# Master National/ AKC changes



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

There has been many comments about how the Master National could have a single flight with 1 set of judges. 
What if marking was really made the primary focus as per the rules for qualification for the MN?
There could be levels of qualifying scores: those that handle on a mark and those that do not. If you handle on 1 mark you can still get a qualifying score towards your a MH. To get a qualifying score towards the MN you can not handle on any mark.

Tim


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

The MN is supposed to be the celebration of the MH dog. As such it should totally reflect the MH dog at all levels. Not be a super/sub set of MH dogs. 

T. Mac


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> The MN is supposed to be the celebration of the MH dog. As such it should totally reflect the MH dog at all levels. Not be a super/sub set of MH dogs.
> 
> T. Mac


That is one view. Not the one shared by AKC. Tht is the problem. :wink:


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Tim 

IMHO your proposal puts way too much punishment for a handle any handle.

I placed 4 dogs that handled in the last Amateur that I judged. :wink:


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

The AKC HT rule book states: Marking is of primary inportance. A quick handle is preferable to a long hunt. Or words to that effect.

It's a hunt test for God's sake! Hunting dogs!! Let's not make it any worse than it is.  

How are the folks with a good dog and limited time, money, grounds and help going to continue to play the game? Let's not run them off.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

lablover said:


> The AKC HT rule book states: Marking is of primary inportance. A quick handle is preferable to a long hunt. Or words to that effect.
> 
> It's a hunt test for God's sake! Hunting dogs!! Let's not make it any worse than it is.
> 
> How are the folks with a good dog and limited time, money, grounds and help going to continue to play the game? Let's not run them off.


I'm just trying to solve the problem and obey the rules:
AKC HT rules Chapter 5 sect 5:") Dogs may be handled on marks but must be scored with greater stringency than Senior Hunting dogs in Marking and/or Perseverance.

In a Senior you can get a ribbon if you handle on 1 bird. In most Masters you can handle once and get a ribbon /qualfying score.
If the MN is to be the "PREMIER EVENT" why not strictly enforce Chapter 5 Section 5.
It is cut and dry. There is no competition just a standard!

Tim


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2005)

lablover said:


> The AKC HT rule book states: (snip)A quick handle is preferable to a long hunt. Or words to that effect.(snip)


The quick handle versus long hunt is a rulebook MYTH and does not exist in any form in the rulebook.

Same thing as "intimidation" -- it doesn't appear in the rulebook and is also a myth... 

There are some long hunts, esp at hunt tests, that are a joy to watch as far as I'm concerned. A dog digging a bird out of tough cover, for example. Or an area that's been heavily scented, like when you're dog number 300 at the master national and your dog is in the area of the fall of the flyer... Is this dog not allowed a long hunt? give me a break (not arguing with you here, lablover -- just that people who put that anti-long-hunt thing into play. That's part of what we want in a hunting dog. A dog that will stick with it and get that tough bird.

I think it would NOT be a good idea to require zero handles. You could end up with dogs that were not really great markers, but made their way to birds. And then you'd have another dog that stepped on all but one bird and even if he put in a good effort, but had to be handled, he'd be penalized. Just doesn't seem fair...

-Kristie


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Why change the rules?

Let's say you are at the MN, and it's Friday. Maybe you have had a hunt or two, and a handle on Tuesday. Remaining work during the week is very good.
Friday's test is a land triple and you notice that your dog doesn't mark one of the birds too well...... Poor light, bad throw, hair combed the wrong way, whatever.
You dog picks up 2 birds, clean, and you have 2 handles on the third bird.
Should you be dropped?

Disregard the fact that you've blown 1200 to 1500.00 for the week. How disappointed would you feel? I hope this has not become the case.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Location: Richmond, VA
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why change the rules? 

Let's say you are at the MN, and it's Friday. Maybe you have had a hunt or two, and a handle on Tuesday. Remaining work during the week is very good. 
Friday's test is a land triple and you notice that your dog doesn't mark one of the birds too well...... Poor light, bad throw, hair combed the wrong way, whatever. 
You dog picks up 2 birds, clean, and you have 2 handles on the third bird. 
Should you be dropped? 

Disregard the fact that you've blown 1200 to 1500.00 for the week. How disappointed would you feel? I hope this has not become the case.
_________________ 
I'm not saying you can not handle at the MN. The MN should be harder then any weekend test you have ever entered! Handling at the MN is a different issue.
I'm saying you need to prove your dog is something special to enter the MN.
Let's face the fact that the average weekend Master test has a national average of 42% qualifiers. That essentially means that the average dog that runs 10-12 Master tests per year is eligible.
The numbers at the MN need to be reduced. We need a higher qualifification standard to assure that those that enter the MN are the elite of the sport if this is to be a premier event.
Those not interested in the MN would not be effected by this no handle standard.
The weekend Master that you run would have you competing against 2 standards for 1 entry fee!

Tim


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

just my opinion;

this has gotten way out too elitist to be considered non-competitive. -paul


----------



## Ray Shanks (May 23, 2004)

Tim 

It would be easrier to agree with you if the jugdes would keep the marks under a 100 yards like the rule book implies. :roll:


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Dogs are getting better all the time. Handlers are getting better all the time. There is better equipment, more training literature and people are taking a stronger interest in the sport. Why does the standard need to change, just to decrease the number of MH's? There should be more dogs qualifing because there are a lot more dogs competing now than ever. I think it is a case of the people that have their MH's are just looking to make it more difficult for those that don't. I would rather see an increase in the number of quals required to enter the Master National than to raise the standard. Maybe the AKC needs to have 2 seperate events like Master National Amatuer and Master National Open? Although, I believe that the Master tests are becoming more like field trials all the time anyway.


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Stoneybrook,

Very well said!  

I've been saying for a number of years that MH tests are mini-qualifyings with field trial conotations. Lots of folks are starting to agree too.

Let's all remember the premium says "Hunt Test", and set it up and judge it as such.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

lablover said:


> Let's all remember the premium says "Hunt Test", and set it up and judge it as such.


Let's also remember that many of the current Master dog's are from FC/AFC breeding and trained using techniques developed for FT dogs.
The dogs and their training has evolved like or not. The Standard must do the same for the title to carry the same significance it did 20 years ago.

Tim


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

When 100% of the dogs entered in every Master test qualify, I would agree that perhaps the Standard needs to be increased. However, with the amount of dogs that qualify at a weekend hunt test in our area being more like 25%, I can not agree.

Vicky


----------



## Ray Shanks (May 23, 2004)

The pedigree of the dogs should not have no bearing on how we set up a master test. Master Test shuold be set up and judged by the AKC rule book; not by the opinion of the judges. If more judges would go hunting, they would be more capable of simulating a hunting situation. This game was form to answer one question: Is this dog a desirable HUNTING COMPANION. When Qualifying judges hand out more ribbons than the Master Test judges, we as a group have went away from our roots.

My 2 Cents Regards,
Ray


----------



## fowlcreek (Dec 8, 2004)

I'll be the first one to admit that I haven't run enough Master tests to have as educated opinion as some here but I see the same thing at Master that I see in HRC Finished Tests. Some people understand what a good, tough, fair test looks like and do justice by the standard, and the Title. Others do not!

The "numbers" will take care of themselves if you set up good tests. Who cares how many pass if you truly set up a good test. I had the opportunity to go watch a couple of Master tests last spring in which I was not running. The test and the work on it was not very good yet everyone who ran the last series got a ribbon, almost like they were getting a ribbon for finishing, not meeting the standard. I lost some respect for the Master program then. I have since run a few and can tell you that I've had the luxury of running what I considered the toughest Flight at just about every Master I have entered. At my first Master test, one flight finished in a day with the last series being a double and a blind and our flight finished in 2 days with a "Delayed quad" or Double-Double as it was explained with an out of order flyer and Double water blind, both under of the arc of marks. I thanked the judges for making my first Master test one worth running.

I constantly tell my clients to raise their standards of what they expect from their dogs, and with some judges, I would gladly ask them to do the same. Not being able to handle on a mark in order to get a Qualifying score to run the MN seems ludicrous to me though. 2 weeks ago I handled Abbie on a very well placed mark at Rappahanock under Lyn and Sue. First mark she had handled on all weekend including Friday's Master. I handled simply to get her out of the cold icy water before she got into trouble.

Figure out how to raise the standard without tying the judges hands. Either way, I'm gonna run what you put in front of me. 

Stacey


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Well said Stacey.

Raise the standard? Isn't that the AKC's responsibility? It's certainly not the judges responsibility. The AKC has provided a rule book for HT events, and it's the judges responsibility to set up their tests, according to these rules. What's wrong with that? I realize the rule book is not perfect, but it is, what it is.

Many judges, and we all have seen them, assume a position of power once they get in the chair, and try and set up tests out of the scope of the rules. Or to deliberately try and trick the dogs. What happened to good bird placement? How many times have you been hunting and shot a bird to trick the dog?
Maybe they are trying to be a "tough" judge. We had a "tough" judge here in VA that handlers consistantly complained about his tests. Yet, he was asked to judge a fair amount. All of a sudden, he's no longer being asked to judge, that I know of. Eventually HT committies "heard the handlers" and stopped inviting him.
I believe that if you are overcome by this "judges power" thing, you should decline to judge. It's far better to set up a fair test for the level you are judging, and let the dogs fail themselves.

Who cares if 60 dogs enter a test and all 60 pass? Doesn't that mean the handlers and dogs have paid the training price and are working as a team?
We know that all Master level dogs are not going to pass in a given event, and they will make mistakes, and not qualify. Some Senior dogs will crush the test and qualify. That's what makes it exciting, and keeps handlers training and coming back for more.

Merry Christmas to all,


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The % of dogs passing a weekend test without a handle is rather small as it is. If we instituted no handles on the weekends, about 1 dog in 6 might pass. It would probably be worse than that at the MN. I have seen more than a few dogs place in AA stakes WITH a handle, and some Nationals have had a winner that handled.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> The % of dogs passing a weekend test without a handle is rather small as it is. If we instituted no handles on the weekends, about 1 dog in 6 might pass.


Great point Bob!!
The qualfying score for the MH title would remain the same but only 1/6 of thise would earn a leg towards a MN qualification for that year. This coupled with dropping the number of MN qualifying scores to 4 would probably get the #'s down to the AKC's goal.

Tim


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Tim's point:

56 dog Master, weekend test, Anywhere USA.

20 dogs complete the test. All get a ribbon and a MH leg.

5 do it without a handle on a mark. Only those five would be allowed to count that test as a qualification toward the MN.

Of course, judges would have to have their thinking caps on, and not allow a MN qualification to those dogs whose handlers allowed them to hunt (and hunt and hunt) and finally SOB, just so they don't get charged with a handle.

Could get sticky.

Lisa


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Personally I think the qualifications for the MN should be based on a simple ratio, of starts to finishes. Almost any dog run on enough weekends can get the 5 legs required, but, if the dog had to get the 5 legs in the lowest number of tests run...........A dog that goes 5 for 5 is in, the dog that does 5 for 15 isn't. It shouldn't take too much to come up with a figure that would get the MN numbers down to a workable field.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

what do you do with the dog that get's all the marks,but has 3 blinds that are just barely good enough. remember that blinds are scored seperately at ht's now.

a hunting dog that doesn't do above average blinds shouldn't get a ticket to the MN just because it can mark.

Tim we discussed this some years ago; i thought it was a bad idea then, as i do now.-paul


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Personally I think the qualifications for the MN should be based on a simple ratio, of starts to finishes. Almost any dog run on enough weekends can get the 5 legs required, but, if the dog had to get the 5 legs in the lowest number of tests run...........A dog that goes 5 for 5 is in, the dog that does 5 for 15 isn't. It shouldn't take too much to come up with a figure that would get the MN numbers down to a workable field.


This has been brought up at MNRC meetings. The dilemma with this is that there are people in areas of the country that have minimal access to tests. In my area, I could get to a test almost every weekend when tests are in season. But there are less populated areas where people have to drive all day as it is... The ratio approach or an approach that raises the number passes makes it very difficult for the people in these areas to qualify.

-Kristie


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

It would seem that no approach will make everyone happy. Tests with huge numbers of dogs will sooner or later be the death of the program, which is what you will get with increasing the number of legs needed to qualify. Setting a score of say 8.5 or whatever for a MN Q leg makes the judges do a lot more beancounting than they have time for. The regionals sound like a good idea until it comes time to find clubs with the ability to put them on. One thing that MIGHT help is to change the rules about having the MH title. Don't start counting for MN qualifying legs until AFTER a dog is titled, that is the legs to a title wouldn't count toward the MN.

My main concern is that the status quo of the weekend tests NOT be adversly affected by changes in the MN program. There are a lot of good dog people who are only after a MH and not interested in going to the MN. If we change the weeend tests radically to accomodate the MN, those folks may get lost in the shuffle.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As myself and others have said on numerous occasions.

The answer can be found in some version of a fourth stake, a MHX if you will, open only to Master Hunters or to all if you like, and a MHX/MN marriage, with or without the MNRC, with the run of the mill weekend MH tests left as we found them for those not interested in anything above MH.

I love those run on sentences :wink: 
john


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

kristie said:


> Bob Gutermuth said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I think the qualifications for the MN should be based on a simple ratio, of starts to finishes. Almost any dog run on enough weekends can get the 5 legs required, but, if the dog had to get the 5 legs in the lowest number of tests run...........A dog that goes 5 for 5 is in, the dog that does 5 for 15 isn't. It shouldn't take too much to come up with a figure that would get the MN numbers down to a workable field.
> ...


Reality check:
1)HTs are to be a standard not a competitive venue.
2) If the MN is be to part of AKC the #'s need to be reduced.
3)There is no current mechanism to track a dog's pass/entry ratio.
4)Quality dog work not the number of test entered should determine the premier dogs.
5)There is no effort to change the criteria for a MH.
6)The HT program and people are beneficial to the AKC.
7)The AKC will maintain a National event with or without the MNRC.
8)Other programs have never reached the popularity of AKC programs.
9)No handling on marks is an objective standard. There will be would no subjective scoring of 6-7-8-8.5 etc
10)Weekend judges only need to decide yes, no, or should have handled.
11)Having 3-4 of this quality type performance would reduce #'s and keep MNRC in the AKC
12) MNRC could negotiate for a title with the AKC for those that complete the MN.

Tim


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2005)

ok, so we make any of the changes mentioned above...

and then dogs improve, more people get involved and the numbers are up again...

then what?


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The only thing I am concerned with on a weekend judging assignment is which dogs have earned a ribbon. Anything dealing with qualifying or not for the MN is not nor should it be of any judges concern on the weekends.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> The only thing I am concerned with on a weekend judging assignment is which dogs have earned a ribbon. Anything dealing with qualifying or not for the MN is not nor should it be of any judges concern on the weekends.


absolutely.


----------



## B. A. (Feb 4, 2005)

kristie said:


> Bob Gutermuth said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I am concerned with on a weekend judging assignment is which dogs have earned a ribbon. Anything dealing with qualifying or not for the MN is not nor should it be of any judges concern on the weekends.
> ...


Or the test secretary.

Furthermore, I would hate to see two classes of test qualifiers on a given weekend. The dog either qualifies, or it doesn't IMO. At a weekend event, it shouldn't matter at all.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Bob A. said:


> Furthermore, I would hate to see two classes of test qualifiers on a given weekend. The dog either qualifies, or it doesn't IMO. At a weekend event, it shouldn't matter at all.


Why not have classes of qualfiers. There is precedent within AKC's FT, there is precedent within AKC Ht , there is precedent between SR & Master, breed clubs have various criteria for various titles and all of thes are based on pass fail.
Are MH judges not able to consider 2 standards?

Tim


----------



## B. A. (Feb 4, 2005)

Tim Carrion said:


> Bob A. said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, I would hate to see two classes of test qualifiers on a given weekend. The dog either qualifies, or it doesn't IMO. At a weekend event, it shouldn't matter at all.
> ...


The beauty of the HT program is the non competitive nature. The only other AKC program that comes close is tracking. I'd hate to see that change.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

There are enough dsisgruntled handlers now who haven't a clue why their dog NQ'd. I hate to think, that if 8.5 were the MN Q score how many handlers would be kvetching about getting an 8.4. It is rare for a handler who got a ribbon to even ask to see their score sheet now. Once they get the ribbon, nobody cares if they got a 9.9 or a 7.000001.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> There are enough dsisgruntled handlers now who haven't a clue why their dog NQ'd. I hate to think, that if 8.5 were the MN Q score how many handlers would be kvetching about getting an 8.4. It is rare for a handler who got a ribbon to even ask to see their score sheet now. Once they get the ribbon, nobody cares if they got a 9.9 or a 7.000001.


Agree! 
That is why I propose an absolute. After all it is a "STANDARD". Take the subjective scores out of the equation. The dog/handler either handled, did not handle or should have handled. No numbers, no calculations, just 2 judges making a yes/no decision.
These are decisions judges make everytime they accept an assignment.
If in later years we still have too many dogs then additional criteria may be created. That's called progress!

Tim


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2005)

Tim Carrion said:


> Bob Gutermuth said:
> 
> 
> > There are enough dsisgruntled handlers now who haven't a clue why their dog NQ'd. I hate to think, that if 8.5 were the MN Q score how many handlers would be kvetching about getting an 8.4. It is rare for a handler who got a ribbon to even ask to see their score sheet now. Once they get the ribbon, nobody cares if they got a 9.9 or a 7.000001.
> ...


Doesn't sound bad in theory... But what if a dog never handles through the entire test yet has long or big hunts on every bird? Are they still going to pass?


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Instead of cutting down the numbers, why not run three separate regions per year. It would be 100 plus dogs per region and everyone could play.


Russ


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I would be willing to bet a lot of handlers would let the dog hunt every bird. We have judges now who carry dogs with double handles in every series, if the dog is clean despite the gorilla hunts they will still get carried by some.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I We have judges now who carry dogs with double handles in every series, if the dog is clean despite the gorilla hunts they will still get carried by some.


Then you need to question the quality of judging. That's is a whole different topic!
Tim


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

I am always fascinated by those that want to change the standards in a HUNT TEST. I know that the birds are trending toward a tougher hunt but I haven't seen the difficulty of the retrieves change much in my 20+ years of waterfowl hunting.

Back to the topic a hand:
Counting the number of handles over a year to make or break whether a dog qualifies for the MN is a bad idea IMHO.


----------



## KRL (Mar 31, 2004)

Why does the title have to "mean" more or why do you have to have less dogs have the title to feel better about your dog? Tim I just don't understand your logic. 

In the last 20 years has the requirements for a hunting dog increased? I would say the number of highly capable hunting companions has increased in the last 20 years with more and more dogs capapble of master level work. The requirements for what makes a great hunting dog have not. Hunting hasn't changed a lot in the last 20 years.

Is the purpose of a hunt test to make it so people have a "meaningful" title and can feel their dog is better than some others? Or is it to promote the skills and training required for a top notch hunting dog? If it is the latter why does it have to change? Does getting harder produce better hunting dogs? My premise is NO it does not produce better hunting dogs. 

Ideally every lab in the world would be a master hunter and have the capabilities and potential to reach the current master level. I personally think that would be awesome! 

I am sure the hunt test game has to evolve but I don't see why peole feel it has to just keep getting harder and eliminating more dogs.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Will someone define a _gorilla_ hunt ?
Can you have one in the AOF and if so is it alwayse a bad thing when judging against a standard.

Think about it.

After getting there by the shortest route.
A long _Stylish_ hunt IN the AOF shows *All *of the desired natural traits, a Mark and Perseverance, and also, Style, Courage and Hunting.
Would not several such birds only tend to affirm the ability of the dog in all of the Natural Traits ???????? 

As for Handles, there are many reasons to handle that would/should only minimally impact the scoring.
A premptive handle to to keep a dog in the AOF in the above scnario, after the dog had stayed there a *looooooong* time and was simply begining to _open up it's hunt _into a overlaping AOF is but one example.

john


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

john fallon said:


> After getting there by the shortest route.
> A long _Stylish_ hunt IN the AOF shows *All *of the desired natural traits, a Mark and Perseverance, and also, Style, Courage and Hunting.
> Would not several such birds only tend to affirm the ability of the dog in all of the Natural Traits ????????
> 
> ...


EXACTLY!!!! 

Vicky


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

The problem as I see it is that the participants of Master National have one vision of their game and the AKC officials have another. The participants know what it feels like to have the opportunity to meet with others across the country who have also reached the top of our game. The officials don't play our game and have no understanding of the friendships that we forge. Most who have retriever experience have it on the Field Trialing side of the world. I don't suggest that they don't know what they are talking about but that there is no way they can understand what we are talking about either.

Like Tim, they think the "title" is important. It is not. It is the memories and friendships, connections that are made during that 2 week period that is the reason that we do it.

Last year, I had a conversation with one of the men who helped to create the AKC hunt test game. He said it was never supposed to be this popular. It was made to allow the common man with his hunting dog to play. He also said that what he would like to see is less than 100 dogs going to the MN, judged by 3 judges, and one winner declared and given a title. Now what does that sound like to you folks? Certainly not a hunt test as I know it.
__________________

I agree that AKC could start their own "national" program anytime they wanted, infact I believe they have one sitting in the wings as we speak. Should the Master National RC fear this? I don't think so. The MNRC event could be the tool by which the dogs are chosen for the AKC's vision of a national event. Those receiving a ribbon at MN would recieve an invitation to the new event, they could choose to go or not.....you'd probably end up with about 100 dogs entering - "cream of the crop," as they say. 

The Master National event would be an important rung in the ladder, keeping MNRC in AKC and giving AKC the event they want at the the top of our game. They could run it as they wished, since there would be no voting on constitution policies and procedures by member clubs like with the MNRC. 

This "Top Gun-Dog" event could be set up to be as an elimination tournament not unlike a field trial but with the criteria based on hunt test rules, probably enhanced (it could be a hunt test on steriods) and on the final day, ONE winner could be declared and designated as "TOP GUN" Dog of the Year."
___________

To make this happen, AKC would need to allow certain things to happen so MNRC could handle the numbers more effeciently and MNRC would need to be willing to take charge of this new position with seriousness recognizing their part in the whole picture. Big changes would have to happen not unlike what was called for in the 2004 meeting vote.


----------



## Tville (Jun 29, 2005)

With flyers in most every series - sometimes 2 flyers in a series - the chances of getting a really unfair bird is too high to seriously consider the "no handle" rule. 

Ask some of the first dogs in A group this year about the flyers in their first series.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

I understand that marking is paramount and that it should be judged accordingly, but if so much weight is put solely on marking how will other skills be judged. Let's say you have no handles because you have worked your dog to death on marks and now the dog has zero line manners and butchers the blinds it runs, how do you eliminate that dog based on the fact that he lazered the marks but lacked polish in most other areas. I think this is a big problem with tests today, there is so much emphasis put on distance and marking that dogs are getting looser and whinier at the line. Have you ever sat in the duck blind with a dog like that? How many ducks get shot when the dog is hopping around in the boat with the handler telling them to sit down? You can make tests more difficult but make it more realistic if it is intended to simulate hunting. Add in quartering, actually it can already be used but very few judges have the balls to do it at the master level for fear of being strung up by the handlers who only run marks and blinds.

Tim - My impression of you from your posts is that you already have a great marking dog that has it's MH and by other folks getting a MH that somehow makes your's worth less. I find that argument very selfish and weak. If you are so into competition then go run/continue to run field trials.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Weren't new rules for judging put into effect Sept 1, 2005? Just wait and see how they will affect next years passes before talking about more changes. :roll:


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

I haven't read each & every post, but how does having a mandatory elimination for a dog handling on a mark allow for the fact that unforseen factors can come up over the course of a day at any test that effect visibility, scenting, etc. I'm not talking about something that should clearly result in a no bird-like a poor throw, etc, What about the dog who has performed flawlessly (or at least credibly) in all series & his last series is subject to pounding rain, strong wind changes, etc. that result in a handle on a mark that at any weekend Master test would be acceptable & now has him DQ'd from the MN. Does that make sense?

M


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

stonybrook said:


> I understand that marking is paramount and that it should be judged accordingly, but if so much weight is put solely on marking how will other skills be judged. Let's say you have no handles because you have worked your dog to death on marks and now the dog has zero line manners and butchers the blinds it runs, how do you eleiminate that dog based on the fact that he lazered the marks but lacked polish in most other areas. I think this is a big problem with tests today, there is so much emphasis put on distance and marking that dogs are getting looser and whinier at the line. Have you ever sat in the duck blind with a dog like that? How many ducks get shot when the dog is hopping around in the boat with the handler telling them to sit down? You can make tests more difficult but make it more realistic if it is intended to simulate hunting. Add in quartering, actually it can already be used but very few judges have the balls to do it at the master level for fear of being strung up by the handlers who only run marks and blinds.
> 
> Tim - My impression of you from your posts is that you already have a great marking dog that has it's MH and by other folks getting a MH that somehow makes your's worth less. I find that argument very selfish and weak. If you are so into competition then go run/continue to run field trials.


-My current dog does not a MH, 
-I don't care how many dogs do
-I have no interest in running the MN
-I run HT when convenient and I like the judges,
-The judging of blinds and line matters would not change, if they are bad your out
-Personally a dog in a pit or blind will need more blind skills then marking skills but that is not the way the game was designed.
-A true Senior dog can satisfy 90% of hunting needs
-I do think the AKC lable on the MN helps local clubs
-If some rules are not changed that will be lost

Maybe you don't care about AKC's involvement but if you do let's hear your suggestions.

Tim


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Master Test shuold be set up and judged by the AKC rule book; not by the opinion of the judges.


Yet the AKC HT regs/guidelines rely heavily on the judge's "judgement," i.e., _opinion_, to make decisions that are not cut and dried by definition in the regs/guidelines. 

Anything else makes judges glorified scorekeepers.

LDH wrote:



> *The problem as I see it is that the participants of Master National have one vision of their game and the AKC officials have another.*


This statement pretty much gets down to the brass tacks of the matter. The AKC is concerned with the quality of the testing and the quality of the dog that gets the recognition at the end of the week. The AKC isn't quite sure what the MN is concerned with.



> The participants know what it feels like to have the opportunity to meet with others across the country who have also reached the top of our game.


The comeraderie experienced adds greatly to the enjoyment of the week, regardless of the venue.



> The officials don't play our game and have no understanding of the friendships that we forge. Most who have retriever experience have it on the Field Trialing side of the world. I don't suggest that they don't know what they are talking about but that there is no way they can understand what we are talking about either.


I'd say Milton Holcomb and Jerry Mann have a tad bit of experience with it....and help me understand the difference in those friendships between the FT side of the world and the HT side of the world.



> Like Tim, they think the "title" is important. It is not. It is the memories and friendships, connections that are made during that 2 week period that is the reason that we do it.


With all due respect, if that were true, then the MN would bolt away from the AKC like an un-CC'd dog getting a high 5 for the first time off the truck. If memories, friendships, and connections were all that mattered, then they'd form the National Retriever Hunting Championship and sally forth without the AKC. If that's the true reason that HT folks run the MN, then workers/participants would be no problem, qualifying scores would be no problem, and they've got enough money in the bank to at least see if all that support is really there. Follow the lead of the WRC except keep it HT only and see what happens.....

_Go_ for it, I say.....and I think I know of one retriever club that will support that decision! :wink: ! From the sounds of your post, LDH, there should be bunch more that would as well!

kg


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Tim Carrion said:


> Maybe you don't care about AKC's involvement but if you do let's hear your suggestions.
> 
> Tim


Yeah!, ..Yeah!...... THAT'S the ticket! So far, we're hearing a lot of, "Don't do this, Don't do that" but, not very many suggestions. Maybe we need to start a new thread, Tim. :wink: Never gonna make everybody happy, but something has to happen, so there needs to be some good ideas out there. I KNOW there are alot of great minds out there. I don't know about everybody else, but where I work, they don't wanna hear what you CAN'T do. They wanna hear about what you CAN do. Shouldn't be any different here, should it? 



BAIT (Guess I'll get burned at the stake for THIS. :lol: )


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Here's my suggestion, Bait!



> ....form the National Retriever Hunting Championship and sally forth without the AKC. If that's (memories, friendships, and connections) the true reason that HT folks run the MN, then workers/participants would be no problem, qualifying scores would be no problem, and they've got enough money in the bank to at least see if all that support is really there. Follow the lead of the WRC except keep it HT only and see what happens.....


Why couldn't there be a wholly separate venue, set up like the WRC but only for dogs passing X number of AKC MH tests in a year? 

Make a clean break and take the franchise with you before the AKC has time to set up a new "Master National." *Now* would be the PERFECT time to do it.

Just a thought.... 8) 

kg


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

"Gorilla hunt": a large ugly and stupid hunt mostly out of the AOF, and or with no clue where the AOF is. Usually results with a notation of S.O.B. in my book.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Stonybrook wrote:


> Tim - My impression of you from your posts is that you already have a great marking dog that has it's MH and by other folks getting a MH that somehow makes your's worth less. I find that argument very selfish and weak. If you are so into competition then go run/continue to run field trials.


Just cause Tim's too modest to say, he does run FTs with his dog, probably more than HTs. Very nice qualified all age Chesapeake and I believe Tim does not use pro and does ALL of the training. I think his question is a legitimate attempt to find out what people want and perhaps make a constructive suggestion to the MN, since they just sent out a flyer requesting club input.

I didn't vote, but my personal opinion (for what it's worth, since I've never run one!) is that the theory of no handles might be a good one, but it would put a burden on the clubs and judges. Longer series (when handlers that need to handle, don't) more paperwork, more competitors demanding to discuss their scoresheets, etc. But I commend Tim for putting out a suggestion :wink:


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

KG said:


> Here's my suggestion, Bait!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Suggestion duely noted, KG. Thanks!.....Anybody else got any ideas?


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

I voted no on the poll. But the underlying question seemed to be to me: How do you reduce the number of qualified dogs for the MN to make it reasonable to hold it with one flight and one set of judges?

In response to that I say: To qualify for the MN, a dog must qualify 5 times in a Licensed AKC Master and also be awarded at least once a year a WIN. Which would mean that at each Licensed Test each flight of judges would need to select ONE dog as getting a WIN. If the win word is offense then use Best Of Test. 

This suggestion was intended for food for thought and as a way that would reduce the #'s of dogs qualified and also increase the persona of qualifying for the event. HPW(do I think this has a snowballs chance?--no way because no one seems to be willing to admit that a HT is competitive because that's sac-relegious even if true)


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> I voted no on the poll. But the underlying question seemed to be to me: How do you reduce the number of qualified dogs for the MN to make it reasonable to hold it with one flight and one set of judges?
> 
> In response to that I say: To qualify for the MN, a dog must qualify 5 times in a Licensed AKC Master and also be awarded at least once a year a WIN. Which would mean that at each Licensed Test each flight of judges would need to select ONE dog as getting a WIN. If the win word is offense then use Best Of Test.
> 
> This suggestion was intended for food for thought and as a way that would reduce the #'s of dogs qualified and also increase the persona of qualifying for the event. HPW(do I think this has a snowballs chance?--no way because no one seems to be willing to admit that a HT is competitive becausethat's sac-relegious even if true)


Harry,
I love you :wink: 
That would be the answer(and my 1st choice) since the numbers would be controlled by the # of test held per year.
But if you think I caught s*** for my suggestion I cann't wait to see what happens to you. 
Thanks for taking the heat off of me.

Tim


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

I like it to Harry, but thats why i now field trials. I wonder what the AKC solution to the #s problem will be if they start a new national event club.


----------



## Tville (Jun 29, 2005)

*Tell me:*

Why you want to limit the numbers
Why you want to set limits on the most successful hunt test venue
Why you want to reduce the number of dogs/people participating

Why aren't you looking for ways to make the MN bigger
Why aren'e you trying to get more people into the game
Why Why Why????


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Are you saying you don't understand the problems with the numbers issue at the MN, Tville?

kg


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

I like Harry's idea. To take it one step further, what about awarding a description such as Superior HuntIng Test DOG. aka S-H-I-T DOG! :wink: 

Awarded only to the top 5% of dogs (one for every 20 entries). Maybe make a minimum of 2 S-H-I-T DOG awards to qualify to run the MN.

This way you would usually not award just one winner.


John


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

As I read through this thread, many questions spring to mind. 

First it was said that there is a difference in the view that AKC has for the MN compared to that of the MNRC. Yet who/what is the AKC? It is said that the AKC is a club of member clubs, much as is the MNRC. And as such many of the MNRC member clubs are also member clubs of the AKC. It is further said that the rules of the AKC HT game are to be approved and presented by the RHTAC, which is again made up of the member/licensed retriever clubs of the AKC. Again, for the most part, these are the clubs that make up the MNRC. So when the MNRC member clubs (and by default the RHTAC club and AKC member retriever clubs) vote overwhelmingly to set their rules contrary to the views of some at the AKC, it would appear that the wishes of the RHTAC and the whole premise of the member club/RHTAC line is no longer in effect. Further when AKC dedicates the bulk of its "Judge's training seminars" to sportsman-like behaviour and then disregards the overwhelming direction of the RHTAC clubs, member clubs and the MNRC member clubs, it would appear that they are being, at best, hypocritical, and possibly at worst, illegal. 

During the multitude of threads on this topic, many have asked exactly what it is that the few at AKC wants of the MN. And to date I have yet to hear an answer, other than to limit the numbers. How do you limit the numbers and to what level? It seems that the magic number is around 150? Yet what does this number reflect? 150 is equivalant to 3 dogs per state. For the larger states, like in my state of California, that would be more like one dog per region of the state. Or one out of 100 + dogs that are run in master in that region. Picking that one dog then becomes the major question of the day. And I can not see how you can do that without putting some sort of competition/elimination criteria into play which is contrary to the core value of the hunt test game. Further, if you run a stake with 150 dogs and have the same attrition as you do now then you are looking at less than 70 qualifying dogs each year. That is a little over one dog per state. To say that there is only one MN capable dog in any given state is a disgrace to the program. If this is the intent, why not just set up a state championship trial in each state? 

Keith states


> The AKC is concerned with the quality of the testing and the quality of the dog that gets the recognition at the end of the week. The AKC isn't quite sure what the MN is concerned with.


 and


> Yet the AKC HT regs/guidelines rely heavily on the judge's "judgement," i.e., opinion, to make decisions that are not cut and dried by definition in the regs/guidelines.
> Anything else makes judges glorified scorekeepers.


Which appears to say that he defends judges for "judging to their interpretation of the standard " yet condemns them because that judging does not reflect the views of those at AKC. Bare in mind that the MN judges are supposedly amoung the most experienced of the AKC weekend judges, in that the MN judges must be 8 point judges who have run a dog at the MN, etc. So if AKC doesn't care that they judge the weekend events, which lead up to a title, to this view of the standard, why should they care about that for the MN, which has no (AKC) title associated with it, and is to be judged to the same standard that the weekend tests are judged to? 

And what is this recognition the the AKC is so afraid that some undeserving dog is going to get? Is a silver plate and an orange ribbon really significant recognition? AKC does not recognize the qualifying dogs with any title, it is not reflected in the dog's pedigree or title progression as any more than another pass at a weekend event. So what is the big deal?? 

Why do we have the compelling drive to limit numbers? Is it because we feel that our dog is better than Joe's? This view does not reflect the value of the hunt test. Rather the hunt test is to determine if the dog is a capable hunter per the "standard". Yet this "standard" is the major focal point if we really look at the different views of the MH and MN. For in fact there is no "standard" only a listing of criteria and minimums. By this I mean that per the "standard" the handler must always handle a gun (except blinds), the dog must retrieve a minimum of 10 birds, three of which must be blinds, and the dog must honor one retrieve made by another dog. Basically anything other than that is at the judges discreation. Bird placement, diversions, decoy placement, gun placement, ..... are at the discreation of the judges. And how the dog is scored is also at the judges discreation. The caveat is that there are 2 judges and the both must agree to drop a dog. 

So how is this standard of judging learned? It is not presented at the judge's seminars put on by AKC. Rather it is learned by the handler having run a test and making an opinion as to how (s)he was judged in comparison to what they learned in the training and hunting of their dogs. Perhaps a little is learned by their apprenticeship, but again this is word of mouth and only reflects a certain number of instances that can occur during the running of the test. What constitutes a handle? Handling to a mark vs handling on a mark? What is a break vs a long creep? How do you score a pop? How do you score a straight line mark vs a banana line mark? What is the right level of difficulty that the test should reflect? All in all it is amazing that we have had the success with the venue that we have had. And all these flaws are greatly magnified when we take this to a higher level (more prestigious?) and thus place it under a higher powered microscope. But I don't see how you can fix the perceived flaws in the MN without first fixing those flaws at the weekend tests. And that is the job of the AKC not the MNRC. 

T.Mac


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> First it was said that there is a difference in the view that AKC has for the MN compared to that of the MNRC. Yet who/what is the AKC? It is said that the AKC is a club of member clubs, much as is the MNRC.


Whoa....

The AKC is a club of clubs, licensed and member. HUGE difference between licensed and member clubs. The MNRC is made up of member clubs that happen to hold AKC licensed events. 



> And as such many of the MNRC member clubs are also member clubs of the AKC.


This is a statement wholly without merit.

I'd be willing to bet it's within 10% +/- of the total MNRC member clubs. I'd LOVE to hear how "many" more make up the "many" AKC member clubs that are also MNRC members.



> It is further said that the rules of the AKC HT game are to be approved and presented by the RHTAC, which is again made up of the member/licensed retriever clubs of the AKC. Again, for the most part, these are the clubs that make up the MNRC.


As a point of order, there is no such thing as a "rule" in the AKC HT program. You will not find the word "rule" in the AKC HT regs/guidelines book. FTs have "rules"....HTs have "regs/guidelines." Any club that holds AKC licensed hunting tests is a member of the RHTAC. They may or may not be members of the MNRC.




> So when the MNRC member clubs (and by default the RHTAC club and AKC member retriever clubs) vote overwhelmingly to set their rules contrary to the views of some at the AKC, it would appear that the wishes of the RHTAC and the whole premise of the member club/RHTAC line is no longer in effect.


This is a little bit like wishing the tail would wag the dog.

The AKC is the licensing authority. THEY give the MNRC, which to the AKC is nothing more than a LICENSED club that happens to hold a week long event, permission to hold the event and as such, have final approval over the way the event is run. Neither the RHTAC nor the MNRC can make whatever reg/guideline changes they want to suit their fancy and expect the AKC to rubber stamp them. That hasn't happened in the 20 years that AKC has held licensed HTs and it's not gonna happen now.



> Further when AKC dedicates the bulk of its "Judge's training seminars" to sportsman-like behaviour and then disregards the overwhelming direction of the RHTAC clubs, member clubs and the MNRC member clubs, it would appear that they are being, at best, hypocritical, and possibly at worst, illegal.


Ah....the "I" word rears it's ugly head..... :roll: When all else fails, make a vague and unsustainable accusation.....I've given a couple dozen of those seminars, Tmac, and in none of them did Misconduct take more than 45 minutes and that included the video presentation..... 

And I'm guessing that you haven't read any of the reg/guideline changes that took effect last Sept. 1, eh T. Mac? Are you bucking for the title of RTF Curmudgeon in Training? 



> During the multitude of threads on this topic, many have asked exactly what it is that the few at AKC wants of the MN. And to date I have yet to hear an answer, other than to limit the numbers.


Go back almost two years on this site and you'll find everything you need to know about what the AKC expects of the MNRC relative to the MN. Time to make that next appointment with the audiologist....or eye doctor.

Relative to your diatribe on numbers, the AKC could give a fat rat's fanny which state the dogs come from. Trying to make a legitimate argument out of that logic is one of the silliest things I've ever read.



> Keith states
> 
> 
> > :
> ...


Tmac, if you're going to quote me and not appear disingenuous in the process, you need to maintain the proper context with the statements you quote....unless, of course, your credibility is of no concern to you.....

What I said was (in _italics_):



> > :
> > Master Test shuold be set up and judged by the AKC rule book; not by the opinion of the judges.
> 
> 
> ...


...and...



> LDH wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those quotes came from replies to two different people's comments, and were displayed by you in reverse order to suit your purpose.



> Bare in mind that the MN judges are supposedly amoung the most experienced of the AKC weekend judges, in that the MN judges must be 8 point judges who have run a dog at the MN, etc. So if AKC doesn't care that they judge the weekend events, which lead up to a title, to this view of the standard, why should they care about that for the MN, which has no (AKC) title associated with it, and is to be judged to the same standard that the weekend tests are judged to?


A judge for the Master National differs in only one major way from a weekend Master judge, and that's the "must have run a dog in the event" item. IMHO, this is one item that helps the MN perpetuate their problems with testing and evaluation of dogs. As for the rest of your ramble, I've read it about 10 times and it makes no more sense after the 10th time than it did after the first.



> And what is this recognition the the AKC is so afraid that some undeserving dog is going to get? Is a silver plate and an orange ribbon really significant recognition? AKC does not recognize the qualifying dogs with any title, it is not reflected in the dog's pedigree or title progression as any more than another pass at a weekend event. So what is the big deal??


Clue in, Tmac....the AKC HT program is licensed by the AKC....they even own the name "Master National"....how the dogs are tested, judged, and recognized matters _greatly_ to them, especially with the word "National" and "AKC Licensed" on those pewter plates. 



> Rather the hunt test is to determine if the dog is a capable hunter per the "standard". Yet this "standard" is the major focal point if we really look at the different views of the MH and MN. For in fact there is no "standard" only a listing of criteria and minimums.


 :roll: .....................................

It's statements like these that minimize the efforts of hundreds of judges who do their best to judge by the Standard that they recognize and implement. And just exactly what are those "different views of the MH and MN?" I can't _wait_ to hear this explanation..... :? 



> So how is this standard of judging learned? It is not presented at the judge's seminars put on by AKC.


You obviously never attended any of the seminars _I_ gave! :lol: !



> What constitutes a handle? Handling to a mark vs handling on a mark? What is a break vs a long creep? How do you score a pop? How do you score a straight line mark vs a banana line mark? What is the right level of difficulty that the test should reflect? All in all it is amazing that we have had the success with the venue that we have had. And all these flaws are greatly magnified when we take this to a higher level (more prestigious?) and thus place it under a higher powered microscope. But I don't see how you can fix the perceived flaws in the MN without first fixing those flaws at the weekend tests. And that is the job of the AKC not the MNRC.


Ah....now we get to the bottom line....it's _all_ the AKC's fault. Always has been, always will be, right Tmac? Well, the MN wouldn't be in the pickle it's in right now if it had used it's several opportunities to police itself. When you have dogs that handle on every set of multiple marks and pass a MN (in separate MNs, mind you), there's a problem, and it _ain't_ the AKC. The game has to police itself; judges who don't judge to the Standard or don't understand it as you've as much admitted, shouldn't be in the chair. Clubs who choose people to judge simply because they have the points and live within close proximity to the test should rethink their process.

I'll tell you what I'd be all for: random evaluations by AKC field staff, where those field reps qualified to do so sit and judge every dog that the test level judges do, but are not involved in any of the test setup...and at the end of the event, they evaluate the tests, the judge's scores, and give each judge a score themselves, which may or may not allow them to continue to judge AKC HTs. If this were to happen, the judging to the Standard would improve in a _heartbeat_.

I'm more than willing to perform under that microscope, Tmac....are you?

Keith Griffith


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

KG

Just trying to understand something. You state that there are no "rules" in AKC HTs. Then you talk about the rule changes that took effect last Sept.

Are they rules or not? :wink: 


John


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Good one, John! If that's all you found to take issue with, I'm thrilled beyond words! :lol: !!!!!!!

Merry Christmas!

kg


----------



## wesley hamm (Feb 20, 2004)

I know I'm coming in to this late but exactly why do the numbers need to decline? If I had setup an organization I personally would be thrilled that the attendance increases every year........it definitely beats the alternative!

but seriously why do the numbers need to decrease? how many dogs ran this year?

Now I personally have not attended a MN and that is why I ask the above questions. But I have attended HRC's Grand several times and they run 300+ dogs also but from my understanding it is a different setup than the MN (hrc utilizes four flights and by my accounts MN utilizes 2).

Why not try and change the setup of the event to accomodate increasing numbers because (call me stupid) but in my eyes increasing numbers at an event is usually good for business and means that your organization, company, etc is headed in the right direction.

Now if you really NEED to decrease your numbers then simply have an entry fee of $2000 and that will knock out most of the people who are in this for an improved hunting dog. :lol:


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> if you're going to quote me and not appear disingenuous in the process, you need to maintain the proper context with the statements you quote....unless, of course, your credibility is of no concern to you.....


I get a _Pot calling the Kettle _vibe when I read this :wink: 
john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Normally, I'd suggest you tighten up the screws to get rid of that _vibe_-ration, but I don't think your screws could _get_ any tighter.

If I _truly_ cared what you thought, John, I'd craft a reply to this....suffice it to say that it's better to use examples (like I did) as opposed to making baseless accusations....but if you're _good_ at something, stay with it, right?    ............. 

....but, seeing as how I _don't_ care what you think, no more of a reply will I craft....

May the spirit of Christmas soak through the curmudgeonly crust that you effect.....

kg


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Hi I'm a new guy
I think most of you have made valid points even if they are contrairy to the other guys point of view. Every one has an opinion and based on their temperament and experience it will flow one way or the other. Its only natural as the dogs become consistantly better and the people become more proficiant retriever trainers that they will seek to make the game more challenging. Some of it is born out of the love for the sport and dogs, other finacial and others ego ect. ect. 
So I can see understand and agree with their view points. On the other hand I can understand the view of the purist who might say that HT were originally developed for the working/hunting dog person to enjoy and possibly aquire a sub title for their dog. Where getting the bird in a resonable manner ( not having to yell or throw rocks toward the bird)might be all that is needed and all this precision we now encounter might be considered folly. And then there is everybody else who is in between.

What I guess people are trying to do is distiguish a nice hunting dog (MH) from a great hunting dog (MHN). 
Personally I have never encountered a day in the field that resembled any MH test. But that might be besides the point.
This is a game that we play because we enjoy all the aspects of it. Training,friendships,hunting ,dogs and so on and so forth. 
I think the problem arises from a competitive spirit in a non competitive game. The FT are the perfect venue for this. As far as making the qulifications more difficult for the MN I can go either way. The people that are for it gave good ideas. If you are looking for the most consistant dogs to be eligable then pecentage of entrees which passes are good. So is the dog with no handles. How about the dog that can't carry a line more than 5 yards since blinds are important now. 
Naturally things will gravitate to harder tests and more stringent judging.
My personal opinion is... If you want to become part of the elite then be sucessful in field trials, there you will find all the competition one can handle.
If you want the make up of a fine hunting companion then run hunt tests. If you swing both ways run them both.


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

KG said:


> > During the multitude of threads on this topic, many have asked exactly what it is that the few at AKC wants of the MN. And to date I have yet to hear an answer, other than to limit the numbers.
> 
> 
> Go back almost two years on this site and you'll find everything you need to know about what the AKC expects of the MNRC relative to the MN. Time to make that next appointment with the audiologist....or eye doctor.
> ...


Keith,

Please use your excellent talents at "crafting" multiple Quote messages to share with us the Quotes by the AKC or it's representatives on their vision of the MN or are you saying RTF is the official AKC site now? I've run dogs, been a delegate, talked to the AKC reps and attended all meetings at the last 4 MN's and have yet to hear their vision. Even though AKC has been asked to give their vision multiple times, they have refused everytime. 

Maybe they have given you their vision while at a FT or something since I have never seen you at a MN in 4 years. Please give the AKC Quotes and the sources of them? It might help many people that have no idea of what their *official* thoughts are. 

My hope is the new director will breakup the good-ole-boys there now that are out of touch and have personal agendas rather than supporting and working with the people that work and run the event.

Bob Neipert


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> My hope is the new director will breakup the good-ole-boys there now that are out of touch and have personal agendas rather than supporting and working with the people that work and run the event.


Just in case you haven't heard, Bob, Bill Speck is "back in the chair" at the AKC as Asst VP/Performance Events. His e-mail address is [email protected]. Perhaps you'd like to correspond with him directly about your concerns about the AKC being out of touch and having personal agendas.

I've got his phone number too if you'd like it.....



> Please use your excellent talents at "crafting" multiple Quote messages to share with us the Quotes by the AKC or it's representatives on their vision of the MN....


There's been enough discussion about this subject since the MN's aberrant attempt to all-but-eliminate pros from the event to fill several volumes relative to who stands where on the MN. I _know_ where they stand. So does anyone else who's paying attention. Most of it is stuff that other folks simply don't want to hear and therefore ignore. 



> ....or are you saying RTF is the official AKC site now?


Have you been into the eggnog there, Bob? Where did _this_ come from?



> I've run dogs, been a delegate, talked to the AKC reps and attended all meetings at the last 4 MN's and have yet to hear their vision. Even though AKC has been asked to give their vision multiple times, they have refused everytime.


Perhaps you need to be in closer touch with your regional VP or other MN officers. I think they can cite you chapter and verse. 



> Maybe they have given you their vision while at a FT or something since I have never seen you at a MN in 4 years. Please give the AKC Quotes and the sources of them? It might help many people that have no idea of what their *official* thoughts are.


I am no closer to anyone at the AKC than anyone else can be, should they choose to invest their time and efforts. It helps that I used to be a sporting breeds field rep, no doubt....but anyone who wants to can get their questions answered instead of blaming their lack of knowledge on everyone else....and no, you haven't seen me at a Master National in the past four years, as if _that_ matters. The last two I attended were in '99 in South Carolina and '00 in Indiana.

I'm no fan of the MN in its current form. I've made no secret of that. I think it's a shame the effect it has on regular weekend testing and judging. I think it's a shame that member clubs don't have the guts to make the necessary changes to turn it into the world class hunting dog showcase that it can be. The rewards that the MN could reap in the long run would be far greater than the short-term pain that would be caused by the changes. No guts, no glory.

kg


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

IMHO if the MNRC/RHTAC and the AKC want the MN to be their premier event then base it on dog work.
Up the standard to be there.
Increasing the number of qualifying scores only rewards those that attend more test.
Master test and the MN have as much to do with hunting as FTs. Face reality! It's a dog game designed for who people enjoy training or owning a good/great retriever as compared to the norm, it's not hunting.

Tim


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> IMHO if the MNRC/RHTAC and the AKC want the MN to be their premier event then base it on dog work.
> Up the standard to be there.
> Increasing the number of qualifying scores only rewards those that attend more test.
> Master test and the MN have as much to do with hunting as FTs. Face reality! It's a dog game designed for who people enjoy training or owning a good/great retriever as compared to the norm, it's not hunting.
> ...


And there is the non-ending conundrum. You and others that think like you Dr Tim, continue to forget the purpose of that program was FOR THE HUNTER AND_HIS_ DOG...it wasn't meant to be a mini FT, set up by those that are FT wash-outs!

That's what irks me the most about all the 'egos' associated with the MN. Statements like "Up the standard to be there" just ain't gonna fly with those of us this program was developed to provide entertainment for. 

It matters not to me how the MN works out their kinks with AKC, but it for sure isn't gonna be on the backs of the weekend testers. 

What the MN egos continue to ask for is analogous to a 12 year scholastic program being at fault for not producing more Einsteins. Suddenly the upper crust at MIT want high schools to only pass those students with 2 years of calculus knowledge, so they get into the university better prepared to expand on E equals MC squared.

What many of the MN persuasion fail to understand is that a Master Hunter title earned via the basic AKC testing standard is plenty adequate for the huge majority of us weekend testers.

And the second thing you folks fail to understand is that AKC isn't about to let you kill the goose laying the golden eggs...the weekend tests...by causing large numbers to become turned off just so a few can excell. Most of us left that form of competition. 

We are happy having graduated high school. What we are preparing for...hunting....hasn't changed hardly at all, and since our 8th grade educated retriever could have handled most of our needs, we are already 'over-educated' by achieving that weekend HT Master diploma.

The MN, as does the HRC Grand, will continue to receive my best wishes for success. But please stop trying to achieve that by changing the basic programs the large majority of us enjoy.

UB


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

KG said:


> > During the multitude of threads on this topic, many have asked exactly what it is that the few at AKC wants of the MN. And to date I have yet to hear an answer, other than to limit the numbers.
> 
> 
> *Go back almost two years on this site and you'll find everything you need to know about what the AKC expects of the MNRC relative to the MN. * Time to make that next appointment with the audiologist....or eye doctor.
> ...





KG said:


> Quote:
> ....or are you saying RTF is the official AKC site now?
> 
> Have you been into the eggnog there, Bob? Where did this come from?


I think it was a pretty clear statement you made to go to this site for the official AKC response. Your lack of any facts or AKC quotes which was requested to be in your response kind of tells the story that all can see. B...S... only goes so far Keith. Changing the subject to another non-factual statement on the MN BODs is also B...S... As far as anyone knows it is/was AKC trying to eliminate pros which I think is the wrong way to go. For someone that has not been involved for 5 years I would say you are out of touch and biased by something in your past. Is this the reason for no facts, person attacks when you have no clue and all the Bu.. Sh.. being thrown.


----------



## wsumner (Mar 5, 2004)

I'm new at this game but my understanding is that in a FT dogs are judged against one another and the best dog wins. In a HT a dog is judged against a set of standards and if the dog performs, with a satifactory score, it is awarded a pass. Declaring a 'Win" changes the HT into a modified FT. FTers already have a Nationl Event. 

Please leave HTs MN alone. Those that need a "Win" should participate in FTs or try running a NFRA event

If you need to limit entries do so by adding regional qualifying events. This would in fact only weed out thoses entries that would probably be lost in the earlier series anyway. Those passing would run in a National Event. 

This would allow more people to participate instead of fewer and reduce number of entries in the "Big Show". We should encourage more people to participate HTs whenever possible. In order to protect are right as hunters and dog owners we need as many people as possible involved in these dog sports, whether it be FT or HT. 

Wayne


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

wsumner said:


> I'm new at this game but my understanding is that in a FT dogs are judged against one another and the best dog wins. In a HT a dog is judged against a set of standards and if the dog performs, with a satifactory score, it is awarded a pass. Declaring a 'Win" changes the HT into a modified FT. FTers already have a Nationl Event.
> 
> Please leave HTs MN alone. Those that need a "Win" should participate in FTs or try running a NFRA event
> 
> ...


Whoa, Wayne! Far too logical. :roll: If you are gonna start using common sense, we won't have anything to argue over. hehhehhehheh 

UB


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I think it was a pretty clear statement you made to go to this site for the official AKC response.


Here's my statement, Bob, verbatim, in italics:



> > T Mac wrote:
> > During the multitude of threads on this topic, many have asked exactly what it is that the few at AKC wants of the MN. And to date I have yet to hear an answer, other than to limit the numbers.
> 
> 
> _Go back almost two years on this site and you'll find everything you need to know about what the AKC expects of the MNRC relative to the MN_.


Just exactly _how_ did that come anywhere _near_ calling RTF the official AKC response website? Are you just making things up as you go, or does your computer screen just not show all the words?



> Your lack of any facts or AKC quotes which was ("were" is the correct tense) requested to be in your response kind of tells the story that all can see. B...S... only goes so far Keith.


Bob, let me make it simple for you: do your own research if you have a point you want to make. It's not my responsiblity to look things up for you. You're starting to remind me of some great lines from the PeeWee Herman show.



> Changing the subject to another non-factual statement on the MN BODs is also B...S... As far as anyone knows it is/was AKC trying to eliminate pros which I think is the wrong way to go.


Would you care to point out where I was wrong, or are you just callin' BS 'cause you can? For someone who's as involved with the MN as you say you are, it's hard for me to believe that you can't quote chapter and verse of the letter (the MN BOD) they sent out almost two years ago....but I guess "As far as anyone knows" is the best you can do.



> For someone that has not been involved for 5 years I would say you are out of touch and biased by something in your past. Is this the reason for no facts, personal attacks when you have no clue and all the Bu.. Sh.. being thrown.


That I've not been to a Master National in 5 years is purely by choice. After seeing a last series in South Carolina that a line-steady Junior dog could do, and after seeing multiple dogs with multiple handles get pewter plates in Indiana, I totally lost my taste for the "marquee" event that is called the Master National. Biased? You bet! And I wish it were from events only in the past! Biased that any organization has the unmitigated gall to call the event it puts on one that tests to the top of the Standard when it plainly doesn't....and again, it's a cryin' shame the effect that it has on weekend events.

Point out the personal attacks to me, or are you just being overly sensitive?

As for my being "out of touch," I'm as _in_ touch as you could ever _hope_ to be, Bob. Don't blame me for your not being willing to do your own research....and I even gave you one of my best contacts so that you could put your fingers where your mouth is. Don't bother with me, Bob...go to the top if you dare.

If anyone's out of touch, I'd say it's someone who can put on like they know what's what when they only know one side of the HT game. Tell me how _that_ works......

And if I'm wrong, _tell_ me where...*show me* where...and I'll gladly apologize. _Gladly_.

kg

PS........what the heck, Bob....I'm feelin' charitable today, what with it being Christmas and all.

Check out this link. You'll find all the discussion your little heart could desire inside the topics on this page. It's _amazing_ what one can find with a little *effort*.

http://retrievertraining.net/forums/search.php?search_id=1339381618&start=2600


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

Keith,

Let me make it very simple for you since you are having trouble remembering what the topic was. Bad case of CRS? ...or you don't know the answer and are still huffing & bluffing your way through? I'll try to say it slow so you can keep up.

1. On the excellent post by T.Mac, he asked: "...what it is that the few at AKC wants of the MN."

2. You stated "Go back almost two years on this site and you'll find everything you need to know about what the AKC expects of the MNRC relative to the MN." Implying the official AKC stance was on RTF.

3. I stated, AKC has not provided their stance to the HT community even though they have had many requests and opportunities to do so that I witnessed. 

4. I asked you to Quote the official statements made by AKC that you are referring to. 

5. You came back with cutesy remarks and comments on other subjects but never answered what the official AKC statements were.

6. Here it is Keith....your mission was to share the official AKC stance that you keep referring to with us. ....What was said, by whom and when.
If you can't do that, I call B..S... and maybe you could use your influence to get them to make a public statement so the HT community could make decisions based on facts.

BTW...it is good to see you actually admitted you are biased by something that happened to you 5 or 6 years ago. 

I still find it hard to believe you continually say that MN judges like Nelson Sills, Mike Galvin, Ralph Brooks, Roger Fuller, John Marchica and the others don't know what they are doing. What a slap in the face to some excellent judges. Please name your judges that are more knowing than those that judged in the last 4 years. Get a grip, quit living in the past and try to help resolve the issues rather than just blindly defending the AKC.

Merry Christmas,

Bob


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Better have your ducks in a row if you pizz Keith off!!!!   

Jerry


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

I've never believed that the guy with the longest post with the most quotes in it or the guy that always has to be the loudest is always right. :roll: ...and yes I know both people in a pizzin contest get wet.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

The one Master National that included Nelson Sills (don't remember his cohorts, except perhaps Ralph Brooks) was the only one that stands out in my mind as coming anywhere _near_ what the AKC envisioned for the MN....and the hue and cry from that MN was that they passed too few dogs.... :roll: 

Why you wasted a post restating everything I answered (or asked of you) is beyond me, Bob. I guess you've borne out the PMs I've gotten from folks that know you regarding where this "conversation" would go. 

When you're willing to expand your train of thought, go to the "search" function and type in "Master National" in the topic line and hit "enter." You should show 82 pages on the topic dating back to 2003. Scroll back to page 54 (or so) to find posts dated in February of 2004. Again, as I posted before, you'll find everything you ever wanted to read about the conflict between the MN and the AKC. You can harp on me all day and it'll be like water off a duck's back, bud. All you're showing is your unwillingness to take off your blinders and do the work yourself. I don't need to do it; I _know_ where it is.

You'll also have a hard time showing me where I've taken specific judges to task....and nothing "happened" to me 5 or 6 years ago, Bob....I simply watched a couple of travesties take place that have been repeated more than once since then....and by the way, I know all the judges whose names you dropped....and if any of them passed dogs with handles in every series, I'd say the same thing I said here to their faces.

Check my wording carefully before you go running off at the fingertips about who I've said "doesn't know what they're doing." It appears that a quick look in the mirror will reveal who's committing that act.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

KG said:


> The one Master National that included Nelson Sills (don't remember his cohorts, except perhaps Ralph Brooks) was the only one that stands out in my mind as coming anywhere _near_ what the AKC envisioned for the MN....and the hue and cry from that MN was that they passed too few dogs.... :roll:
> 
> kg


With all due respect to Mr. Sills, his showing at the MN was not great. I ran under him at that test, and he was virtually non existent as a judge. The gallery nicknamed him ?Bernie? from ?Weekend at Bernie?s?. Seemed like all they did was pick him and his chair up and move him to the next test. I would have paid twice the entry fee to see him put a cork in his blow hard co-judge. As for the uproar regarding the 02 National, it wasn?t because they didn?t pass enough dogs, it was because they set very good solid master level tests, and then threw in an elimination test in the canyon that was so far beyond what a master test should be. No doubt over compensating for the stuff you witnessed in 2000. 
As for your claims that we should know what the AKC wants because they have made it clear, I staunchly disagree. I asked Joe Pilar to his face what the AKC?s stance was on the MN, and he refused to comment. He was asked during the judges seminar and he refused to answer. At each MN, the AKC has an opportunity to stand up and state clearly what they want, they refuse too. The have ample opportunity to put it in writing, I have yet to see it. What I do see is a ton of everyone?s 2nd or 3 hand opinion of what the AKC wants. Search this board, it?s full of everyone?s ?official? AKC wants and desires for the MN, including yours. Until I see it posted on the AKC website in some official capacity, then in my opinion they have not stated what they want or what their intentions are. 

/Paul


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> (snip)
> As for your claims that we should know what the AKC wants because they have made it clear, I staunchly disagree. I asked Joe Pilar to his face what the AKC?s stance was on the MN, and he refused to comment. He was asked during the judges seminar and he refused to answer. At each MN, the AKC has an opportunity to stand up and state clearly what they want, they refuse too. The have ample opportunity to put it in writing, I have yet to see it. What I do see is a ton of everyone?s 2nd or 3 hand opinion of what the AKC wants. *Search this board, it?s full of everyone?s ?official? AKC wants and desires for the MN, including yours. Until I see it posted on the AKC website in some official capacity, then in my opinion they have not stated what they want or what their intentions are. *
> 
> /Paul


This is what's at the bottom of the entire problem with akc issue. This particular TRUTH is what's made me pretty [email protected] bored with the whole thing. And if people want to sit on here and bitchfight about it when it's NEVER been communicated to ANYONE in ANY fashion, knock yourselves out. A bunch of us here, (bob and nancy included, I believe), at at the 2004 meeting in Wisconsin where akc had all the opportunity in the world to communicate to "us" what they would like for "us" to do... You know what "we" got??? A bunch of smirking, snide remarks that beat around the bush with absolutely ZERO answers. I don't know why the he!! they even wasted their time showing up???

Sorry, but this is annoying to listen to and as far as I'm concerned, it's the main reason that I personally don't care if the MNRC says goodbye to AKC.

Not saying the AKC isn't useful and responsive in other areas. But it CERTAINLY has not been in this arena!

BTW, Keith, at that meeting, we were all right there with the head cheeses. People were BEGGING for answers for I think over an hour and were given nothing in reply. Absolutely nothing... In front of God and everyone... So it's no wonder many of us have lost hope in them. We were there first person to experience that part of "the machine".

-Kristie


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Until I see it posted on the AKC website in some official capacity, then in my opinion they have not stated what they want or what their intentions are.


So all of the back-and-forth between the MN and AKC is just not happening/hasn't happened, right? I mean, we're existing in a parallel dimension, watching something happen that's not really happening/hasn't happened? If I hadn't seen it in writing from the MN, I might actually be convinced that none of this ever happened..... :roll: 

All of this started in Jan. '04 when officers of the MN were summoned to Raleigh to discuss the direction the MN needed to take in the future. Communication from the MN BOD was put forth to state the AKC's position on necessary changes that they (AKC) felt needed to be made. It seems to me that the vote that is now before MN member clubs is part of the result of the "ball" that started rolling almost two years ago.

I supported the MN's "clean break" from the AKC when the first vote was taken. I'll support it again. As I've stated before, unless they don't think they have a good enough "product," the MN BOD has the opportunity to re-invent a National Showcase for the country's top hunting dogs if they choose to do so. They can do it without the AKC if they so choose.

Sounds like if they've truly "lost hope," it's just what the doctor ordered. 

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Does anyone who has yet to post, with a participatory involvement with the MN or even a interested outsider, believe that the AKC has been forthright with its _OFFICIAL_ position relative to this matter ?
So far the consensus of those posting is that they have not.

john


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2005)

I love Uncle Bills comments. As a knew guy I have described this board as a chance for a guy like me who competes at a Junior High Level to rub elbows with guys in the NFL. The same I hope to find at HT's. I hope it is a great chance for me to win some junior high and high school level games while rubbing elbows with the pros. I like it the way it is. Drop the MN ego as UB said.

Kurt


----------



## Lanier Fogg (Feb 13, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 wrote:



> With all due respect to Mr. Sills, his showing at the MN was not great. I ran under him at that test, and he was virtually non existent as a judge.


I have personal knowledge of the extent of Mr. Sill's particpation at the Bend MN and the above comment is both uninformed and inane. Mr. Sills was a very attentive and involved judge. In a quiet, non assuming way he infused his breadth of experience into the event, and it ran a lot smoother as a result. He was a very energetic judge who got to work early, left late, and came up with good solutions to deal with the various problems which arose. He worked well with the other judges. I want to do as good a job when I grow up.

I wasn't aware that it was any secret as to what the AKC wanted the MN to be i.e. a no split event comprised of around one hundred dogs, which would represent the "cream of the crop" of the AKC hunting retriever world, which would be tested thoroughly to the maximum of the standard. What the AKC has not done is to tell the MN how to get there. The MN member clubs apparently do not want to go that direction. 

Lanier Fogg


----------



## John (Feb 28, 2003)

Damn Tim.. :lol:


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

KG said:


> > Until I see it posted on the AKC website in some official capacity, then in my opinion they have not stated what they want or what their intentions are.
> 
> 
> So all of the back-and-forth between the MN and AKC is just not happening/hasn't happened, right? I mean, we're existing in a parallel dimension, watching something happen that's not really happening/hasn't happened? If I hadn't seen it in writing from the MN, I might actually be convinced that none of this ever happened..... :roll:
> ...


You'll notice all the back forth that gets printed is from the MN BOD, not the AKC. All we get is the BOD spin on what AKC really wants. I happen to know, from friends on the BOD, that personal agenda's drive what the BOD wants, and we hear what they want us to hear. I want to hear it from AKC directly. Is that too much to ask? Apparently

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lanier Fogg said:


> Gun_Dog2002 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lanier, as friend I would expect you to defend Mr. Sills. I have great respect for his age, his age in the sport, obvious love for the dogs and efforts he puts in regards to both venues of the retrieving sports. I just wish that as a contestant running under him at the MN that his input would have been more obvious. After a full week of running and working for him, he said not one word to me in any way. I witnessed his co judge, Mike, make dozens of decisions without bothering to even ask him, nor did he prevent him. I sat right behind him, not 10 feet for the entire last series and I guarantee you he could not see 2 of the marks, his judge would tell him how the dogs did. I?m not the only one with that impression, I?ve heard it dozens of times from people I don?t really know all that well when discussing the 02 national. I think people like him have a lot to offer to the sport, and I try and glean everything I can from them. I?d run under him again anytime, provided I know that he is actually going to stand up and take an active part in the judging assignment. There is more to judging then just setting up the test and getting along with people. I had probably the only opportunity I?ll have to run under him, and he just sat there.

/Paul


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

John said:


> Damn Tim.. :lol:


Thanks John!


I would and have run FTs and HT under Nelson Sills, and others with his degree of knowledge and win/lose/ qualify or even getting called -back was obvious. These are the kind of judges that know how to design a test that evaluates dogs! 
I ran FTs before Hts were invented and HTs since they began. Nelson is in that elite group that knows real dog work, bird placement, can use terrain, wind, lighting etc not just rules and/or standards.
Have all the seminars you want some people know dogs & some don't.

Tim


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2005)

Slight hijack of thread -- taking it off on another tangent that I think is applicable here.

Is it safe to assume that, as a result of registrations, events and judges directories, the AKC has a database the contains contact information for virtually everyone that has participated in hunt tests and has at least passed a single test?

When I attended a judging seminar, two years ago this coming February... The AKC reps made comments about an array of things that they thought were being done incorrectly or applied incorrectly from the rulebook at weekend tests. And then we have this situation where a lot of us feel like we're in the dark, regardless of who's fault it is.

Is there anything preventing the AKC from communicating with the hunt test community? Why do they seem to force every individual participant to call or email or attack them at an event or judging seminar?

I suggested, at the judges seminar, that they use the judges database to put out quarterly (or annually or whatever) newsletter to update people on things they feel are important to the program.

How can we all be on the same page if nobody communicates? This goes from weekend events to the national one.

I don't know who's doing what or if there are personal agendas or anything. It would appear that way looking from the outside in. At the same time, I have to give kudos to people who have been dedicated to program and spent their personal time investing in it. It does, however, seem that very few are privy to the real information that will help the rest of try to figure out what's really going on.

And, as far as the "cream of the crop" statement they made... When people asked what they meant by that, guess what the response was?? NOTHING... Go figure. If they are hell bent and determined to have it a certain way, they need to give people definiation of what they want. They don't necessarily have to give a road map. Just let people know what they want to retain a relationship and then if the MNRC wants to stay or go, they can stay or go.

-Kristie


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Bunch of pages to this thread and I may have already missed it but: AKC could care less about the Master National. To the best of my knowledge AKC doesn't make a dime off that competition. 

If it produced income for them, other than registering pups, they would be on it like stink on you know what.

Jerry


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2005)

Jerry said:


> Bunch of pages to this thread and I may have already missed it but: AKC could care less about the Master National. To the best of my knowledge AKC doesn't make a dime off that competition.
> 
> If it produced income for them, other than registering pups, they would be on it like stink on you know what.
> 
> Jerry


lol good point


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jerry said:


> Bunch of pages to this thread and I may have already missed it but: AKC could care less about the Master National. To the best of my knowledge AKC doesn't make a dime off that competition.
> 
> If it produced income for them, other than registering pups, they would be on it like stink on you know what.
> 
> Jerry


Actually they get a buck or two off the entries. Not to mention the free marketing they get from it. All they provide is a logo, which I'm sure has been paid for long ago...

/Paul


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I think they only view it as "another HT". You won't see them recognize the Title.

But I've been wrong before and probably will be again.

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jerry said:


> I think they only view it as "another HT". You won't see them recognize the Title.
> 
> But I've been wrong before and probably will be again.
> 
> Jerry


It is just another HT. A harder test to get through, but yes another HT. Which begs to question why such an uproar. Let there be 3 flights, let there be no BS about the "cream of the crop." Just let it be....

/Paul


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Why not tighten up the requirements for Qualification????? No need for three flights under three different sets of Judges and more grounds needed.

Make it difficult to Qualify, and more difficult to finish. Then it might mean something.

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jerry said:


> Why not tighten up the requirements for Qualification????? No need for three flights under three different sets of Judges and more grounds needed.
> 
> Make it difficult to Qualify, and more difficult to finish. Then it might mean something.
> 
> Jerry


I'm personally not in favor of having to change the standard. It is difficult enough for what it represents. If numbers are a problem, then take the same path other performance venues have taken successfully. Do a regional in each region and the dogs that qualify there, go to the MN. I don't think it will ever get implimented though, because that would break up the good old boys club the MN has become....

/Paul


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Bartender, another round please!! HPW


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> Bartender, another round please!! HPW


I could use a drink. I just lost a whole entry fee into the MN at poker...


/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> You'll notice all the back forth that gets printed is from the MN BOD, not the AKC. *All we get is the BOD spin on what AKC really wants*. I happen to know, from friends on the BOD, that personal agenda's drive what the BOD wants, and we hear what they want us to hear. I want to hear it from AKC directly.


This is fairly consistent from what I remember hearing when all the commotion started in Feb. '04....

So let me make sure I understand....the MN BOD _knows_ what the AKC really wants and expects from the MN, but the MN BOD is not communicating that to the rank and file MN member clubs....correct? That there are "control issues" with the officers and BOD of the MN and _those_ problems keep what the AKC wants/expects from the MN from getting to folks that yearn to know what's going on?

Is that pretty close to how it is?

kg


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

What's the difference between a litter out of a MH sire and MH dam and a litter out of a MN qualifier sire and a MN qualifier dam? Just curious, is there a higher price for the second litter? I don't think to the general public there is any difference. Does the MN qualification show up on the AKC papers? I don't think the MN is as big a deal as some make it out to be. It is a great accomplishment to qualify to attend and an even bigger accomplishment to pass but is it really worth all of this conjecture.

Here's an idea since that is what Tim was orginally looking for: Every dog that qualifies for the MN has it's name thrown into a hat, draw out 100 and send them invites to the Master National. If certain dogs don't/can't attend, draw out more names until the 100 is achieved (and have the drawing done by an outside or reputable source so there isn't any crap going on under the table to increase your odds of being drawn).


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

KG said:


> > You'll notice all the back forth that gets printed is from the MN BOD, not the AKC. *All we get is the BOD spin on what AKC really wants*. I happen to know, from friends on the BOD, that personal agenda's drive what the BOD wants, and we hear what they want us to hear. I want to hear it from AKC directly.
> 
> 
> This is fairly consistent from what I remember hearing when all the commotion started in Feb. '04....
> ...


Yes. I know that next your going to blame the MN BOD for this miscommunication. My point is why does the AKC let the MN BOD speak for them? I belong to an AKC registered retriever club, as well as a MN retriever club. I would expect my club to receive communication surrounding their desires for a national level event to be communicated to the club, not just the MN. AKC should be communicating with their member clubs, not allowing someone to do it for them. The fact is, the AKC has sat mute on the subject and refused to publicly state in official writings what they expect from a national level event. I?m sure its because they don?t want to take the heat and fallout when they propose some format similar to National Open. 

/Paul


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

KG said:


> That I've not been to a Master National in 5 years is purely by choice. After seeing a last series in South Carolina that a line-steady Junior dog could do, and after seeing multiple dogs with multiple handles get pewter plates in Indiana, I totally lost my taste for the "marquee" event that is called the Master National. Biased? You bet! And I wish it were from events only in the past! Biased that any organization has the unmitigated gall to call the event it puts on one that tests to the top of the Standard when it plainly doesn't....and again, it's a cryin' shame the effect that it has on weekend events.


???

Wow, now we are going to expect that a line steady Jr dog be able to do a wide triple water marks in a stick pond with all flyers, and the first bird being 20 yds off the line? And with each gun station emptying their guns?? Yikes. If you had truly evaluated the '99 MN it would not have been the last series that caught your eye although there were enough examples present at that last series: a dog with 3 refusals to enter the water qualifying, a dog with multiple whistle/cast refusals getting a ribbon, a dog going to an old fall qualifying; rather it was the inconsistant judging from one flight to the other. In defense of the last series, the judges brought over 100 dogs back to that final test with around 10 hours to get it done. As such they had to have a 5 minute per dog test. As was they finished at dusk and were hnading out ribbons by headlight. Overall it was a very challanging test and one worthy of theMH program. It was the differences in juddging that caused the big stink and the bad taste in most peoples mouth. 

I do not hold the MNRC responsible for this difference in judging. And if anyone has reason to be bitter it would be me. My dog went through all the marks with no handles other than a check down whistle on the last bird. He was dropped for scalloping the bank on the water blind. Dogs in the other flight were carried with multiple handles and much worse performance on the blinds. 

But as I tried to ellude to above, the MN is simply a reflection of the whole hunt test program. It is routine to find differences in judging weather week to week, or within the different flights at each weekend test. It is inconceivable how AKC can ask the MNRC to fix this at their event, but then chooses to ignore it at the weekend events. Nor can I find anything in the regulations that gives a committee (MNRC or other) the right to question how an event is judged if all the requirements of the test are met and as long as the test is safe. If you are saying that the MN is flawed because of the judging discrepencies, then you must say that the whole hunt test program is flawed as well. And I think that this is really what AKC is afraid of. That the MN with multiple splits will illustrate the vast disrepency in the view of the standard and judging to the standard held by many/most judges. 

In going through all the posts relating to this topic, it would seem that Lanier's post above reflects AKC's desire for the MNRC; limiting it to one flight of around 100 dogs. Yet no where in all the posts on this topic do I see how AKC suggests that this be done. Nor can I fathom a way in a non-competitive sport that it can be done. It would be tough to do even in a competitive world. For example take the requirement of a win to be eligible for the MN. While this sounds straightforward, other than being totally contrary to the precepts of the hunt test game, one must consider that there are over 300 events being run each year. And so there is the potential of having well over 200 entries even if the win were required. I can hear some saying that this is how the FT people select their candidates to their National, but bear in mind that there are well over 100 more HTs each year compared to FTs. 

When the current imbroglio surfaced in early 2004 I directly asked 2 AKC performance event reps what was going on. Both said that they were "under orders not to talk about it and to talk to the local MNRC BOD member". This is very strange as these two reps were usually very open and communicative about anything one asked of them. 

In asking my (then current) MNRC BOD member, a person who I believe to be very honorable and truthful (and who was presnt at the Raleigh meeting), it was presented that the AKC was demanding the the number of entries be dropped, but did not present their vision on how this was to be done. During a period of barnstorming the only suggestion that got an AKC nod was the elimination of pros. 

In poll after poll on this board and as further illustrated by the results of the MN mail-in ballot last summer, the overwhelming response (80%+) of the rank and file hunt test enthusiests and their clubs is to leave the hunt test program and the MN as is. Continue with the status quo. And allow the MN the same flexability as the w/e clubs in splitting their entry into as many flights as necessary to hold their event. 

And if AKC is then concerned about the inconsistancies in judging that may surface, fix that (actual) problem rather than to try to hide it by making it less obvious. 

T.Mac


----------



## Lanier Fogg (Feb 13, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002



> I sat right behind him, not 10 feet for the entire last series and I guarantee you he could not see 2 of the marks, his judge would tell him how the dogs did.


The last series was run from the top of an eight to ten foot mound. The judges, handler and marshall were on top of the mound. There were no trees or any other type of obstructions in front of the mound. Three marks were thrown in front -- one at 10:00 at approximately 35 yards; one at 9:00 at approximately 45 yards; and one at 1:00 at approximately 90 yards. All marks and blinds in that series were clearly visibile to the judges. However, if you were in fact, sitting ten feet right behind the judges, they would not have been visible to you.

Lanier Fogg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lanier Fogg said:


> Gun_Dog2002
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong, Mr. Sills sat in his chair at the base of the mound, and Mike jumped up and down on that hill all day telling him what happened. There wasn't room on top of that mound for the chairs. I can get pics if you don't believe me... the main thing is, I feel like I had a one time chance to run for a man that I would consider one of the best based on his lifetime achievments and time in the sport, and I didn't get his best. 

/paul


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Sounds as though your dog didn't qualify. Is that what this is all about?

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jerry said:


> Sounds as though your dog didn't qualify. Is that what this is all about?
> 
> Jerry



Some do some don?t. If you?re implying I?m just sour about not passing, then you haven?t spent much time with me. In fact, now that I think about it, I?m pissed at you too. I sat out front waiting for you and the motor home to pull up on your way to Howard?s and you never showed?.had to drink all my beer by myself you old coonhound. The facts are there is always another test, trial, national, dog, opportunity for passing or winning. I?ve had my share of wins. I certainly have a ton losses. But in life, certain opportunities only come around once, running in the Master National for someone like Nelson Sills doesn?t happen everyday. For me, probably never again. I will always look back and wish I could have had more interaction with him, and seen more out of him as a judge. Lanier has called this out, and I?m sticking him to the truth. 

/Paul


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm sorry I didn't show up. Somehow I ended up in Vermont!!!! Musta took a wrong turn or something, somewhere.

Like to never got home.

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jerry said:


> I'm sorry I didn't show up. Somehow I ended up in Vermont!!!! Musta took a wrong turn or something, somewhere.
> 
> Like to never got home.
> 
> Jerry


Vermont....!!!????!!!!! That was your problem. Oregon/Alaska is completely the other direction. You've been running around in dark chasing short haired bandits again haven't you.......

/Paul


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Lanier Fogg said:
> 
> 
> > Gun_Dog2002
> ...


Paul is correct, Lanier. "Mr." Sills (Berney as he is now called) couldn't see the test because he positioned his chair at the base of and behind the mound. He spent a good part of that series chating with the bird seward and marshall.

"Mr." Sills stopped performing as a judge at about day 2 of the Master Nationals. Don't know why: perhaps he wasn't feeling well, or he was unimpressed with the Hunt Test dogs and handlers, or he just, plain hated his co-judge. But he definately wasn't judging the dogs! Berney's Co-judge, "Mike" would score each dog, walk over to where "Berney" was sitting and tell him what scores to put down.

"Mr." Sills may have a long and impressive history in the Labrador Retriever Club and in the Field Trial game. But he totally failed in his duties at the Master National!

BTW, because this judge "team" had something like 22-26% passage rate, the AKC reps deemed it to be the superior stake. The other stake had a 40+% passage rate. So even though both judges participated fully, and had no particular agenda -- that is they judged fairly -- they were branded as inferior judges because they passed more dogs. What a perfect illustration of the clarity of thought expressed by the AKC Events Reps!

Thank you Paul for finally troting that little gem of a story out for public consumption!


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Well, my last resonse to this post is this:

If Nelson Sills had anything to do with the test set-up, he could go to sleep and let the dogs seperate they ownselves!!!

Jerry


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

stonybrook said:


> What's the difference between a litter out of a MH sire and MH dam and a litter out of a MN qualifier sire and a MN qualifier dam? Just curious, is there a higher price for the second litter? I don't think to the general public there is any difference.


True. However, these litters aren't being marked to the general public. People who are active in the HT game understand the difference.



stonybrook said:


> Does the MN qualification show up on the AKC papers?


No. But if you qualify your dog 3 times, you get a "club" title on your dog and his name in the Retriever Hall of Fame. A very meaningful accomplishment.

Again, appreciated by people in the know.

So, why don't we educate the general public about NAHRA, HRC, Canadian titles? So what if they don't show up in an AKC Pedigree? Dog's earning advance titles in these other venues demonstrate their worth. 



stonybrook said:


> I don't think the MN is as big a deal as some make it out to be. It is a great accomplishment to qualify to attend and an even bigger accomplishment to pass but is it really worth all of this conjecture.


HELL NO!! IT'S NOT WORTH ONE BIT OF THIS CONJECTURE. 

And it's really not worth tanking the entire AKC hunt test program for a 150 dog limit at the MN. But that is what is happening. Just ask Uncle Bill. 

Bait, here is my idea: all MNRC member clubs need to rise up negate any further discussions of an advanced AKC Title steming from the Master National Event. Period. 

*If you want to have a MHX Title: attach it to the weekend events.* That way, dogs who do very well at the weekend tests can amass points towards an advance title. Let this title reflect on the individual dog's lifetime accomplishments. 

Attaching a title the the MN discreminates against owners who do not have the $$$ or the time or the desire to go to an annual event and/or do not want to put their dog with a Pro (due to lack of $$$). 

If the clubs want to continue with the MNRC event that welcomes all qualifying dogs, even if it means severing AKC go ahead. 

If the AKC tries to start another uberhound, national event, contact your reps at the LRC to block any AKC title being attached to that new event. Period the end!

PS let's educate the public about other venues. They are much more fun than AKC for both handlers and dogs. Let's stop being elitists and start being dog enthusiasts.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Jerry said:


> Well, my last resonse to this post is this:
> 
> If Nelson Sills had anything to do with the test set-up, he could go to sleep and let the dogs seperate they ownselves!!!
> 
> Jerry


And he done did dat! :wink:


----------



## KRL (Mar 31, 2004)

> Attaching a title the the MN discreminates against owners who do not have the $$$ or the time or the desire to go to an annual event and/or do not want to put their dog with a Pro (due to lack of $$$).


This is as lame as it gets! I suppose we should do away with FT's because it discriminates against onwers who do not have the time or money to train to that level or for that event! Say what you want but don't make a decission based on some logic that it discriminates against those that may choose not to participate. Whatever the reason is, time, money, personal choices, etc.

I don't really care either way cause I don't plan on ever running in the MN although I have qualiffied a few dogs for the event, I never considered running. Saying it is discriminatory because some may not choose to do it or may not be able to is crazy.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

pheasanttomeetyou,

Making slanderous accusations while hidden behind a pseudonym shows a lack of intestinal fortitude.

The opinion of one not having the "_strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage_", can/should not be taken seriously.

The fact that you have seized the opportunity to annomiously hijack the thread to besmirch, coupled with the fact that no one knows who you are to be able to draw a frame of reference, puts you with your post at risk of being considered for the above.

To those posting similarly but under their own names, a quote from Voltair on the matter is my position on your posts.

_"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it say" _
john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Making slanderous accusations while hidden behind a pseudonym shows a lack of intestinal fortitude.
> 
> The opinion of one not having the "_strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage_", can/should not be taken seriously.
> 
> The fact that you have seized the opportunity to anonymously hijack the thread to besmirch, coupled with the fact that no one knows who you are to be able to draw a frame of reference, puts you with your post at risk of being considered for the above.


As good a post as has ever been put forth on the topic. My need to reply evaporated when I read yours.

Bravo, John....._*Bravo*_!!!!!! :wink: !

Keith Griffith


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Nelson Sills has judged more dog work than all of his detractors combined by a factor of 4 or more. He is the ONLY judge to have judged a national Open, National Amateur and a Master National, and has in excess of 100 AA judging points. I would suggest that that you not equate his appearant lack of intensity with a lack of situational awareness about what is going on in front of him. I have run under him and judged with him and let me assure you, he doesn't miss a trick. In the master I judged with him about 4 yrs back, he was interacting a lot with our apprentice judge and still judged dogs. He saw some things that I missed. At the end of each series our discussions about callbacks were minimal because we essentially were on the same page througout the event. 

I did not attend the MN that Nelson judged. But even 3000 miles away, I knew who set up most of the tests, it was obvious looking at the diagrams. Nelsons footprints were all over the set-ups. He is the best I have ever seen for setting up difficult fair tests.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

I sent Bubba on a beer run, but while he is gone I feel the need to clear up a few things.

Paul, as you and Pheas (notice that I chose not to unmask you here) both know I was pretty intimately involved in the event in question and spent a great deal of time with all 4 judges. Prior to the event, I had never had the opportunity to meet Mr. Sills and was very nervous about his ability to withstand the rigors. In fact Mr. Speck and I had a long and very heated discussion about that very topic. I have never been more wrong in my life.

Here is the bottom line, I think it is damn common of both of you to cast aspersions based on the limited exposure either one of you had. As Lainier related, every single morning Mr. Sills was waiting for the rest of us in the lobby of the hotel fresh and ready to go. He wore each and every one of out and that is a pure fact. I will grant you that he has a distinct style of judging, but I think that you are mistaking poise and confidence for something else. I can personally guarantee you that no one has ever had to tell Mr. Sills how the dog did, much less what scores to award the performance. I'm pretty confident that the folks that selected the judges for the 3 National Championships that he has judged would agree with my assessment. 

I'm sorry that you were disappointed with the experience and feel somehow shortchanged, but I'm here to tell you that I think he did a great job and was truly honored to be in his presence. This is America and you are entitled to your opinion, bad mouthing this man in public will have to wait till after the ass whipping.

We return you now to your regular programming.

Steve Elliott


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Great post, Steve, in all aspects. Thanks for the first person, behind-the-scenes look that puts things in proper perspective.

I also appreciate your using your real name.....truly......we're in a "different age" now, and you _know_ what I mean....

And when Bubba gets back, tip a cold one for me! :wink:

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, I?d rather run my head into a fan belt than agree with Pheasantomeetyou (or whatever he calls itself), but I do think it demonstrates the galleries perceptions of the two judges. Steve, I?m very glad to hear that the President of the MN interacts with the judges. I?d be pretty upset to hear otherwise. All I know is that the one judge I wanted to hear from all week didn?t say a word, and the other judge wouldn?t shut up. My views on the tests at that national are well known, as well as my respect for Mr. Sills in the retriever world. Heck, he has more influence than Dr. Ed and Ted Shih put together. Every judge at the end of the day faces the perceptions of how he performed. You, Keith, myself and everyone else included. I would have liked to hear more from Mr. Sills regarding the test, setup and what they were looking for. I would have like to hear a hello when I came to the line at least once during the week, and he could have at least looked me in the eye and nodded when I called my dog in from switching on day 4. I don?t expect that at a FT, but I do expect it at a HT. But regardless of the situation, or my regret at missing an opportunity, this has nothing to do with the overall issues pertaining to the MN or the AKC?s plans for a national event. So lets get back to the real issues?.

/Paul

Now look what happened?..I got pheasantomeetyou agreeing with me, and you go Keith agreeing with you?..looks like we both could use a good ass kickin, but I?d rather drink beer?.a


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

....and there's not even a full moon..... :shock: :wink: 

Good seasonal karma regards,

kg


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> I'll tell you what I'd be all for: random evaluations by AKC field staff, where those field reps qualified to do so sit and judge every dog that the test level judges do, but are not involved in any of the test setup...and at the end of the event, they evaluate the tests, the judge's scores, and give each judge a score themselves, which may or may not allow them to continue to judge AKC HTs. If this were to happen, the judging to the Standard would improve in a heartbeat.


GOOD LORD!

Such reasonableness. Conformation, obedience, rally judges all undergo just such random scrutiny from AKC field Staff. More, if there have been complaints or irregularities. Why not HT & FT judges, too?

Makes perfect sense.

Lisa


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Such reasonableness. Conformation, obedience, rally judges all undergo just such random scrutiny from AKC field Staff. More, if there have been complaints or irregularities. Why not HT & FT judges, too?
> Makes perfect sense.
> 
> Lisa


Lisa, I?m not familiar with how the conformation, obedience programs work. How does AKC accomplish this? Seems like they would need a much bigger performance staff to try this. 

/paul


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

These programs have a good-sized field staff. Part of this is because there are something like 10x more shows than field trials in any given year.

Not EVERY judge gets evaluated EVERY year. But EVERY judge IS evaluated during their provisional period (something else the FT & HT programs could benefit from) with each new breed/class level they apply for. Long-timers are evaluated periodically, and of course, as I said, if there are legit complaints or irregularities are noted.

Lisa


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

KRL said:


> This is as lame as it gets! I suppose we should do away with FT's because it discriminates against onwers who do not have the time or money to train to that level or for that event! Say what you want but don't make a decission based on some logic that it discriminates against those that may choose not to participate. Whatever the reason is, time, money, personal choices, etc.
> 
> I don't really care either way cause I don't plan on ever running in the MN although I have qualiffied a few dogs for the event, I never considered running. Saying it is discriminatory because some may not choose to do it or may not be able to is crazy.


Actually, what's "lame" is attaching a title to a one single event. The fact that you have qualified a few dogs for this event means that you had 5 MH legs in a single year. Why not have those 5 legs go towards a title that would take you several years to obtain? That would show that you had a "few dogs" who could prove themselves, over time, to be worthy of the title: Master Hunter "Excellent".

Would it cost $$$ and time to campaign your dog "successfully" for several years running? Yes, that's called *committment.*

BTW, while no one seriously considered doing away with FT's because it discriminated against owners who have niether the time or money (or desire) to train to that level or for that event, they did come out with an alternative: the Hunt Test Program. This started with NAHRA. NAHRA was so successful that the AKC eventually adopted the concept for itself.

Those who feel that their training program is wasted on tests with 100 yard limits on marks and blinds, not to mention dogs that may need to be handled back into the AOF: go forth to the FT's and multiply in that venue.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Steve Elliott said:


> Here is the bottom line, I think it is damn common of both of you to cast aspersions based on the limited exposure either one of you had.





Bob Gutermuth said:


> [at another event]he was interacting a lot with our apprentice judge and still judged dogs. He saw some things that I missed. At the end of each series our discussions about callbacks were minimal because we essentially were on the same page througout the event.





Bob Gutermuth said:


> I would suggest that that you not equate his appearant lack of intensity with a lack of situational awareness about what is going on in front of him.





Steve Elliott said:


> I will grant you that he has a distinct style of judging, but I think that you are mistaking poise and confidence for something else.


Bubba's is correct in his bottom line assessment. I appoligize for and retract my statements mentioning Nelson Sills by name.



Having said that, I - and perhaps Paul - was reacting to a commonly held belief by those attending the Bend, OR MN that something very wrong took place. It wasn't only dissatisfaction with what we perceived as the judges attitude towards the handlers, and whether one of the judge?s decisions were guided by a personal agenda which he publicly expressed to the gallery. 

It was a combination of things: the perception regarding both of the judges, the direction of the tests themselves, the perceived attitude of the MNRC BOD & HT Committee towards the handlers and the event. For Keith to breezily say that the Bend event, *which he did not attend*, reflected what the AKC envisioned for the MN illustrates just how off kilter the AKC is with the HT program. 

For Keith to state that the ?hue and cry from that MN was that too few dogs passed? totally misrepresents why the Bend MN has become rather controversial to the attendees. 

The controversy has little to do with the percentage of dogs passing, and everything to do with the appropriateness of the each series vis-a-vie a Master Hunter program (even one that is hosting the cream of the crop), and respect demonstrated to the participants, by the judges, the MNRC Board and HT Committee. No one goes to this type of event expecting to qualify. But we do expect to have all stakes treated equally. We expect the judge teams to "appear" to be fully engaged and working as a team, the participants to be treated with respect, the series' to be challenging *and* a fair representation of the HT program.

So, although I do not know what took place in the Hotel Lobby each morning or at the corner of the bar where the judges and MNRC officers met at the end of each long day, I do know what was happening in the gallery during each series, what the participants were saying and pointing out throughout the event and for some time afterwards. It was not good and it had little to nothing to do with the percentage of dogs passing. And it would behoove the MNRC Officers and Directors, and members of this Forum, to spend some effort trying to understand the disquiet felt by the participants at the Bend MN.

Because this your sport.


----------



## Lanier Fogg (Feb 13, 2004)

Gun_Dog 2002

As you are probably aware I was the Hunt Test Marshall in Bend and as a consequence was present during the entire last series generally standing behind the line.

You stated that Nelson Sills could not see two of the marks during the last series and was not grading the dogs himself but rather was solely relying on what his co-judge was telling him. There is probably nothing worse that you could say about a judge than that, and it is simply not true.

While Nelson Sills could care less about what you say, I am personally offended that you would make such grossly untrue remarks about him or any other judge.

The last series was spectacularly gallery friendly, and it was virtually impossible to find a spot where the entire test could not be witnessed. Nelson Sills could see the dog work.

You apparently base your statement that Nelson Sills was using his co-judge's evaluation of the dog work because his co-judge would come over and converse with him during or after the dogs were running. That means nothing. It certainly does not mean that Nelson Sills was using his co-judges evaluation of the dog work as his own.

You insinuate that Nelson Sills was not an active judge because his co-judge apparently made decisions without consulting with him. So what. Good judges decide how they deal with many issues beforehand and do not have to consult about every little thing later on.

You also attempt to support your positions and ridicule Nelson Sills by quoting the gallery and stating an alleged nickname for him. This is just another cheap shot.

Gun_Dog 2002 says:



> All I know is that the one judge I wanted to hear from all week didn?t say a word, ...I would have liked to hear more from Mr. Sills regarding the test, setup and what they were looking for. I would have like to hear a hello when I came to the line at least once during the week, and he could have at least looked me in the eye and nodded when I called my dog in from switching on day 4.


The real problem apparently based on the above and several of your other posts is that you got your panties in a wad, because Nelson Sills did not pay enough attention to you. That was not his job and was certainly not a reason to slander him.

If Nelson Sills did not acknowledge you, it confirms that not only can Nelson Sills recognize good dog work, he can recognize character or the lack thereof.

Lanier Fogg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

PTMY wrote: 



> For Keith to breezily say that the Bend event, *which he did not attend*, reflected what the AKC envisioned for the MN illustrates just how off kilter the AKC is with the HT program.
> 
> For Keith to state that the ?hue and cry from that MN was that too few dogs passed? totally misrepresents why the Bend MN has become rather controversial to the attendees.


And as soon as you have the *guts* to post your name along with your tripe, I'll give you the courtesy of a reply and put you back on the base that you're so squarely off of.

Keith Griffith........and while you're at it, consider changing your handle to "DramaKing"......


----------



## Marsh Hunter (Mar 8, 2003)

I have an idea that I percieve could help to limit the number of entries at the Master National. I do not know if it has been brought forth before. But, since Tim has asked for ideas, here it goes... :idea:

At the completion of a Master Hunt each judge, independently of the other, is requested to write running number, dogs name, and owner/handler name on a designated form developed by the MN. The judge may write in the names of no more than 3 dogs on this form. The form would be enclosed in a sealed envelope system some what like those used in mail in election. Only each judge would know the dogs that he decided to recognize. I believe that the integrity of the people judging and competing in the HT program, that information would be kept private by judges. The sealed envelopes would be delivered to the HT secretary and certified by their signature. The HT secretary would be responsible for mailing the envelopes to the MN. 

The MN would have a list of dogs that have truely destinguished themselves in the eyes of the judges from around the country. The ranking of dogs by region, total mentions, run by professional handler, run by amateur handler is available to the MN. However the MN would like to catagorize these hunting retrievers, they have the information at hand. 

No placements were awarded, no list of distinguished dogs was published. The Non-competitiveness of the competitive hunt tests has been safeguarded. :shock: Now, the MN makes a determination and sends the number of invitations to owners of those dogs that the MN feels they can accomodate. The dogs owners would have the choice to handle their dog at the event or to send the dog along with a named, alternate handler, of their choosing.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Marsh Hunter said:


> I have an idea that I percieve could help to limit the number of entries at the Master National. I do not know if it has been brought forth before. But, since Tim has asked for ideas, here it goes... :idea:
> 
> At the completion of a Master Hunt each judge, independently of the other, is requested to write running number, dogs name, and owner/handler name on a designated form developed by the MN. The judge may write in the names of no more than 3 dogs on this form. The form would be enclosed in a sealed envelope system some what like those used in mail in election. Only each judge would know the dogs that he decided to recognize. I believe that the integrity of the people judging and competing in the HT program, that information would be kept private by judges. The sealed envelopes would be delivered to the HT secretary and certified by their signature. The HT secretary would be responsible for mailing the envelopes to the MN.
> 
> ...


There ya go. That's as good and simple a way of arriving at an entry as we should expect. 

But that would only happen should the MN divorce itself from the AKC. It's very doubtful the AKC would give it's blessing to that form of selection. 

Of course, I'm no KG, but I have spent a full weekend at a Holiday Inn. :roll: 

UB


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2005)

If anyone hasn't read it already, read this:

http://www.atlantaretrieverclub.org/documents/MNRCproposal.pdf

This is an in-depth explanation of what's going on from the mnrc point of view. i think the committee did a nice job reviewing the pros and cons of each of the proposals.

-Kristie


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

In my opinion there is way to much room for buddy buddy. Only people of the highest moral character may not be suaided to toss his buddies name in the hat. It goes on more than you think when it comes to carrying dogs to the next series. Its not that they do it knowingly ,it just human nature. To to much room for favoritism on this one for me.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lanier Fogg said:


> Blah blah blah?Lanier Fogg


You know Lanier, we have had our debates and disagreements in the past. You can take it personal if you want. Your choice. You say I have no character. Your opinion. But at least I will state, apparently publicly, what people are saying behind his back. Since we were discussing problems with the MN, and the issue of judging is a key part of that, then the only way to fix a problem is to discuss it. There was/is so much whispering about this subject alone, and in fact judges after each National going on. Some people are afraid to say it out loud or go on the record. Frankly, I have enough character to state what I saw, and felt after this particular national. I?m not alone in my thoughts and observations about the judging pair of Master B in 02 National. It still gets brought up at HT?s and training days out here one the west coast. I can tell you this, the discussions have much worse to say than anything I have stated here. I?d like to say I?m clever enough to come up with the little Bernie nickname, but frankly that came from two people that helped start the whole HT program, and MN club. I?m sure Mr. Sills, as well as any judge, realizes that you put yourself on the line every time you take a judging assignment, especially at a national level. If you not willing to take the criticism based on peoples personal experience then you should never accept a judging assignment. It can be absolutely brutal. I have stated my respect for Mr. Sills in every single message, and I will do so again. But if the issues surrounding the MN are ever going to get resolved, then the backdoor, in the dark hallway conversations regarding the MN have to stop, and somebody has to point out the big pink elephant standing on the desk. If that is upsetting to you or anyone involved in the MN, then the only solution I can see is to remove yourself from debates. I also realize that calling out such things is not the ?politically correct? thing to do, especially in FT circles, but again I rather stand up for my views and state them, than stand in galleries quietly whispering and stabbing people in the back. In closing I will say this. When you stepped down from being the MN president, rumors flew around with the craziest reasons why you chose to do this. My comments were that I did not know why you did it, but you obviously felt strongly enough to take a stand for what you believed. I guess you would have preferred that I just stand back in the gallery and sharpened my knife.

/Paul


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Marsh Hunter said:


> ...At the completion of a Master Hunt each judge, independently of the other, is requested to write running number, dogs name, and owner/handler name on a designated form developed by the MN. The judge may write in the names of no more than 3 dogs on this form. ....


330 tests x 3 dogs per judge x 2 judges per test = way more than 135

I just do not see anyway to limit the entry to 135 dogs. It is like picking one dog for every 3 tests!

T.Mac


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> Marsh Hunter said:
> 
> 
> > ...At the completion of a Master Hunt each judge, independently of the other, is requested to write running number, dogs name, and owner/handler name on a designated form developed by the MN. The judge may write in the names of no more than 3 dogs on this form. ....
> ...


Here's a thought, maybe make it take more than 1 nomination from 1 judge to qualify. :wink:


----------



## B. A. (Feb 4, 2005)

Marsh Hunter said:


> I have an idea that I percieve could help to limit the number of entries at the Master National. I do not know if it has been brought forth before. But, since Tim has asked for ideas, here it goes... :idea:
> 
> At the completion of a Master Hunt each judge, independently of the other, is requested to write running number, dogs name, and owner/handler name on a designated form developed by the MN. The judge may write in the names of no more than 3 dogs on this form. The form would be enclosed in a sealed envelope system some what like those used in mail in election. Only each judge would know the dogs that he decided to recognize. I believe that the integrity of the people judging and competing in the HT program, that information would be kept private by judges. The sealed envelopes would be delivered to the HT secretary and certified by their signature. The HT secretary would be responsible for mailing the envelopes to the MN.
> 
> ...


I would be opposed to any process that isn't transparent.

Secrecy = Bad

Openness = Good

Our sport has waaaay too many secrets already.


----------



## Marsh Hunter (Mar 8, 2003)

T Mac, Sorry but you have misinterpreted the idea I presented, and you took a small tibit of the information and have made it the sole idea or premise for your opinion. That's alright though, it sure happens alot on the internet. I hope that others will READ the WHOLE post and decipher it for themselves.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Folks,

The MN/AKC issue is more than worthy of discussion.

However, the personal attacks have got to stop. Chris has asked and stated time after time that RTF is NOT the place for personal attacks.

If you really feel the need to personally attack someone, there is a mode of communication on RTF for that....it's called a PM.

Please use it.

Vicky


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

A good start to fixing that problem would be to require people to post with their REAL names.

Wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would make people accountable for what they post.

Keith Griffith


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Keith,

One of the primary reasons we're not considering requiring real names is that it would reward some of the behavior being exhibited.

At this point, real names are not a requirement. Treating this resource and those using it with equal respect IS a requirement.

Please comply with the requested use of the resource.

Thanks!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> One of the primary reasons we're not considering requiring real names is that it would reward some of the behavior being exhibited.


Howzat, exactly?



> At this point, real names are not a requirement. Treating this resource and those using it with equal respect IS a requirement. Please comply with the requested use of the resource.


That's directed to everyone, right?

kg


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Everyone,

The request is basic. I'm not going to overcomplicate it.

Several of you who have been repeat players in locked and/or purgatory-moved threads have shared your wishes and thoughts about "censorship". We are painted into a corner here.

We have a culture that we want to maintain here at RTF. We only have a few choices. If you guys can't treat the resource and each other with respect, we get back into locking and moving threads. We are trying to avoid that by asking nicely to modify the behavior.

It really is simple. It is possible to disagree with someone respectfully. Some of you feel that you enjoy this board less when the locking occurs. I promise you that many enjoy this board less when the lack of respect is flying.

Please pitch in...It's quite simple.

I'd say this request is written to everyone, but most are already compliant...so I'm really asking, or reminding a few key players to be respectful of the resource, be respectful of others.....and I've not taken the time to read this whole thread!

Chris


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

K G said:


> A good start to fixing that problem would be to require people to post with their REAL names.
> 
> Wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would make people accountable for what they post.
> 
> Keith Griffith


I find myself in a situation, professionally, where (as far as the internet is concerned) I may have to "disappear" as myself, and "reappear" as someone else. I'd hate to have to stop posting places because my real name, e-mail address, etc. was *required*. 

Lisa


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

When people start "talking trash," waxing dramatic, and just generally being a pain in the patootie, it's made easier when they can "hide" behind an alias.

I wouldn't even mind that someone who was happy being a feces-stirrer simply pm'd me to let me know who I'm dealing with. Those conversations would remain private between the two parties, but I'm fairly confident that dang _few_ of the "A Nonny Moose" folks have enough self-confidence to stand behind their venom.

I fully respect anyone who needs to maintain anonymity for professional reasons. I fully respect anyone who needs to avoid posting from work (me after 1/2/06). I fully respect anyone who simply wishes to keep their online persona different from their offline identity, because they have every right to do so....but I fully _dis_respect _anyone_ who wants to get personal, call names, make accusations, talk trash, and attack folks in general from behind the protection of an alias.

Everyone who posts, regardless of their identity, runs the risk of being scolded, locked, or banned for their posts. Personally, I think something wholly egregrious would have to occur to incur banning (didn't we have a left-coaster get tossed early this year?); locking seems to occur on an infrequent basis (moreso lately, but I really don't see a trend happening); scolding happens more often but usually under the guise of "can't we all just get along?"

Anyone who takes the time, makes the investment, suffers the heartache, and cherishes the achievements, and _does it *all* with the dogs in mind first_, will usually be the ones who are willing to stand behind their words. IMHO, _this_ is where the passion comes from: they're in the dog games for the good of the dogs first. I would be almost willing to be money that folks who don't experience the right balance of these four things, or are in it for themselves _first_, are the ones who post with aliases and keep the pot stirred simply because their lives have empty spots in them that they let be filled by expressing their dissatisfactions here. That is _totally_ speculation on my part, but if I'm off base on it, it's not far enough to get "picked off!"

Seeing as how RTF is not going to require real names, I think my personal policy will be to choose to reply only to folks who I know or who will identify themselves openly or in their profiles here, or via pm or personal e-mail to me.....sort of a "New Year's Resolution" thing, I guess......

Keith Griffith


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Brother Keith,

First, you know you are appreciated here. If you don't, please know you are. Know this too. I was reading my son a Spiderman book last night and there was a line that said "With great power comes great responsibility." I actually thought of some of the players on RTF, including yourself. Known personalities in our community, who have played or do play a role in the administration of our games, do have a responsiblity in how they conduct themselves on internet discussion boards. Passion for the sport is important, but so is the need, in my opinion, to interact with others in a way that's not condescending or personally attacking.

I believe sometimes that requires taking the high road when someone else is being a jerk. My wife read Vicky's "slinky" signature last night and laughed her butt off! My mother has a saying that there are ten rules of life and rule #1 is "Never argue with an allhose." (sp?)

My personal preference would be to have everyone use their own real name, or something close enough to it that we know who they are. Fact is, for the most part, if they're a player, they're already known anyway. 
Our community is pretty darn tiny!

My biggest reason for not making this a cast-in-stone policy is that there are legitimate reasons why some folks "can't" do it.

(I put "can't" in quotes because I was raised by a man who regularly told me "there's no such word as can't". He was right of course, because "can't" is a contraction of two words...it is NOT a word, but I digress. I still have trouble saying "can't" to this day! Thanks DAD! :wink: )

For what it's worth, I have some private correspondence out now. There's one person in particular who will be asked to identify him/herself, or dramatically change some behavior, or discontinue the use of the resource. (ie. becomes a "read only" user at RTF)

Who is the left coaster that got zapped? I can only think of one and that was a person who issued death threats to a personal friend of mine via RTF. That was serious enough that we've retained copies of that correspondence, just in case this person chose to follow through on it.

You all are appreciated here. We really are trying to run this thing in a way that best serves the retriever community.

- Chris


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Chris, first off, thanks for the post. I know your appreciation is more than just a "thank you" as well.

IMHO, what makes RTF great are all the great dog people here....from the newbie that just got a pup and is scared to _death_ he's gonna train it wrong but is just plain _excited_ to have a feather-fetcher in the house....to the person that did only conformation but found out that their dog had some retrieving desire and is now _on fire_ to try something beyond JH....to the person with the derby dog that got 9 points in 12 starts but finished third in their first Q and can't _wait_ to get out and train each day....to Ed Aycock, who, to me, is the epitome of what retriever success embodies, who has given as much or more to the game as they've taken, and lives part of every day making life better for dogs.

THAT is what RTF is to me. It's everyone....it's every piece of inane GDG that brings a smile to our faces in the middle of a sh*t day....every story about a dog or a person and their situation that turned out good but didn't start out that way....or even the situations that started out bad and then ended that way, too....we share our joys, our pains, our successes, our failures, and know that each time we do, there's somebody out there that can identify with us, whether they say so or not.

Yeah....some folks hang on way too tightly....I've had my moments, and would really like to have fewer of them....but I guess that passion gets in the way of my mind and the fingers type faster than my mind works sometimes. I apologize to anyone to whom I've given the impression that I know more or are any better than any of you. I've just been in the retriever game for half of my time on earth now and when you see folks making mistakes that you've made and learned from, it's tempting to jump in and tell them how to live their lives and avoid that path....but I guess I'd rather sin by trying to help than sin by letting things happen that shouldn't.....

Anyway....the community at large is what makes RTF great. We all play a role. We should remember the kind of role we want to play when we post: to build up, question, amuse, educate, or inform. 

That "submit" button is very powerful. We should each use it wisely. 

Keith Griffith


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Known personalities in our community, who have played or do play a role in the administration of our games, do have a responsiblity in how they conduct themselves on internet discussion boards.


NOW YOU TELL ME!!!!

SM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> NOW YOU TELL ME!!!!


You've been on double secret probation all year...... :wink: 

Fraternal regards,

kg


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

What amazes me is the need to respond to some of these silly accusations that some make without any evidence other then he said that she said that I think! If these are ignored they will go away. Kinda like a child that does things simply to gain attention, even if it is negative.
I assume that 'swhat the PM's should be about. There are times on the forum where someone has made comments about a Judges tests etc, etc, and that has occasionaly been myself who judged the stake. Many times it will be dogs , people, whatever, that the instigator has no direct knowledge has not spoken to or even has the slightest inkling on what is going on. Yet people "bite" . I , like Keith think one should have the intestinal fortitude to at least give your name. No one is that important , someone will say "I know where you live" !! Heck I spent 31 years in law enforcement and I used to tell them where I lived. No one ever came.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Chris Atkinson said:


> For what it's worth, I have some private correspondence out now. There's one person in particular who will be asked to identify him/herself, or dramatically change some behavior, or discontinue the use of the resource. (ie. becomes a "read only" user at RTF)
> 
> You all are appreciated here. We really are trying to run this thing in a way that best serves the retriever community.


Yo, RTFers

Chris and I did exchange private correspondence, and I want to share the conclusion he reached as stated in his e-mail message:



Chris Atkinson said:


> Pheasant,
> 
> I went back and looked at your posts on RTF. I stand corrected.
> 
> Your style is pretty darn generous on RTF. YOu seem to be one of the few that takes time to actually give thought-out training recommendations. (Something that is fairly rare on the "Retriever Training" board!)


Thank you, Chris, for that generous compliment! :lol:




Keith Griffith said:


> Anyway....the community at large is what makes RTF great. We all play a role. We should remember the kind of role we want to play when we post: to build up, question, amuse, educate, or inform.


Thank you Keith for outlining what RTF postings are all about. 

Chris & I are in agreement that I do my part on this forum ... Do you?

Always remember and never forget, _Bud_:



> That "submit" button is very powerful. We should each use it wisely.


Ta tah, all.:wink:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I stand by a post I made earlier on this thread:



> Seeing as how RTF is not going to require real names, I think my personal policy will be to choose to reply only to folks who I know or who will identify themselves openly or in their profiles here, or via pm or personal e-mail to me.....sort of a "New Year's Resolution" thing, I guess......


And this, which you quoted:



> *We should remember the kind of role we want to play when we post*: to build up, question, amuse, educate, or inform.


As soon as you have the guts to use your name, I'll consider your question. When you call people out and make accusations and aren't willing to stand behind them, you stand alone.  Your "role" is often to take cheap shots from the cheap seats, then run.....

Talking about training on one thread and slamming someone elsewhere are two entirely different things. That's what I get out of this quote from Chris, anyways...



> There's one person in particular who will be asked to identify him/herself, or *dramatically change some behavior*, or discontinue the use of the resource. (ie. becomes a "read only" user at RTF)


Wonder why Chris had to post this in the first place?? Hmmmmm........ :roll: 

I put my name on *everything* I post *BEFORE* I hit the submit button, regardless of the topic. I don't hide. Right or wrong, I'm willing to do that. You aren't.

_Bud_.....

Keith Griffith


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Keith Griffith said:


> Wonder why Chris had to post this in the first place?? Hmmmmm........ :roll:


Hmmmmm :roll: Let's ask him:



Chris Atkinson said:


> I was too quick to judge.
> 
> Sent you two emails. The more recent one is the most important in my opinion.
> 
> ...





Keith Griffith said:


> Talking about training on one thread and slamming someone elsewhere are two entirely different things.


8) Yes ... and that's where we part company. I take time to pass on some helpful, practical knowledge. You concentrate all you energy on slamming.




Keith Griffith said:


> I put my name on *everything* I post *BEFORE* I hit the submit button, regardless of the topic. I don't hide. Right or wrong, I'm willing to do that.


And which name would that be, _Bud_? Adam Bonham? Leisure Suit Larry? or all the other assortments of alias' you've used over the years?




Keith Griffith said:


> I stand by a post I made earlier on this thread.


It's good that you stand by your posts. That's what makes you such a credible fellow. Take this stance from your July 18 "training" thread:



Keith Griffith said:


> I think global warming is a big lie. Where are all those experts now, when I'm freezing my ass off during these long winters and paying, paying, paying?


I'm sure that the National Weather Service and residents of Cancun, Florida and New Orleans took that gem to the bank. Assuming they weren?t too busy _paying, paying, paying_. 

Just Saying ? :wink:


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Gentlemen,

Please, this has to stop!! If you must continue this back and forth, take it to PM status.

Vicky


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm game, Vicky.....if (a) he' s willing to identify himself, and (b) keep things in the real world. So far, he's shown no propensity for either.

He can't distinguish between things said in jest and reality. He shows more frustration with every post.....searching "all posts by KG?" Surely the signs of desperation...

Ball's in his court....

Keith Griffith


----------



## B. A. (Feb 4, 2005)

K G said:


> I'm game, Vicky.....if (a) he' s willing to identify himself,



I don't understand the hang up regarding pseudonyms. Pseudonyms have been used during heated debates since the our nations very beginnings...James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, for example, resorted to pseudonyms in the famous "Helvidius" and "Pacificus" debates over President Washington's declaration of neutrality in the war between the British and French. I daresay both of those individuals had plenty of "guts". 

Just because someone prefers to keep their identity a secret doesn't mean their opinions are not valid IMO. To me the important thing is the message rather than the messenger.

Happy New Year


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm really disappointed...  

Chris


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

It's slinky, it's slinky
For fun it's a wonderful toy

It's slinky, it's slinky
Everyone knows, it's slinky...

- Vicky Trainor signature line regards, Chris

8)


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

What a way to start the New Year!  But, if you think about it, it's not bad....with over 4600 registered users, only 2 have reached "non-user" status!!

"It's all good" regards!!

Vicky


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Happy New Year!

I did not intend to cause a fight about names. 
I use my name because I choose to admitt my opinions.
I'm very pleased that 18% of the poll thought my suggestion was a "good idea".
IMHO 18%-20% of the current entry is probably the right # that AKC wants.
Then there could be 10 series in 1 week with 1 set of judges. That is their goal.

Tim


----------

