It is an often used word with multiple meanings. It is a word that haunts our hunting test experience. It is the word we wait for with hope and dread. What does it mean when someone says, "We need (or we didn't get) results from this test."? What does "getting results" mean? Some judges and handlers view results as dropping dogs after each test, or having dogs perform in a way that causes them to be out of contention. Are tests set up to fail dogs or is that an expectation of judges aand handlers?

As it applies to hunting tests, the word "results," can have several different interpretations. It is most commonly used to refer to the announcement of qualifiers at the end of a test. These are the official results that are sent to the AKC and recorded. However there is also a darker meaning to the word that one might hear from handlers and judges when referring to a specific series. Let's look at how it might be used. From judges you'll sometimes hear, "We really need to get some results from this series." Handlers or observers might say, "They certainly are (or aren't) getting results from the test."

On the positive side we can interpret this as meaning "We want some good work on this test so we can pass dogs." Unfortunately the more applicable meaning seems to be, "We need to set up a difficult series so we don't have to pass many dogs." Or, "This test is too easy; too many dogs will go to the next series or pass." Herein lies the problem.

A NONCOMPETITIVE FORMAT

If we think back to when retriever hunting tests were first conceived in the early 1980s, we might recall that the program was developed as a non-competitive format for breeders, fanciers and hunters to prove the working ability of their retrievers in the field. The scoring and overall approach was based on that of the AKC obedience program, which rewards qualifying work with a passing score and an eventual title. Dogs do not have to earn placements on a competitive basis to qualify or earn titles.

With this in mind, let's step into the realm of an obedience judge. Do obedience judges set up their ring with jumps in locations designed to distract dogs? Do they purposely set up heeling patterns to trick or confuse? Quite simply, the answer is NO. Obedience judges have a required set of exercises to fulfill and a given amount of time to judge a certain number of dogs. If all 30 dogs entered give qualifying performances on that day, all 30 dogs will receive passing scores. The judge and the handlers should be proud that the quality of training and work was so outstanding. Hunting tests are identical to obedience trials in this regard. There is no question that between obedience and field work there is a huge difference in the variability of factors. There is also no doubt that, for a segment of obedience participants, it is a very competitive event. But what we must remember is that, just like obedience judges, hunting test judges have a commitment to score a set of exercises according to a standard.

DID WE GET RESULTS?

When a large percentage of a hunting test entry passes, the common view is rarely that the field was well prepared and the dogs performed at their best. On the contrary, the general opinion that the tests were too easy and the judges did not "get results." On average, about 50% of dogs entered pass hunting tests. Why is it that when entries are large, the percentage of passing dogs drops to 30% or less? Is it because dogs that are not adequately prepared are entered? Or are judges nervous about judging so many dogs in the allotted time?

In our opinion, it seems to be a frequent scenario that when entries are larger than expected, elimination tests are set up. Is this done so that the number of dogs will be decreased to a level the judges feel they can judge within the allotted time? Although this makes sense for field trials, it should not happen at hunting tests. Hunting tests are judged against a written standard, and elimination judging has no place here. It's not fair to participants or dogs at hunting tests for impossible tests to be set up in order to reduce the number of dogs -this objective is contrary to the purpose of the program.

AN ORDINARY DAY'S HUNT

A Hunting test should mimic an ordinary day's hunt. For example, let's consider a typical test scenario at the Master level. The test is a double with a bulldog. Two birds are shot, one after the other. Only part of the throw for the last bird down is visible to the dog, the top 20 percent of the arc. The dog is sent for the last bird down. After he picks up the bird and is returning to the handler, another bird is shot. Although the dog is 80 yards away from the handler (and from the spot where he will leave to retrieve this third bird), he is expected to understand where it has landed. After the last two birds are retrieved, you send your dog for two crippled birds (a double blind).

If you were hunting, this would mean five birds were shot from a single flock. This might happen once in a lifetime, but it certainly does not happen all day, every day. If anyone thinks this is "ordinary," I'd sure like to know where they go hunting! There are also some safety issues with this scenario. Shooting a bird that you can barely see is downright dangerous, and an indicator that a refresher course in hunting safety is long overdue. To retrieve a bird that is almost out of sight, I'd move toward the bird with my dog. He might encounter dangerous terrain or another dog if I sent him someplace I could not see.

This scenario is also an excellent example of the test set up purely to eliminate dogs. When such a test is seen dogs are not being judged. Instead, judges are hoping dogs will fail on their own. There exists a responsibility to set up fair and realistic tests and judge each dog's work. When a judging assignment is accepted this should be part of the understanding. If a judge feels uncomfortable with the number of dogs, this should be discussed well in advance so that a second set of judges can be added. In all honesty, elimination judging is easier than pencilling a dog out. But with judging comes responsibilities, and that is what judging is all about.

Let's look at another example of a Master test, this one a more realistic land double and blind. A wide variety of work is seen, from excellent to very poor. Of 45 starters, five clearly fail the test. A group of handlers is heard discussing the test and wondering why the judges didn't have a third bird in a particular location, as that would have yielded "results." In reality, if a third bird had been added there would have been more failures. What the handlers are not taking into consideration is that nearly half of the dogs handled on one of the birds or that some dogs had shaky blinds. In the eyes of many, the judges didn't "get results." Actually the judges did get results! They saw dogs demonstarting marking ability, memory, perseverance and trainability. They set up a test that met the requirements, judged it according to the standard and scored what they saw on the test. Those are results!

FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE

Whether we are test participants or acting as weekend judges, our focus should not be on the negative as we view a performance. Istead, focus on the positive. Obviously one needs to take into consideration where the dog was weak, but judging should concentrate on what was right, not what was wrong. For example, a dog that pins two of three birds on a triple and handles on the last bird will frequently be scored a 5 or 6. How is this possible?

Let's consider the scoring. A dog that initially moves in the proper direction to the bird before needing to be handled should not receive a score of 0 for marking on this bird. After all, he did mark it, albeit poorly. Consider that out of the three birds, two of them were perfect. If each of those was a score of 10, and you averaged the three birds (figuring some motion towards the handled bird would result in a 3 for that bird), the mark would be a 7.66. Let's say another dog clearly marked each of three birds on the same triple, but had short hunts on each. Some judges would rate this as an 8. Why? What rule says a short hunt is significantly worse than pinning the bird? If a pin job is a 10, that says short hunts are only 80% as good as a pin! By focusing on the positive, we can instead recognize that the dog clearly marked the birds well and deserved a 9 or 9.5.

For many, the very nature of the sport is competitive, regardless of whether we are training or testing. Many of us are not satisfied unless our dog is always the best. We take great pride in our dog's performance, and for many of us it is difficult to separate dog and ego. Like obedience trials, hunting tests have a standard set of requirements that must be met. How the participants and judges view the tests and results often has nothing to do with a non-competitive testing program. We believe this is a serious flaw in the program and it has been the subject of much criticism from handlers. Perhaps the answer to the "results" problem is to change the negative view of the word. Perhaps it needs to be replaced with a meaning that more adequately means "responses to the conditions of the test." This is something we as judges and handlers should be looking for, rather than quick and automatic failures. Let's remember that hunting tests are not competitive and shouldn't be judged with an aim toward eliminating dogs.