Should the VC be a separate event?

[ForestDump]

FDump your right to a certain degree it would be "easier" to run mini invitationals instead of one large invite, but that would cause more problems! The issue with mini invites would be that it would not give every dog entered a equal opportunity on the same running grounds.Yes, you still have dogs run on different days and different fields but it is all held the same general area and the same weekend. If you ran a mini test and lets say SD had a test and every one new the water at SD was easier than Iowa everyone would go to run at SD to have a better chance to pass. Yes, there are standards but you can have sights easier than others and that would dilute the importance of the VC.

GriffMan

I can understand that but then it raises the question is the UT test diluted? Are UT prizes from certain chapters look down on compared to other chapters? Or what about a VC in Iowa vs Ohio?

I’m obviously not the authority by any means to figure it all out but from an outsider coming into the organization these are some things that jumped out to me. It seems weird that a testing format would push a national championship when everything else is regional.

[GRIFF MAN]

FD,
Look at the testing system as public education. Every town has a high school for their students. When the graduate they have the opportunity to go on to college. Does every town that has a high school have a college? NO.
Instead students go where they need to to get that education....may be a bit far fetched but the principal is the same. Each navhda chapter has tests for NA UPT UT. But after the UT P1 they have the opportunity, not mandatory, to go to the invite .

You ask if a UT is diluted...NO. The accomplishment of attaining a prize in a UT test is great. But the invitational is and should be different than a UT test. I think you conceive they are similar, they are not.To achieve the title VC all dogs should have to be evaluated on the same grounds.

Good discussion.

GriffMan

[orhunter]

I haven’t been to the Iowa location so can’t comment on the evenness of the two. Maybe someone who has could?

Forest: If you Google, NAVHDA does show Invitational test site requirements. I haven’t read it so don’t know what it says. Doing so, may clear up some of the questions surrounding what’s being discussed here.

[JONOV]

FDump your right to a certain degree it would be "easier" to run mini invitationals instead of one large invite, but that would cause more problems! The issue with mini invites would be that it would not give every dog entered a equal opportunity on the same running grounds.Yes, you still have dogs run on different days and different fields but it is all held the same general area and the same weekend. If you ran a mini test and lets say SD had a test and every one new the water at SD was easier than Iowa everyone would go to run at SD to have a better chance to pass. Yes, there are standards but you can have sights easier than others and that would dilute the importance of the VC.

GriffMan

I can understand that but then it raises the question is the UT test diluted? Are UT prizes from certain chapters look down on compared to other chapters? Or what about a VC in Iowa vs Ohio?

I’m obviously not the authority by any means to figure it all out but from an outsider coming into the organization these are some things that jumped out to me. It seems weird that a testing format would push a national championship when everything else is regional.

The UT test isn’t diluted from a standards perspective, no one compares where the prize was earned. They might look at how many times a dog ran a UT test but that’s it. The quality of the testing grounds are evaluated by the judging team and recorded, but not with regards to any individual dog.

[ForestDump]

I haven’t been to the Iowa location so can’t comment on the evenness of the two. Maybe someone who has could?

Forest: If you Google, NAVHDA does show Invitational test site requirements. I haven’t read it so don’t know what it says. Doing so, may clear up some of the questions surrounding what’s being discussed here.

Thanks I found it here: https://www.navhda.org/invitational-hos ... uirements/

The requirements don’t sound too difficult and it looks like the test has been held in 7 different states so why only IA/OH for the past decade? Did the requirements change? So it seems other test locations can be done. I’d be interested to know how many chapters apply for the invitational and why they get denied assuming that they wouldn’t apply if they didn’t meet the standards.

The UT test isn’t diluted from a standards perspective, no one compares where the prize was earned. They might look at how many times a dog ran a UT test but that’s it. The quality of the testing grounds are evaluated by the judging team and recorded, but not with regards to any individual dog.

In that case then the same would/should be true for the VC test. Because the standard is so high it wouldn’t really matter where the dog completed it. Nobody would look at it as an easy pass. Even in the current format I wouldn’t believe someone considers a VC test completed in Iowa truer than one completed in Ohio or vice versa. The grounds are different but the test is the same.

——
The only issue I keep going back to is that having multiple locations would dilute the importance of the big National Championship because it wouldn’t be everyone in one location once a year. But it would relieve a lot of burdens. If a chapter didn’t have any or many UT1 dogs that year they just wouldn’t hold the test or maybe one or a few chapters in the region would decide to host the test for the UT1 dogs in that region. Provided they could meet the grounds requirements.

Looking at it from Field Trials and Hunt Tests, dogs are able to win Championships and Advanced Hunt Test degrees all across the country. The grounds are different all across the country so you put faith in the organizations judges and the standards set in place. Different grounds have their own strengths and difficulties but good dogs are good dogs wherever you run them.

[JONOV]

I haven’t been to the Iowa location so can’t comment on the evenness of the two. Maybe someone who has could?

Forest: If you Google, NAVHDA does show Invitational test site requirements. I haven’t read it so don’t know what it says. Doing so, may clear up some of the questions surrounding what’s being discussed here.

Thanks I found it here: https://www.navhda.org/invitational-hos ... uirements/

The requirements don’t sound too difficult and it looks like the test has been held in 7 different states so why only IA/OH for the past decade? Did the requirements change? So it seems other test locations can be done. I’d be interested to know how many chapters apply for the invitational and why they get denied assuming that they wouldn’t apply if they didn’t meet the standards.

Actually it is kind of hard. three separate 100 acre fields sounds easy until you have to secure them, relatively close. And the right size pond, and a VC or two as a by dog, and judges that have handled dogs in the invitational.

I’m 99% certain that they don’t have chapters clamoring to host it. It’s a massive amount of work and coordination. And I think, though I can’t confirm, that there’s a significant cash outlay for chapters to have the invitational. FWIW in 2021 it’s being held in New Mexico.

The UT test isn’t diluted from a standards perspective, no one compares where the prize was earned. They might look at how many times a dog ran a UT test but that’s it. The quality of the testing grounds are evaluated by the judging team and recorded, but not with regards to any individual dog.

In that case then the same would/should be true for the VC test. Because the standard is so high it wouldn’t really matter where the dog completed it. Nobody would look at it as an easy pass. Even in the current format I wouldn’t believe someone considers a VC test completed in Iowa truer than one completed in Ohio or vice versa. The grounds are different but the test is the same.

——
The only issue I keep going back to is that having multiple locations would dilute the importance of the big National Championship because it wouldn’t be everyone in one location once a year. But it would relieve a lot of burdens. If a chapter didn’t have any or many UT1 dogs that year they just wouldn’t hold the test or maybe one or a few chapters in the region would decide to host the test for the UT1 dogs in that region. Provided they could meet the grounds requirements.

Looking at it from Field Trials and Hunt Tests, dogs are able to win Championships and Advanced Hunt Test degrees all across the country. The grounds are different all across the country so you put faith in the organizations judges and the standards set in place. Different grounds have their own strengths and difficulties but good dogs are good dogs wherever you run them.

But a championship in a MidAtlantic walking shooting dog trial is not the same as a championship at the Continental Open All Age. And a dog has to place elsewhere then win to get CH next to his name.

And the AKC has their own parameters in place; a dog has to beat a current champion to be named a FC or AFC. And the standards by which they’re judged lends them to a certain conformation and certain breedss.

[GRIFF MAN]

The requirements don’t sound too difficult and it looks like the test has been held in 7 different states so why only IA/OH for the past decade? Did the requirements change? So it seems other test locations can be done. I’d be interested to know how many chapters apply for the invitational and why they get denied assuming that they wouldn’t apply if they didn’t meet the standards.
.

Again, you are thinking that UT and VC are the same type of test....They are different as far as how they are created.
UT tests can be ran on any chapter and senior judge approved land, why, because that is what this level of testing dictates.
Invitational testing has stricter guidelines and to make it equal for all testing dogs they site is held in one spot. You cant play on multiple golf courses to decide on the Masters winner...they all have to play on the same golf course. The invite dogs are competing ! They compete against the standards. The conditions of the grounds strongly influences the standards that the dogs are going against. That is why they have to all be at the same location, level playing field.

The Invite has been held in various locations over the years. It is a big job for chapters to take on. That is why you don't see many chapters applying for the right to hold the test. I believe only Ohio and Iowa applied for the test over the last few years. Iowa wants out and now there going to try NM.

Hope that clears it up.

GriffMan

[ForestDump]

The requirements don’t sound too difficult and it looks like the test has been held in 7 different states so why only IA/OH for the past decade? Did the requirements change? So it seems other test locations can be done. I’d be interested to know how many chapters apply for the invitational and why they get denied assuming that they wouldn’t apply if they didn’t meet the standards.
.

Again, you are thinking that UT and VC are the same type of test....They are different as far as how they are created.
UT tests can be ran on any chapter and senior judge approved land, why, because that is what this level of testing dictates.
Invitational testing has stricter guidelines and to make it equal for all testing dogs they site is held in one spot. You cant play on multiple golf courses to decide on the Masters winner...they all have to play on the same golf course. The invite dogs are competing ! They compete against the standards. The conditions of the grounds strongly influences the standards that the dogs are going against. That is why they have to all be at the same location, level playing field.

The Invite has been held in various locations over the years. It is a big job for chapters to take on. That is why you don't see many chapters applying for the right to hold the test. I believe only Ohio and Iowa applied for the test over the last few years. Iowa wants out and now there going to try NM.

Hope that clears it up.

GriffMan

But the dogs aren’t all competing on the same grounds. The location changes each year which means a dog completing a VC test in Maine or Iowa did not have to run on the same grounds as a dog who competes in Ontario or North Dakota. They all met the standards regardless of where they tested.

[GRIFF MAN]

The same for the year.
Each dog for the year is on the same ground. It's about ALL dogs in the same year running vs. The standard against the standards on the same neutral ground.

[JONOV]

The requirements don’t sound too difficult and it looks like the test has been held in 7 different states so why only IA/OH for the past decade? Did the requirements change? So it seems other test locations can be done. I’d be interested to know how many chapters apply for the invitational and why they get denied assuming that they wouldn’t apply if they didn’t meet the standards.
.

Again, you are thinking that UT and VC are the same type of test....They are different as far as how they are created.
UT tests can be ran on any chapter and senior judge approved land, why, because that is what this level of testing dictates.
Invitational testing has stricter guidelines and to make it equal for all testing dogs they site is held in one spot. You cant play on multiple golf courses to decide on the Masters winner...they all have to play on the same golf course. The invite dogs are competing ! They compete against the standards. The conditions of the grounds strongly influences the standards that the dogs are going against. That is why they have to all be at the same location, level playing field.

The Invite has been held in various locations over the years. It is a big job for chapters to take on. That is why you don't see many chapters applying for the right to hold the test. I believe only Ohio and Iowa applied for the test over the last few years. Iowa wants out and now there going to try NM.

Hope that clears it up.

GriffMan

But the dogs aren’t all competing on the same grounds. The location changes each year which means a dog completing a VC test in Maine or Iowa did not have to run on the same grounds as a dog who competes in Ontario or North Dakota. They all met the standards regardless of where they tested.

They’re stringent enough in selecting the locations that it’s not a big deal; no surprises when you get to the testing ground. The same can’t always be said for NA/UT/UPT. The senior judge may decide to use this piece of flooded timber for the duck search instead of that cattail slough. Or to do pheasant tracks here instead of there. Or, you find that someone on the next property blew out the beaver dam creating your duck search area, etc, etc

Think of it this way; you can qualify for the US Open at local qualifier matches; the local New York qualifier might be held at a totally different type of course than one held in California. And the Open moves every year, but everyone competes at the same course the year they qualify.

[ryanr]

The requirements don’t sound too difficult and it looks like the test has been held in 7 different states so why only IA/OH for the past decade? Did the requirements change? So it seems other test locations can be done. I’d be interested to know how many chapters apply for the invitational and why they get denied assuming that they wouldn’t apply if they didn’t meet the standards.
.

Again, you are thinking that UT and VC are the same type of test....They are different as far as how they are created.
UT tests can be ran on any chapter and senior judge approved land, why, because that is what this level of testing dictates.
Invitational testing has stricter guidelines and to make it equal for all testing dogs they site is held in one spot. You cant play on multiple golf courses to decide on the Masters winner...they all have to play on the same golf course. The invite dogs are competing ! They compete against the standards. The conditions of the grounds strongly influences the standards that the dogs are going against. That is why they have to all be at the same location, level playing field.

The Invite has been held in various locations over the years. It is a big job for chapters to take on. That is why you don't see many chapters applying for the right to hold the test. I believe only Ohio and Iowa applied for the test over the last few years. Iowa wants out and now there going to try NM.

Hope that clears it up.

GriffMan

But the dogs aren’t all competing on the same grounds. The location changes each year which means a dog completing a VC test in Maine or Iowa did not have to run on the same grounds as a dog who competes in Ontario or North Dakota. They all met the standards regardless of where they tested.

You're really not making any sense. Each year the Invitational is held at one site, how hard is that to understand? Yes, for the past I don't know how many years it rotates annually between two locations, Iowa and Ohio but it each year's test is run all on the same grounds for that year.

You keep insisting that it seems really simple to just hold it anywhere but have you ever even seen an Invitational or run a dog in one? How about a UT?

[GRIFF MAN]

ryanr,

He makes sense....it would be 'easier' to run an invitational at any site. The more you run the less dogs at each site which would mean less volunteers less judges etc.... What he doesn't understand is that the this particular Navhda test is different than the others. It is a test that takes all the top qualifying dogs and invites them to one particular grounds to run...that is one thing that makes it different and special from other navhda tests.


GriffMan

[bwjohn]

I will get harpooned for this, but knowing that there are a few comments that i have to make.

FD’s comments do make sense. Some of the arguments against his reasoning does not make sense. If NAVHDA, is so proud of there judging system and criteria set out for the test, why can’t there be more than one location a year for a test. If the system is sound a test in new mexico to new york should be equal and carry the same weight. Just b/c someone who is use to seeing the test but did not get to see the test make it any less of an accomplishment. Why not regional test, american field has regional championships. NAVHDA seems to pull in enough money, they could help support getting judges to locations. Burdens on clubs would be less for size of venue and other accommodations, volunteer staffing less needs. It seems to solve a lot of the problems associated with conducting the test. More clubs get to host, more people are involved and more dogs get the opportunity; sounds like a when all around to me. You could make 4,6,8 regions, doesnt matter.

Absolutely every dog CAN get a VC that runs at the invitational. Does every dog NO, i am sure that it has never happened, but theoretically it could. Just the same as every dog at a weekend test could get a prize 1 UT, do they no but they could. We are still proving some of einsteins theories correct, so maybe some day it will happen. I would rather root for dogs to succeed and their owners than be negative. That is how I took the original comment, or close to the front anyway.

This is where i am going to lose you. People in every testing system get so brainwashed that there system is perfect and no others can touch it. NAVHDA is a horrible offender in this regard, if you drink the kool aid (one word or two i don’t t know). I have had the same issue with AKC field trialers to hunt test to american field all age to shooting dog to HAVHDA to JGHV to alliance breeding groups to whatever else you want to say. Our system is PERFECT and if you don’t see that or don’t agree you are just to stupid to understand that and therefore have no idea of what i am talking about and are immediately disregarded. But i must say NAVHDA and JGHV seem to be two of the most hard liners. If it isn’t us it isn’t worth having ( i do realize the bad sentence structure and grammar there, but is was meant as if someone were speaking).

For the record i have competed and or judged in all of the above venues and others as well. Do i have the most experience no, do i have some yes, do i have more to learn yes, am i happy to learn yes.

Best regards, Brandon

[ckirsch]

At the end of the day, no one is forced to participate in NAVHDA, and there are several other games available, all with their own agendas and shortcomings. Seems like it'd be easier to find one that appeals to you and jump in, rather than expend energy denigrating those that don't.

You must have missed this.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread claiming NAVHDA is perfect, but to hear it denigrated as a sham by someone who's never run a test seems a bit harsh. I've enjoyed NAVHDA and learned a lot from the experience, but I equally enjoy NSTRA trials, and while I've not experienced one, AKC tests sound like a worthy challenge. I've even had a good time at the bird dog challenges I've participated in. Field trials are a stretch for me as I'm not a horse guy, but I'm not going to criticize them solely because they don't fit the bill for me.. None of the dog games closely resemble hunting - pen raised birds eliminate that possibility. None are perfect, and none of them is the end-all, but in my estimation they are all better alternatives than leaving your dog sit in the kennel for the nine months you can't hunt each year.

If the OP holds such disdain for NAVHDA that he'll gripe that VC's are not really champions, and that "any dog can pass" (the fact that all high school kids can maintain 4.0 GPA's, or score 34's on their ACT's, but don't, does not diminish the accomplishment of those who do.), just go find something else. Nobody is forcing him, or begging him, to participate.

[ForestDump]

Again, there’s no disdain for NAVHDA. Some things don’t make much sense and I wonder why some things aren’t thought of to be changed but it’s a cool testing system. It requires a lot of a dog.

I say “versatile champion” is an odd title because the champion prefix is reserved for a competition. Testing titles are suffixes because you are not competing against one another it’s a test against a standard. Which is why UT and NA go after a dogs name. Doesn’t really make sense to give a dog a championship just because the test gets harder. And it is a very hard test. But that’s all it is. Everyone has a chance of becoming a “champion” at the event if they do everything right. In true competition just because everyone does everything right doesn’t earn them a blue ribbon or championship. It seems strange that a non competitive venue would even want to give out championships.

I like hunt tests and field trials ans as an admitted newcomer to the NAVHDA game I appreciate everyone who chose to participate in the discussion.