# History of Retriever Field Trials/ American Gundog Club



## bigbrit (Mar 30, 2009)

I just came acoss an interesting article on the AKC website on the history of field trials. The AKC basically says that AKC field trials started out running under British field trial rules and continued so for about 10 years.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.akc.org/events/field_trials/retrievers/history.cfm

Here is an excerpt:

Quote:
1931 saw the organization of the Labrador Retriever Club, with Mrs. Marshall Field as its first president. On December 21 of that same year, it put on the first field trial for Retrievers in America on the eight-thousand acre Glenmere Court estate of Robert Goelet in Chester, New York-deliberately holding it on a Monday so that it would not attract a gallery. The George Foley Dog Show Organization of Philadelphia managed the event for the few dozen wealthy competitors. Although the program states that it was held under AKC and Labrador Retriever Club rules, the accounts of the trial indicate clearly that it was run under British rules. Mr. and Mrs. Field took first and second placements respectively in the Open All-Age Stake. W. Averell Harriman won the American-Bred Stake.

The trials that followed continued through the 1930s in the hunting tradition of the British rules until increased entries and the development of sophisticated training methods assured the impracticality of British trialing procedure in America. Controlling the dogs by whistle, voice, and hand commands (handling) revolutionized the sport, starting in the 1940s. Today's trials for Retrievers, in spite of the dictates of the AKC rules, no longer represent practical hunting situations."

The American Gundog Club seems to be headed back toward the beginning:
http://www.americangundogclub.com


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

The more I hunt snows, the more "realistic" american field trials become to hunting situations for me.

I looked at the american gundog website. Do you have to dress like Ben Hogan to participate in their tests?


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

I want to wear a cool hat when I run trails.


----------



## bigbrit (Mar 30, 2009)

Here is what Chris Atkinson posted in another Forum. It should answer your question:
If you look at the photos from the trial held Easter weekend at Duckhill, you will have a hard time calling it a Brit trial from the clothing.

http://s600.photobucket.com/albums/tt86/rrmilner/Field Trial Spring 09/?albumview=grid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Chris Atkinson : 04-26-2009 at 06:17 AM


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

I dont have any ground to stand on when poking fun at any kind of test/trial, but i was just stating that am field trials can be more realistic then they are made out to be.

Obviously the various hunt tests are much closer to the average hunters needs. I'll have to keep my eye on this new deal.

As far as the clothes comment, well they asked for it with the pictures on the website. Seems they are trying to appeal to a certain crowd.


----------



## daveb (Jun 29, 2006)

Here's a pretty concise overview of what they're all about over there. Tons of emphasis on steadiness and natural game finding ability. As a hunter, it's pretty tough to argue the importance of both.

http://www.gundog-magazine.com/brtrials.htm


----------



## Chaws (Oct 12, 2007)

daveb said:


> Here's a pretty concise overview of what they're all about over there. Tons of emphasis on steadiness and natural game finding ability. As a hunter, it's pretty tough to argue the importance of both.
> 
> http://www.gundog-magazine.com/brtrials.htm


Kick me if I'm wrong here but isn't that the same emphasis we use in Am trials and hunt tests? Not going until told, natural game finding abilities (marking)?

I'm still perplexed at the matter of brit trials and being able to pick a winner and such being that every mark is different for every dog... One dog may be required to pick up a long single through cover and through a pond while another dog may not see nearly the obstacles involved with their marks? In Am trials things are done so each dog is judged against the same technicality of marks and environment and condition. Seems like Brit trials it's more by chance what you get.


----------



## daveb (Jun 29, 2006)

Chaws said:


> daveb said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a pretty concise overview of what they're all about over there. Tons of emphasis on steadiness and natural game finding ability. As a hunter, it's pretty tough to argue the importance of both.
> ...


Correct. I'm not saying one trumps the other. They're all good and different. I've been to a handful of hunt tests and only one field trial, but from what I've seen there's an awful lot of dogs that wouldn't even be sent for the first mark if we placed as much emphasis on steadiness and calmness as they do. It's just a different deal, but in the end it's all about finding the mark and delivering to hand. In that respect there's probably more similarities than differences.


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

Chaws said:


> daveb said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a pretty concise overview of what they're all about over there. Tons of emphasis on steadiness and natural game finding ability. As a hunter, it's pretty tough to argue the importance of both.
> ...


When I think of game finding ability I really don't think of marking. I see it more as dog using its nose. Marking is improtant no doubt, but marking is only going to get a dog so far on a running rooster. In am field trials they use dead game exclusivly if I am not mistaken, so little emphasis is put on a good nose IMO. In the UK the trials are a live shoot so anything can happen and the dog needs to be prepared for anything, even running roosters or rabits that the handler did not mark himself. In that case its all on the dog to bring back the game using its nose to track blood scent, this happens often esspecially if a hair is shot and a dog form the other side of the line is sent as nither the dog or handler has a good vantage point to mark something that was shot on the ground.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

ryanps18 said:


> Chaws said:
> 
> 
> > daveb said:
> ...


Live fliers are used pretty frequently. They are supposed to be dead obviously, they usually wont send the dog on the mark if the birds have good legs under them still. The thing is you cant judge against a standard if a dog or two get crippled birds and the rest are stone dead. I know nahra tests on this a little more. Ive heard that the Nahra tracking tests are kind of a joke, but cant say that with any authority.

I've sent my dog on very much alive cripples in a jh test before. Made for an interesting show with the bird diving on him a bunch.


----------

