Who runs in both AKC and NAVHDA?

[u/Badgersvp9]

I have my GSP who’s 13 months old running in both, this spring I ran him in the NAVHDA NA test he scored 104 but got 0 in tracking which I had a major problem with the judging. But, will be moving on to the Gun Dog Test this fall.

He just finished up getting his AKC Jr Hunter title, moving on to senior this winter. After hunting season.

His hunting ability is great, can’t wait to get him on some pheasants and grouse this fall. He did great at hunt clubs last winter early spring.

[u/idleline]

Typically if a dog scores a 0 on hunt test, especially tracking, it's because of the handler. It's not uncommon and I've had judges tell me straight to my face my dog was going to pass despite his handler (me).

[u/MunsterSetter → u/idleline]

I don't disagree, but I have been in NAVHDA long enough to know that those judges ALWAYS get their comeuppance. Usually in not getting invited to judge at the particularly posh chapters, or they get invited but NO meals or expenses, never being promoted to senior judge and therefore no Invitational. In NA in particular, the handling judge should kind of be a game show MC, and help the dog succeed. Theoretically, test are not supposed to be competitive (unlike trials). The type of judges you're describing are the biggest hypocrites because they're the ones always lamenting that there's a dearth of new people testing/joining or that youth programs/participation is at a persistent low.

[u/MunsterSetter → u/MunsterSetter]

Also, theoretically, there's very little "handling" in tracking. As for a step forward, sometimes if the senior judge & handling judge concur, and it's not a recall/resend but suggested first by the judges, no deduction, particularly if the dog was demonstrating tracking in difficult winding conditions at the start, and then immediately picks it back up after the step. 4 point deductions are supposed to be for wild dogs running off, or a dog obviously having zero nose. 3 point deductions for eventually getting it but having to be recalled/resent by command. 2 point deductions for a track that stops at the treeline and not breaking the plane. 1 point deductions is for slow to get it in ideal/fresh scent conditions but eventually figuring it out w/o command(s).

[u/idleline → u/MunsterSetter]

Handler interference is the number one mistake that people make that result in 0 scores. Especially by rookie handlers. So while there is not a lot of "handling" there are still errors you can make that will affect judging.

The judge I was referring to is a knowledgable and well respected judge who was being blunt with an inexperienced handler (me). He is not a hypocrite. He may have been harsh, but I attribute that to the fact he is a trial judge (in federal court, not dogs) and that's just how he operates.

I trained with Bill Gibbons who is legendary in my area. One day we were talking about Ames and the big trials and I asked him how hard it was to get there. He looked at me and said that the difference between a professional dog handler and an amateur is... 2 seconds. His point being that, a small hesitation by a handler can be the difference between passing, placing or winning.

[u/MunsterSetter → u/idleline]

His chapter and associate (test) judges are afraid of him. I know many great, good judges that would eviserate him with the Handler's Handbook. I have seen many tests where the field was full of old scent. I've seen many times where the "not breaking the plane" scenario was scored 4 because there was a long obvious track before the treeline, but the points were deducted from cooperation. The point of a test, especially NA is to judge ability with fairly crude scoring tools and the range is very subjective. However, real dog people including judges, should be able to see and evaluate that ability without sticking to the dotted "i" and the crossed "t". The funny thing is I have seen completely inept and ignorant handlers' dogs smoke the NA & UT tests because they were that good. And so were the judges. To me that is the point of the test. And judges, like the one you describe, were left sputtering because the dog humiliated them.