# AKC hunt test limit dogs per handler?



## dlsweep (Dec 3, 2007)

Can a club holding an AKC hunt test limit dogs per handler?

Does it matter if the club is a member of Master National Club?

Thanks!


----------



## Jerry and Freya (Sep 13, 2008)

dlsweep said:


> Can a club holding an AKC hunt test limit dogs per handler?
> 
> Does it matter if the club is a member of Master National Club?
> 
> Thanks!


And what will the Pros do if there is a limit on the dogs per handler?
I think and hope not
JMOP


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

dlsweep said:


> Can a club holding an AKC hunt test limit dogs per handler?
> 
> Does it matter if the club is a member of Master National Club?
> 
> Thanks!


Why do you ask and call out MN clubs?


----------



## BuddyJ (Apr 22, 2011)

Jerry and Freya said:


> And what will the Pros do if there is a limit on the dogs per handler?
> I think and hope not
> JMOP


The Pros probably would and should tell everyone where to stick it. We already have the SPCA, Peta, the EPA and the PTA getting us in their sites, we certainly don't need any negative actions from within. There are several reasons why this would be negative and to get the ball rolling one would be trainers would have to go up on training fees and handling fees for them to be able to haul our dogs all over the country for us.


----------



## kpolley (Jun 5, 2007)

So does anyone know the answer to the OP question?


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

There are no limits to the number of dogs a handler can run at an event.

Many years ago the Master National put a four-dog limit on pros and that backfired.

Meredith


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

HRC does it, 12 or 8 dogs per handler (club choice), prevents one person from monopolizing a limited stake. However I've never heard of AKC doing it, I doubt there is a rule either way. I'd bet it would be like the Master stake limit rule, not a ruling until some club pushed for it. I could see benefits for a club that doesn't want an entire flight filled by a single handler. A Pro could still run the same number of dogs, would just have to have another handler handle the other dogs, which would make things run much faster. Or a pro would have to pick which dog he wanted to run, one would assume the better prepared ones . Negative might lose $$$ as many pros won't make the trip for a few dogs. However seems like it should be a club choice; they are the ones running the test, they are the ones begging for workers, and the ones throwing the birds. If they'd rather throw birds for 15 different handlers (some of who might help with the test) rather than the same one over and over (who can't). Why shouldn't it be their choice, it's their test, They could always choose to not put one on, or GASP switch to HRC 

If a club wanted it they could probably petition for it; Another option to discuss would be an O/H Hunt test, they do it in FT so there is already precedence. 

Side-note; In recent years I might be a tad guilty of determining whether I'm going to go to a test to help or run, based on how many pro dogs; I will have _serve_, or have to wait for. I'm sure I'm a terrible person but this is my time off, I get to decide how I spend it .


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

I suspect the question is in a similar vein to the one asked last summer about pro filling many of the spots of a limited (60) Master and then cancelling or not showing up as happened in MN and NY on the same weekend.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

mwk56 said:


> Many years ago the Master National put a four-dog limit on pros and that backfired.
> 
> Meredith


Oh Horseshit.

Just the facks please regards

Bubba


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

You learn something every day ! Which year did the MNRC limit pro handled entries? 

Calling you out on this one and i am saying you got it very wrong 

Going now to get the popcorn 

To answer the op question : entries are not
limited except that a club my limit master level entries to 60, 90,120,180 or 240. 

Thinking I know this 
Dk


----------



## davewolfe (Mar 22, 2010)

You can't limit number of dogs one hander can enter. If your club wasn't a master nation club member, I think your enters would be a lot smaller. 
The last hunt test our club had 3 pro had all the dogs. It's a double edge sword, need pro for money, need the amateurs for the help. I was unable to get my dog entered, so I worked without running a dog.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

I know that there were three HT that I had planned to run last year that when I checked before work, entries weren't open, when I checked after work entries were closed. In both cases, one a 60 dog in which one pro had over half, and another 120 that three had all but a handful, that were club members....... I don't know what the answer is, but not letting ams run dogs will eventually catch up to the sport........ Loss of judge pool. 

Would it be possible to at least publish when entries will open to give everyone the same info. I can't sit at a computer all day, can't even respond to a text alert, but if I knew entries were to open at such and such time I could make it work


----------



## Huff (Feb 11, 2008)

That is a problem with limiting entries is that the pros can get majority of the dogs running. If ams can't run then they will quit working and judging and the sport dies. There needs to be a balance somewhere to keep amateurs in it.

I don't know what the answer is though.

Russell


----------



## davewolfe (Mar 22, 2010)

limiman12 said:


> I know that there were three HT that I had planned to run last year that when I checked before work, entries weren't open, when I checked after work entries were closed. In both cases, one a 60 dog in which one pro had over half, and another 120 that three had all but a handful, that were club members.......
> 
> I think the pro call one another when they see a hunt test open for entries.
> 
> A question I had, will entry express email people when a hunt test has been open for entries?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

From last year a couple months ahead of the MN. 



HNTFSH said:


> Not in an effort to diminish personal pain or situation but from a policy perspective on limits, the following are test dates and entry status. I did not carve out MN clubs so we can assume the data is a little slanted. However, not all need to run under MN clubs to title a MH dog.
> 
> Tests open for entry through 09/13 show:
> 
> ...


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

dlsweep said:


> Can a club holding an AKC hunt test limit dogs per handler?
> 
> Does it matter if the club is a member of Master National Club?
> 
> Thanks!


No
No
You're welcome


----------



## mwk56 (May 12, 2009)

I had my dog with Dave Ward and she had just finished her MH. He said he was going to quit HT and switch to FT because the Master National was implementing a four-dog limit per handler. Scarlett died in 2011 just shy of 17 years old and she finished her MH at 4 so it was a few years ago.

Like I said they TRIED and it backfired.

Meredith


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

What did Dave Ward think he was going to qualify all his dogs for The National Field Trial ?? Oh Yeah!


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Does it matter if the club is a member of Master National Club?

An AKC Club that is a member of the Master National Club (requires a separate fee to MN from the club) will have the dogs passing their club's Master Test qualify towards the total number of Master Passes that dog requires to be invited to the MN. If a club is not a MN Club Member, a Master Pass at that club's test will only count towards an AKC Master title and not towards the total number of Master passes required for a MN invite.


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

mwk56 said:


> There are no limits to the number of dogs a handler can run at an event.
> 
> Many years ago the Master National put a four-dog limit on pros and that backfired.
> 
> Meredith


 Been involved since 93 unless my memory is failing me, never happened
BillB


----------



## yellow machine (Dec 7, 2005)

One option is to limit the number of dogs a person can register in a day, pro or am. That way it can't fill in a matter of an hour. No refunds if you have more than 10 dogs registered?


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Our club does not sponsorMaster National and the entries are fine and we don't have accommodate the pros going to other stakes. As a person who is working the test entries are much more manageable. And I get to enter my dogs and run them. It is a real amateur hunt test. Yes few pros come but real amateur handlers and trainers run.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

This thread has taken a turn to a different subject and that is the limited master entries and pros taking all the entries. 

My personal opinion is that some clubs do appear to align entries. How else do you explain an event filling in minutes/ hours after opening. IMHO this is an unintended issue from the limiting entries. In the end i believe this type of conduct is detrimental to the sport as people vote/ support with their feet. 

We dont use pro trainers for our ht efforts however we interact with a host of pro trainers. The above post indicate the pros enter the dogs. That may be but i dont know a single pro that enters client dogs. It is a cash flow issue. The pros are complaining about the need to call clients once an event opens Some get in and some dont and then conflict happens. 
Consider being part of the solution , volunteer to work, judge and help and be part of the solution 
Dk


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Just a curiosity question Moscowitz. What are your entrie numbers for the past couple of years for all levels? PM if you refer.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I was unable to get my dog in my home clubs' master last fall and worked the test grumbling... felt like I was subsidizing.. two pros put 48 dogs in our 60 dog master.... I wasn't the only one in that position... 
opening up for more dogs makes for even more work and I would imagine we are going to lose even more help.

I ran a test last year where the club was not a master national club.. entries seemed fine and it was a lot more enjoyable with all the amateurs sitting around talking and applauding for the dogs that were running. I will go back to their test.

I am on the board of my home club and I am ready to vote that we no longer be a master national club.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Several States open their hunting seasons first to in-state hunters and later to non-residents. A possible solution might be to open up HT entries for a period of time such as 24 or 48 hours to amateurs first.

I realize that problems such as entries listing a pro or amateur as handler or where the amateur enters for the pro, and then the pro runs the dog.

Look at the HTs in Florida in the next few weeks. Even with 120 dog limits, they filled up in no time.

John


PS Nice to see you posting again Greg!


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Dave, there are pros that enter there client dogs, how else would the same pro have 20 plus dogs listed consequetively when they are listed in order of entry..... That is one click of the mouse. Submit. Onto a credit card collect from client. No cash flow issue.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

limiman12 said:


> Dave, there are pros that enter there client dogs, how else would the same pro have 20 plus dogs listed consequetively when they are listed in order of entry..... That is one click of the mouse. Submit. Onto a credit card collect from client. No cash flow issue.


Some pros enter the dogs and are reimbursed by the client. Some pros have the client enter, so they don't have to deal with it. Some sometimes do both, depending on the situation.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

It is truly a shame to work a test without the opportunity to run a dog. You have my respect for volunteering to work anyway.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Well If they don't allow limited dog per handler, the only way many clubs will keep functioning is too lose MN affiliation, (helpers will not keep volunteering at tests where they can't run their own dog). MN looses too many affiliations; that people can't qualify for the MN; perhaps they do something about it. Of course you might be putting a hindrance on your club members who might actually want to take their dogs to the MN, so I guess it will depend on the make up of your club, if most have MN as the years goal keep MN, if most just want to run their dog loose it. Might be an issue when those club members that want the MN can't get in their own test, still It is a club member on the board that finally Finalizes the test, so phone call and e-mails could go out to members on when that might be . 

Other Idea why not truly commercialize HT's? Hire workers figure 90 dog @ ($80) = $7200, run a double masters = 14,400 this is without JH or SH entries. Master stake = 3 stations usually 4-5 helper including live gunners ($100-200) A DAY = 500-$1000, leaving $6000 to play with. I've never had anything close to $6000 to play with yet the tests still get done, the club can pay it's bills, sometimes might even make a bit. 

Then You don't need club members to come help, you just need an organizer and you don't care who run which dogs; Of course this might against spirit of having a club and comradery thing. But where does that really come in when your after qualifications and titles


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Well If they don't allow limited dog per handler, the only way many clubs will keep functioning is too lose MN affiliation, (helpers will not keep volunteering at tests where they can't run their own dog). MN looses too many affiliations; that people can't qualify for the MN; perhaps they do something about it. Of course you might be putting a hindrance on your club members who might actually want to take their dogs to the MN, so I guess it will depend on the make up of your club, if most have MN as the years goal keep MN, if most just want to run their dog loose it. Might be an issue when those club members that want the MN can't get in their own test, still It is a club member on the board that finally Finalizes the test, so phone call and e-mails could go out to members on when that might be .
> 
> Other Idea why not truly commercialize HT's? Hire workers figure 90 dog @ ($80) = $7200, run a double masters = 14,400 this is without JH or SH entries. Master stake = 3 stations usually 4-5 helper including live gunners ($100-200) A DAY = 500-$1000, leaving $6000 to play with. I've never had anything close to $6000 to play with yet the tests still get done, the club can pay it's bills, sometimes might even make a bit.
> 
> Then You don't need club members to come help, you just need an organizer and you don't care who run which dogs; Of course this might against spirit of having a club and comradery thing. But where does that really come in when your after qualifications and titles


We do hire bird boys. I WISH the math was that simple. The numbers NEVER work out that way.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

davewolfe said:


> I was unable to get my dog entered, so I worked without running a dog.


This is very noble, a true club member (puts the needs of the group above their own); But question for the whole group; How many tests, How many Sat & Sun are you gonna give up to volunteer and not even get to run your dog? Clubs are give and take organizations; but it is an exchange; one can only give for so long..before you get burned out..this is true even when you get the benefit of running your dog. To keep helping at a few tests and never run, one might be thinking of changing hobbies .


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Other expenses: catalogs, ribbons, placement awards, birds (huge expense), permits, port-a-lets, food/ice/water/drinks, AKC fees, judge's hotels, judge's meals, judge's travel expenses, entry refunds. I may have missed a few but you get the idea. It's nowhere near as easy as stated in the above post.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Beats me why nobody bit on the research provided that just ahead of a MN only 5 out of 19 Master tests were full and ALL of those 5 had 60 dog limits. Likely club size or lack of grounds. I know we can't host as a large a Fall Test as Spring due to lack of water.

Also relates to location of the MN. This seems a regional/seasonal issue.

You get a 300+ dog test you can afford to hire workers, if you can find them. 100 dog test, probably not. Club workers is an issue most places, plenty don't want to be committed all day to a stake and daily logistics between stakes to run your own dog(s) is nightmarish. 

We generally don't make much money on a homegrown smaller test. And as tests are the annual revenue, a big test must exist to stay healthy. Bring on the Pro's.

If a club wants to give folks a heads-up on entry openings, more power to them.


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

I don't know about anyone else but I sure have never had a problem, even in limited entries, getting my dogs in a test. I fail to see the concern except maybe for those that are in a hurry to do something else on a weekend.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

coachmo said:


> Other expenses: catalogs, ribbons, placement awards, birds (huge expense), permits, port-a-lets, food/ice/water/drinks, AKC fees, judge's hotels, judge's meals, judge's travel expenses, entry refunds. I may have missed a few but you get the idea. It's nowhere near as easy as stated in the above post.


Correctamundo!


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

About pros entering dogs - i am sure some enter clients dogs as their is never just 1 way. I stated i didnt know any pros that entered client dogs on a regular basis 

Folks the MNRC did not have anything to do with this limited entry business to my knowledge. 
The Hunt Test advisory committee made up of our peers made a recommendation to the AKC. 
As i recall the Rhtac committee got the idea from the clubs. To my knowledge our club was petitioned for an opinion but the rhtac didnt act in the dark 
Ask them 
Dk


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Bruce MacPherson said:


> I don't know about anyone else but I sure have never had a problem, even in limited entries, getting my dogs in a test. I fail to see the concern except maybe for those that are in a hurry to do something else on a weekend.


It's never a problem with Junior or Senior. ;-) It's only with Master, and only with clubs that are MN members. 

You've got it backwards. It's only a concern when you are trying to run a particular test on a particular weekend for example a local club. If you are in a hurry to do something else, then you do something else.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> It's never a problem with Junior or Senior. ;-) It's only with Master, and only with clubs that are MN members.
> 
> You've got it backwards. It's only a concern when you are trying to run a particular test on a particular weekend for example a local club. If you are in a hurry to do something else, then you do something else.


The club hope that a truck full of pro MN dogs will include a bunch or JH/SH dogs too.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> This is very noble, a true club member (puts the needs of the group above their own); But question for the whole group; How many tests, How many Sat & Sun are you gonna give up to volunteer and not even get to run your dog? Clubs are give and take organizations; but it is an exchange; one can only give for so long..before you get burned out..this is true even when you get the benefit of running your dog. To keep helping at a few tests and never run, one might be thinking of changing hobbies .


It is true. I think the real question is what is the reason for the club and what does it offer its members. Why are you having HTs? Are they so your members can run their dogs? For some other reason?

If a club's value proposition is "send us $25 bucks and you can work your butt off 2-4 weekends a year" you are not going to be able to keep good members regardless. I know there are those clubs that exist only to put on a couple of events per year but they usually have a very small number of incredibly dedicated folks working like crazy just to give back to the sport. It is not something that is going to attract the casual folks.

I am a fan of the limits. Some clubs just don't have the grounds to split MH stakes, but would like to raise a little more $. Not being a member of the MNRC is an interesting option as well. But in the end if a club is just throwing HTs or FTs and not offering much else to its members, it is not going to have a lot of good ones. I think that if a club is alienating its members because they can't run their dogs at the club's events, there are probably bigger issues.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Jacksonville RC closed a 120 dog master in a day with the biggest number of pro handled dogs being 7. Two other pros have 6 each. How do those of you bitching about pros taking all the spots explain that? Three pros taking up 19 spots in a 120 dog field. There are a couple other pros with two or three dogs, but there are also numerous non pros with two and three dogs.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Tallahassee 180 dogs closed quickly. One pro has 17 and one has 10. Far more non pros than pros in the 180 dogs. 

Mid Florida Golden Retriever Club 120 limit, one pro has 10. Far more non pros than pros.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> Jacksonville RC closed a 120 dog master in a day with the biggest number of pro handled dogs being 7. Two other pros have 6 each. How do those of you bitching about pros taking all the spots explain that? Three pros taking up 19 spots in a 120 dog field. There are a couple other pros with two or three dogs, but there are also numerous non pros with two and three dogs.


Our clubs Master test last year had something like 57 out of 60 dogs taken by two pros. The test was filled within an hour of opening


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

mwk56 said:


> I had my dog with Dave Ward and she had just finished her MH. He said he was going to quit HT and switch to FT because the Master National was implementing a four-dog limit per handler. Scarlett died in 2011 just shy of 17 years old and she finished her MH at 4 so it was a few years ago.
> 
> Like I said they TRIED and it backfired.
> 
> Meredith


Like Bubba said.
BS


----------



## metalone67 (Apr 3, 2009)

I really find it hard to believe that one pro has 20 MH dogs at one time? If he does than his future is in jeopardy. If I was a pro Id have a mix of JH-MH that way my business keeps moving ahead. 
So for the pros here how many of you have nothing but one level dog on their truck?
In a 60 dog field if 6 pros showed with 5 MH dogs that's only half the field. 

I'm really confused by some of the comments. Now if the club is a MN approved I could see a pro entering all his clients wishing to have their dog qualify for the MN.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

First limiting the entry numbers per handler will backfire, just as the change to limit entries. IMO, Last years' loading up of tests were driven by the location of the MN. In CO most tests filled up within days vs. in years past you could wait until the last week or even the day before with no limits. The clubs near by this years MN will see the same action. 

The earlier estimate on cost, like mentioned, it was missing some substantial costs like birds, the formula is #entries X 1.2 X $10. Also the paid help was off by $1200. Most of our paid help get a minimum of $50 for JH/SH and $75 for MH (usually a 10 hour day). We do not pay live gunners as that is a position of valor. There are times I want to go up to the "ivory gallery" and pass a hat for donations just after I take a gunny sack of dead birds out to the longest mark on a re-bird. Oh' ya, I just came off a popper station to run my dog then back in the field again 'cause I got a pretty throw, or at least the one the judge likes.

In past years' posts over the future of the Club, it was mentioned or noted that "is your club a club of like minded individuals PARTICIPATING in a common activity" or has has it become JUST a mechanism to conduct a Test and the community of the Club is an afterthought. Most are of the latter. There are very few that jump to action to get the test planned and implemented ahead of time. Because the burn out of these certain few, a known test is always threatened to be canceled before someone else steps forward. I suspect you'll see less double Master tests and more canceled tests unless the Club participation level increases as a social Club than a Club just running tests. Clubs that want a true Club test may want to consider dropping MN membership to keep the numbers more manageable or at least a break even. But this means no paid help and all hands on deck in the field. This option has been discussed by Clubs two years ago when the MN was going to raise the membership fee, to cut cost this was an option but the argument was that the Club would loose Pros coming to the test. When you look at the number of members (armatures) putting on a MN campaign, this is less than 10% or 3-4 members in a club of 45 members, moving back to a sport/social event makes sense.


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> It's never a problem with Junior or Senior. ;-) It's only with Master, and only with clubs that are MN members.
> 
> You've got it backwards. It's only a concern when you are trying to run a particular test on a particular weekend for example a local club. If you are in a hurry to do something else, then you do something else.


Apparently I was not clear enough, not that it's important , I was referring to Master entries, although I do run JH and SH dogs as well. We will have big numbers in Masters on the west coast this year because of the MN being on the west coast.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

metalone67 said:


> I really find it hard to believe that one pro has 20 MH dogs at one time? If he does than his future is in jeopardy. If I was a pro Id have a mix of JH-MH that way my business keeps moving ahead.
> So for the pros here how many of you have nothing but one level dog on their truck?
> In a 60 dog field if 6 pros showed with 5 MH dogs that's only half the field.
> 
> I'm really confused by some of the comments. Now if the club is a MN approved I could see a pro entering all his clients wishing to have their dog qualify for the MN.


The pros I know that run 20+ Master dogs are most assuredly not struggling! Their future is not in jeopardy. They all have an assistant trainer that does obedience, force fetch, basics & transition. This trainer normally runs the Jr/Sr dogs or helps shuttle the Master dogs. The system works.


----------



## metalone67 (Apr 3, 2009)

fishduck said:


> The pros I know that run 20+ Master dogs are most assuredly not struggling! Their future is not in jeopardy. They all have an assistant trainer that does obedience, force fetch, basics & transition. This trainer normally runs the Jr/Sr dogs or helps shuttle the Master dogs. The system works.


You missed what I was saying, if he only has MH on his truck. The pro you speak of has the mix I was talking about.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

metalone67 said:


> You missed what I was saying, if he only has MH on his truck. The pro you speak of has the mix I was talking about.


You are right, I missed the point. In my defense, never seen a pro with 20 Master dogs that didn't have young dogs in training.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Joe Brakke said:


> First limiting the entry numbers per handler will backfire, just as the change to limit entries. IMO, Last years' loading up of tests were driven by the location of the MN. In CO most tests filled up within days vs. in years past you could wait until the last week or even the day before with no limits. The clubs near by this years MN will see the same action.


I think that is where the biggest benefit of having limits comes in--for the clubs for which the MN is close in a given year. With no limits, a club may get twice its usual entries and not have the grounds to split the stakes that much, so the limit helps them.

Interestingly around here we are seeing more and more double MH stakes run by clubs that have good grounds and help. To keep them within sane limits of dogs, they are limiting and those are the ones that tend to get filled early, because of the obvious draw of a double.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Joe Brakke said:


> First limiting the entry numbers per handler will backfire, just as the change to limit entries. IMO, Last years' loading up of tests were driven by the location of the MN. In CO most tests filled up within days vs. in years past you could wait until the last week or even the day before with no limits. The clubs near by this years MN will see the same action.
> 
> The earlier estimate on cost, like mentioned, it was missing some substantial costs like birds, the formula is #entries X 1.2 X $10. Also the paid help was off by $1200. Most of our paid help get a minimum of $50 for JH/SH and $75 for MH (usually a 10 hour day). We do not pay live gunners as that is a position of valor. There are times I want to go up to the "ivory gallery" and pass a hat for donations just after I take a gunny sack of dead birds out to the longest mark on a re-bird. Oh' ya, I just came off a popper station to run my dog then back in the field again 'cause I got a pretty throw, or at least the one the judge likes.
> 
> In past years' posts over the future of the Club, it was mentioned or noted that "is your club a club of like minded individuals PARTICIPATING in a common activity" or has has it become JUST a mechanism to conduct a Test and the community of the Club is an afterthought. Most are of the latter. There are very few that jump to action to get the test planned and implemented ahead of time. Because the burn out of these certain few, a known test is always threatened to be canceled before someone else steps forward. I suspect you'll see less double Master tests and more canceled tests unless the Club participation level increases as a social Club than a Club just running tests. Clubs that want a true Club test may want to consider dropping MN membership to keep the numbers more manageable or at least a break even. But this means no paid help and all hands on deck in the field. This option has been discussed by Clubs two years ago when the MN was going to raise the membership fee, to cut cost this was an option but the argument was that the Club would loose Pros coming to the test. When you look at the number of members (armatures) putting on a MN campaign, this is less than 10% or 3-4 members in a club of 45 members, moving back to a sport/social event makes sense.


Great post. Would add though that 10% is sometimes a big part of the backbone putting on the test.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

No one Suggested what might be a reasonable limit? Also if this a limit per stake or a limit per test. 15-20 MH dogs seems excessive, but does 5 in JH, 5 in SH and 5 MH? What is fair. If it's 5, 6, or 7, in an MH stake most pros would not reach that number. If it's 5, 6,or 7 for an entire test, the pro would most likely just run the MN qualifying master dogs.


----------



## yellow machine (Dec 7, 2005)

Limiting the number of dogs registered at a level in one day by one person Lets say seven, that way the test will not fill in just one day. This way you will have a nice blend of pros and ams. The biggest frustration comes when in the blink of an eye they are filled up. Pros can register as many dogs as desired but just seven a day at each level. Would that work? I am not a pro and do not know what problems that would cause for them.


----------



## billbe (Dec 31, 2007)

The trainer would have his clients register the dogs for the test. So limiting the number of dogs per person a day would not work. A 60 dog limit makes a long 2 days for a guy running one dog. I would be willing to pay more to keep smaller groups.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

billbe said:


> The trainer would have his clients register the dogs for the test. So limiting the number of dogs per person a day would not work. A 60 dog limit makes a long 2 days for a guy running one dog. I would be willing to pay more to keep smaller groups.


It makes longer days working/judging the test!!! How much more per stake would you honestly be willing to pay?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Again I'll point back to the 19 tests ahead of the MN in the fall had sell-outs in 5 tests, all 60 dog limits.

Smaller or grounds starved clubs are likely those that had an issue. Regional, seasonal, club specific.

I recall a post last year someone made a claim about this issue. I went back and researched that test. He was full of bullhockey.

If you have small club or want to test in a small limit stake, be proactive and find out when the entries open, before they open. Let's not create a bunch of rules for issues that one can likely resolve through being proactive.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Again I'll point back to the 19 tests ahead of the MN in the fall had sell-outs in 5 tests, all 60 dog limits.
> 
> Smaller or grounds starved clubs are likely those that had an issue. Regional, seasonal, club specific.
> 
> ...


Easy for you to say if you're not affected. Right now I am interested in entering the spring HTs. I have had many fill up in very short time. When a few pros fill up a MH in a matter of minutes, then that is a problem. Period. 

I'm happy for you that you don't have pros in your circuit that run 20+ dogs and that your Masters don't fill up. Please don't belittle those that do have very real problems entering.

John


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

John Gassner said:


> Easy for you to say if you're not affected. Right now I am interested in entering the spring HTs. I have had many fill up in very short time. When a few pros fill up a MH in a matter of minutes, then that is a problem. Period.
> 
> I'm happy for you that you don't have pros in your circuit that run 20+ dogs and that your Masters don't fill up. Please don't belittle those that do have very real problems entering.
> 
> John


Whoa - what gave you all these assumptions?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Looking at EE - I see one test in MO that is open for entry. There are 32 dogs registered for a 60 dog test.


----------



## davewolfe (Mar 22, 2010)

HNTFSH said:


> Again I'll point back to the 19 tests ahead of the MN in the fall had sell-outs in 5 tests, all 60 dog limits.
> 
> Smaller or grounds starved clubs are likely those that had an issue. Regional, seasonal, club specific.
> 
> ...



I was the hunt test secretary for the Kansas city retriever club, our hunt test fill up with 60 master dogs in a few hours. When you put your hunt test on entry express, entry express will submit your judges to akc and akc approves your judges. Entry express puts your hunt test on to enter. It is hard to know when process will take place and your test will finalizes.
Two pros had 24 dogs each. I was unable to get my dog entered before it filled up in a couple of hours. Pros can enter too many dogs and scratch dogs before the test closes and replace the dog with another one or one of there friends dogs. We also only have about 5 people to work our test. Also there were no ams to help shoot birds. 

Thanks David Wolfe


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

and 24 of the 32 entries are one guy..


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

clipper said:


> and 24 of the 32 entries are one guy..


With 24 dogs that belong to individuals like you and I. He's apparently organized. Given test entries close April 7th this is open early. Let no one complain it filled too fast or they didn't get a chance. 

I understand the issue and my points have been that in many cases I feel individuals and possibly clubs can help themselves rather than rely on the AKC or MN with a bunch of new rules.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

davewolfe said:


> I was the hunt test secretary for the Kansas city retriever club, our hunt test fill up with 60 master dogs in a few hours. When you put your hunt test on entry express, entry express will submit your judges to akc and akc approves your judges. Entry express puts your hunt test on to enter. It is hard to know when process will take place and your test will finalizes.
> Two pros had 24 dogs each. I was unable to get my dog entered before it filled up in a couple of hours. Pros can enter too many dogs and scratch dogs before the test closes and replace the dog with another one or one of there friends dogs. We also only have about 5 people to work our test. Also there were no ams to help shoot birds.
> 
> Thanks David Wolfe


It was my understanding that if someone scratched their dog, EE would re open for that one dog, but not necessarily immediately. Sometimes several hour delay.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

davewolfe said:


> I was the hunt test secretary for the Kansas city retriever club, our hunt test fill up with 60 master dogs in a few hours. When you put your hunt test on entry express, entry express will submit your judges to akc and akc approves your judges. Entry express puts your hunt test on to enter. It is hard to know when process will take place and your test will finalizes.
> Two pros had 24 dogs each. I was unable to get my dog entered before it filled up in a couple of hours. Pros can enter too many dogs and scratch dogs before the test closes and replace the dog with another one or one of there friends dogs. We also only have about 5 people to work our test. Also there were no ams to help shoot birds.
> 
> Thanks David Wolfe


You're right the Club Sec doesn't have total control. And you are the club I've been describing as affected - small MN club, 60 dog limit, right in the path to the MN. Is it man-power then that prevents you from having a 120 dog stake?


----------



## davewolfe (Mar 22, 2010)

Thomas D said:


> It was my understanding that if someone scratched their dog, EE would re open for that one dog, but not necessarily immediately. Sometimes several hour delay.


This is true, but the person that scratched the dog knows that their will be that opening in that couple of hours. At this point he or one of his friends can be watching. It would probable happen faster if this takes place when entry express office personal are working. I watched our test for weeks, every time a dog got scratch it was replace by someone associated with that pro. I can see where a person can manipulate the system to work in their favor. 

Thanks David


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> I recall a post last year someone made a claim about this issue. I went back and researched that test. He was full of bullhockey.


I am not sure if you are talking about my post last year, and I am not really wanting to rehash an old thread that was already thoroughly discussed, but here is one of the tests that I was referring to. 
If you look at this test you will see that there were 19 (not including scratches) people listed to handle their own dogs. Of the 19, there are _5 pros running their own dogs_ and another 6 people listed themselves_ and _their pros as handlers. So at this test you probably really only had *8 amateurs run their own dog*. That is the saddest part. 
Was this one of the tests you researched? When did you look this up? If you looked it up after the close, were you able to see how many dogs the pros originally signed up and then scratched? 

https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedin/viewentries.aspx?eid=5907


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

If there was no limit on entries then there would be plenty of room for all the people who wanted to run their dogs, would be able to do so. Then the hosting club could pay a little something for extra workers as needed. Still don't understand why a club wants to limit entries. All the clubs that wanted limits on entries were asking for this, now here it is, deal with it.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

JamesTannery said:


> If there was no limit on entries then there would be plenty of room for all the people who wanted to run their dogs, would be able to do so. Then the hosting club could pay a little something for extra workers as needed. Still don't understand why a club wants to limit entries. All the clubs that wanted limits on entries were asking for this, now here it is, deal with it.


lol...I hear ya. We limit entries because of spill-over into a next day, available water in the Fall and holding up judges. I don't think it's especially fair to ask a judge to hold themselves out and commit to a weekend just to have us cancel them if entries didn't push a split.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Handler Error said:


> I am not sure if you are talking about my post last year, and I am not really wanting to rehash an old thread that was already thoroughly discussed, but here is one of the tests that I was referring to.
> If you look at this test you will see that there were 19 (not including scratches) people listed to handle their own dogs. Of the 19, there are _5 pros running their own dogs_ and another 6 people listed themselves_ and _their pros as handlers. So at this test you probably really only had *8 amateurs run their own dog*. That is the saddest part.
> Was this one of the tests you researched? When did you look this up? If you looked it up after the close, were you able to see how many dogs the pros originally signed up and then scratched?
> 
> https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedin/viewentries.aspx?eid=5788


I really have no idea if it was your post. Did you post a lot of bull? ;-)

I get that some tests fill quickly particularly in the path of the MN. You state Pro's are running their 'own' dogs. I suspect you mean amateur owners dogs?

My only point is that it seems a lot of grumblers are taking a back seat to fixing their own problem and complaining trying to figure out how to solve the problem with more rules and no individual effort. In addition speaking as if it's a national epidemic when in fact it's a bit more specific an issue to region/season.

This can't be an individual issue - it's a club issue and the club needs to resolve it. Some might think it an opportunity while others consider it a problem.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

davewolfe said:


> I can see where a person can manipulate the system to work in their favor.


 That would be unethical.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

davewolfe said:


> Pros can enter too many dogs and scratch dogs before the test closes and replace the dog with another one or one of there friends dogs.


David,

Please help me out on this situation. At our last test, that filled within 3 days and we had a 60 limit set, and of course we had 3 scratches known well before 4 days prior to the test date but after the Close date and time. And, of course, we had club members that did not get in early on during the short open so they tried to get in and replace those known scratches. They were told it was too late. I do not know who told them EE or the HT secretary, because it was after the close and that was the reason given. Thus we ran a 60 limit Master with 57 dogs.

What is allowed here by the EE and AKC? Is the close a hard set lock in with the exception of a scratch? I have done all of the other duties involved for a HT but never Hunt Test Secretary so I am not clear what is allowable here. Thanks!

It seems to me that having a waiting list approach would allow a complete fill of the limited number of spots. I know there is no mechanism now to manage a wait list and I know there are some strict rules around the AKC close date. Seems like the AKC should address this new problem and allow some sort of waiting list process then EE can put a fair process, first come first serve no mickey mouse stuff, in place to insure all slots are filled. The waiting list would start the moment the test is filled and a option on EE is provided to tentatively enter your dog awaiting a scratch or opening.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> You state Pro's are running their 'own' dogs. I suspect you mean amateur owners dogs?


No I mean they are listed as the owner and the handler. 

https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedin/viewentries.aspx?eid=5907


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Handler Error said:


> https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedin/viewentries.aspx?eid=5907


I remember this test as I had plans on attending this one and another local test in the same area last year. Unfortunately I had to wait 2 days after the open for a pay check and by then I was SOL. I did not see that coming, guess I learned, so my whole schedule was revised just to get a couple more Master tests in by the end of the year.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> With 24 dogs that belong to individuals like you and I


Nope.. not like me... I train and handle my own dog (to the best of our ability)


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Joe Brakke said:


> David,
> 
> Please help me out on this situation. At our last test, that filled within 3 days and we had a 60 limit set, and of course we had 3 scratches known well before 4 days prior to the test date but after the Close date and time. And, of course, we had club members that did not get in early on during the short open so they tried to get in and replace those known scratches. They were told it was too late. I do not know who told them EE or the HT secretary, because it was after the close and that was the reason given. Thus we ran a 60 limit Master with 57 dogs.
> 
> ...


Agree with the wait list. 
Regarding scratches after close. AKC brought up that exact thing at MN in AL. Scratches after close cannot be back filled by club. One of the downsides of limits.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

On the comment about scratches after the close - the AKC says once it closes it is closed. EE has no say as they follow the rules. 

Suggest Changing the rules via the RHTAC ; those folks are retriever people. 
Then after the rule change petition EE to add programing for a list. Of course that takes coins and i dont think EE is a cash cow 

While your at it maybe we could change the close time to regular hours for most. I know people who sit an ala to get up to enter. Of course they play the FT sport But how about s close when someone is actually at the office. The ladies do a great job but they are not on duty 24/7 
Dk


----------



## billbe (Dec 31, 2007)

How about having Pro Flights that cost more so you can hire the help and owner handler flights where the owners all help out with throwing birds. Would it work to start the Pro's on Thursday with hired help and owners on Saturday? Just a thought that is out of the box from what I have seen.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Handler Error said:


> No I mean they are listed as the owner and the handler.
> 
> https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedin/viewentries.aspx?eid=5907


I am sorry I am missing your point. There are some owner/handler entries the same by pro's (not all) and almost all are listed as Breeder.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

clipper said:


> Nope.. not like me... I train and handle my own dog (to the best of our ability)


So do I but the point/conersation was Pro's running dogs, eh? ;-)


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

billbe said:


> How about having Pro Flights that cost more so you can hire the help and owner handler flights where the owners all help out with throwing birds. Would it work to start the Pro's on Thursday with hired help and owners on Saturday? Just a thought that is out of the box from what I have seen.


Good thinking outside the box however A. how is charging the Pro and his client 'more' fair and B. it's hard enough for most folks to run a 3 day test much less 4. Including Judges who would have to arrive Wednesday to look at grounds.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

It wouldn't take much to solve the problem

Basically with a little fine tuneing ....
Figure out the cutoff number. At the draw, all who wish to run a dog in the test can get entered run one before any one can get enter to run two. If there is still room do the same for those wishing to run more than one. No one can enter to run three before all who wish to get two get entered to run two; and so on..... No refunds before the draw, after the draw none for those dogs selected 


john


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

That's a little 'fine' tuning? Where does all this occur? EE?


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I am not a noble person...It hacks me that pros with more ability than me running dogs for people with more money than me crowd me out of running and I go work to help them..
I really don't think this was the intent of hunt tests.
I think one requirement should be that dogs spend a minimum of X number of days actually hunting in order to be elgible...no, I have no idea how that could be verified...


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

Joe Brakke said:


> Does it matter if the club is a member of Master National Club?
> 
> An AKC Club that is a member of the Master National Club (requires a separate fee to MN from the club) will have the dogs passing their club's Master Test qualify towards the total number of Master Passes that dog requires to be invited to the MN. If a club is not a MN Club Member, a Master Pass at that club's test will only count towards an AKC Master title and not towards the total number of Master passes required for a MN invite.


right on !!


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I have my dog with a Pro. 

I enter my dog on EE when he calls. 

Let me tell ya.. When your trainer calls you at 10pm (11 pm where he is) you kinda Panic that it is bad news... Nope.. He was just calling to tell me to get her entered in a Master Test at College Station and he wasnt sure how long it would be open... I pulled my horse trailer off on the side of the road, and entered her on my iPhone... Do you have any idea how maddening it is to go thru EE on an iPhone? Pain in the butt... But thats what it is right now.

He has been locked out of Master tests.. so I know to drop everything and enter when he calls. With that said... It isnt much different than rodeos.. Its an all out panic to get into the performance you want or the rodeo you want!


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

You said a mouthful clipper. ;-) I am not sure what one has to do with another though. 

I work a test to help club who helps me. Whether I run my dog or not. People should be able to run their own test if they want to, I agree. I suspect their are quite a few complaining about not getting in club tests they have nothing to do with.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Wouldn't part of the problem be solved if the HT secretary sent a group e mail to all club members that the HT was now open on EE. 
I know some clubs do that now.


----------



## davewolfe (Mar 22, 2010)

Thomas D said:


> Wouldn't part of the problem be solved if the HT secretary sent a group e mail to all club members that the HT was now open on EE.
> I know some clubs do that now.


EE and AKC have to finalize the test, this process may take a month. You never know when it will finalize with out checking all the time. Some HT fill in a couple of hours.

Thanks David


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

So unless you check every 4 hours or so, or maybe a friend gives you a heads up, you're out of luck.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Two tier open........ First week, or three days whatever, the test is open, no more then five dogs per handler. After that fair game. Best of both worlds. Gives us working stiffs a chance to get into tests as long as we check periodically..... Lets pros fill a test up.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Limiman, while to some that may look like it would work... What about those of us with young dogs with a pro.... their first couple Master Tests? The trainer is going to have to get the dogs that he is qualifying to MN's in first.. but those of us waiting to run a Master test the first few times might not be able to get in.

Honestly.. Im not opposed to (GASP) increasing the entry fee to help clubs be able to afford to do this.. if costs of the Judges/help is the issue.. then that needs to be addressed.

This is a growing sport... and those of us without the ability/time/or background to train a Master level dog... or just plain like the results our trainer provides... these individuals should not be penalized. Start making it seem to be unfair for those with young dogs, and this sport will not see the growth.

Limiting pros isnt the answer. I dont know what is.

In rodeo, we have a pre-set and advertised opening for a rodeo. It might be Thursday at 2pm.... This seems to give folks the best chance.. If they NEED in, they make time in their schedule to be at a computer or on the phone to Pro-Com to get entered. Its a rush and quite hectic.. but everyone knows.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

What's interesting is that most posts or feelings on the topic are about LIMITING (and Pro's in particular) instead of expanding to solve the problem.

There are only so many clubs...so many judges...so many workers...so much ground. But opportunity may be limited by the number of tests that can accommodate the handler/dogs vying for a MN run. 

As I recall (might be wrong) tests cannot be held on the same dates if two clubs are within 200 miles of each other. Tests must include at last two levels of stakes. A MN club may not hold a MN qualified versus non-MN qualified master test. I am not sure if there is a limit to the number of events a club can run in a 12 month period. 

We could probably squeeze out a big multi-stake Master event but we wouldn't have room for JH/SH therefore - no dice. We have to be mindful of our club events in not scheduling or changing dates of our test.

Tests are to run dogs, make money for the club. Instead of limiting the we should consider accommodating the opportunity. 

This momentum is good for the sport overall, the number of dogs, handlers and interest in HT's. As well, a bit of visibility to State Land managers, local economies and young people who may be recruited to work the sport. 

If folks seek change, let's do so to accommodate more, not limit livelihoods and people who contribute to something that others would like to see go away.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution. 
Allow the club to evaluate the logistics (hours of daylight/grounds/help/whatever) and come up wit a rough estimate of the number of dogs that they can run and still put on a quality event. Then open the entries to all. At the close of entries - select 1 dog from each owner - in the event of a co-owned dogs select only one instance such that any name appears only once. After the initial round if enough additional slots will support one more pass through the entries then a second dog from each owner (again with the co-owner caveat). Repeat until the clubs pre-established maximum is met and then close entries. Wallah- the club has control of the entries that will allow them to ensure that they won't be overwhelmed, the entries are divided without regards to race, religion, sexual preference or occupation (or lack of any of the preceding). 
Seems pretty simple and fair to me.

This is a finite world that we live in and we are at the limits of finding new grounds/help/time/energy/whatever. Sure is interesting that the folks that are most interested in seeing the availability increase without bounds are also the same ones that don't have the time/energy/background/inclination to help out.



All about fairness regards

Bubba

This


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Bubba said:


> DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution.
> Allow the club to evaluate the logistics (hours of daylight/grounds/help/whatever) and come up wit a rough estimate of the number of dogs that they can run and still put on a quality event. Then open the entries to all. At the close of entries - select 1 dog from each owner - in the event of a co-owned dogs select only one instance such that any name appears only once. After the initial round if enough additional slots will support one more pass through the entries then a second dog from each owner (again with the co-owner caveat). Repeat until the clubs pre-established maximum is met and then close entries. Wallah- the club has control of the entries that will allow them to ensure that they won't be overwhelmed, the entries are divided without regards to race, religion, sexual preference or occupation (or lack of any of the preceding).
> Seems pretty simple and fair to me.
> 
> ...


As I asked Fallon - how does that work? You have EE and AKC to figure in, not to mention the appearance of favoritism. And those 'eliminations' of a dog or two might create more scratch. And what about those 'non-club' entrants from neighboring areas? Joe has two dogs and doesn't belong to the club?

I think it's easy to propose hand-picking at face value but I haven't seen anyone actually propose the full process, both technically and within the confines of AKC or EE processes.


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> Wouldn't part of the problem be solved if the HT secretary sent a group e mail to all club members that the HT was now open on EE.
> I know some clubs do that now.


The clubs shouldn't be giving anyone a heads up. 

Would it be possible to post it in your premium that entries will open at a certain time? Could EE develop a standard entry open time for all events? If everyone knows an event will open at a certain time, than everyone has the same chance to get in. There's no chance for any wrong doing.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Handler Error said:


> The clubs shouldn't be giving anyone a heads up.
> 
> Would it be possible to post it in your premium that entries will open at a certain time? Could EE develop a standard entry open time for all events? If everyone knows an event will open at a certain time, than everyone has the same chance to get in. There's no chance for any wrong doing.


You are correct - it will require assistance and cooperation from EE and the AKC to resolve a limiting issue.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

HNTFSH said:


> As I asked Fallon - how does that work? You have EE and AKC to figure in, not to mention the appearance of favoritism. And those 'eliminations' of a dog or two might create more scratch. And what about those 'non-club' entrants from neighboring areas? Joe has two dogs and doesn't belong to the club?
> 
> I think it's easy to propose hand-picking at face value but I haven't seen anyone actually propose the full process, both technically and within the confines of AKC or EE processes.


I don't get this. Looked like a pretty good idea to me, even if it takes a little leg and phone work. What do "non-club" entrants have to do with it? I would imagine they are treated exactly the same as any other entrant with more than one dog. You take the one he's entered first in the first draw. His second one gets picked in the second round if not filled by then. Where is the favoritism? And why do you assume that EE and AKC would not be willing to help institute a workable solution? They have the software, etc. Just wondering why you are so negative on the idea.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

2tall said:


> I don't get this. Looked like a pretty good idea to me, even if it takes a little leg and phone work. What do "non-club" entrants have to do with it? I would imagine they are treated exactly the same as any other entrant with more than one dog. You take the one he's entered first in the first draw. His second one gets picked in the second round if not filled by then. Where is the favoritism? And why do you assume that EE and AKC would not be willing to help institute a workable solution? They have the software, etc. Just wondering why you are so negative on the idea.


It's not a solution that I can see has merit without other factors being applied. How would you allow an entry, allow a draw and then cancel the entry? As a club - without a huge manual coordination between a club and EE? Not to mention without an arrangement with AKC?

You are suggesting a club secretary be the sole 'fairness' factor in who gets in. Who monitors that? Who audits it? 

How do you factor in the guy that waits till late in the open entry process versus the guy the was on top of it and was first in?


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

Bubba said:


> DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution.
> Allow the club to evaluate the logistics (hours of daylight/grounds/help/whatever) and come up wit a rough estimate of the number of dogs that they can run and still put on a quality event. Then open the entries to all. At the close of entries - select 1 dog from each owner - in the event of a co-owned dogs select only one instance such that any name appears only once. After the initial round if enough additional slots will support one more pass through the entries then a second dog from each owner (again with the co-owner caveat). Repeat until the clubs pre-established maximum is met and then close entries. Wallah- the club has control of the entries that will allow them to ensure that they won't be overwhelmed, the entries are divided without regards to race, religion, sexual preference or occupation (or lack of any of the preceding).
> Seems pretty simple and fair to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

clipper said:


> Bubba said:
> 
> 
> > DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution.
> ...


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

You ain't bright are ya?

I'll type this real slow so you can keep up. The COMPUTER does the draw (as it does now) independently of human intervention. So the order that the entries were received is immaterial. The only cooperation between AKC and anyone else is the process by which the AKC institutes a rule allowing this. If someone scratches a dog after the close- well the club just runs one less dog (as they do now).

This isn't rocket surgery- I'll bet you a steak dinner that I could write a SQL stored procedure that would accomplish this in under an hour.

It is absolutely fair- everyone is guaranteed at least one entry and additional entries as space allows. Once you start a second trip through the entries you have to pull one from every remaining owner's stack and same for subsequent trips.


----------



## downbirds (Jan 19, 2012)

I like Handler Error's idea. EE sets a closing time for all events, then they can also set an opening sign up time for all events. Say all events open for sign up at, say 6pm local time, four weeks in advance of the closing of the event on EE. But I would go a little further, you can only sign up, say six dogs at a time. This way, it's all a matter of luck if you get in, and pro's still have the same opp. to make money. Otherwise go to non Master National clubs and the problem will go away. But in time so will the master national. But that would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water for some. Me I don't care about the MN, and yes I work all my home club events, and when I'm at another clubs event, I always pitch in to help break down after a series, whether carrying things to the trucks or taking down holding blinds I always try to help. I also tire of waiting an hour or two for the pro to show up to the SH or JH stake because they have 15 master dogs, but that is the nature of the beast. Is there a fair way to get around that no probably not. I guess we could run NAHRA which doesn't seem to have the numbers, or pros, and are a lot more Am. friendly, but then AKC doesn't rec. those titles. Double edge sword I guess. Me I will keep voting no to MN for our club because I'm an AM. and want to run my dog and enjoy the day. Not work my azz off and be tied up for an extra 4 hrs. for the pros to make a living. I don't have anything against the pros, but it's my free time and I want to enjoy it with people like me who want to play with and talk about THIER dogs. Jim


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Bubba said:


> You ain't bright are ya?
> 
> I'll type this real slow so you can keep up. The COMPUTER does the draw (as it does now) independently of human intervention. So the order that the entries were received is immaterial. The only cooperation between AKC and anyone else is the process by which the AKC institutes a rule allowing this. If someone scratches a dog after the close- well the club just runs one less dog (as they do now).
> 
> ...


I'm bright enough to see you have this about 1/2 baked at best.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> It's not a solution that I can see has merit without other factors being applied. How would you allow an entry, allow a draw and then cancel the entry? As a club - without a huge manual coordination between a club and EE? Not to mention without an arrangement with AKC?
> 
> You are suggesting a club secretary be the sole 'fairness' factor in who gets in. Who monitors that? Who audits it?
> 
> How do you factor in the guy that waits till late in the open entry process versus the guy the was on top of it and was first in?



I find it interesting that you are so critical about a process that you have taken so little time to understand. Here is the proposal that Ed and I submitted to the RAC:

*Designated Handler/Limited Entry Open *


In the Designated Handler/Limited Entry Open (the “Stake”), entries shall be limited to 65 dogs - or a slightly higher number, if necessary, as described below.


In the Stake, each handler shall designate in numerical order those dogs which the handler wishes to enter in the Stake. Entries 1-5 shall be guaranteed admission into the Stake - whether or not total entries equal or exceed 65 dogs.


If, upon the close of entries, the Field Trial Secretary determines that less than 65 dogs are admitted in the Stake, those handlers who have designated more than 5 dogs for admission in the Stake shall be permitted to enter the dog the handler has previously designated as dog no. 6 into the Stake. If after all such dogs have be admitted into the Stake, the Field Trial Secretary determines that less than 65 dogs are still admitted in the Stake, those handlers who have designated more than 6 dogs for admission in the Stake shall be permitted to enter the dog the handler has previously designated as dog no. 7 into the Stake. This process shall continue until the Field Trial Secretary first determines that entries in the Stake are 65 dogs or more. 


Consider the following examples


A.	The Field Trial Secretary determines upon the close of entries, that if all handlers are permitted to run the dogs that they have designated, including 5 dogs per handler for those handlers who have designated five or more dogs, that 75 dogs would be admitted in the Stake - then the Stake would proceed with 75 dogs, and handlers with more than 5 dogs designated would not be permitted to enter any further dogs in the Stake.


B.	The same situation, only the FTS determines that total entries, when handlers are permitted to enter 5 dogs into the Stake, are 64. Because total entries are less than 65, each handler who has previously designated a sixth dog for potential admission into the stake shall be permitted to enter that sixth dog in the stake. This is true even if the admission of each sixth dog designated by handlers with more than five dogs would result in the Stake having 80 dogs entered. All handlers who had six dogs designated for entry in the Stake would be permitted to enter the dogs that the handlers had previously designated as 1-6 in the stake.


In the event that a dog is scratched for veterinary reasons, if applicable, the handler with multiple dogs may then substitute the next designated dog for inclusion in the Stake. For example, the FTS determines that all handlers with more than 5 dogs may enter up to 7 dogs. Handler X has designated 18 for potential inclusion in the Stake. Handler X’s entry number 6 has come in season. Handler X will be permitted to enter his previously identified dog no. 8 in the trial. However, he will not be permitted to enter dog no. 9 in place of the scratched dog.


In the event that a handler must scratch from a trial, the dogs designated by the scratched handler may be transferred to a substitute handler, provided that: (a) the substitute handler has not previously entered dogs in the Stake; or (b) with the transfer of the scratched dogs, the substitute handler does not have more than the maximum number of dogs permitted per handler. For example, the FTS determines that all handlers with more than 5 dogs may enter up to 8 dogs in the Stake. Handler S has 5 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler T has 2 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler U has 6 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler U scratches from the trial for a family emergency. Handler U may not transfer his 6 dogs to Handler S. However, Handler U may transfer his 6 dogs to Handler T. Alternatively, Handler U may transfer 3 dogs to Handler S and transfer the remaining 3 dogs to Handler T.

Notes



1. This is not a first in process. The same deadline applies to everyone.
2. The FT has no discretion in who gets in and who does not.
3. There is a specified process for replacing dogs when a multiple dog handler has a scratch
4. This process is discretionary, not mandatory. Each club gets to make its own decision.

I think that there are legitimate concerns about this procedure, as there are about any new procedure. But, those issued by you have no basis in fact.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I find it interesting that you are so critical about a process that you have taken so little time to understand. Here is the proposal that Ed and I submitted to the RAC:
> 
> *Designated Handler/Limited Entry Open *
> 
> ...


Critical sans detail brother. That is where the devil lives.

And what was the response to your proposal?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Critical sans detail brother. That is where the devil lives.
> 
> And what was the response to your proposal?



And what does that say about you? The RAC never brought it up for discussion.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Just for clarification Ted, you are proposing this for Field Trials? I was under the impression that the problems are in Hunt Tests., but I may have missed the part about FT's.

Your proposal makes sense to me and seems to have been though out with more holes filled than any other proposal I've read from the numerous threads on this topic.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

shawninthesticks said:


> Just for clarification Ted, you are proposing this for Field Trials? I was under the impression that the problems are in Hunt Tests., but I may have missed the part about FT's.
> 
> Your proposal makes sense to me and seems to have been though out with more holes filled than any other proposal I've read from the numerous threads on this topic.




This was a proposal that Ed and I made for FT many years ago. It was brought up in this thread in the context of HT.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> This was a proposal that Ed and I made for FT many years ago. It was brought up in this thread in the context of HT.


Ok ,thanks I must have lost it in the mix.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I still fail to see why a PUBLICISED opening Day/time of entries is not an option here.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> And what does that say about you? The RAC never brought it up for discussion.


lol...It means I wasn't fully paying attention my way out the door. But I wasn't proposing a solution for a different issue either. Geesh!

So your plan was so good for something else no one discussed it for it's INTENDED purpose? 

Too much.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Tidewater Retriever Club, VA. MN club. 60 dog master running end of march. Full. No more than 5 dogs per any handler. 

What do we do?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Dr. Ed & Ted's proposal seems like the perfect solution for hunt tests. 

The criticisms of it for field trials do t apply for no competative hunt tests. There are no "restricted" options that aren't being used in hunt tests. 

As Bubba said its all about fairness.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Joe Brakke said:


> David,
> 
> Please help me out on this situation. At our last test, that filled within 3 days and we had a 60 limit set, and of course we had 3 scratches known well before 4 days prior to the test date but after the Close date and time. And, of course, we had club members that did not get in early on during the short open so they tried to get in and replace those known scratches. They were told it was too late. I do not know who told them EE or the HT secretary, because it was after the close and that was the reason given. Thus we ran a 60 limit Master with 57 dogs.
> 
> ...


The rule book is always a good place to start. Here is what it says: 
"A club holding an AKC-licensed or member club 
Hunting Test shall not accept any entries received after 
the closing time and date specified in the premium list."

The AKC made it clear when they accepted the change allowing limited entries that entries would strictly "first come, first served" and "no waiting list."
If clubs have a better idea there is a process to get the proposal to AKC performance events and that normally starts with the RHTAC. Or, y'all could keep filling pages on RTF until it gets warm enough to get back outside and train.
82 in FL but the water is cool. I'm outa here.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Good Dogs said:


> The rule book is always a good place to start. Here is what it says:
> "A club holding an AKC-licensed or member club
> Hunting Test shall not accept any entries received after
> the closing time and date specified in the premium list."
> ...


Well put. I realize there is not a simple or easy solution. But those posed need to be realistic. I work in process improvement within the Global Fortune 1000. There are technical processes that must align with policies that must satisfy an end-user. Until then, register early and clubs will have to find work-arounds as will handlers. Blaming Pro's ain't going to get folks anywhere.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Bubba said:


> DR. Aycock and Ted Shih have proposed a pretty elegant solution.
> Allow the club to evaluate the logistics (hours of daylight/grounds/help/whatever) and come up wit a rough estimate of the number of dogs that they can run and still put on a quality event. Then open the entries to all. At the close of entries - select 1 dog from each owner - in the event of a co-owned dogs select only one instance such that any name appears only once. After the initial round if enough additional slots will support one more pass through the entries then a second dog from each owner (again with the co-owner caveat). Repeat until the clubs pre-established maximum is met and then close entries. Wallah- the club has control of the entries that will allow them to ensure that they won't be overwhelmed, the entries are divided without regards to race, religion, sexual preference or occupation (or lack of any of the preceding).
> Seems pretty simple and fair to me.
> 
> ...



Hey Bubba, that proposal has a familar ring to it 

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...-per-handler&p=1184352&viewfull=1#post1184352


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

yellow machine said:


> One option is to limit the number of dogs a person can register in a day, pro or am. That way it can't fill in a matter of an hour. No refunds if you have more than 10 dogs registered?


The beauty is in its simplicity.......

john


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Moose Mtn said:


> I still fail to see why a PUBLICISED opening Day/time of entries is not an option here.


It is an option. The club can post it on their EE premium or send out an email to, for instance, members advising the opening time. The HT sec'y need only advise EE as to the desired opening. Been there, done that. Worked just dandy.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

All of this discussion is missing the point. The problem is simply the disappearance of the owner/handler. These individuals are the marshals, shooters, equipment guys, cooks and general gophers that keep the test moving. They are the people you call if you need a 4 wheeler, test dog, set up dog, pick up dog, extra equipment or anything else. They show up early and stay late. Simply stated, they know the game & are passionate about it.

In my area you can count the 1-2 dog amateurs on 1 hand with fingers left over still playing in the 3rd series of most Master tests. IMHO the tests are becoming tighter and more technical. Very difficult to earn a MH without access to technical water.

Why do we have pros running 20+ dogs?
#1: Money. It is cheaper to put a dog on someone's truck & split expenses. Covering gas, hotel and meals on a long trip makes handling fees with a pro a bargain.
#2: Success rates. A pro running 20+ dogs will get a feel for the series. His first dogs might not get that benefit but I guarantee his later dogs will.
#3: Knowledge: your average owner running 1 or 2 dogs will take a lifetime to learn what a pro learns in one season training & running a truck load of dogs.
#4: Time. Most amateurs do not have the time needed to train a dog to the higher levels.

This is in no way a rant against pros. Most are the very picture of the word "professional"! Without them most clubs would disappear into bankruptcy within a year. 

My point would be to focus on what can be done to encourage the owner/handler.
#1: Mentor: we all have something to offer. Train with these newcomers. The sharing of knowledge, equipment & grounds is a huge help to someone starting out.
#2: Demonstrate. Most people have no idea what our dogs are capable of doing. The first time I saw a dog run a true blind retrieve, I knew I would someday own such an animal.
#3: As a club member push for more training days. Advertise them and make them open to all,
#4: Encourage. We have all crashed & burned at a test or trial. I don't remember who congratulated me when my dogs succeeded. However I remember every word of a conversation when my dog failed. It was my first hunt test dog & 157 whistles to pick up the Seasoned memory bird was a few too many. I left the line totally humiliated & ready to quit the game. A few kind words from a nice lady to the effect that most had experienced the same thing gave me the courage to come back Sunday. Failed that one too. Trained harder & passed the next ones. That lady was a pro.

Just my thoughts


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

fishduck said:


> All of this discussion is missing the point. The problem is simply the disappearance of the owner/handler. These individuals are the marshals, shooters, equipment guys, cooks and general gophers that keep the test moving. They are the people you call if you need a 4 wheeler, test dog, set up dog, pick up dog, extra equipment or anything else. They show up early and stay late. Simply stated, they know the game & are passionate about it.
> 
> In my area you can count the 1-2 dog amateurs on 1 hand with fingers left over still playing in the 3rd series of most Master tests. IMHO the tests are becoming tighter and more technical. Very difficult to earn a MH without access to technical water.
> 
> ...


Nice post


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> Tidewater Retriever Club, VA. MN club. 60 dog master running end of march. Full. No more than 5 dogs per any handler.
> 
> What do we do?


Run Neuse River the next weekend. 120 dog limit and only 12 entries so far. Or keep your eye on Fall Line the same weekend with a 120 dog limit that is not open for entries yet (although it will likely fill up).

The early HTs tend to fill up around here, especially with a 60 dog limit held by a good club on good grounds. However, there are always others.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> Run Neuse River the next weekend. 120 dog limit and only 12 entries so far. Or keep your eye on Fall Line the same weekend with a 120 dog limit that is not open for entries yet (although it will likely fill up).
> 
> The early HTs tend to fill up around here, especially with a 60 dog limit held by a good club on good grounds. However, there are always others.


I would think the earlier an Open the better. I see most clubs are exercising a Limit. Smart.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

fishduck said:


> All of this discussion is missing the point. The problem is simply the disappearance of the owner/handler. These individuals are the marshals, shooters, equipment guys, cooks and general gophers that keep the test moving. They are the people you call if you need a 4 wheeler, test dog, set up dog, pick up dog, extra equipment or anything else. They show up early and stay late. Simply stated, they know the game & are passionate about it.
> 
> In my area you can count the 1-2 dog amateurs on 1 hand with fingers left over still playing in the 3rd series of most Master tests. IMHO the tests are becoming tighter and more technical. Very difficult to earn a MH without access to technical water.
> 
> ...


You hit the nail right on the head...


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Tidewater Retriever Club, VA. MN club. 60 dog master running end of march. Full. No more than 5 dogs per any handler.
> 
> What do we do?


There needs to be conditions on placed on clubs wishing to have a limited entry: ie they must apply and publish the limited a year in advance and clubs holding a limited maintain their date but lose or have their restrictive covenant decreased.

JMO

tim


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Tim Carrion said:


> There needs to be conditions on placed on clubs wishing to have a limited entry: ie they must apply and publish the limited a year in advance and clubs holding a limited maintain their date but lose or have their restrictive covenant decreased.
> 
> JMO
> 
> tim


Tim - I don't follow?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> I would think the earlier an Open the better. I see most clubs are exercising a Limit. Smart.


I don't see any downside for a club to limiting the entries. Coming up with judges is hard enough. Coming up with an extra pair at the last minute because you were surprised by the entries (like happened last time the MN was close by) is really tough.

Most clubs who limit to 60 around here will fill up and quickly. At 120, it takes longer, but can still surprise many folks. The issues on our circuit, outside of MN, seems to occur either early in the season, when a lot of folks plan to run one on the way back up north or late in the Fall season when there is not much else going on--that is when we get 120 dog opens in FTs as well. A double master or a OHQ tends to add entries as well. We don't often have, as you saw on the tidewater, pros with huge entries that folks seem to experience elsewhere. Some clubs even start calling pros to get one or two to bring some dogs.

There have been some pretty good ideas here on making sure everyone gets a shot, but I don't like any of them that single out the pros.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Tim Carrion said:


> There needs to be conditions on placed on clubs wishing to have a limited entry: ie they must apply and publish the limited a year in advance and clubs holding a limited maintain their date but lose or have their restrictive covenant decreased.
> 
> JMO
> 
> tim


It is simply not feasible to have the HT approved a year in advance for most clubs. Look how many are on EE now that are within a few months and not open for entries and don't have all the judges. As far as allowing other HTs that same date for clubs that limit, it probably wouldn't be bad for the clubs which have to limit at 60, but a club that limits at 120 shouldn't be penalized, IMO.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> I don't see any downside for a club to limiting the entries. Coming up with judges is hard enough. Coming up with an extra pair at the last minute because you were surprised by the entries (like happened last time the MN was close by) is really tough.
> 
> Most clubs who limit to 60 around here will fill up and quickly. At 120, it takes longer, but can still surprise many folks. The issues on our circuit, outside of MN, seems to occur either early in the season, when a lot of folks plan to run one on the way back up north or late in the Fall season when there is not much else going on--that is when we get 120 dog opens in FTs as well. A double master or a OHQ tends to add entries as well. We don't often have, as you saw on the tidewater, pros with huge entries that folks seem to experience elsewhere. Some clubs even start calling pros to get one or two to bring some dogs.
> 
> There have been some pretty good ideas here on making sure everyone gets a shot, but I don't like any of them that single out the pros.


Agreed on all points.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

fishduck said:


> All of this discussion is missing the point. The problem is simply the disappearance of the owner/handler. These individuals are the marshals, shooters, equipment guys, cooks and general gophers that keep the test moving. They are the people you call if you need a 4 wheeler, test dog, set up dog, pick up dog, extra equipment or anything else. They show up early and stay late. Simply stated, they know the game & are passionate about it.
> 
> In my area you can count the 1-2 dog amateurs on 1 hand with fingers left over still playing in the 3rd series of most Master tests. IMHO the tests are becoming tighter and more technical. Very difficult to earn a MH without access to technical water.
> 
> ...


Excellent, well thought out post! 

Our club, Bryan-College Station Retriever Club, was planning to again offer our test as unlimited this spring, when we were alertedto the fact that a conflicting test in Louisiana had to cancel due to losing their grounds. This, on top of the fact that we have lost 5 active members to death in the past year and a half, was setting us up for "The Perfect Storm" in the hunt test world. We usually run 3 big master flights as well as big Junior and Senior flights as well and feel confident about handling big numbers since we hire Aggie Corps members to work as bird technicians, but with fewer members to fill the key management rolls plus no conflicting event, we chose to set up for our 3 masters, 2 senior flights and junior on both days. Test is first weekend in March.

We opened on a Friday Morning and had filled all 3 Master flights by Sunday afternoon. 

We need people who play the game to be active in helping to put the events on. If a Pro is running a truck load of dogs for his/her clients, they do not gave time to help, I think they should encourage their clients to step up and get involved. Without volunteers the game collapses and we are beginning to see this happening. 

We are losing active people, not seeing replacements in sufficient numbers. Our judges are being overworked and new judges are not being made. 

What is the answer? I don't know but if you want the game to continue, whether you have a pro train and run your dog or not......you need to get actively involved with a club AND volunteer to help at every event you go to.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Excellent, well thought out post!
> 
> Our club, Bryan-College Station Retriever Club, was planning to again offer our test as unlimited this spring, when we were alertedto the fact that a conflicting test in Louisiana had to cancel due to losing their grounds. This, on top of the fact that we have lost 5 active members to death in the past year and a half, was setting us up for "The Perfect Storm" in the hunt test world. We usually run 3 big master flights as well as big Junior and Senior flights as well and feel confident about handling big numbers since we hire Aggie Corps members to work as bird technicians, but with fewer members to fill the key management rolls plus no conflicting event, we chose to set up for our 3 masters, 2 senior flights and junior on both days. Test is first weekend in March.
> 
> ...


That's exactly right. Participation by members is key albeit in general not just the issue at hand. In other words: "Your contribution to your club is not showing up to run your dog". ;-)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> We need people who play the game to be active in helping to put the events on. If a Pro is running a truck load of dogs for his/her clients, they do not gave time to help, I think they should encourage their clients to step up and get involved. Without volunteers the game collapses and we are beginning to see this happening.
> 
> We are losing active people, not seeing replacements in sufficient numbers. Our judges are being overworked and new judges are not being made.
> 
> What is the answer? I don't know but if you want the game to continue, whether you have a pro train and run your dog or not......you need to get actively involved with a club AND volunteer to help at every event you go to.



Vicki, good to see you and Dave at the Avery Farmer/Trott seminar. These words are true for Field Trials, too.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Thank you, Ted, it was great seeing you again, too.

You are right, the problems we are seeing are facing both sports. 

Some people complain that pros don't help out at the tests, but they can help clubs by getting their clients to help and by offering training days on their properties from time to time. Giving of their time in that way helps the clubs to build stronger members and a bigger membership base.

People think that they can't help out at a test because they don't know enough....but none of the jobs at the tests are rocket science. It just takes someone who is willing to take charge of a small part of the event.

Just as we all ask that if you see trash on the ground pick it up, if you see someone who needs help, jump in and offer. If you see something that needs to be carried out into the field, don't just stand there, offer to help. If someone asks for a volunteer to throw birds or shoot and gun. Step up and help. 

It is the only way we can get things done. 

Those who have been organizing and running the tests for years are getting tired. We want to continue to enjoy the games for years to come, but watching it crumble under it's own weight while people stand in the gallery and complain after the event is over is heartbreaking.

If anyone cares about keeping this venue of spending time playing with our dogs, please make it a point to step up and volunteer at events in your area.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

And sometimes the Pro's clients are not helping out at THAT hunt test.. but are assisting at Hunt tests in Other regions.... I recently inquired about assisting 2 Clubs with their tests.. tests that my dog will not be at, and that i will not benefit from.. Because I know that help is needed, and I cant be down in Texas to assist the clubs sponsoring the tests my dog is running at!


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Thank you! Hope your spirit catches on!!!


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

HNTFSH said:


> Tim - I don't follow?


Makes sense to me, at least about the restrictive part.

If I can't have a test the same weekend as another club within 200 miles air miles, if that test is restricted entry, (say to 60 dogs) then that distance should be reduced so another club could have a test that weekend. At the same time we are filling up Master slots in the area, ALL of the possible weekends are full (meaning that there is a test within 200 miles every weekend, not that all the tests are full) for the most part between mid March and the end of May. 

So, if we have more demand than we can fill, why not allow more tests? It makes sense to me that if you limit to 60 dogs, the air mileage restriction for your test be halved as well. In order to make that work, your test would need to be planned with the limit well in advance. And, it wouldn't be automatic that you could open it back up to unlimited for the same weekend because you might have another test going on inside the 200 miles.

How much of the limiting is done due to available help, and how much is due to available grounds?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Jerry Beil said:


> How much of the limiting is done due to available help, and how much is due to available grounds?


In my experience, 100% is because of available grounds.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

DoubleHaul said:


> In my experience, 100% is because of available grounds.


Mostly true, but when you get up to 3-4 MH stakes, help becomes an issue, especially if your holding JH & SH, the logistics on a 3-4 split master are a nightmare in themselves even if you've got enough ground to accommodate it. Limiting ensures the club knows how many stakes it will have to manage, months in advance; plans can be made. No limit and have to split 2-3 times, with less than a week to accommodate; chaos ensues. Once you've had that happen you limit your test; available grounds or not. Ex; had one club go from ~56 dogs multiple years to 124 the next, the club was prepared for a possible single split; not prepared for a triple split, and of course most of the extra entries came in right before close.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Jerry Beil said:


> Makes sense to me, at least about the restrictive part.
> 
> If I can't have a test the same weekend as another club within 200 miles air miles, if that test is restricted entry, (say to 60 dogs) then that distance should be reduced so another club could have a test that weekend. At the same time we are filling up Master slots in the area, ALL of the possible weekends are full (meaning that there is a test within 200 miles every weekend, not that all the tests are full) for the most part between mid March and the end of May.
> 
> ...


Having to publish the limited 1 year in advance would give other clubs adequate time to plan a competing event that weekend.
Grounds are the biggest factor in many parts of the country. The days of multiple master flights in a HTs are ending and the 4 stake FT is not far behind. Clubs will need options and one size will not fit all.

Tim


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Mostly true, but when you get up to 3-4 MH stakes, help becomes an issue, especially if your holding JH & SH, the logistics on a 3-4 split master are a nightmare in themselves even if you've got enough ground to accommodate it. Limiting ensure the club knows how many stakes it will have to manage, months in advance; plans can be made. No limit and have to split 2-3 times, with less than a week to accommodate; chaos ensues. Once you've had that happen you limit your test; available grounds or not. Ex; had one club go from ~56 dogs one year to 121 the next, the club was prepared for a possible single split; not prepared for a triple split, and of course most of the 120+ entries came in right before close.


Of course you are right. I was thinking in sort of a 'normal' situation. In the 'old days' before the limits, most clubs would set up two sets of MH judges have one in reserve, in case they were needed, perhaps. Then came two MNs in a row that were pretty close and clubs saw double the entries and chaos did ensue--last minute bird orders, more judges, securing more grounds, etc.

Thinking about it a little more, I would say if the limit is 60 dogs, it is probably almost entirely a grounds issue. There are not enough grounds to hold two MH stakes. If it is 120, it could be either or a little of both.

Regardless, it is almost always a defensive move by the club--a way to protect against possible chaos. I know of only one instance since the limits came out where the limit was lower than the club typically handled. Most clubs want as many entries as they can handle, but want to avoid the unpleasant surprises.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Jerry Beil said:


> Makes sense to me, at least about the restrictive part.
> 
> If I can't have a test the same weekend as another club within 200 miles air miles, if that test is restricted entry, (say to 60 dogs) then that distance should be reduced so another club could have a test that weekend. At the same time we are filling up Master slots in the area, ALL of the possible weekends are full (meaning that there is a test within 200 miles every weekend, not that all the tests are full) for the most part between mid March and the end of May.
> 
> ...


Now I understand! I didn't disagree I just didn't understand the post. 

1 year out sounds reasonable to declare a limit for a specific test. I don't know if listing it is, I don't see many 1 year forecasted tests on EE. Do you? So maybe that's a change a club and EE need to work out. Certainly you won't be listing judges that far out in most cases or premium details.

BUT...just because I declare a limited entry doesn't mean another club will that's also within 200 miles of the club seeking a date change to coincide with mine.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

Help IS an issue. You need a stake captain at each stake that supervises the bird technicians, you need flyer gunners, and you need a marshal at each stake.... say 4 people at each stake in addition to the paid help.. say you have 3 master stakes plus junior and senior.. that is 20 people in addition to the secretary, food person, etc..... that is a problem for our club... and as more amateurs are crowded out, it is becoming a bigger problem every year.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

I think that's probably reasonable to reduce the no compete range if a club limits the entries to 60, but it would be a management nightmare. 

What happens when:

Club A has a test the first weekend of April. They limit to 60
Club B decides to also have a test that weekend and they are within 200 miles. They decide not to limit.

What happens next year when Club A wants to remove the limit? Can Club B still have their test that weekend? Or would Club B be able to block Club A from removing the limit or even having the test at all?

To do it, the limiting club would probably have to give up their hold on that weekend for future years if someone else wanted it. I suppose that's fair too since it makes room for clubs that are able to get the help and the grounds to put on an unlimited test (or a less limited test). If all the clubs limit entries, that drives down overall participation, which doesn't seem like that's good for anyone.

Since our 2 biggest issues are grounds and help, how do we address those in order that clubs don't have to limit entries?


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Moose Mtn said:


> Limiman, while to some that may look like it would work... What about those of us with young dogs with a pro.... their first couple Master Tests? The trainer is going to have to get the dogs that he is qualifying to MN's in first.. but those of us waiting to run a Master test the first few times might not be able to get in.
> 
> Honestly.. Im not opposed to (GASP) increasing the entry fee to help clubs be able to afford to do this.. if costs of the Judges/help is the issue.. then that needs to be addressed.
> 
> ...



you can enter and run the dog yourself.... if the event opens up the pro can run it.....

or, that is between you and your pro...... why should I not get to run my dog because your pro got a tip as to when the entry would open?

I am not against the pros, but the sport has to stay open for amateurs. if amateurs get burnt out from working all day in some cases taking time off work and cant run their dogs the sport wont last.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

That is out of the question.. We are in Colorado, The Trainer, Dog and Tests are in Texas.

My Pro found out about the College Station Test opening at 11pm Friday night (his time) It was nearly full.(It had opened that morning).. Id have a hard time thinking he got a tip...

AGAIN... that is why I think we should have publicized OPENING times... Everyone has a fair shot... Sure they will fill up FAST... and you may get one dog in only to have it fill before the next.. but that sure seems more logical than this insanity of checking EE so often..... and just hoping you catch one open.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Jerry Beil said:


> Since our 2 biggest issues are grounds and help, how do we address those in order that clubs don't have to limit entries?


Think only individual clubs can address that.


----------



## dlsweep (Dec 3, 2007)

HNTFSH,

You have made quite a few posts on this thread. What is your name? To which club do you belong?

Damon Sweep


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

What does that have to do with posting on this thread?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

HNTFSH said:


> What does that have to do with posting on this thread?


Trouble with the pelt police?


----------



## caryalsobrook (Mar 22, 2010)

I am beginning to wonder that the source of contention is not between the pro and the amateur but between those dogs that need to qualify each year for the MN and those which just want to get their MH title. Not taking a position but just asking the question.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

13 of 15 MH tests open on EE through April still have master slots.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

caryalsobrook said:


> I am beginning to wonder that the source of contention is not between the pro and the amateur but between those dogs that need to qualify each year for the MN and those which just want to get their MH title. Not taking a position but just asking the question.


And now with the new title opportunities of MH12 and up, there is even more incentive to crowd the master tests.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

For years AKC resisted adding the MNH title to their recognized titles. The hunt tests were popular yet manageable. Here we are just a few years after the big announcement of the additional titles.....MNH, MNH4, etc.....and suddenly our master entries are out of control and the clubs began asking for the option of limiting. That was granted and now there are complaints about not being able to get in. 

There was a request for additional official recognition of MHs who may or may not want to travel to The Master National each year. AKC listened so now you can get a get an MH12 or as high a number number as you and your dog can complete successfully....thus further increasing the demand for those now limited Master Hunter test slots each week.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> 13 of 15 MH tests open on EE through April still have master slots.


It could very well be a regional thing, who knows. There are also some that have filled in a matter of hours. 

I guess it isn't an issue until you (not you HTF) are the one that doesn't get in.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> It could very well be a regional thing, who knows. There are also some that have filled in a matter of hours.
> 
> I guess it isn't an issue until you (not you HTF) are the one that doesn't get in.


Oh I definitely think it's regional and somewhat seasonal - agreed. Great for some clubs budgets too. And yes, I feel for those not getting entered albeit some experience that by their own accord.


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

davewolfe said:


> I was the hunt test secretary for the Kansas city retriever club, our hunt test fill up with 60 master dogs in a few hours. *When you put your hunt test on entry express, entry express will submit your judges to akc and akc approves your judges. Entry express puts your hunt test on to enter. It is hard to know when process will take place and your test will finalizes.*
> Two pros had 24 dogs each. I was unable to get my dog entered before it filled up in a couple of hours. Pros can enter too many dogs and scratch dogs before the test closes and replace the dog with another one or one of there friends dogs. We also only have about 5 people to work our test. Also there were no ams to help shoot birds.
> 
> Thanks David Wolfe


I don't comment much, but I have followed this thread and want to point out that what I bolded from this comment this is not necessarily true. When you create/edit an event in EE, you have the option to either allow EE to handle your event application and pay the fee to AKC (which gives you limited control), *OR* you can do the work yourself including the AKC application/fee. This gives your club the control and you can finalize the event and open it for entries on your time table. In my opinion, there is no reason a club member should not be able to run in their own club's test...what's the point of putting one on if you can't run. Tell your club that you are going to open the test tomorrow night at 11 pm to give them first shot. If word leaks out to give those outside of your club an advantage, well then that's where an ethical/fairness issue may come into play.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

caryalsobrook said:


> I am beginning to wonder that the source of contention is not between the pro and the amateur but between those dogs that need to qualify each year for the MN and those which just want to get their MH title. Not taking a position but just asking the question.


I think that causes the issue. and since a high percentage of the dogs trying to qualify for MN each year are being run by pros.....

HT's were originally set up in order to give the "every day joe" a chance to run against a standard with his dogs. it was understood that FTs were dominated by pros, HTs were supposed to be for the Ametures...... I do not begrudge the pros making a living doing what they are doing, but I hate to see ametures getting pushed out. I lost 3 chances to run my dog last year with in a 2.5 hour drive because I couldn't sit at the computer all day watching. Those three were filed by 2-3 pros and members of the home club, in one case I was told only the officers of the club even got there dogs in.... How is that building the sport? Its not, and it will lead to the decline. I have as a matter of convenience had a friend that is a part time pro to run my dog when there are tests near him and not me, but I cant understand never running my own dog.... and maybe that is the biggest part of my issue with pros running dogs for clients all the time. Put some big boy undies on and step to the line. Then your pros limit would not effect you. 

What chaps me even more then is ending the summer one pass shy of MH..... pretty sure we would have passed one of the three.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

We are a club that was very glad to see the limit option available - we have limited grounds and limited help, but we want to put on a HT because we feel obligated to since our members participate in others around the area.

Last year was one of the largest entries we had and the HT made money for a change (thank God because our FT lost). However we did have a scratch by a Pro that hurt us a little, fortunately all our club members who wanted to enter were able too, however our club depends on the support and help from others around the area who enter our test and lend a hand when we are maxed out with things to get done...I did not hear of anyone not being able to enter who wanted to, but I wonder if there weren't a few who didn't get to - I also believe we got hit with the max number of entries because of how close the MN was. 

It will be interesting to see what our numbers will be this year. And our plan is to send out an email to club members a couple days prior to when I'll be opening the premium for entries, plus I will open them in the evening so members will be at home and able to enter...this is about the only way we can ensure our members get a little bit of notice before the "general public" - got to look out for my worker bees.


----------



## caryalsobrook (Mar 22, 2010)

limiman12 said:


> I think that causes the issue. and since a high percentage of the dogs trying to qualify for MN each year are being run by pros.....
> 
> HT's were originally set up in order to give the "every day joe" a chance to run against a standard with his dogs. it was understood that FTs were dominated by pros, HTs were supposed to be for the Ametures...... I do not begrudge the pros making a living doing what they are doing, but I hate to see ametures getting pushed out. I lost 3 chances to run my dog last year with in a 2.5 hour drive because I couldn't sit at the computer all day watching. Those three were filed by 2-3 pros and members of the home club, in one case I was told only the officers of the club even got there dogs in.... How is that building the sport? Its not, and it will lead to the decline. I have as a matter of convenience had a friend that is a part time pro to run my dog when there are tests near him and not me, but I cant understand never running my own dog.... and maybe that is the biggest part of my issue with pros running dogs for clients all the time. Put some big boy undies on and step to the line. Then your pros limit would not effect you.
> 
> What chaps me even more then is ending the summer one pass shy of MH..... pretty sure we would have passed one of the three.


I firmly believe that the pros contribute greatly to the club. At the same time, there would be no club were it not for the amateurs and volunteers who also contribute greatly. Maybe it is time to stop blaming one group or another, it is time to try to reach a solution that is beneficial to all. I can imagine a pro telling a client that his(her) dog will be left behind because another has priority. Certainly pros are limited as to how much they can help at a test. Can one expect amateurs to volunteer time and again even if they cannot run their dogs? It is a fact that all clubs are limited as to the number of dogs at a HT by either the number of volunteers or the availability of grounds. 

I have wondered if it would be possible to have 4 regional qualifying tests maybe twice a year held at a club in the 4 regions on the same weekend as a qualifying event for the MN. It would take a club with sufficient grounds and access to volunteers to handle the number of dogs that would enter. Could something like this or something else relieve the competition between those who seek the title of MH and those that wish to qualify for the MN? There are a lot of members here with more experience and intelligence than I that might come up with a workable idea that might work for both the amateurs and the pros. That is what I would like to see.

Would it not be more productive to try to hash out a solution rather than to place blame? Change is never easy but change is how you grow.


----------

