# Master National Board - Are they on the right track?



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

For the past 4-5 years the MN has struggled with large entries and how to handle them. So far they have unsuccessfully found a way to reduce the numbers or increase the group to 3 to make it more manageable. AKC has been unwilling to assist by allowing a 3rd group and has made it clear they would like to see the “cream of the crop” and the “best of the best.” Of course this thinking goes against the stated purpose of the hunt test program as described on the AKC web site. It has been assumed that the majority of the dogs that don’t meet the “cream of the crop” or the “best of the best” typically go out early if not in the first series. It has also been assumed that those dogs “chase” passes and have overall a low pass percentage in master tests. The assumption that very young dogs with less training and experience also make up the majority of dogs that go out early. Based on these assumptions, the board has implemented new requirements to qualify for running in the MN in the hopes to reduce those numbers. Time will tell if that is successful or not. 

Yesterday I got to thinking about these assumptions and the past discussion, debates, arguments that I’ve had with people regarding this topic and decided to just take a look at the current dogs dropped in the first series to see if in my mind they match the description of young, inexperienced dogs that don’t deserve to be there. Using publicly available information from EntryExpress and the AKC website I was able to collect what I consider enough data to draw some conclusions regarding the dogs deemed “not deserving to be there” and not part of the “cream of the crop.” I was not able to accurately gather a true pass/fail ratio because not every test is entered through EntryExpress and AKC only shows the number for Master qualifications. I guess a short plug for Shayne would be that out of all the dogs dropped in the first series of the MN, there was only 1 that I could not find on EntryExpress. 



> A Group – 32 Dropped – 20% of the running dogs
> 2 dogs are MNH in the hall of fame
> 9 of the dogs are QAA, one with 8.5 open all age points, and 2 running open/amateur FT's.
> 21 dogs have more than 10 master passes
> ...





> B Group 36 Dropped – 23%
> 2 dogs are MNH in the hall of fame
> 8 of the dogs are QAA, 2 running open/amateur FT's and one is an AFC
> 23 dogs have more than 10 master passes
> ...


 Certainly this is not a scientific study by any means, but it was enough for me to question the theories that these dogs don’t deserve to be there. Only time will tell if increasing the pass requirements and putting % requirements on it will work, but frankly I think the board needs to take a fresh look a real solution. Oh, and I really don’t want to hear that those dogs didn’t deserve to be there. It sure looks to me like their owners put a lot of time and energy into training some pretty good dogs.

/Paul


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Amen to that!


----------



## Norene S. (Feb 23, 2003)

Paul,
Thanks for the stats........That took more than a little time to put together.
Very interesting. 

And as the Lady Duck Hunter said, "Amen to that!"

Norene S.
Nordom Chesapeakes


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Thanks for the info. Very interesting...............

I'll bet you put more thought into this than anyone over at the AKC.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 4, 2007)

Do not take this wrong, because I know that these dogs are very very well trained and a lot of time and money have been used, but I thought the cream of the crop where the feild trial dogs with NFCh, AFCh, FCh on them.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Don't take this wrong but an AFC has been dropped already. So your helping to make his point?


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

Nice work Paul and very interesting numbers.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Do not take this wrong, because I know that these dogs are very very well trained and a lot of time and money have been used, but I thought the cream of the crop where the feild trial dogs with NFCh, AFCh, FCh on them.


RE the cream of the crop thing....that is the whole point, the hunt tests are designed to be non competitive. The AKC has been striving to reduce the number of MH dogs qualified to enter the Master National by competitive means (currently, having the best pass rate) when there already exists a competitive field venue to find 'the best'. Many people feel the issue of large MN entries would best be served by finding other creative ways to manage large entries, not by making it a competition and restricting them, in keeping with the non competitive spirit of hunt tests.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Thats why I liked the idea that NFRA has.....you can pass the test and qualify......but a test WINNER gets that recognition....and some money! Bottom line is Americans are competitive at heart.Look at the ads....."Ive got the youngest....most passes....longest string of passes....never handled......" Ive always wondered why the best performance in a flight couldnt get something better than the dog that walks straight lines to the birds.People say" Its too hard to pick a winner of a hunt test" Ask the NFRA judges.....its not hard at all.


----------



## Brad Slaybaugh (May 17, 2005)

Thanks for the work Paul, interesting numbers!

I train with the AFC who was dropped in B. He is an awesome dog, qualified for the MN's with no handles on any marks and only 1 whistle on a blind in the five test he ran. The checkerboard was a difficult test, some dogs saw it and some didn't. 

I mentioned in an earlier post that the test differed from what I considered a regular weekend master test. I'm not sure this is right or not. If a dog can pass a master test (the stated AKC requirements) then is he a MH, regardless of age or quality of training, he passed five test that met the requirement. Then the dog goes to the MN's and the requirement is more strict? A stricter MN does not adress the entry, the entry occured on the weekend test.

I don't have the answer, just my thoughts on the subject. Having said that I did like the idea of a regional qualifier over the 5 of 7.

At our fall HT this year, we had 2 people drop thier dogs during the second series. As I was entering the info on EE, I wondered how to classify these dogs, ie: pass, scratch or fail? I contacted the HT secretary, she called AKC. The problem was the 5 of 7 rule. I didn't want to hurt these dogs chances unfairly. The stated reason was handler medical issues. The AKC's position was that a dog that is pulled from the test while still in contention is considered scratched. They also said the 5 of 7 has increased the rate of dogs "scratched during the test" dramatically. I didn't know you could scratch a dog once a test has started, or at least it never occured to me. The AKC had informed the MN that they created an issue with the 5 of 7 and it needs fixed. Time will tell where this ends up.

Thanks again for the info!!!


----------



## Margo Ellis (Jan 19, 2003)

I still don't know why they just don't add flights as the HRC does for the Grand. They manage 300+ dogs and have 4 flights. Is it the whole AKC control thing again that limits the qty of flights they can have? How many master flights can a club have on a given weekend? 

Confused as usual.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Margo Ellis said:


> I still don't know why they just don't add flights as the HRC does for the Grand. They manage 300+ dogs and have 4 flights. Is it the whole AKC control thing again that limits the qty of flights they can have? How many master flights can a club have on a given weekend?
> 
> Confused as usual.


The AKC shows their inconsistency between weekend hunts and the MN. They force clubs to split a weekend hunt at 60. A weekend HT could have 4 or 5 groups if their is enough entries for it. Yet they continually decline granting permission for the MN to break into 3 groups. 

/Paul


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

They deserve to be there if they meet the criteria to be there. 

Via those qualifications they have established themselves as creme' de la creme'. /Paul posted some great statistics, except for one that gets a lot of coverage in the galleries: the % of dogs that qualify for the MN's out of all dogs. (Kinda like the fact that only 1% of all Cub/Boy Scouts ever earn their Eagle rank). You can then draw a further distinction by identifying the % of those who pass and earn their MNH.

If the AKC wants these two "clubs" to be more exclusive, then they'll continue to make the qualifications (5 out of 7, etc) more stringent, and the MN tests more challenging. I know I'll feel like we've "made it" if we ever (1) qualify, then will have reached a higher pinnacle if we (2) earn a MNH title. Assuming we go that route....


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Dukdawg said:


> Thanks for the work Paul, interesting numbers!
> 
> I train with the AFC who was dropped in B. He is an awesome dog, qualified for the MN's with no handles on any marks and only 1 whistle on a blind in the five test he ran. The checkerboard was a difficult test, some dogs saw it and some didn't.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Amazing how people will find ways to cheat a system. I hadn't of doing that. I've always been in favor of regional qualifyer for the following reasons;

1. HT were designed for the guy who wants to run a good hunting dog. Most of these folks aren't rich. A regional would allow them to avoid the cost involved of going clear across the country to fail in a trick test designed to reduce the numbers.
2. It would reduce the numbers at the MN.
3. Much harder to cheat this. Once you have obtained your necessary passes you go run the qualifier and if you pass there make the bigger trip. It would stop the shopping for judges and the scratch situations mentioned
4. Its a proven successful method in numerous other dog venues
5. It could be run in one weekend


/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

2-Dogs said:


> If the AKC wants these two "clubs" to be more exclusive, then they'll continue to make the qualifications (5 out of 8, etc) more stringent, and the MN tests more challenging.



To make the tests more challenging they would have to change the standard. That goes against the posted purpose of the HT program.

/Paul


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Dukdawg said:


> Thanks for the work Paul, interesting numbers!
> 
> 
> The AKC's position was that a dog that is pulled from the test while still in contention is considered scratched. They also said the 5 of 7 has increased the rate of dogs "scratched during the test" dramatically. I didn't know you could scratch a dog once a test has started, or at least it never occured to me. The AKC had informed the MN that they created an issue with the 5 of 7 and it needs fixed.


Where was this info last Friday!!! During this weekend's second series I was developing a flaming case of red a$$, but ran my first dog anyway. (It miraculously cleared just as I was running my 2nd dog).

Oh well, 3 for 4 now regards,

Mark


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> To make the tests more challenging they would have to change the standard. That goes against the posted purpose of the HT program.
> 
> /Paul


OR at a weekend hunt test you could be competing against 2 standards. An average of 7 for a MH leg and a higher average (8-9) for a MN leg for that year. It could help reduce the MN numbers with no change in the current MH standard and provide for the "best of the best" concept.
Just a thought!

Tim


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> OR at a weekend hunt test you could be competing against 2 standards. An average of 7 for a MH leg and a higher average (8-9) for a MN leg for that year. It could help reduce the MN numbers with no change in the current MH standard and provide for the "best of the best" concept.
> Just a thought!
> 
> Tim


Well, I've had this debate about scoring with a variety of people. I think it has some real challenges;
1. Bringing consistancy to how judges determine what is a 7 vs 8
2. Creates a bigger issue of judge shopping and running for friends. MN already has enough "good ol boys" club issues, primarily in picking judges
3. Re-education of the entire judges base
4. Lot more paperwork for club secretaries

/Paul


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

I never judged a HT. How would the decision process between a 7-8 be different from a 6-7? or due many judges just consider P/F rather than a score?
I agree the paper work would increase.

Tim


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> I never judged a HT. How would the decision process between a 7-8 be different from a 6-7? or due many judges just consider P/F rather than a score?
> I agree the paper work would increase.
> 
> Tim


Well, mine is just one judges opinion but I do score each of the categories. There are some who basically do Pass/Fail. I can't imagine having to decide if a dog's work was a 7 or an 8 over the course of 3 series. Most of the time I have a 1 point swing either way in my head. I would not like to judge if I had to sit and decide which way to go and ultimately decide if that dog on that day should go to the MN. I certainly wouldn't want to have to explain to a handler why he deserves a Master Ribbon but in my mind wasn't good enough to go to the MN when the standard is exactly the same for both venues. Judging just wouldn't be fun anymore.

/Paul


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Ok. So I still don't get the whole 5 of 7 between this month and that month. Darla passed 5 of 7 tests entered. But the tests weren't between the right dates I think. 

If she passed two of the tests in August, then she would have to pass the rest of them the next summer before August 1? Is that right? And if she passed a couple of the tests before August of this year, those wouldn't count right? 

August what - August what? And why did they pick August? I am confused....


----------



## Brad Slaybaugh (May 17, 2005)

DEDEYE said:


> Ok. So I still don't get the whole 5 of 7 between this month and that month. Darla passed 5 of 7 tests entered. But the tests weren't between the right dates I think.
> 
> If she passed two of the tests in August, then she would have to pass the rest of them the next summer before August 1? Is that right? And if she passed a couple of the tests before August of this year, those wouldn't count right?
> 
> August what - August what? And why did they pick August? I am confused....


I think the qualify dates begin August 1st one year and end July 31 the next year. An example would be from August 1st 2007, until July 31st, 2008. A dog has to pass 5 out of 7 master test between these dates to qualify for the nationals.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

The dates were picked because the MN is held in Sept or October.


----------



## Swift River (Oct 19, 2007)

Hi All,

This is my first post, but I have enjoyed this webiste for while. Since I just got back from the MN I felt I should add my 2 cents. FYI, I am a pro.

Both my dogs went out in the first series. It was a great test, tough but fair!I thanked the judges and told them I wish I could be around to see the rest of their tests! One dog is 3 yrs old, the other is 4, both still young I guess, but they both could have done it, just had a bad day. btw, the 3yr old went 5 for 5

I have been running the MN since they started, I think I have only missed 4 or 5 of them. I've seen the worst (St Loius, were SeaTac's Oden was killed) and some of the best. My pass rate in regular weekend events is usually in the 90%, however I just did a spreadsheet on my MN performance and it's a dismall 23%. I did this spreadsheet to try point out the weaknesses that make me seem snakebit at the big dance. Hopefully this will let me see what's wrong and address it! 

I think the regionals would be good for the pro's, but I think it would be hard for the amatuer since they would have to travel, prepare and run a test that will use up even more of thier valuable vacation time. I think a Regional would need to be more than a weekend test to make it worth while and address the number of entries. I think it would be good for pro's since they might get more dogs to run to help the amatuer. The judging at this event is important, there might be great judging, but it might not be.

I like the idea of a passing avg score of 8 or better, but it all comes back to the root cause problem of poor and inconsistant judging. btw, I suggested this to the MN in 1999.

The 5 of 7 is fine, but I do see alot of people traveling 6 hours to run under and "easy" judge rather than to a test in their own back yard. Thats crazy! Again I think this is a root cause problem of poor and inconsistant judging. I'm not sure it will really reduce the numbers.

I think the AKC doesn't want to have more than 2 flights because they are afraid that there will be inconsistant judging and some people will end up in a "master light" flight while others get their butts kicked. Same tests for all, but easier/harder scoring. It's happend before with only 2 flights.

I don't really have an answer other than the AKC needs to do a better job of training and monitoring weekend judging. Not just at the Master level, but at all levels since I see poor judging at Jr and Sr and those people may eventually judge a Master. I think the bottom line is that the judging for weekend events needs to be more consistant and to the standard. If we can do that, then we can have 500 dogs at the MN and run 5 different flights and have consistant judging there as well. I don't think it should be easy to pass a MN, I agree that it should be judged to the high end of the standard. Getting a plate should be hard to do and you should be proud of getting one!

Buck


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Swift River said:


> The 5 of 7 is fine, but I do see alot of people traveling 6 hours to run under and "easy" judge rather than to a test in their own back yard. Thats crazy! Buck


That's funny! 6 hours *IS* my backyard! We have 4 double header hunt tests up here, and probably that will be cut to 3 because of help. One of the places is 7 hours away from my house and close to 9 from another location further south which people DO travel from. 

I think judging whle holding to the standard should be done. But I also agree with you that some are more lenient than others. I think judging is probably the hardest job for the test. 

This is quite the interesting thread for this Alaskan...


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Dukdawg said:


> I think the qualify dates begin August 1st one year and end July 31 the next year. An example would be from August 1st 2007, until July 31st, 2008. A dog has to pass 5 out of 7 master test between these dates to qualify for the nationals.


Ok. Thanks. I wasn't too far off. So if I wan't to try and qualify for next year, she will have to pass the 2 double headers in June unless I went to the Lower 48! Now that would be a long drive to find an easy judge...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 4, 2007)

You run toget 5 out of 7 to qualify for MN. But if "dog" is having a bad day and you don't feel well you and have started you can still scratch and doesn't cost a run? 
There are so many dogs that are scoring 5-7 that they are having a hard time running the MN, because of to many dogs. 
Everyone is worried about judging? 
They don't want to run another flight to accomidate the numbers so they "lighting" the runs? 
Sounds like a mess to me!


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

Let me try to shead a little light on this. 

In AKC's eyes by the club choosing the name Master NATIONAL it is shadowing the Open and AMAT National. However those tests contain nine series. AKC wants the MN to have nine series. 

Believe me the board has looked at an researched every angle. Regionals were a big topic but getting clubs to sponsor, workers, requiring MN board members to be in attendance all were considered. Then there is the handler who would be attending two tests as well as qualifying. The time and committment necessary was unbelieveable. 

We are a unique group. At hunting dog test there is no first through fourth with jams. All dogs receiving a qualifying score pass. We all know that is not how it is at field trials. 

Maybe one idea to toss around is changing the name to take National out, Master Hunting Dogs Series (notice is did NOT say Championship), for example and maybe looking at how the Grand is run and seeing if by adjusting the format it would satisfy everyone. The event would still run in the alloted time but with groups of 3 or 4 it would be possible to get nine series in. Something else AKC wants to see is only ONE set of judges which would be a hurdle with 3 or 4 flights. That would have to be worked out and discussed.

I have been off the board for one years and there isn't a week that goes by that I don't ponder an idea. Because of the numbers it is a complicated issue. Just my over view.

Cindy R.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 4, 2007)

How many dogs have qualified for the MN this year.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

497 qualified; 324 actually entered.


----------



## Lonny Taylor (Jun 22, 2004)

Folks,

Wouldnt it be best to see the way the new qualification systems works this next year and see if it does not help the problem before jumping ship and trying to change it again? This year was a transition year and did not impact the number of qualified dogs. Let us watch another year with the new system running the full course and then look at the results. There was some interesting statistics that they used to justify the new systems and it will be interesting to see how true those prove out. 

I have ran three Master Nationals and like the tests being tough and challeninging. I like the word "National" being included in the test because it is suppose to be the best hunting dogs across the country coming together to be tested and earn the respect of being one of the best hunting dogs in the country. 

On another note I do believe the hunt test community should start their own publication giving education, results and appropriate recognition to some of the best hunting dogs in the country. I have always felt that RFTN treats the HT community as second class citizens and a necessary evil. Having trained both FT and HT dogs, I now appreciate the effort that goes into the making of a MH and MN finalist. It is a totally different game and requires alot of work and dedication to reach the top. All you have to do is look at the numbers to realize how extrodinarally successful the Hunt test game has become. Sometimes I believe the HT community does not stand up and flex their muscles a bit. Common sense and not emotion will resolve the issues that we face. I do believe that some steps have been taken in the right direction. We need to give them a chance then make sound decisions after we have a chance to view the results. 

LT


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

The qualifications are fine as set we are not looking for a winner we are looking for dogs that meet the standard set forth. The problem is NOT dealing with the numbers that do qualify. This is a HT venue and once a dog qualifies it may run the MN if the owner decides to do so. The problem lies with both MN and AKC and their decision to try to reduce numbers rather than accommodate numbers. If you build it they will come and come they have. Quit bitching and accept a split or two or three and deal with the numbers as HRC does. AKC/MN needs to swallow their pride and accept that this can be done as it is by HRC and deal with it.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Cindy Read said:


> Let me try to shead a little light on this.
> 
> In AKC's eyes by the club choosing the name Master NATIONAL it is shadowing the Open and AMAT National. However those tests contain nine series. AKC wants the MN to have nine series.
> 
> ...


If the HT venue treated blinds as separate series, then it would be 9 series. Frankly AKC needs to quit comparing the two. One set of judges in a competitive situation is necessary. Not so in a HT. If you want 9 series, count the series the same way. The FT Nationals only consist of 5 or 6 MN series if you count series the same way. I get the impression AKC is spending so much time working at making an apple taste like an orange so they can compare them...in any event I'm rather indignant that I've heard AKC performance folks like Jerry and Joe say that they only want to see the best of the best and the cream of the crop. A HT won't produce that unless you turn it into a FT format and start comparing dogs. They need to have enough of an open mind to see the difference and frankly I don't think they can.

/Paul


----------



## Cindy Read (Nov 13, 2004)

Paul:

Thank you. As has been said before, the MN board is following directives from AKC. Just maybe where the pressure needs to come from is the hunting test handlers or the clubs they belong to. I don't mean just the clubs that are MN members, but all the clubs putting on a hunting test event. AKC gets a fee for each dog entered at an event so them why doesn't each and every club holding an event have a say?

Lets are remember where the stumbling block is and just maybe working as team can bring about change.

Cindy


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

For the sake of argument what would happen if the MN and/ or many of the weekend test were made owner/handler only? Either or both would reduce the numbers quite a bit, and help get the game back to Joe or Jane Sixpac running their dogs as was part of the original vision of the hunt test program.


----------



## jisaac (Dec 26, 2005)

Don't forget John/sixpack-seriously Bob G. suggestion is interesting and would be a step towards "keeping it real" but the it might morph into two classes "open and amateur"
John
"take it to the limit-one more time" Eagles


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2007)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, all this has been discussed before and ad infinitum (or whatever that word is) at the national meetings all the way back, and probably further, to the first master national I attended in thomasville in 2003.

Honestly... I don't understand why the MN MUST stay with AKC, except that the bylaws and the club, or whatever legalise is involved, state somehow and somewhere that the akc somehow "owns" the MN event.

The only reason to stay with akc, as far as I can tell and given what I feel I've come to understand over the last several years, is to gain a title or recognition. They aren't going to give us a title...

Personally, I like the way the grand is run, although I've never been. Groups of judges and each group judging all dogs in the same series, while handlers and dogs rotate among the series. 

Look, ANY change they make NOW to reduce numbers... Mark my word... ANY change they make NOW to reduce numbers will need to be redressed in "x" years as the sport grows and there become hundreds of dogs easily obtaining the 5 of 7 passes, either because of improvements in training or because of sheer volume.

They complain about time and money... By limiting dogs, you're just limiting income, financial impact of the sport in general and the number of people that continue to be involved at higher levels.

From a BUSINESS perspective... Come up with a creative way -- it's right there in the UNITED KENNEL CLUB - HUNTING RETRIEVER CLUB -- to address large numbers, put money in your pocket, recognize the CONSISTENTLY performing top dogs (GRHRCH, i.e.) and make everyone happy.

Cut the numbers, reduce the income, limit a club's or group of club's ability to financially conduct a sound and enjoyable event... And you're asking for a group of unhappy handlers.

I'm confused about some of the directions being taken by the MNRC (one of the most recent ones is that they're taking over the sales of merchandise from the most recent contractor). There were lots of things missing and incomplete this year -- I'm not complaining AT ALL, but to take on more when some of the most fundamental annual stuff wasn't completed is just kind of odd... And from what I was told, it's to "make money"... There are some great ways to make money, i.e., more dogs!!!!! LOL

NOW.... This year, they had "hired" help that they didn't have to pay for (which was GREAT of course!!! -- thanks to DAVE KRESS). But the crew was SUPER!!! It allowed lots of folks to NOT work and be able to enjoy themselves.

I just want to see the event do well.

I set myself up for disappointment by attending Thomasville as my first MN experience and it was unbelievable in every detail -- from a participant's perspective.

I hope the event continues to be successful and the clubs and board have room to move to do some things to make their lives easier and the event more successful and enjoyable for everyone.

-K


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Hope you all got back home safe from Virginia. 

Kristie, the word is "nauseum", and yes it's rather tiring hearing the same old same old. 
Ratios, regionals, percentages, lottery, amatuer, pro, owner, bla,bla,bla. As you said, manage for the continued growth and success of this sport and the MN will flourish with or without the AKC.

It's rather difficult to reach the standard set by the group in Thomasville in 03. No disrespect intended to any other MN host club now or in the future, but that was one fine event!!! This was the third MN I've entered and have always returned back home feeling better than when I left...irregardless of how the dogs and I have fared.

Great people, great dogs, and the challenges of testing our teamwork will keep us coming back.

Viva La Chien!! (I think this means "Long Live the Dog")

Mike Berube


----------



## Terry Thomas (Jun 27, 2005)

I would like to correct one thing Paul stated, or at least how I interprted it.
MNH doesn't mean Master National Hall of Fame.
MNH is a club title bestowed by the Master National Club on those dogs that have passed two Master Nationals.
Master National Hall of Fame is also bestowed by the Master National Club but to those dogs that have passed three or more Mater Nationals.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Terry Thomas said:


> I would like to correct one thing Paul stated, or at least how I interprted it.
> MNH doesn't mean Master National Hall of Fame.
> MNH is a club title bestowed by the Master National Club on those dogs that have passed two Master Nationals.
> Master National Hall of Fame is also bestowed by the Master National Club but to those dogs that have passed three or more Mater Nationals.


Right.

/Paul


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Frankly AKC needs to quit comparing the two. One set of judges in a competitive situation is necessary.



Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.


This is REALLY where the problem really boils down to - the performance powers that be in the AKC really don't like the Hunt Test program and wish it would go away. They view it as drawing people away from the Field Trial program. Never mind that the reality is that the HT and FT programs are very complementary... 

One of the comments I heard from a (recent) former MN BoD member was "the AKC would like the MN to be run exactly like the National Amatuer and National Open - where at the end of the last series there is a single "National Master" dog named (ie. a champion).". 

This attitude is in direct opposition to what the Hunt Test program is *supposed* to be about (non-competitive). So long as this attitude continues to exist with the AKC, there can never be a *real* solution to the problem.


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> For the sake of argument what would happen if the MN and/ or many of the weekend test were made owner/handler only? Either or both would reduce the numbers quite a bit, and help get the game back to Joe or Jane Sixpac running their dogs as was part of the original vision of the hunt test program.



This is like poking someone in the eye with a sharp stick to treat a case of syphilis. 

It only makes the person mad and does nothing to treat the disease.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, Mike and Kristie, I guess you'll be teaching your dogs to roll over and play dead with attitudes like that. Your the perfect customer for a MN organization that hasn't provided solutions to the issues it faces, and has no real growth/improvement plans...

Put down the kool-aid and use the sneakers they gave you to run away...

/Paul


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

TxFig said:


> This is REALLY where the problem really boils down to - the performance powers that be in the AKC really don't like the Hunt Test program and wish it would go away.


This is NOT True. 



TxFig said:


> One of the comments I heard from a (recent) former MN BoD member was "the AKC would like the MN to be run exactly like the National Amatuer and National Open - where at the end of the last series there is a single "National Master" dog named (ie. a champion)."


This is true. My understanding is the AKC wants the "National" to produce 1 "National" champion. Just like all the other AKC "National" events, (not just the field trial nationals).


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> This is true. My understanding is the AKC wants the "National" to produce 1 "National" champion. Just like all the other AKC "National" events, (not just the field trial nationals).




Perhaps they should read their own HT description posted on their own web page. Kinda ironic isn't it...

/paul


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Julie R. said:


> 497 qualified; 324 actually entered.


This tells me there are many reasons people enter their dogs in Master Hunt Tests, not just primarily to go to the Master Nationals. I don't think 173 dogs didn't show up because they were in season. I know of two dogs personally that didn't go because it just wasn't that important even though they were qualified. That in itself was enough. One dog was ours. She has qualified 3 years in a row and only went to the first one. 

Someone spoke of "chasing passes" so they are not the cream of the crop. As someone else stated earlier, "cream of the crop" is in my thinking, only for FT. Master tests are not competitive except to the individual dog and its owner/handler. Competitive in that it must pass or else fail. I happen to have another dog that is "chasing passes" but not to go to the Master Nationals. I just want him to have a Master Hunt Title. Will I ever breed him? Probably not, unless someone just absolutely wants to breed to him. I just want him to enjoy the activity of hunting, being involved in the sport we love. He passed a few, then really "stayed too long at the dance" and became burned out. Along the way, he actually was screwed out of two passes blatantly, the rest he did on his own. It probably would be nice to say he actually qualified for the Master Nationals, but would we either send him or take him, absolutely not. 

I guess my point is, the tougher they make even passing a Master test just to keep the numbers down going to the Master Nationals is absurd. All that will happen is that people will begin to be turned off by the whole thing and it will then become just a Pro's event. Amateurs and owners will become fed up and they don't have either the time or the funds to take off from work or be away or even be in a location where there are enough tests to run in. And if they continually get failed because some judge is a "hanging judge" like one we had, then again why even bother to get involved. AKC and MNRC should be happy that the sport is becoming more popular, that more and more people are seeing that their dogs can perform more than just back yard activities and that the bonding between a dog and a human has no limits. Isn't that what these organizations are all about? Isn't that why AKC is now having sports events for even the mixed breeds? What happens when that becomes too popular. There are way more mixed breeds out there. 

I guess it is like anything else. When you get big and powerful, you tend to lose sight of what you were actually into in the beginning. I would strongly suggest that AKC and MNRC come up with some kind of a resolution without penalizing the people that just want to take their dog through to a Master Title. 

Arleen


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> This is NOT True.
> 
> 
> This is true. My understanding is the AKC wants the "National" to produce 1 "National" champion. Just like all the other AKC "National" events, (not just the field trial nationals).




If the second is true, then how can the first NOT be true? Changing a non-competitive event into a competitive would seem to be a strong indicator of not liking what the HT program is now.


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Paul...I was actually thinking of teaching the dogs to do just that...lie down and play dead. One just never knows what scenario/s handlers and their dogs will be faced with. 

My point is simply this. Until the AKC steps up and directs/tells/mandates/instructs, ASSISTS, etc. the MNRC BOD under what requirements they will license a test, we are all simply spinning our wheels. Personally, I favor a regional if in fact number reduction is the underlying issue. I would, however, favor any proposal that is fair to EVERY DOG/OWNER & HANDLER across the country.

Unfortunately, no one proposal seems to meet everyone's panacea. The survey questions/results from 03 undeniably support that fact. The AKC reps were ambiguous at best in response to direct questions in 03 & 04 from board members and delegates regarding "reduction in numbers", "single flight", "best of the best", bla,bla,bla.

As someone else posted in this thread previously (sorry, haven't mastered cut and paste), inconsistencies in weekend judging clearly need to be addressed. Note to self: I wonder where that responsibility lies.

I enjoy the MN event and hope it will continue for the reasons in my previous post.

Respectfully,
Mike Berube


----------



## Tville (Jun 29, 2005)

My 2cents:

1) I believe the Performance peole at AKC are afraid that the MN will overshadow the field trial aspect of the retriever game if allowed to continue to grow. This growth / high number of participants, etc. is not lost on vendors and sponsors

2) Progress/problem solving with the AKC will be difficult as long as the Performance Division peole are all field trial oriented - which they now are. ( The introductory information of the "new Bill Speck" at this years opening ceremonies was all field trial related as I remember it.) The hunt test venue needs a hunt test person as an AKC rep - not someone who wants us to look like a field trial with out white coats


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Doesn't seem odd: that some people do not want their dog evaluated "good vs better" at a weekend test HTs but ultimately want to able to distinguish a MH from a MNH ?
The mere existence of the event is setting a group apart as "better". Why not prove each weekend and not just once per year? 
I guess they want the bragging rights without the competition.

Tim


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i think the situation could be changed to make everyone happy, but that it would require thinking "outside the box".....

the MN really doesn't have to have ANYTHING to do with the weekend tests. it could be open to EVERY MH dog.

they need to get to work and set up their own rulebook, including judging guidelines, and make the standard so high that most dogs HAVE NO CHANCE of getting a plate. who would spend the $, drive the miles, live on the road for 2-3 weeks, if they knew it was beyond their ability to pass?

this is not tongue-in-cheek. i am serious.

anyone who thinks the MN is not about "my dog's better than your dog" has rose-colored glasses on. 

the MNRC needs to cut to the chase.-paul


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Troopers Mom said:


> I guess my point is, the tougher they make even passing a Master test just to keep the numbers down going to the Master Nationals is absurd. All that will happen is that people will begin to be turned off by the whole thing and it will then become just a Pro's event. I guess it is like anything else. I would strongly suggest that AKC and MNRC come up with some kind of a resolution without penalizing the people that just want to take their dog through to a Master Title.


My sentiments exactly and it's opposite of the vision of why the HT were created-not made to be a pro sport.


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

One solution would be to have a stake for those who want to qualify for the Master National after they receive the title. Other performance sports have that - a B division for those dogs who have their titles (or for handlers who already have an OTCH for example) where you know the judging is going to be a little more ticky. That way the new Master folks could slog along in that stake, and once they title could move on to that stake if they chose.

I realize the problems with grounds and staffing for another stake and that some clubs might have to offer one or the other. 

But from what I understand hunt tests were supposed to be more on instinct, not chock full of pros with trucks full of dogs. But what do I know?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Merrymaker said:


> One solution would be to have a stake for those who want to qualify for the Master National after they receive the title.


Do a search on MHX or master excellence. Rules were written but actually most participants said they didn't want it. I thought it was a valid solution for those that are interested in the Master National and would not effect those that just want to achieve the MH title.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Do a search on MHX or master excellence. Rules were written but actually most participants said they didn't want it. I thought it was a valid solution for those that are interested in the Master National and would not effect those that just want to achieve the MH title.


FYI

A search on MHX won't work, apparently search terms have to be greater than 3 letters


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Well, Mike and Kristie, I guess you'll be teaching your dogs to roll over and play dead with attitudes like that. Your the perfect customer for a MN organization that hasn't provided solutions to the issues it faces, and has no real growth/improvement plans...
> 
> Put down the kool-aid and use the sneakers they gave you to run away...
> 
> /Paul


??? I'm confused... What did I say that indicates I should roll over and play dead?

I thought I put up some sound (feasible is another thing) ideas for growth and improvement, both now and in the past?

-K


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

My personal opinion is that there is no point in trying to "fix" something that the participants don't feel is "broken" in the first place. I believe most of us who have been involved look at the Master National as not one of My dog is bette than someone elses but as a celebration of a goal met by handler and dog. We enjoy the opportunity to get together with others who wish to celebrate their accomplishments.

In the meeting of 2004 (Wisconsin), there was an overwhelming vote asking the board to look at ways to manage the higher numbers and still put on a quality event. Lots of different ideas were tossed about. Two years later they finally got the vote (California 2006) on the method they preferred and put into place the 5 of 7 or 8 passes during the qualification period. 

We all see that the idea did not lower the numbers that much. We've been told to wait and see when all the failures in the other months (August, September, October, and November) tests are figured in. This is that year.... all passes and failures will be counted. My prediction is we will not see significantly lower numbers.

The Hunt Test game in general is popular, because it is fun and goals are attainable for the owner who may have limited resources (time and money) but still would like to get out and let his dog deelope into the best he can be with what they have.

It is my opinion that lowering the numbers as significantly as they want to will leave the amateur handler out of the that part of the game. We are talking about leaving out basically 3/4 of the dogs that qualify to enter now. Any method that would accomplish that would have to have a negative impact on the game in general.

Maybe it is time to split the Master National into two events occuring at approximately the same time but in differerent regions of the country. 

The origional MN would stay basically what it is. 

The newer event would be for the amateur owner handler.

When the dog gets the invitation to attend a decision would have to be made to attend one or the other.

The Amateur Master National would be held in the region that is 2 zones removed from the MN event. Like this coming year the MN is to be in Region 2 so the AMN would be held in Region 4. Since the dog can't be entered in both it would divide the number of entries in each of the two events.

Just another idea tossed out there to ponder on........


----------



## Chris S. (Dec 15, 2004)

What if the board makes the Master National an invitation event only? 

The only way in enter is if you are invited. Something like you must pass X number of weekend tests that period, and have at least X number of nominations from 8 point judges that judged you that period?


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Chris S. said:


> What if the board makes the Master National an invitation event only?
> 
> The only way in enter is if you are invited. Something like you must pass X number of weekend tests that period, and have at least X number of nominations from 8 point judges that judged you that period?


Nice idea, but unfortunately, it won't work. Human nature being what it is, politics will play a part and eventually it will become totally corrupt.

Arleen


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Actually it is by "invitation only" now. That is why there is a qualification period etc. If it were not, since it is considered a normal master test by AKC (when you pass you get the normal master pass orange ribbon) anyone who wanted to go could.


----------



## Pepper Dawg (Sep 26, 2007)

I think this has been an interesting discussion and helpful. I just wonder if "competition" isn't really the root cause of all the discussion. Human nature is what it is and no matter how we try to rationalize this, most of us want to do well and be in that select group that "passes the test". I know I have to keep reminding myself that the "fun" in the hunt test game comes from training my own dog, developing a team relationship with him, the comraderie that I have with others in my local club and training group, sharing what I know, and having my dog meet the standards of the stated objectives of the AKC as it relates to the hunt test game. If our dogs can meet the current standard we should be proud of that. If we want a MN then fine, but let all go if they want to without regard to titles etc. If we want only the "cream of the crop" at the MN then IMHO we are going down the road towards the same format as we already have established iin FTs. I don't think a MN in and of itself has anything to do with the original purpose of hunt tests. If my dog passes the 5 tests required of him and earns the MH title, then he has met the standard of a Master Hunter period. No MN is needed to prove anything else if we follow the original reasons for having hunt tests. If we want to narrow the field down more because we think we will improve the breed, then raise the standard for all participants. If we want to keep the hunt test game the way it should be IMHO, we don't need the MN. If I want competition, then I can play the FT game.
Respectfully,
Les


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Paul...I was actually thinking of teaching the dogs to do just that...lie down and play dead. One just never knows what scenario/s handlers and their dogs will be faced with.



Mike my old tag line was "yes ma'am i train these dogs everyday. No Ma'am they won't rollover and play dead." Maybe I should teach a dog to play dead it would be cool on the honor.....

/Paul


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2007)

Pepper Dawg said:


> I think this has been an interesting discussion and helpful. I just wonder if "competition" isn't really the root cause of all the discussion. Human nature is what it is and no matter how we try to rationalize this, most of us want to do well and be in that select group that "passes the test". I know I have to keep reminding myself that the "fun" in the hunt test game comes from training my own dog, developing a team relationship with him, the comraderie that I have with others in my local club and training group, sharing what I know, and having my dog meet the standards of the stated objectives of the AKC as it relates to the hunt test game. If our dogs can meet the current standard we should be proud of that. If we want a MN then fine, but let all go if they want to without regard to titles etc. If we want only the "cream of the crop" at the MN then IMHO we are going down the road towards the same format as we already have established iin FTs. I don't think a MN in and of itself has anything to do with the original purpose of hunt tests. If my dog passes the 5 tests required of him and earns the MH title, then he has met the standard of a Master Hunter period. No MN is needed to prove anything else if we follow the original reasons for having hunt tests. If we want to narrow the field down more because we think we will improve the breed, then raise the standard for all participants. If we want to keep the hunt test game the way it should be IMHO, we don't need the MN. If I want competition, then I can play the FT game.
> Respectfully,
> Les


There's still a "competition" to it, even if you're just choosing the barebones five passes.

I think we can all agree that there's a difference in a dog that passes five master tests over three years, with many failures, yet finally achieves its title... And a dog that passes almost everything it runs plus however many master nationals...

Sure, it's NOT an FC and it's not an all-age dog, I know. But it's a dog that can perform consistenly, day in and day out, at the highest level of its game (even though the game is pass/fail). It would be like comparing Auggie to a dog with a handful of all age placements over its lifetime. Sure, both are nice dogs, great dogs. But one has shown that it has the consistency of performance that the other may not have.

There are other AKC "games" that have the element of pass/fail, yet award dogs for top performance or consistency. An official title will be nice, but when me and my dog are dead and buried, I'm not that worried about it... It's just that this is the game we choose to play, we enjoy the master national, we enjoy continuing to train for and run the master test on the weekend. The week long event is something that many master dogs cannot complete because it requires consistenty and intestinal fortitude that some dogs don't have to gut it out over the week. It highlights dogs that can perform and pass for a longer period of time than the "3-series" weekend.

And for those of us not very interested in running trials, who enjoy the hunt test game, it's an additional and demanding challenge for us and our dogs.

-K


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Kristie Wilder said:


> There's still a "competition" to it, even if you're just choosing the barebones five passes.
> 
> I think we can all agree that there's a difference in a dog that passes five master tests over three years, with many failures, yet finally achieves its title... And a dog that passes almost everything it runs plus however many master nationals...
> 
> ...


I think the Master National is a good thing for those that want to continue on beyond the 5 Master passes to get the title; however, raising the standards so far out of reach of a lot of dogs due to not being trained by a Pro, or someone who does not have the time to train their dog on a full time basis is not practical for the majority of HT participants. The numbers of dogs that qualify and attend is still the majority even though there is a significant number that don't attend for whatever reason indicates the need. But then, for those that want to continue on and enjoy the time spent, raise the standards of the Master Nationals instead since it does determine which dogs can sustain and be consistent day after day. But I thought the Master Hunt Test was more to the liking of what a true hunting scenario might entail. Some setups in regular Master tests now are not even remotely realistic in a true hunting scenario. If this were to be the case, then those that want to pursue the Master Nationals, they can consider their dogs to be the best of the best without jeopardizing the dogs that can't for one reason or another, stay consistent and on top of every scenario thrown at them. 

Kristie, I know you are a Pro and you consistently take 8 to 10 dogs to the Master Nationals every year and do very well as does Lyle Steinman. But you are Pros and that is your number one job. But just out of curiosity, other than your own dogs and those of your own breedings, how many other dogs not of your own lines have you taken to the Master National? I'm only asking because we all tend to know our own dogs better and what they can produce. 

Arleen


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Kristie Wilder said:


> There's still a "competition" to it, even if you're just choosing the barebones five passes.
> 
> I think we can all agree that there's a difference in a dog that passes five master tests over three years, with many failures, yet finally achieves its title... And a dog that passes almost everything it runs plus however many master nationals...
> 
> ...


Funny, the dogs that went out in the first series were previous passers of the master national and have showed much more consistency in the HT careers than you describe here? Some of them have records most dogs dream of. 

/Paul


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Funny, the dogs that went out in the first series were previous passers of the master national and have showed much more consistency in the HT careers than you describe here? Some of them have records most dogs dream of.
> 
> /Paul


And your point is? On average, the consistent performers are the ones that finish the event.

There are data points within there that don't fit the trend -- either weak dogs that do finish or strong dogs that don't.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2007)

> Kristie, I know you are a Pro and you consistently take 8 to 10 dogs to the Master Nationals every year and do very well as does Lyle Steinman. But you are Pros and that is your ]number one job. But just out of curiosity, other than your own dogs and those of your own breedings, how many other dogs not of your own lines have you taken to the Master National? I'm only asking because we all tend to know our own dogs better and what they can produce.
> 
> Arleen


 
It has nothing to do with pro versus am. Anyone who says the amateurs "can't compete" is basically disrespecting the ams that work and train hard, consistently finish their dogs -- and plenty are able to do that while juggling full-time jobs, families, etc.

There are pros that don't finish may dogs, just as there are ams that don't. 

Your argument above supports the am because they tend to be closer to their dogs and know them better than any pro. I have my 6-8 bitches that I consistently qualify and then I have a few client dogs. I don't train in mass quantity like other pros, so you won't see me with 12+ dogs that don't belong to me. I'm not sure how it's relative to the discussion, but there's the info.

-K


----------



## Pepper Dawg (Sep 26, 2007)

Kristie Wilder said:


> There's still a "competition" to it, even if you're just choosing the barebones five passes.
> 
> I think we can all agree that there's a difference in a dog that passes five master tests over three years, with many failures, yet finally achieves its title... And a dog that passes almost everything it runs plus however many master nationals...
> 
> ...


Kristie, Yes there is competition, but that makes my point. It is human nature to want to be included in a "best group" or for some, to be the best. I'm a very competitive person myself. However, I also would prefer that the HT game stay within the guidelines as they were originally intended. To test my dog's performance against "the standard". And yes there are differences from one dog to the next. Those differences involve breeding, temperament, training, trainability, environment, health, desire and several others. As an example I have 3 yr old blf who has her JH, SH, and 3 out of 12 MH passes. I have done all her training myself and most of her failures are my fault. I'm still learning and I have made some mistakes! I know dogs here in my area who have done much better than us. Some certainly are better trained and maybe more talented, but the reverse is also true. I'm sure in your hands or in the hands of a more experienced amateur she would be a MH by now. What I love about the HT game is that we pass or fail based on "that standard". I'm seeing young families coming out to see what is going on and the next thing you know they come back, get involved, and get absolutely pumped up when "Fido" gets his first JH ribbon. This venue has been set-up originally so that anyone who wants to can get a retriever and play the game without breaking the bank. From a rank amateur to a polished pro, rich or poor, week-end warrior or retired, hunter or non-hunter, if you have the desire you can play this game. When my girl gets her MH title with me at the line, it will mean she has met "the standard" just as many other dogs have done before her. In this venue, the number of failures means nada. IMHO those who want to see how their dogs stack up against other dogs ( and I think that is where the MN is heading) then the FT venue should be a good place to test your team against another team. IMHO.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Chris S. said:


> What if the board makes the Master National an invitation event only?
> 
> The only way in enter is if you are invited. Something like you must pass X number of weekend tests that period, and have at least X number of nominations from 8 point judges that judged you that period?


Well, the event now is bad enough with the good old boys club. Take the judges selections for example. No real requirements indicating judging quality, but rather its a popularity run. Out here in the NW we actually hold political campaigns and trade club votes to get people nominated and voted in. Nowhere in the selection process is any consideration to how good a judge someone is. If we went to this method it truly would be a popularity contest.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Kristie Wilder said:


> And your point is? On average, the consistent performers are the ones that finish the event.
> 
> There are data points within there that don't fit the trend -- either weak dogs that do finish or strong dogs that don't.


Fact of the matter is over the past 5 years of my tracking the drop percentages by series, consistently the first series is over 30%, the following series are 15% and the last series or 2 is almost 0%. It has been my experience judging master that for the most part your going to see about the same level of drops per series if you judge and set tests in a consistent manner. But that wouldn't manage the numbers very well would it? Are the dogs really inconsistant or are they falling victim to trick tests or tests that fall outside the standard as stated by AKC?

/paul


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

I have a dumb queston. So if you get to go to Nationals, then you pass National, is your dog a "National Master Hunter" or something like that? Or do you have to take the dog to Nationals X amount of times to get that? Or is there even such a thing? 

I read something about going 3 times being in the Hall of Fame. What??


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> I have a dumb queston. So if you get to go to Nationals, then you pass National, is your dog a "National Master Hunter" or something like that? Or do you have to take the dog to Nationals X amount of times to get that? Or is there even such a thing?
> 
> I read something about going 3 times being in the Hall of Fame. What??


 
Here is a link to the titles bestowed by the Master National Club. These are club titles only (not recognized by AKC)

http://www.masternational.com/awards/index.asp

Other than that, you just get a pewter plate.

Jeff


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

jeff t. said:


> Here is a link to the titles bestowed by the Master National Club. These are club titles only (not recognized by AKC)
> 
> http://www.masternational.com/awards/index.asp
> 
> ...


Thanks. I think it would be awesome just to qualify to go! I think I might give it a whirl next summer. She would need 4 passes since I quit running it once she got her MH. Did the apprentice judging thing instead. She went 5 for 7. Maybe we can get the 4 passes in 4 tries! LOL! Cuz that is all the chances we would have together up here because of the dates. 

Probably with my luck, she will go into heat in June, and there goes that! Someone from up here went last year and passed. He said it was super fun! Pretty sure I would like a plate to add to my shrine!

Anyhow.....


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> Here is a link to the titles bestowed by the Master National Club. These are club titles only (not recognized by AKC)
> 
> http://www.masternational.com/awards/index.asp
> 
> ...



You also get an orange ribbon! It is a good experience to get to go, whether you come home with the hardware or not. That is why I am so opposed to any change that will limit the amateur with a job from going.

Good luck to all who are trying to get there!


----------



## makem_masters (Oct 25, 2007)

Just some thoughts I've had regarding all of these issues:

1) Since we're talking about the National, I'll start there. The argument over Field Trial dogs being better or playing that other competitive game is beginning to irritate me. I'm tired of seeing comparisons between the two different sports. Field Trials are looking at supreme marking ability and that "hot" aspect of a dog. 300+ yrd marks are great, but not what I look for in a good Hunt Test dog or hunting companion. For one thing, most of those "hot" dogs can't sit still long enough to hunt with. They've go so much go that they're creeping out of the layout blind for example. I mean, the AFC goes out in the first series in the B group at the Master National this year. I don't know why because I wasn't there, but my guess would be he broke. Just a guess though, so no offense. In the HT game, I'm looking for a dog that I can actually hunt with. The dog has some go to it, but can sit still for as long as the hunt last. (this also reaffirms my question as to why don't hunt test people breed to quality hunt test dogs instead of AFC FC etc) There's been some GREAT HT dogs. 5x MNational Qualifier H & H'S TCHOUPITOULAS TOMAHAWK is a GREAT dog, but nobody wants him because he's not an FC. I know he went out this year at the National but he's 11, so give him a break. If I am looking for a dog to play the HT game, I look at the best in that game! 

My second opinion: The game. I play the HT game because it is supposed to most resemble "Hunting". I'm tired of seeing judges making test harder by making them longer. This doesn't do anything for me except waste time as I watch my dog swim 150 yards to a bird. Three birds and a blind that are all around 100 yards and usually longer these days is ridiculous. Honestly, ask yourself when the last time you and your buddy shot 3 birds all out at 80+ yards. I never have! I understand a blind that distance, a cripple sailed away etc, but not every bird. When I go duck hunting all of my shots are 30 yards and closer, why can't hunt test do that? I would love to go to a test and see a triple that's in your face, and a drooling flyer at 15 yards. Isn't that more realistic? Couldn't you make the test just as "hard" with close birds? Maybe I'm a young, dumb, college student, but I just like testing my dogs in HUNTING situations. 

As for the Master National- I looked at the pictures, and I know that probably doesn't quantify my response but here goes. IMO what I saw were training exercises. The cover was absolutely ridiculous. Let me get this straight... I can't see my dog for a period of time, when he comes out and is not near the bird, he's switched and I'm out. That's great, I watched a dog run through 3 ft cover, smelled a bird he couldn't see, went to it, and we're going home. I don't know... I just think we should get back to the basics, put judges in the chair that actually love duck hunting since this sport is what we're recreating. I think the first thing a judge should do is say, "One time when I was duck hunting, XYZ happened and it was a challenge for my dog to make the retrieves." 

Ok, off the podium, back to the books.


----------



## mike hodge (Aug 31, 2003)

"For one thing, most of those "hot" dogs can't sit still long enough to hunt with."

Not true. I've run in FTs and competed at the MN. This is one of the biggest myths about FT dogs.


----------



## makem_masters (Oct 25, 2007)

mike hodge said:


> "For one thing, *most* of those "hot" dogs can't sit still long enough to hunt with."
> 
> Not true. I've run in FTs and competed at the MN. This is one of the biggest myths about FT dogs.



I know. I've seen both sides of the equation. I've seen both of the best run. 8x Master National Qualifier and been to Attar's and Lardy's place. My opinion though, is that I would rather have the 8x MNQ with me in the blind or running HT's. Too bad he's past on.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

makem_masters said:


> Since we're talking about the National, I'll start there. The argument over Field Trial dogs being better or playing that other competitive game is beginning to irritate me. I'm tired of seeing comparisons between the two different sports. Field Trials are looking at supreme marking ability and that "hot" aspect of a dog. 300+ yrd marks are great, but not what I look for in a good Hunt Test dog or hunting companion. For one thing, most of those "hot" dogs can't sit still long enough to hunt with. .


Let me see

You don't like generalizations about HT dogs
But you are happy to make generalizations about FT dogs

That makes a lot of sense


----------



## makem_masters (Oct 25, 2007)

I just feel like we're always comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples. Don't get me wrong, if I were in the FT game, I wouldn't bother with HT dogs or their breeding. As I said earlier, to me, IMO these are two different sports. Not a Major League vs. Triple A comparison, but two different sports with two different types of retrievers. I didn't really mention any generalizations about HT dogs, so I won't bother going there but, I have been around some of the best FT dogs alive today, and for hunting purposes and hunting tests, I would rather have a proven HT dog. But like i said, apples to apples right? 
I really hope I wasn't taken as putting down FT dogs. They are AWESOME dogs in their sport. To me, it's just a different sport/game. I'm sure it's an argument that will never rest, just throwing my 2 cents into the pot.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Look I think everyone should play whatever sports they want

You get tired of hearing how FT dogs are better than HT dogs
I get tired of hearing how hot and uncontrollable FT dogs are

I don't make judgments about your game
So do me the favor of not making judgments of mine


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Look I think everyone should play whatever sports they want
> 
> You get tired of hearing how FT dogs are better than HT dogs
> I get tired of hearing how hot and uncontrollable FT dogs are
> ...


Well, I play both and I can say that there are certainly dogs better suited to each game. Is one better than the other? Hard to say, for the most part they have very similar if not exact bloodlines. Like people each dog is unique and i've learned to appreciate them for who they are. I don't make dogs do what they aren't naturally inclined to do, nor make them do something their not capable of. There's too many dogs and options out there to force something that doesn't really fit. 

/Paul


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

> *makem_masters* As I said earlier, to me, IMO these are two different sports. Not a Major League vs. Triple A comparison, but two different sports with two different types of retrievers.


I have a friend from Fairbanks who ran his dog in Nationals last year and passed. He also runs FT. He said that the dogs who did the best jobs were quite obviously (in his opinion) FT trained.... I do agree with you that they are two different sports, but different dogs? Not so sure about that. Completely anyway....


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

Tim Carrion said:


> Doesn't seem odd: that some people do not want their dog evaluated "good vs better" at a weekend test HTs but ultimately want to able to distinguish a MH from a MNH ?
> The mere existence of the event is setting a group apart as "better". Why not prove each weekend and not just once per year?
> I guess they want the bragging rights without the competition.
> 
> Tim


i know personally myself when i started with dogs about 5 years ago.. I would've gotten eaten alive at a field trial. Hunt test give all of us the confidence that we can run our dog and do well. Hunt tests are definately scaled down starting with the juniors and can go up to the more challengine master tests.

On top of that, Training for hunt tests give us a closer look at real live hunting. Theres no way i've been out hunting and every bird i shoot lands 200-400 yards away. Sure I've had sailers that fall that far away. But training for 50-150 yard marks is more realistic for hunting.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Hmmmmmmm,ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
Pros vs. Amats. HT dogs vs. FT dogs.
Good Grief Charlie Brown!!
My own personal hunting dogs as well as my own HT dogs are all FT sired. I want the best the breed has to offer me while I'm huntin/ runnin Hunt Tests or if good enough runnin Trials. While judging; The biggest mistake that I see and I hate it is "handling errors". Or the person whether they be Pro. or Amat. that allows for bad behavior in training that snowballs at a Test.Ex: breaking/creeping/barking/whinning/fighting.?? All undesirable traits as a "Hunting Dog".
AKC set up a program in the 80's call "Hunt Tests". Leave it be that. Master National was something that someone dreamed up because they weren't happy with "just" a Master dog.
Now we aren't happy because the quality of dogs and the quality of training has gotten better and theirs too many Master National Qualifers???? So lets limit the numbers to some ridulous time frame or the number of passes out of ??? Or lets have a Master National Winner ???????????? like the National Open/Amat.? 
Someone talked about numbers at Trials. Have you seen the numbers at trials lately??The discussion about Limited/Rescrited Opens.Opens as large as 115+ dogs!!!
IMHO: They made their beds suck it up and deal with it. Like Kristie said theirs $ to be made at these events. Have a 3rd. set of judges,clubs hosting will have to have enough grounds, hire workers, etc...........


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

"As for the Master National- I looked at the pictures, and I know that probably doesn't quantify [sic] my response"

Correct. You are not qualified to make a response. 

"IMO what I saw were training exercises. The cover was absolutely ridiculous. Let me get this straight... I can't see my dog for a period of time, when he comes out and is not near the bird, he's switched and I'm out. That's great, I watched a dog run through 3 ft cover, smelled a bird he couldn't see, went to it, and we're going home."

Not correct. There was ample seperation between the falls. And, the judges allowed the dogs to hunt. One dog that was eliminated for "switching" was given a rerun as the judges determined they had erred and cut him while allowing similar work by others. (Pretty cool to have 2 guys willing to admit a mistake with the pressure on to get the test DONE.) 
The cover was brutal, but the mowing allowed ample open lanes and areas to see and handle a dog. Many of the dogs that were picked up were being handled deep of the flyer in a wide open area. They would not bust the cover to root out the bird. Sounds like a pretty good hunting scenario to me. (We got thru clean but I have to admit there was a serious pucker factor at work.)

Have to agree with zzzzzzzzzzz response to this thread. Nothing that has not been thrashed about before. The MNRC board members are elected by the member clubs but the board is hamstrung by the AKC. Let them know how you feel. Maybe some day we'll get folks in the Performance events who buy into the "have fun in a non-competitive event" idea. 

Overheard at this year's event. "If you want to control the numbers just instruct the judges to limit the callbacks to 25% of the field." 

Finally, and off topic, thanks for the hard work put in by the folks that made the MNRC happen this year. We had a blast. That is until my 11 year old gal broke in the 4th series. Now, who can I blame that on?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bump to help with the current discussion.

/Paul


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

I have a question: Like WI, is the reason MN has so many entries because MN has so many quality dogs? We are in the flight path, so I think many trainers, hunters and breeders are attracted to this area because of those reasons... Wait, I need to go back and read, but I'm talking about Q-ing a FT, but this thread is in regards to a HT.... shoot, sorry. But read on, I THINK I have a point.

I think of it like this: When I was a HS swimmer, I swam for a little school in a little town and we competed against HUGE schools in HUGE towns... we couldn't really compete against these teams because we lacked the depth.

In order to go to State, you had to beat a certain time, or be the Top 3 in your event. MANY people competed even though there was NO WAY they would be in the top 3. Furthermore, we couldn't compete at the highest levels because there were LIMITS to how many could move on to the higher competition...

The issue was there were enough events that we smaller teams were exhausted by the time we reached our events because we did the MAX 4 events and the larger teams' competitors probably only did 2 at max. Even though my times beat 60% of the swimmers at the highest levels (State), different standards in different areas, and limiting the number of competitors who qualified ultimately (IMHO), decreased the number of worthy competitors in the highest competitions.

I think my point is this: having a LARGE number of competitors and not limiting entry makes sure that each deserving participant is allowed the chance to shine...

I have many arguable points, I know... But I'd like to see the small kennel and the individual amateur trainer "compete" against the big boys. I guess it's the "Remember the Titans" side of me...


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Well Paul, it's almost been a year since the start of this post, and to answer your question...I guess we'll just see based on this years entries and the up-coming annual meeting.

On a personal note, we've qualified 5 and are entering three (all our own). We've always wanted to vacation in Northern Minnesota! The reasons we are attending are summed up in my previous posts #38, and #48. We will continue to support the MNRC in any way we can as long as every dog is given the same opportunity irregardless of who the handler is. 

Why do we have so many Master National Qualifiers??????
Inconsistency in weekend judging......PERIOD
Who is responsible for correcting that...certainly not the MNRC!!!

We're looking forward to pre-national training with our southern friends, meeting new friends, and watching some wonderful dog work in Minnesota. Congrats to all who qualified and good luck to all who are able to compete against the standard. 

No rose colored glasses here regards,

Mike & Sandy Berube


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Why do we have so many Master National Qualifiers??????
> Inconsistency in weekend judging......PERIOD
> Who is responsible for correcting that...certainly not the MNRC!!!
> 
> ...


How responsible for this problem are the clubs that recruit these "inconsistent" weekend judges?

And if the "inconsistency" is responsible, are you saying that the judges are too _lenient_ at weekend tests?

Are you suggesting that the AKC is responsible for too many Master National Qualifiers?

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> Well Paul, it's almost been a year since the start of this post, and to answer your question...I guess we'll just see based on this years entries and the up-coming annual meeting.
> 
> On a personal note, we've qualified 5 and are entering three (all our own). We've always wanted to vacation in Northern Minnesota! The reasons we are attending are summed up in my previous posts #38, and #48. We will continue to support the MNRC in any way we can as long as every dog is given the same opportunity irregardless of who the handler is.
> 
> ...


I do hope you have fun and good luck to your dogs. Considering how the judges are picked for the MN, perhaps we shouldn't discuss judging....

/Paul


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Keith, clearly the clubs have an obligation to the participants to select judges that are not only qualified, but also have a record of being able to design a master level test that is challenging, yet fair, and comply with the rulebook. 

In my opinion, Inconsistency and a "apple and orange" approach to interpratation of the rulebook applies to both ends of the judging pool...too lenient and too severe. Yes, I would say that overall, judges are to lenient.

Is the AKC responsible for too many Master Hunters? Maybe we should ask the AKC field reps that question. Are they reporting back to HQ that everything is working out fine in the Hunt Test community? Why would a AKC field rep require a pointed judge to change a test?

As a former AKC field rep, what are your thoughts? 

Mike Berube


----------



## Josh Smith (May 22, 2008)

Don't forget that the committee is in charge of the test. This applys to weekend tests or the MN. The committee could pull the plug on a test set-up or even replace a judge if it did not meet the committee's standards or expectations or if it violated the rulebook.

The trouble is that the committee is usually comprised of people that know less about the rulebook and judging, than the judges. Especially at the Master level.


----------



## meat hunter (Oct 4, 2007)

Hi, I think that the regional qualifier would generate income as well as whittle down the field. I haven't read all the posts but I was also wondering what % of the entries are being ran by pros'. EK


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Josh Smith said:


> Don't forget that the committee is in charge of the test. This applys to weekend tests or the MN. The committee could pull the plug on a test set-up or even replace a judge if it did not meet the committee's standards or expectations or if it violated the rulebook.
> 
> The trouble is that the committee is usually comprised of people that know less about the rulebook and judging, than the judges. Especially at the Master level.



Mike, I'll appreciate your question and will answer it when I have more time.

Josh, please tell me where in the AKC HT regs/guidelines a committee is allowed to enforce its "standards or expectations" on a test and "pull the plug" on it, other than a regulation/guideline violation.

That limb you're out on is about to break regards, 

kg


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Mike Berube said:


> Why do we have so many Master National Qualifiers??????
> Inconsistency in weekend judging......PERIOD
> Who is responsible for correcting that...certainly not the MNRC!!
> Mike & Sandy Berube


 
Once again the question arises. Are you saying there are too many qualifiers for the MN? Seems the numbers stay pretty consistent year to year. I would say that IF your assumption of inconsistent judges is true, they are at least consistent in being inconsistent, thus making it a level playing field. I don’t buy the assumption that there are too many qualifiers. I still feel it is a matter of the MN/AKC not being able to handle the number. People qualified in higher numbers than MN or whoever, wanted so they changed the system and yet about the same number qualified and we still have whining about numbers…….
Take an example form HRC and let all that qualify run. Remember this is not a “competition”. All that play by the rules and qualify should be allowed to run period. I do not believe it is at all out of the question that there are AT LEAST 400 dogs qualified to run the MN. Stop changing things to lessen numbers and deal with it.


----------



## Josh Smith (May 22, 2008)

KG

There are clubs around the country that require a committee member to "sign off" on a judges test (the set-ups) before it is run. This is meant to assure that the test is not inappropriate in some way IE. too easy, too hard, not following the rule book, too many fliers, too many workers, too far from parking areas, etc, etc.

There are committees that will ask a judge to change their test if it is not deemed appropriate. If the Judge refuses to change the test, the committee will replace the judge (or judges) on the spot.

This can be good and bad. It is strong leadership form the club as they try to control their own destiny and vision for the hunt test game.

This might not be what you are accustomed to, but it is happening.


----------



## greyghost (Jun 11, 2004)

In my opinion I would find it disrespectful to the judges to try to exert any influence with the test that they set up. I personally may not agree with the test, but it is their test, and other than a regulation/guideline infraction as KG stated, or a safety/logistics concern it is the judges test. We all have our ideas of what we'd like to see in a test and factors used or not used, but bottom line it's the judges test. That's my take. I appreciate that the judges are stepping up to the plate and they certainly have my respect.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Josh Smith said:


> KG
> 
> There are clubs around the country that require a committee member to "sign off" on a judges test (the set-ups) before it is run. This is meant to assure that the test is not inappropriate in some way IE. too easy, too hard, not following the rule book, too many fliers, too many workers, too far from parking areas, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Please send me the names of the clubs doing this. I'll send them a letter offering to judge for them. 

/Paul


----------



## Josh Smith (May 22, 2008)

greyghost,

You are right, lots of potential for abuse on this and a feeling of disrespect for the judges.

The committee is still in charge of the test, however.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Josh, 

Please read page 37 of the current Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers. Pay close attention to this part: 
" _Judges Authority:_ The Judges and the Hunting Test Committee are in total control of the mechanics within the framework of the Regulations. The Judges, and _the Judges alone_, determine and design the tests to be given."


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

I have NEVER seen a judge asked to change a test. Judges are hard to come by and held in reverence and awe around here. Tell one to change a test or else..!!! Then what. Torque off the judge so that he takes it out on the people running their dogs, make him mad enough to leave and have to cancel a test- 'cuz it's not like you have a spare judge just waiting to take his place, have to tell around 25-30 people that they just spent big $$$ and time driving to your test, staying at your motels, eating at your resturants and now having to leave because there is no one to judge your test. Come on, get real. What really happens is that you head off any complaints from the participants, sympathize with those that didn't pass the test, and assure them that you will not have the same guy judging there again. That's as far as it goes.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Been down this road before (lots of times). Please don't make a Master pass more (or less) than it is supposed to be. Don't change a pass with ANY consideration of the MN. 

The MN is supposed to be an AKC licensed HT that is judged with tests that should be more creative and at the more difficult level of the scale.

I personally feel that the AKC should loosen up and allow a similar format to that of the Grand. Since they won't, I feel the next best thing is to simply raise the qualifying total to 10. If a dog passes the previous year it could count for more than one.

This gets a lot more dogs having to qualify by running more Masters. The AKC should like this because they make more money. By needing 10 passes a lot of marginal dogs or people with more sense than money would not even attempt to run. 

Most FT folks that qualify for one the the two American Nationals recognized by the AKC enter their dogs more than 10 times in a year to qualify. Shouldn't the MN folks?


John


----------



## Josh Smith (May 22, 2008)

Lady duck hunter

The regs also say the marks and blinds should generally be within 100yds too.

I run 100-180yd marks and blinds every weekend at HTs.

Does the rule book say that a committee can't replace a judge? Does it say that it can't have a "good 'ol boy" network of judges that are already on the same page as the committee?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

John,

no.

please read my post on the other MN thread.....-paul


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

I've been on a committee that asked judges to change a Senior test. The judges initially wanted the first series to be a blind and the second series to be land marks. 

We (the club) didn't want to see a bunch of SH dogs and handlers dropped without ever having a chance to pick up a mark.

We (the committee) asked the judges to do the land marks in the first series. 

The judges were very cooperative and agreed.

Jeff


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Josh Smith said:


> Lady duck hunter
> 
> The regs also say the marks and blinds should generally be within 100yds too.
> 
> ...


Is this the same Josh Smith?

Owner: Joshua Smith
Event DateEventRegistered NameHandlerStake
03/01/2008 Wiregrass Hunting Retriever Club of Georgia AKC Hunting Test GRACIE SMITH Joshua Smith Junior
03/29/2008 Atlanta Retriever Club AKC Hunting Test GRACIE SMITH Joshua Smith Junior
04/04/2008 Black Warrior Retriever Club AKC Hunting Test GRACIE SMITH Joshua Smith Junior

Just curious regards

Bubba


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Future aspirations Bubba, future aspirations…….. I had a dream…


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Bubba, I was wondering that, too.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

jeff t. said:


> I've been on a committee that asked judges to change a Senior test. The judges initially wanted the first series to be a blind and the second series to be land marks.
> 
> We (the club) didn't want to see a bunch of SH dogs and handlers dropped without ever having a chance to pick up a mark.
> 
> ...


 
I have one coming up that we have been asked to TRY to keep the marks short IF possiable becasue it will be in the 90's. I don't have a probelm with that becasue of the situation and it is not a case of being told to do something , but rather asked and I am in agreement if is can be done. Now if I were told to do something I didn't like as a judge that would be another story (BTW the event I speak of is a JR/SR and no master). I would like to know where you find all these judges that are passing dogs for the MN qualification? I don't know, or care, who is trying to qualify when I judge...probably the very last thing on my mind


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> ...probably the very last thing on my mind


And it should be. Kind of reminds me of the thread on here a month or so ago by the guy who told the judges that "this could have implications on the top derby dog".

Judge the dogs. Not the resume.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

In the 50 or so stakes I have judged I've had a committee gripe one time, they wanted a ribbon fest, for a field that I found out was rather weak both from the dog and handler sides of the coin. As a judge I want the committee to let me know some things,ie., you can's shoot a flier in that direction for safety reasons, that particularly attractive piece of water is a sewage overflow, and things that are not readily picked up by a person new to the grounds. The way I read the rule book nobody has oversight on the judges except for safety factors. That said, I want to know about things that might affect the mechanics of the test; such as we only have 3 bird throwers, or things of that nature. I have been a test/trial chairman, gun captain and head marshall as well as just hired help, so I know the way things are supposed to work from both sides. If I am defecating in the pool, I want to know that too.....'are you sure you want to start out with this test, thats east and the sun comes up there or some such'. Other than that my co judge and I will do our jobs as mandated by the rule book, thank you very much.


One of the problems I see as a judge is with those who get stuck with the job of finding judges. Most of the time, when I get a call, its from someone that I have met who is a player, and knows a thing or three about selecting and getting judges. Occasionally though, I get one from some poor schmuck who got volunteered for the job, and is not a player. thats when I begin to wonder what I might be letting myself in for. I really appreciate those who ask me" With whom would you like to judge?" or " do you have someone in mind as a co-judge?" That makes things a lot easier than me asking the $64 question," Who is my co-judge?" cause there are a few folks I will not judge with. Its much easier to judge with someone who is affable, knowledgeable and on the same page.

I do not think that going to 10 passes is such a great idea. First off in some areas of the country just getting 7 is a chore simply because of the distance between tests. Second, I've done some tests with 70 or 80 dogs. Looking at that many dog butts, or more if the quals change makes for a very long weekend as a judge. It means larger tests, more splits and more weekends that you can't run your dog.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Josh,
> 
> Please read page 37 of the current Regulations and Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers. Pay close attention to this part:
> " _Judges Authority:_ The Judges and the Hunting Test Committee are in total control of the mechanics within the framework of the Regulations. The Judges, and _the Judges alone_, determine and design the tests to be given."


Yep. Exactly why I want to judge for them. Education is a beautiful thing.

/Paul


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Judged several events. Worked at 27 tests for our club and know of only 1 time a HTC stepped in to change a test and it was because it was in direct violation of the HT reg's and guidelines. I have never been asked to change anything. Adjust for workers or gunners yes, but that is no big deal. 

Josh, I would really like some documentation of these clubs "all over the country" that are doing this. Or anyone involved please enlighten us. I can state with great confidence that none of them are in ND. MN. northern Iowa, or eastern Wisconsin. We would have heard about it.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Out of curiosity, how many contributing to this thread recall when the hunt test games originated? It seems as though most think those programs were developed primarily to be stepping stones for National events. 

Fact is, there was never any talk of a National event at any time when these games began. It was simply a game the basic weekend hunter could play with his four-legged hunting companion, at any level he chose to train to.

Unlike AKC, HRC has been better able to keep their National test from placing requirements on their WE games to promote the Grand. Not so with the MN. I hear complaints about the WE tests being too easy, simple or not meeting standards necessary for the dogs to 'compete' in the MN. 

As long as the basic AKC participant puts up with judges that defy the regs, ie way beyond the distances in the book, and psuedo selection requirements on marks, etc., all seemingly to test dogs for the MN, they will continue to eliminate the players for which the game was initially intended.

UB


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Uncle Bill said:


> Out of curiosity, how many contributing to this thread recall when the hunt test games originated? It seems as though most think those programs were developed primarily to be stepping stones for National events.
> 
> Fact is, there was never any talk of a National event at any time when these games began. It was simply a game the basic weekend hunter could play with his four-legged hunting companion, at any level he chose to train to.
> 
> ...


 
Good post Bill, but I am not sure how much this really happens. Anytime I see a beefy set-up you hear someone saying "they set-up a mini MN" and I don't believe it is always true that is what has been done. I think it is said more than actually done. I think people just like to whine and moan


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> For the sake of argument what would happen if the MN and/ or many of the weekend test were made owner/handler only? Either or both would reduce the numbers quite a bit, and help get the game back to Joe or Jane Sixpac running their dogs as was part of the original vision of the hunt test program.


That was suggested by the MN board 5 or 6 years ago. Everyone on this board went ballistic! Why? They wanted the pros to run their dogs. The AKC Reps supposedly said that they felt the dogs run by the pros looked best in the field and prefered to see the majority of dogs at the event handled by Pros.

My recommendation would be: Let the numbers speak for themselves. Accommodate whoever qualifies. Don't mess with weekend tests.

However, if the MN club can't handle these entries, then:

3 dog limit per handler.
Owner handler only. Pros can handle their own 3 dogs.
Dogs must get the MH title before getting legs for the MN (sorry Bubba).

What if you own more than 3 dogs who qualify. Decide which 3 you want to enter this year.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Josh Smith said:


> KG
> 
> There are clubs around the country that require a committee member to "sign off" on a judges test (the set-ups) before it is run. This is meant to assure that the test is not inappropriate in some way IE. too easy, too hard, not following the rule book, too many fliers, too many workers, too far from parking areas, etc, etc.
> 
> There are committees that will ask a judge to change their test if it is not deemed appropriate. If the Judge refuses to change the test, the committee will replace the judge (or judges) on the spot.


Sorry Josh, but you are wrong!

Committee members should be present during the test set up for "Safety" reasons. If the test is unsafe or against the rules (as opposed to inappropriate) then they can request the judges to make changes.

If the judges refuse to make the test safe, or within AKC rules then they can be replaced.

No committee has the power to even request that the judges change a test unless there is a problem with safety or the regs.

If the club wants to control their vision of the HT game, that can be accomplised via judges selection. Once the judges are on site, the committee needs to step aside.

Sorry again for your misinformed view.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Josh Smith said:


> KG
> 
> There are clubs around the country that require a committee member to "sign off" on a judges test (the set-ups) before it is run. This is meant to assure that the test is not inappropriate in some way IE. too easy, too hard, not following the rule book, too many fliers, too many workers, too far from parking areas, etc, etc.
> 
> ...


Tell us _where_ it's happening (where *YOU* have _seen it happen_) and we'll move on from there......

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Here's KG as a kid... 

Look out Josh....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKllGNfi3tg

/Paul


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Bubba said:


> Is this the same Josh Smith?
> 
> Owner: Joshua Smith
> Event DateEventRegistered NameHandlerStake
> ...


ahhh Bubba I think you ran him off


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

UB what is ' pseudo selection on marks' ? thats a new term on me.


----------



## 3 dog knight (Jul 9, 2003)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> 3 dog limit per handler.
> Owner handler only. Pros can handle their own 3 dogs.
> Dogs must get the MH title before getting legs for the MN (sorry Bubba).


I'd vote for that. Does anyone know what the percentage of MN run dogs are pro handled??


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

I personally don't like the idea of not having the passes count towards MN until AFTER the dogs obtain their MH. What if YOU had a young dog that went 5/5 as a 1,2, or 3 year old. Is it fair that this dog then has to go 5/7? Why should this dog have to pass 10 masters? When someone elses dog gets invited after going 8/14? Which dog is more consistant, thus more likely to stick around at the MN?


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

3 dog knight said:


> Does anyone know what the percentage of MN run dogs are pro handled??


A UKC rep told me the Grand had 65% of the dogs run by pros (for hunters, by hunters?????...must take their pros hunting with them). My guess it is 50 to 60% for the MN.


----------



## 3 dog knight (Jul 9, 2003)

sheriff said:


> I personally don't like the idea of not having the passes count towards MN until AFTER the dogs obtain their MH. What if YOU had a young dog that went 5/5 as a 1,2, or 3 year old. Is it fair that this dog then has to go 5/7? Why should this dog have to pass 10 masters? When someone elses dog gets invited after going 8/14? Which dog is more consistant, thus more likely to stick around at the MN?


I agree with you on the title before qualifying. At best it's a one year solution, also, if two dogs meet the requirements for one year pass wise, why should one get to go and not the other? Hardly makes sense. 



Samlab1 said:


> A UKC rep told me the Grand had 65% of the dogs run by pros (for hunters, by hunters?????...must take their pros hunting with them). My guess it is 50 to 60% for the MN.


So let's assume there are 262 dogs that enter the MN (according to previously posted estimates), and let's assume that 50% of those dogs are a pro running a client dog. If the event was O/H, that puts the number at 131. We're making a lot of assumptions here, but running through some "what ifs" in my head, I'd bet even that number is high. If the world wants an "exclusive", "best of the best" event, "showcasing" the master hunter (and it's handler), get rid of the paid guns with 25 dogs. Make it an event for the owner and their dog to prove what kind of a team they are. Was that not the original intent of the hunt test game?

3DK


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The guns are not paid, and the AKC rules prohibit a handler from shooting while running a dog.


----------



## 3 dog knight (Jul 9, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> The guns are not paid, and the AKC rules prohibit a handler from shooting while running a dog.


Figure of speech Bob. Pros = paid guns.

3DK


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

sheriff said:


> I personally don't like the idea of not having the passes count towards MN until AFTER the dogs obtain their MH. What if YOU had a young dog that went 5/5 as a 1,2, or 3 year old. Is it fair that this dog then has to go 5/7? Why should this dog have to pass 10 masters? When someone elses dog gets invited after going 8/14? Which dog is more consistant, thus more likely to stick around at the MN?


Of course you don't. Your dog may qualify his first year running masters (perhaps on a Pro Truck?) and never again. If he is well trained, talented and his training is kept up to date the next year after he gets his MH, then we know that he's not a flash in the pants.

Why should you have to pass 10 masters when someone else (with a MH at the beginning of the "season") only has to pass 5? Because _you_ want to cut down on the number of dogs qualifying for the MN.

I personally would be happy with zero road blocks to the MN. Any dog with 5 passes in one year gets to go. But if you want to limit dogs -- then these are my suggestions.



3 dog knight said:


> I agree with you on the title before qualifying. At best it's a one year solution, also, if two dogs meet the requirements for one year pass wise, why should one get to go and not the other? Hardly makes sense.


It's really not a one year solution because the next year there will be a new crop of dogs that don't yet have their MH title.

Plus, not all these dogs will remain on a Pro truck. Many owners will be happy with their dog's new title and decide that they would rather not pay Pro expenses for the MN. Many owners need to learn how to handle their new MH dog and may take another year or 2 to qualify him.

Finally, a certain percentage of these new MH dogs will not be able to qualify the next year ... they just don't have what it takes to play successfully in the game 2 years in a row. They are inconsistant over multi year period.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

3 dog knight said:


> I'd vote for that. Does anyone know what the percentage of MN run dogs are pro handled??


The MN event is close to (if not exceeding) 50% Pro handled dogs. This is a problem for the MN Board: many of these pros are too busy either running, taking care of or training the dogs on their trucks. They simply don't have 3 hours every day to help out in the field. They don't bring clients ... the dog's owners save gas, hotel bills, etc. by letting the Pro take their dogs. So there is a lack of helpers.

Plus as the week goes on, many of the amateur handlers with only one or two dogs are dropped, and leave for home (why should they continue to pay hotel, etc once they are no longer competiting?). So you have a situation where the PROs are running dogs, with even fewer helpers in the field.

The MNRC Board would dearly love to drop the percentage of PRO run dogs. I think that would be ideal for the sport.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

One more shot since nobody has taken a stab at it.

WHY does the MN need/want to reduce the number of qualified dogs?????????

I still do not believe that there are less than 400 dogs each year that are "good enough" to run the MN. I think it is becasue they just cannot handle the numbers and that is not a valid reason to up the standard to reduce number. You built it, they came, not modify it and keep up with the demand


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

"Until the AKC steps up and directs/tells/mandates/instructs, ASSISTS, etc. the MNRC BOD under what requirements they will license a test, we are all simply spinning our wheels."

This is the bottom line. There is nothing easy about an AKC Master test, no matter what test you run. The fact that 400-500 dogs qualify for the national event should be reason for everyone to celebrate. That is a lot of uber-talented dogs out there, and we should all be proud. Success is nothing to be ashamed of. Someone needs to tell AKC.

Lisa


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> "Until the AKC steps up and directs/tells/mandates/instructs, ASSISTS, etc. the MNRC BOD under what requirements they will license a test, we are all simply spinning our wheels."
> 
> *This is the bottom line. There is nothing easy about an AKC Master test, no matter what test you run. The fact that 400-500 dogs qualify for the national event should be reason for everyone to celebrate. That is a lot of uber-talented dogs out there, and we should all be proud. Success is nothing to be ashamed of.* Someone needs to tell AKC.
> 
> Lisa


 
Well it depends....;-)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> One more shot since nobody has taken a stab at it.
> 
> WHY does the MN need/want to reduce the number of qualified dogs?????????
> 
> I still do not believe that there are less than 400 dogs each year that are "good enough" to run the MN. I think it is becasue they just cannot handle the numbers and that is not a valid reason to up the standard to reduce number. You built it, they came, not modify it and keep up with the demand


Simple. AKC wants the "cream of the crop" and their unwilling to believe that 400 out of the thousands are the "cream of the crop." They would prefer it be something like "1" out of a hundred.

/Paul


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> "Until the AKC steps up and directs/tells/mandates/instructs, ASSISTS, etc. the MNRC BOD under what requirements they will license a test, we are all simply spinning our wheels."
> 
> This is the bottom line. There is nothing easy about an AKC Master test, no matter what test you run. The fact that 400-500 dogs qualify for the national event should be reason for everyone to celebrate. That is a lot of uber-talented dogs out there, and we should all be proud. Success is nothing to be ashamed of. Someone needs to tell AKC.
> 
> Lisa


THANK YOU LISA! These tests are difficult. There is nothing wrong with 400-500 or even 800 dogs qualifying. They are just that good.


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> One more shot since nobody has taken a stab at it.
> 
> WHY does the MN need/want to reduce the number of qualified dogs?????????
> 
> I still do not believe that there are less than 400 dogs each year that are "good enough" to run the MN. I think it is becasue they just cannot handle the numbers and that is not a valid reason to up the standard to reduce number. You built it, they came, not modify it and keep up with the demand


*Badbullgator* -- the AKC field reps wants to reduce the number of dogs because they are elitist pigs -- who think they need to justify their manhood by turning the hunt test program into a field trial mindset. 

The MNRC board wants to reduce the number of PRO run dogs to make their life easier. It is too much work trying to find adequate workers for the event!

The MNRC board probably welcomes as many dogs as possible to the event because that translates into $$$$. However they are afraid of the AKC who keeps threatening them.

*History Lesson:* The MNRC board is made up of a bunch of ego maniacs who got greedy and decided that they needed an AKC title -- just like the _big guys_. Once they approached the AKC they got caught in a very complicated spider web they cannot get free from. They AKC reps are not only dangling a title, but saying that unless the MN matches AKC's bloated standards (eg turn it into a national Open), they will take the MN to some other group.

The participating member clubs have continuously told the MNRC Board to shove it. They want the event to continue as originally designed: an annual showcase for dogs who have passed 5 or more MH tests.

Two years ago, the MNRC Board finally shoved the 5-7 rule down everyone's throats at the last minute. How did they get the Club reps to agree to this plan? Panic driven campaign saying if the AKC _Field Reps_ don't get their way -- then the event will be moved to another organization. Too bad the representatives from the member clubs caved into this vote.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Pheasanttomeetyou said:


> *Badbullgator* -- the AKC field reps wants to reduce the number of dogs because they are elitist pigs -- who think they need to justify their manhood by turning the hunt test program into a field trial mindset.
> 
> The MNRC board wants to reduce the number of PRO run dogs to make their life easier. It is too much work trying to find adequate workers for the event!
> 
> ...


Well thanks for the history lesson, but I am more than familiar with it as well as several of the elitist pigs (which also applies to at least several current and past MNRC BOD members). The question is somewhat rhetorical because neither has stated a true reason to limit or reduce numbers. The problem I see is that it is like a bad marriage that people stay in because of the children or whatever. Neither really cares for the other and do not want to meet each others needs.


----------

