.

Regards,
Irishwhistler

[TuMicks]

I do disagree with the notion that there is a 10% secret pass rate. I'll have a better idea of what the pass rate is after this weekend. But I feel like... out here, anyhow... 25% passing in the Master would be low. Maybe a third is typical. BUT, no one wants a "gimme" ribbon. They'd rather miss out on the ribbon if they learned something during the test. That is, if they found a hole in their dog's training, they'd feel positive about the weekend. It does a disservice to owners and handlers to not put together a solid test, even a demanding test. The gripes that are legitimate, that you might hear relates to tricky or gimmicky tests. (I think the author alluded to this.)

[Annette47]

I do disagree with the notion that there is a 10% secret pass rate. I'll have a better idea of what the pass rate is after this weekend. But I feel like... out here, anyhow... 25% passing in the Master would be low. Maybe a third is typical. BUT, no one wants a "gimme" ribbon. They'd rather miss out on the ribbon if they learned something during the test. That is, if they found a hole in their dog's training, they'd feel positive about the weekend. It does a disservice to owners and handlers to not put together a solid test, even a demanding test. The gripes that are legitimate, that you might hear relates to tricky or gimmicky tests. (I think the author alluded to this.)

I am finding this whole conversation fascinating, as I don’t know all that much about HT, but it’s interesting to compare to my own sport of Obedience. In Utility, which is the hardest level of competition, the pass rate in Utility B, which is seasoned dogs that have already earned a UD, is only about 50%. The pass rate in Utility A, which is for dogs trying for the UD, it’s much lower - probably in the 10-15% range. There are many shows I’ve been to where no one passes.

Point is, I get that the top level should be hard - it wouldn’t be much of an achievement if it wasn't ... but for us at least, 99% of the time it’s clear whether the dog passed or not - it’s not a question of the judge’s subjective opinion. Either they did the principal part of all the exercises or they didn’t. The rules are pretty clear on what things are an automatic NQ. It’s very rare to NQ just on total points off - could it happen? Sure, but most judges go out of their way not to let that happen if the dog is otherwise passing - I have friends who are judges who have added points back on to help a dog who hadn’t otherwise NQ’d get to 170. I would imagine that if pass/fail is more subjective that opens up a much larger can of worms. The other difference of course for us, is that the class is always the exact same, which allows for more standardization of grading.

I teach in a graduate program, and I’ve found that if you want a specific pass rate, you need to either make the test harder or your grading standards tougher. Sounds like with HT, they’re leaning towards the first option. In Obedience, the scoring is usually much tougher in Utility B than in the A class, even though the exercises are the same, which is how they differentiate between dogs who are going for an OTCH.