# First Big D.....Now Heart of Texas



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I KNEW this test was going to open soon...it had to as it was fast approaching.....just had a gut feeling .....been checking it often.....checked at 10:45 Mtn time at a gas station.....not finalized .......pulled in my drive at 11:17 and checked one last time...the dang test is already full!


----------



## Keith S. (May 6, 2005)

I don't run many AKC tests, but how can it possibly fill that fast? Are people giving EE their info before it opens? I hope that's not the case but I don't know what else it could be.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I tell you guys.... For a person having their first dog to ever try for a Master test..... This game is becoming not much fun FAST


----------



## mtncntrykid (May 31, 2011)

In my area we only have 2 tests a year so if we miss we have to wait till next year. I hope breeders don't hog all the spots on our tests.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

May be worth noting that in that test there is one senior and two juniors entered.


----------



## freezeland (Nov 1, 2012)

Perhaps one already exists, but I would think a IT techie guy or gal who develops an Iphone app to send an alert when an event on EE changes from view to enter event could make a couple bucks.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

clipper said:


> May be worth noting that in that test there is one senior and two juniors entered.


Why is that worth noting? It would be expected that Junior and Senior wouldn't have the rush to enter since they are not limited. 

Bryan-College Station started out that way, too and ended up with 77 Seniors and 88 & 96 Juniors.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

mtncntrykid said:


> In my area we only have 2 tests a year so if we miss we have to wait till next year. I hope breeders don't hog all the spots on our tests.



What do breeders have to do with this issue?


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

I've changed my game plan to focus on Qual instead of Master this year...


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

mtncntrykid said:


> In my area we only have 2 tests a year so if we miss we have to wait till next year. I hope breeders don't hog all the spots on our tests.



You may want to consider expanding your area, and no breeders have nothing to do with it. Heres 20 pages of problems and ideas for a solution..

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?104777-Limited-Master-Entries-Pro-Amatuer


----------



## LabskeBill (Nov 12, 2012)

Keith S. said:


> I don't run many AKC tests, but how can it possibly fill that fast? Are people giving EE their info before it opens? I hope that's not the case but I don't know what else it could be.


Look on EE at VIP top of page!


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

freezeland said:


> Perhaps one already exists, but I would think a IT techie guy or gal who develops an Iphone app to send an alert when an event on EE changes from view to enter event could make a couple bucks.


http://www.changedetection.com/

But it still might not be fast enough to beat the VIP entries...


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Moose Mtn said:


> I tell you guys.... For a person having their first dog to ever try for a Master test..... This game is becoming not much fun FAST



According to EE you have your dog entered in some master tests correct?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

LabskeBill said:


> Look on EE at VIP top of page!


I am not sure that the VIP service is still around. Regardless the only difference between the VIP service and what everyone already has the ability to do was the sending of the check after making the entries. Anybody can enter as many dogs as they have set up on EE very quickly


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Todd Caswell said:


> According to EE you have your dog entered in some master tests correct?


 You are correct. Texas tests don't run all summer so you have to get them when you can 

I'm enjoying this sport, and love the events. I also believe that if some one has 100 passes on a dog, and they enjoy running tests, then there should be no ill will for him continuing to enter tests. After all this is first a hobby and not just a title chase


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

JTS said:


> FROM EE:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am familiar with the VIP program. However it doesn't give anyone any advantage in entering dogs, only in paying for those entries. It essentially extended trade credit to good customers, just like millions of businesses do. There is nothing other than that that it offers that isn't part of everyone's EE service.


----------



## Marty Lee (Mar 30, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> I am familiar with the VIP program. However it doesn't give anyone any advantage in entering dogs, only in paying for those entries. It essentially extended trade credit to good customers, just like millions of businesses do. There is nothing other than that that it offers that isn't part of everyone's EE service.


i would think that when you use VIP those dogs are entered as soon as you hit the button......meanwhile the am is still trying to type in all the credit card info???????idk


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Wow, and yet several here think you need to stop whining and work harder at being at a computer when it opens.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

I don't think I am whining or complaining. Just a bit exasperated about how the game is being played. Not throwing my sucker in the dirt, but sure feel like these issues need to be discussed


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Moose Mtn said:


> I don't think I am whining or complaining. Just a bit exasperated about how the game is being played. Not throwing my sucker in the dirt, but sure feel like these issues need to be discussed


I know you are not whining, there are a few here though that don't seem to understand what hunt tests are suppose to be about.


----------



## fetchtx (May 12, 2005)

Moose Mtn said:


> I don't think I am whining or complaining. Just a bit exasperated about how the game is being played. Not throwing my sucker in the dirt, but sure feel like these issues need to be discussed


Heck of a way to get new members in clubs so that they can be notified of the "secret" entry day.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Moose Mtn said:


> You are correct. Texas tests don't run all summer so you have to get them when you can
> 
> I'm enjoying this sport, and love the events. I also believe that if some one has 100 passes on a dog, and they enjoy running tests, then there should be no ill will for him continuing to enter tests. After all this is first a hobby and not just a title chase



Correct me if I'm wrong but your just trying to enter you dog and someone else is running them correct?


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

100% correct Todd My trainer has the owner enter their own dog


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

Furthermore, your entries are subject to be scratched from this event and Entry Express reserves the right to require payment in advance, via cashier check, for future event entry until your account is made current."

I'd think that a club would be royally PO'd if a handler's dogs were scratched. Suppose a handler has 20 dogs entered in a Master and then it closes, Then EE scratches the dogs because of non-payment. Now the club is left with 20 openings that could have gone to someone else and in fact may have already consumed resources ... birds, committed to bird boys or judges, etc. I'm not certain but that the club wouldn't have grounds for a claim against EE for the entry fees ... 20 X $75 or whatever. 

If EE were to require payment and then enter the dogs, that would be fine. Here I'm talking about letting a handler enter his 20 dogs but the entries are held in suspense until a credit card transaction is approved or the funds received. If the money gets there too late ... tough. The dogs are out as other entries were accepted in the meantime. The way it's described, EE is fronting for the high volume handlers in an almost criminal manner. 

I'd think that the single dog owners that are unable to enter consistently in these circumstances, should contact the AKC. AKC has this set of files into which all letters outlining a problem go whether it's about the judging, an issue with the rules, or an issue regarding the test events themselves. When enough letters are in a file that it begins to smell like old, dead fish, they pull the file and begin to watch things more closely. AKC could do a number of things all the way up to banning the use of an entry service. Entry services are used in most AKC venues but this is the only event for which the service (EE) itself is being blamed or called into question. Dead fish...


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

achiro said:


> I know you are not whining, there are a few here though that don't seem to understand what hunt tests are suppose to be about.


Thats the hardest part for me to understand as well, Iv'e never found the actual entering of a dog to be much fun at all but standing next to them and handling them, well I would like to think thats why we do this, but apparently there are alot of folks that don't see it that way..


----------



## Marty Lee (Mar 30, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> Thats the hardest part for me to understand as well, as far as I'm concerned if your paying someone to run your dog in a HT then your part of the problem...


not always but painting witha broad brush isnt always accourate. i have 100% trained my dogs BUT now life has me so tied down that i simply cant continue giving them the time they (my dogs)deserve........so i am thinking about putting them with a trainer that will allow them to do what they live to do. or i could stick em in the kennel and let them be miserable most of the time........what would you do? they are 4 years old and know nothing but training 3 to 4 days a week except for lately. and FWIW i cannot change my circumstances only GOD above can handle that situation


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

It definitely does give an advantage to a pro, or more specifically to the pro's do-nothing clients who write the checks and lounge around the gallery if they bother to attend at all. If the onus was put on the owners to enter their own dogs, the distribution of pro vs O/H dogs would be a lot fairer. Also--some pros enter for their buddies. Used to be you'd see a lot of people listing a pro as alternate handler so they'd be in the same flight if tests were split; now you see it on entries on these tests that fill fast. Seems like coalitions of friends with only one or two dogs need to develop something similar with a club member of the test they want to enter....watch for that, coming to a test near you! Heck I'd do it because I have very Third World internet/cell access and rarely carry, much less use my cell phone when on the road. I'd gladly pay a fee to some techie that is on their phone 24/7 to enter for me if there was a test I wanted to get into.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Marty Lee said:


> not always but painting witha broad brush isnt always accourate. i have 100% trained my dogs BUT now life has me so tied down that i simply cant continue giving them the time they (my dogs)deserve........so i am thinking about putting them with a trainer that will allow them to do what they live to do. or i could stick em in the kennel and let them be miserable most of the time........what would you do? they are 4 years old and know nothing but training 3 to 4 days a week except for lately. and FWIW i cannot change my circumstances only GOD above can handle that situation


I deleted that original post because I thought it sounded kinda harsh and for the very reasons you stated, and agree with you 100%. With that being said I'm personally not really concerned with the person who can't get his dogs entered so his pro can run them. What is concerning to me is the guy that is training and running his own dog and has limited time and funds and can not get his dog entered.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Todd, the entering isn't the fun. Lord Knows it isnt ANY fun right now! But give me a little more credit if you will. We start the dog, and send it to a long time friend who knows this bloodline better than anyone. We go down and throw birds when we can and learn to run our dog. We learn to run a dog that knows cues. I can't imagine someone begrudging someone wanting to learn to train their dog the right way. 

This time of year we are consumed with lambing( we have a ranch) and our full time jobs 


But thats why it's my hobby. I can chose how I spend my money and how to get the most out of it for me and my dog

edited to add. By training the right way, I'm not implying you need to use a pro to train the right way, what I'm saying is that we got tired of our dog suffering for our training errors. By getting a good foundation, we should have more luck figuring out how to do this correctly. I guess it is t any different than a guy running a dog that they purchased trained


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> I can't imagine someone begrudging someone wanting to learn to train their dog the right way.



I'm not begrudging you at all, and this has nothing to do with wanting to learn how to train a dog the right way, I think it's great that people use a pro to get going on the right track or to fix a problem that they can't figure out ect.


----------



## fetchtx (May 12, 2005)

Keith S. said:


> I don't run many AKC tests, but how can it possibly fill that fast? Are people giving EE their info before it opens? I hope that's not the case but I don't know what else it could be.


Club members are notified of entry date ahead so they can be sure to get their entrys in first and as many members have their dogs with pro's those pro's get notified ahead also. Bad situation but like one poster said, just take your money elsewhere, join a club that does this or sit back and watch all the talk, or rent a movie.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

Moose Mtn said:


> I tell you guys.... For a person having their first dog to ever try for a Master test..... This game is becoming not much fun FAST


Man I hear you. I'm about to (or wanted to) run Master in a couple of months and this is highly discouraging. These folks are obviously getting tipped off for when it opens and this is a big problem.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

clipper said:


> May be worth noting that in that test there is one senior and two juniors entered.


Waterloo - 120 of 120 master dogs, 12 Senior
HoT - 60 of 60 master, 3 Jr., 3 Sr.
Big D - 120 of 120 master, 4 Jr., 7 Sr.
Metro Alliance - 150 of 150 master, 7 Sr., 0 Jr. (of two Jr. flights)


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Glad we have switched over to running quals, no problems with getting entered. Saw this coming!


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> Thats the hardest part for me to understand as well, Iv'e never found the actual entering of a dog to be much fun at all but standing next to them and handling them, well I would like to think thats why we do this, but apparently there are alot of folks that don't see it that way..


That's a different discussion and isn't the point here (and you know it). There are all kinds of reasons and circumstances why someone might not run their own dog and frankly it's none of your business. It isn't your dog or your money. It's easy for you to cast aspersions in every direction because this doesn't affect you.

How about we limit Texas tests to Texas based owners and handlers. How ya like them apples?


----------



## dgreenwell (Apr 16, 2010)

In any sport where there is a reward, be it monetary or emotional, a level of corruption will creep in. You see in in everything from pee wee football to professional sports.

Each owner has their own situation driving whether they train, handle, or just enjoy the pride of ownership of their dogs. We seek out these tests as a way to validate our investments in time, money and emotions. The dogs don't really care whether they pass or fail. 

I hope the game will self right itself. If it implodes, I am confident that another will take its place.

Until it does, everyone keep feeding, training, and enjoying your dogs. Bottom line they are far more important than another ribbon.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Cowtown said:


> That's a different discussion and isn't the point here (and you know it). There are all kinds of reasons and circumstances why someone might not run their own dog and frankly it's none of your business. It isn't your dog or your money. It's easy for you to cast aspersions in every direction because this doesn't affect you.
> 
> How about we limit Texas tests to Texas based owners and handlers. How ya like them apples?



Really????????? You believe that the very reason the OP can't get his dog entered has nothing to do with the problem? It certainly isn't because too many O/H are entered.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

The problem has been created by the clubs. The clubs are owned, and run by the membership. The clubs made a decision to limit entries and now the membership isn't happy because there aren't enough spots and its "damn the pros". Unbelievable. If you don't like it take it up with your club. Not a member?? No license to bitch. 
The answer is not MORE laws, and restrictions. Its starting to sound like the federal government. All I've read over and over is "lack of help"..."pros and clients don't help"..."we don't have people"..I can assure you that limiting entries does only that. It doesn't solve the real problem of why your club can't recruit enough help. Keep on and it will be just like the HRC. Pros can only run 12 dogs...if the club itself allows....flights are limited to 30...anyone can enter up until the day of...keep on. Then let your secretary pull his/her hair out trying to keep all of the BS straight... and forget turning a profit. You will have bitten the hand so to speak and handcuffed the very resource that ensures your club stays out of the red. 
Y'all want fairness in entering?? That's easy. But that's not really what yall want. Y'all want special treatment to make sure your "amateur" dog gets preference over anybody else. Affirmative action doesn't work. There's no such thing as fair. The answer is not punitive on the pros part...its proactivity from the clubs.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Cowtown said:


> That's a different discussion and isn't the point here (and you know it). There are all kinds of reasons and circumstances why someone might not run their own dog and frankly it's none of your business. It isn't your dog or your money. It's easy for you to cast aspersions in every direction because this doesn't affect you.
> 
> *How about we limit Texas tests to Texas based owners and handlers. *How ya like them apples?


That might not sit so well with those of you who head North in the summer. We too have several clubs that need to run limited Master 's.


----------



## Moose Mtn (May 23, 2013)

Laughing on the Texas deal. My dog is a Tx bred dog, and we used to be local owners... But jobs sent us to Colorado. Smile 

but you know what- if that were the rules- we would come up with a solution. Of course that would be tough for some states that only have a couple HT per year.

i guess they would just need to move to another state....LOL


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> Pros can only run 12 dogs...if the club itself allows....flights are limited to 30..



12 is too many, thats why we limit ours to 8, and common sense tells me that you can't effectively judge more than 30 dogs in a one day test.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Todd Caswell said:


> 12 is too many, thats why we limit ours to 8, and common sense tells me that you can't effectively judge more than 30 dogs in a one day test.


We fought for years, tooth and nail, to fill up our flights and not lose money on every test we put on. 12 isn't enough. I'd let one pro have an entire flight so long as he'd bring an assistant to take care of his honoring and bye dog issues. If the hrc would allow 15 dogs I'd give 2 pros one flight and let it run itself. I'd bet my life savings it would finish first and be the smootjest run flight on the grounds. And yes, you can effectively judge more than 30 dogs. With 2 flights in one day an hrc judge sees approx 60 a day...WITH breakdown and setup from land to water and vice versa. If you never had to move and dont mis-manage your time its no problem to see 75 a day. I've seen 90 done in 1 8hr day last fall at cooper river. It was a good test too. I'm telling you, limiting the pros ain't gonna get it. They fund this whole deal whether you want to admit it or not.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Wow, anyone who wants to come help with PPRC's inability to be proactive because we limit entries is more than welcome...blaming the clubs is pretty lame! Our club works freaking hard to generate membership and keep active people but it isn't easy and I'm happy if we can snag a warm body for a year or so. And I have a few choice words for those who say PPRC is not being proactive, however I'll refrain but know it has something to do with kissing...oh yeah and pounding sand!

How about requiring the actual owner to enter their dogs, no more authorized agent (ie Pro or friend of a friend)...this would limit mass entries possibly?


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

Keith S. said:


> I don't run many AKC tests, but how can it possibly fill that fast? Are people giving EE their info before it opens? I hope that's not the case but I don't know what else it could be.


There are people who know when the test will open, simple as that.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

What exactly is the problem?

Secret handshake entry system
Limited workers
Limited grounds
Too many pro dogs
Too few amateur dogs
Master National Impact on weekend HT

Seems like a lot of people focusing on different issues
Probably there is no one size fits all answer


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Yes, some clubs do a good job of notifying ALL members. Others act as if it is an 8th grade clique and only advise their friends. What's bad is when non members get tipped off and members do not.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> Really????????? You believe that the very reason the OP can't get his dog entered has nothing to do with the problem? It certainly isn't because too many O/H are entered.


LOL Your posts were nothing about offering ideas or solutions. In your rush to criticize Moose Mtn, you must have missed the part where his pro has his clients enter their own dogs. Please explain how that's part of the problem? Your posts were an attempt to belittle Moose Mtn for not running his own dog, how it boggled your mind or whatever it was you said that someone would have the gall to not handle their own dog and how you're not concerned about an owner having difficulty entering his dog only for a pro to run it. Reminds me of Biden telling Chuck Graham to stand up.

Like I said, there are a ton of potential reasons Moose Mtn or anyone else might not handle their own dog, none of which should concern you. Pros getting tipped off or getting some VIP deal on entering 30 dogs with 1 click is a big problem, not pros that have their own clients enter their own dogs.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

FOM said:


> Wow, anyone who wants to come help with PPRC's inability to be proactive because we limit entries is more than welcome...blaming the clubs is pretty lame! Our club works freaking hard to generate membership and keep active people but it isn't easy and I'm happy if we can snag a warm body for a year or so. And I have a few choice words for those who say PPRC is not being proactive, however I'll refrain but know it has something to do with kissing...oh yeah and pounding sand!
> 
> How about requiring the actual owner to enter their dogs, no more authorized agent (ie Pro or friend of a friend)...this would limit mass entries possibly?


How is blaming the cause of the situation lame?? The clubs asked for limits. They got them. Now, their own members can't get spots in their own tests and its someone else's fault? Its not belittling in any way. Its fact. You don't have to like it but pointing fingers at those supporting your club doesn't answer the problem. It is obvious the problem is limits. Those are set by the club.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

seems it would be pretty easy to accept all entries then hold a lottery drawing to fill the spots. then you wouldnt have to know the secret handshake. Also clubs could see how many flights they could fill.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Cowtown said:


> Waterloo - 120 of 120 master dogs, 12 Senior
> HoT - 60 of 60 master, 3 Jr., 3 Sr.
> Big D - 120 of 120 master, 4 Jr., 7 Sr.
> Metro Alliance - 150 of 150 master, 7 Sr., 0 Jr. (of two Jr. flights)


Take a look at the FT tests in Texas. Five are open that close in March, mid to late. There are 14 entries in all of the stakes for all 5 tests (one FT running 3/7 closing 2/24 has 47 dogs signed up in two stakes) . This is how the hunt tests were prior to limits and MN pushes. Folks did not jump in until hours before close. We would get 80% of the entries the day prior to close.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

MikeBoley said:


> seems it would be pretty easy to accept all entries then hold a lottery drawing to fill the spots. then you wouldnt have to know the secret handshake. Also clubs could see how many flights they could fill.


Mike, that is an excellent suggestion. I've seen it mentioned and that would work. Only 1 set of folks wouldn't like that solution...


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

Joe Brakke said:


> Take a look at the FT tests in Texas. Five are open that close in March, mid to late. There are 14 entries in all of the stakes for all 5 tests (one FT running 3/7 closing 2/24 has 47 dogs signed up in two stakes) . This is how the hunt tests were prior to limits and MN pushes. Folks did not jump in until hours before close. We would get 80% of the entries the day prior to close.


I know! I enjoy attending the FT's in Central and N. TX to watch the dog work and handlers.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

I did notice that HOTRC did list the date the entries would open, guess you have to be an insider to know the time. Can anyone answer if you are using the VIP function is your entry immediate, it takes me a little bit to go throught the payment screens. Luckily FT's dont limit thier entries. Might save me $$$$ most weekends


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

Ok, I have held back on saying this but what the heck.

I think the AKC HT org could learn a lot from the UKC HRC org. From the front office to the field they seem to have it together and much larger club participation. This is from what I've seen in the past 3 years since joining.

In my opinion, this is what the HRC does to manage the same problems:

They set up two series for Finished. Flight A runs land in the am and Flight B runs water in the am. Judges go with the flight and they which. 50 dogs two series one day.
Then they do it again the next day, 4 series in 2 days vs 3 Master Series in two days with 60 dogs.

They limit the number of dogs per handler (rumor when this rule when into effect, some pros decided to go exclusive AKC because of no limits per handler).

They also have limits per flight, but if necessary another club will step in and man an additional flight, much more cooperation between clubs because the HRC organization is situated in Regions. Much more representation in the field compared to the AKC.

Current tests are open and not filled, but you need to monitor and commit eventually. The same as AKC before limits, so it is not all limits.

They also take walk ups the day of the tests, so all of the scratches are normally filled on a limited number test. Clubs work closely with HuntTestSecetarty.com to maintain a waiting list and fill the scratches as they come up prior to the test.

They have 2 Regional Grand Hunting Events in one year vs. one monster Master National event. They also have another recognition level beyond the Grand and HRCH title, a 500 Point Level and I think another 1000. You do not need to go to the Grand for a 500 Point award.

Just saying ..... some other ways to skin the cat.


----------



## Bruce MacPherson (Mar 7, 2005)

Just checked a test in my area, limited Masters, has the date AND TIME the entries open. Some will still argue that all are not fairly served but in my opinion everyone has the same shot. Maybe as good as you can do, considering.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

JoeOverby said:


> How is blaming the cause of the situation lame?? The clubs asked for limits. They got them. Now, their own members can't get spots in their own tests and its someone else's fault? Its not belittling in any way. Its fact. You don't have to like it but pointing fingers at those supporting your club doesn't answer the problem. It is obvious the problem is limits. Those are set by the club.





JoeOverby said:


> The problem has been created by the clubs. The clubs are owned, and run by the membership. The clubs made a decision to limit entries and now the membership isn't happy because there aren't enough spots and its "damn the pros". Unbelievable. If you don't like it take it up with your club. Not a member?? No license to bitch.
> The answer is not MORE laws, and restrictions. Its starting to sound like the federal government. All I've read over and over is "lack of help"..."pros and clients don't help"..."we don't have people"..I can assure you that limiting entries does only that. It doesn't solve the real problem of why your club can't recruit enough help. Keep on and it will be just like the HRC. Pros can only run 12 dogs...if the club itself allows....flights are limited to 30...anyone can enter up until the day of...keep on. Then let your secretary pull his/her hair out trying to keep all of the BS straight... and forget turning a profit. You will have bitten the hand so to speak and handcuffed the very resource that ensures your club stays out of the red.
> Y'all want fairness in entering?? That's easy. But that's not really what yall want. Y'all want special treatment to make sure your "amateur" dog gets preference over anybody else. Affirmative action doesn't work. There's no such thing as fair. The answer is not punitive on the pros part...its proactivity from the clubs.


This is was it's lame...you say the answer is pro-activity from the clubs, what makes you think some clubs aren't proactive? My club can't just split a test on grounds we don't have, we can't just create ponds and I can't make members work if they don't want to - the limit helps my club because if we ever had to split a Master test we wouldn't be able to. There has to be a way to balance the ability of the club vs. the takers in the sport. 

I agree that the Pros shouldn't be punished for large entries.
I agree the Ams shouldn't be punished for the large entries.
I agree those putting on the tests shouldn't be punished for large entries.

It's not the clubs with limited resources who are the issue and I take HUGE exception with the finger being pointed at those of us who are trying to provide test for others to run.

It's the TAKERS who are killing the sport and there was just way too many of them! 

FOM


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

FOM said:


> This is was it's lame...you say the answer is pro-activity from the clubs, what makes you think some clubs aren't proactive? My club can't just split a test on grounds we don't have, we can't just create ponds and I can't make members work if they don't want to - the limit helps my club because if we ever had to split a Master test we wouldn't be able to. There has to be a way to balance the ability of the club vs. the takers in the sport.
> 
> I agree that the Pros shouldn't be punished for large entries.
> I agree the Ams shouldn't be punished for the large entries.
> ...


Agreed!!! If the only contribution you make to the sport is writing a check and hanging up ribbons, you are part of the problem. Others have been subsidizing you and your dog.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Joe,

One last editorial - my club not only struggles to put on a HT, but we also struggle with a FT to the point that last year we only did three out of four stakes (we did not have a Derby). We lost money on our event, but we felt having a three stake event was better than no event, even if it meant we would loose money. I have to do what's right by the club and I refuse to let our club be "takers" - we try and host what we can event wise. So having the ability to limit entries in the Master stake is really good for some of the smaller clubs out there....so don't be in a hurry to blame that rule. Otherwise it is possible some clubs will fold.

FOM


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

clipper said:


> agreed!!! If the only contribution you make to the sport is writing a check and hanging up ribbons, you are part of the problem. Others have been subsidizing you and your dog.


this^^^^^^^


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

FOM said:


> This is was it's lame...you say the answer is pro-activity from the clubs, what makes you think some clubs aren't proactive? My club can't just split a test on grounds we don't have, we can't just create ponds and I can't make members work if they don't want to - the limit helps my club because if we ever had to split a Master test we wouldn't be able to. There has to be a way to balance the ability of the club vs. the takers in the sport.
> 
> I agree that the Pros shouldn't be punished for large entries.
> I agree the Ams shouldn't be punished for the large entries.
> ...


While you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I may agree with some of it the solutions being proposed serve only to take spots away from those who do manage to sign up before the test fills. NOTHING is being suggested to prevent the problem in the first place. I do understand the problem of limited grounds I do...but, when a club uses such grounds and limits entries because of said use, why are the cries of unfairness the loudest?? As a club it was decided to use the grounds and as a club it was decided to limit the entries...now in the interest of fairness some want to propose because there is not room for everyone that some not be able to enter all their dogs? Again, it is IMO a club issue. Nobody is forcing the club to use grounds that physically limit the number of entries a club may take. Yes, I understand in some cases it is a cost and/or logistics issue but it is not the fault of the absentee owner, pro, or lazy/selfish participant that a club chooses to make such decisions and as such I don't feel the "fix" is to "take from those that do have and redistribute to those that don't". It doesn't work. Just look at the state of our federal government! Understand that I wasn't pointing the finger at you per say..nor your club, merely trying to get some to understand that the answer to the issue lies in the very decisions the club makes...not the actions made by participants selfishly or unselfishly. As clubs, we serve the participants both member and non-member alike. If participants are unhappy with the fact that there are not enough spots to accommodate everyone who wishes to play then as a club, we have a responsibility to address the problem, as best we can, from a club standpoint. Which is why I believe the problem is the limits, no matter the reason, set by the club that has his whole thing turned on its ear. FWIW, I am VP of an hrc club. I give up one weekend a year to out on our test on my grounds. We have limited membership and limited water but we do our best to put on the largest event we can handle. Last fall it was 4 finished flights (30 dogs each), 2 seasoned flights (20 dogs each), and a started flight ( approx 30 dogs). I also lend a hand at EVERY SINGLE TEST I ATTEND both hrc and akc. I know where you are coming from I just disagree with the premise that because some clubs are limited some of us should take a back seat so that others may have a turn.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JoeOverby said:


> While you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I may agree with some of it the solutions being proposed serve only to take spots away from those who do manage to sign up before the test fills. NOTHING is being suggested to prevent the problem in the first place. I do understand the problem of limited grounds I do...but, when a club uses such grounds and limits entries because of said use, why are the cries of unfairness the loudest?? As a club it was decided to use the grounds and as a club it was decided to limit the entries...now in the interest of fairness some want to propose because there is not room for everyone that some not be able to enter all their dogs? Again, it is IMO a club issue. Nobody is forcing the club to use grounds that physically limit the number of entries a club may take. Yes, I understand in some cases it is a cost and/or logistics issue but it is not the fault of the absentee owner, pro, or lazy/selfish participant that a club chooses to make such decisions and as such I don't feel the "fix" is to "take from those that do have and redistribute to those that don't". It doesn't work. Just look at the state of our federal government! Understand that I wasn't pointing the finger at you per say..nor your club, merely trying to get some to understand that the answer to the issue lies in the very decisions the club makes...not the actions made by participants selfishly or unselfishly. As clubs, we serve the participants both member and non-member alike. If participants are unhappy with the fact that there are not enough spots to accommodate everyone who wishes to play then as a club, we have a responsibility to address the problem, as best we can, from a club standpoint. Which is why I believe the problem is the limits, no matter the reason, set by the club that has his whole thing turned on its ear. FWIW, I am VP of an hrc club. I give up one weekend a year to out on our test on my grounds. We have limited membership and limited water but we do our best to put on the largest event we can handle. Last fall it was 4 finished flights (30 dogs each), 2 seasoned flights (20 dogs each), and a started flight ( approx 30 dogs). I also lend a hand at EVERY SINGLE TEST I ATTEND both hrc and akc. I know where you are coming from I just disagree with the premise that because some clubs are limited some of us should take a back seat so that others may have a turn.



Joe 

It seems that you live in Georgia, where water is abundant. In Colorado, water is scarce and precious. 

A club's options are not unlimited, as you suggest. And if a club is limited in its options, its decisions are by necessity, limited as well. So, it may suit your argument to imply that Lainee has unlimited access, but in practicality, she does not.

If you have limited grounds, limited help, limited access to judges (because you can not afford to fly them in), your options are too.

Pretending that there are no limits is not productive in developing answers.

Ted


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Really there is one and only one fair way to handle this entry problem. Just like Running Marathons like NY or Chicago. All can apply and then have a random draw. It just doesn't get any more fair to each and every one than that. Sure a Pro with 12 dogs might get only 1 in and I might not get my 1 dog in. Luck of the draw for both of us. That pro might cancel his 1 dog and then the next in the draw could move up. EE sure wouldn't like it and their take of the fees might go up but let's get fair.....


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jacduck said:


> Really there is one and only one fair way to handle this entry problem. Just like Running Marathons like NY or Chicago. All can apply and then have a random draw. It just doesn't get any more fair to each and every one than that. Sure a Pro with 12 dogs might get only 1 in and I might not get my 1 dog in. Luck of the draw for both of us. That pro might cancel his 1 dog and then the next in the draw could move up. EE sure wouldn't like it and their take of the fees might go up but let's get fair.....


g


The analogy does not work. In the marathon, a runner gets one entry. In the HT, a owner/handler may have multiple entries. It's apples and oranges.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> Joe
> 
> It seems that you live in Georgia, where water is abundant. In Colorado, water is scarce and precious.
> 
> ...


And a socialist perspective of taking from those that have and giving to those who don't is?
Ted again, I understand the hardships that some clubs face. It wasn't long ago we thought about shutting our doors due to poor attendance! Because of my experiences through this time and decisions made (poor and good) I have come to the realization that a clubs decisions, however minor, can have a major unforseen negative impact on entries. If you really want my honest opinion I believe some clubs really do have a NEED to limit. On the flip side of that same coin I honestly believe that some clubs have taken advantage of the rule and limit entries to avoid the headache of having a last minute split, affording judges, and recruiting help for the sake of simplicity NOT necessity. 
You are also under the assumption that water is plentiful in ALL areas of my state....where I am located, USABLE water is scarce. Hence why many clubs use local pros/serious amateurs facilities to host events to fill the need.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Joe,

I see you are missing my point so I'm going to stop trying to make it. 

And don't take my disagreement with you as whining. It's more of: it's raining and I'm sick of getting my leg pissed on, especially knowing first hand for way too many years what it takes to pull off a HT and FT with extremely limited resources, not to mention fighting complete and total burnout.

FOM


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

I'm not missing your point...I just disagree with it. Sounds like you need a bigger umbrella...


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

JoeOverby said:


> And a socialist perspective of taking from those that have and giving to those who don't is?


You have made reference to this a couple times....please give me an example of who is taking from who and redistributing the wealth? I'm confused on this statement (seriously).


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

FOM said:


> You have made reference to this a couple times....please give me an example of who is taking from who and redistributing the wealth? I'm confused on this statement (seriously).


OK...I sit by my computer and wait...and wait...and wait... (true story) test opens and I get all my dogs entered so I'm good. Someone else does not and now, because I'm in with multiple dogs the answer is to only allow me 5 of my 12?? Or to place me in a random lottery draw?? Or to place a mandatory upfront limit on how many I can enter?? Now you are taking money out of my wallet in the interest of fairness...to allow someone else to opportunity to fill a spot that could have otherwise put food on my table. That's what I mean. It was missed in another thread when I posted that to truly make the entry process "fair" then EE should standardize ALL openings to 21 days before the ht date at 12 pm. That would allow everyone the same opportunity to be by a computer and race to get their entries in. No, it would nothing to appease those complaining about pros that take up 90% of the entries in a limited test in the first couple minutes the test is open...but I have spoken my piece concerning that issue.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

JoeOverby said:


> And a socialist perspective of taking from those that have and giving to those who don't is?
> Ted again, I understand the hardships that some clubs face. It wasn't long ago we thought about shutting our doors due to poor attendance! Because of my experiences through this time and decisions made (poor and good) I have come to the realization that a clubs decisions, however minor, can have a major unforseen negative impact on entries. If you really want my honest opinion I believe some clubs really do have a NEED to limit. On the flip side of that same coin I honestly believe that some clubs have taken advantage of the rule and limit entries to avoid the headache of having a last minute split, affording judges, and recruiting help for the sake of simplicity NOT necessity.
> You are also under the assumption that water is plentiful in ALL areas of my state....where I am located, USABLE water is scarce. Hence why many clubs use local pros/serious amateurs facilities to host events to fill the need.


Your really gonna have to explain to me how trying to give everyone an equal chance at entering a HT is Socialism or as you put it "taking from those who have and giving to those who don't"

Additionally even though you have given lip service to "understanding" limited resources it is obvious that you dont have {or exhibit}any real understanding of it


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

mjh345 said:


> Your really gonna have to explain to me how trying to give everyone an equal chance at entering a HT is Socialism or as you put it "taking from those who have and giving to those who don't"
> 
> Additionally even though you have given lip service to "understanding" limited resources it is obvious that you dont have {or exhibit}any real understanding of it


OK Mark. One suggestion was to let folks sign up their dogs and then depending on the number to only take the first 3 or 5 or whatever arbitrary number the club chose to meet the predetermined limit. So if I successfully signed up 10 and then the club went back at took away 5 of my spots and gave them to someone else is that not redistribution?? Another solution was to let folks sign up and then place them in a random lottery draw?? So now, after I've signed up I may not even get an entry while someone else does?? Further, it is taking money out of my pocket to allow someone else an opportunity...sounds like social welfare to me. 
As far as lip service...we put on our test (300+ entries, 7 flights) with 5 small ponds (2 acres or less). We have limited resources. We make it work every year. There are 7 people on our board and we round up another 7-10 in addition to paying the local ROTC to bird boy to put on our entire shindig. Limited resources Mark.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> You have made reference to this a couple times....please give me an example of who is taking from who and redistributing the wealth? I'm confused on this statement (seriously).


LOL...the way I read his rantings, Mr. Overby is all in favor of entitlement for HIM. He thinks clubs' lazy or working members are abusing limits, they couldn't possibly have limited grounds or lose money from holding a test, so let's force them to, so he can run all his dogs and put food on his table. Yeah, that sounds like socialism. ((((eyeroll))))


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Okay - I'm just trying to understand. You are a Pro? Sorry did not realize that. So you are looking at this from that perspective, got it.

But taking "food off your table" doesn't necessarily put any food on my, I don't get paid in any way form of fashion to run a dog or to put on the event, if anything I loose money (vacation days, gas, hotel expense, etc.). So I don't get the "redistribution of wealth argument." But I do understand the, I'm a Pro trying to make a living and limiting my ability to enter hurts my bottom line.

This sport is a delicate balance between volunteers who put on the event and a Pro making a living, but if the Ams "throw in the towel" and stop volunteering to host events because they can't enter their own events, then it doesn't matter how many dogs a Pro has to enter or if there are limits on entries because there will be no event to enter...you will not even have any food for your table as a Pro and the volunteer Am will save two-three days of vacation time 

I don't know what the solution is to make things balance out, but I can promise you, my small club can only handle so much with the resources we have. I will do everything in my power to try and make sure my club members know when the event is opening, I will make sure I do it at a time that is convenient for them so they can enter, because without them no one will have an event to participate in....I'm not concerned if a Pro doesn't make a profit of an event that is run by unpaid volunteers. To me that's more socialist in nature.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Pro (I use a Pro because it's impossible to train on solid water and in the dark).

FOM


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Julie R. said:


> LOL...the way I read his rantings, Mr. Overby is all in favor of entitlement for HIM. He thinks clubs' lazy or working members are abusing limits, they couldn't possibly have limited grounds or lose money from holding a test, so let's force them to, so he can run all his dogs and put food on his table. And wow, some of those club members who work might even make more money than him so it's OK for them to take days off from their jobs to make it happen. Yeah, that sounds like socialism. ((((eyeroll))))


Wrong again. I don't believe in entitlements. My point was by limiting you take money away from those who choose to make their living in doggie games. Way to misconstrue what I meant. Guess you also missed my RANTING about helping at every test I attend in addition to holding one every year. You probably also missed the post about our club almost closing its doors due to some poor decisions...
My point is that you can't just take from those who do get their dogs entered and call that fair. It has nothing to do with me personally, however there's a whole group of folks who do this professionally who will not be happy with the idea of limiting their opportunities.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

And let me add - for our FT, when it got out last year that PPRC would not hold a trial (I'm a little burnt out)....I swear to God my phone rang off the hook because the local FT Pros and those who visit our circuit were all about making it happen. So I do get the impact that a Pro can have a very positive impact on a club, without our local FT Pros, PPRC would of thrown in the towel....


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

JoeOverby said:


> As far as lip service...we put on our test (300+ entries, 7 flights) with 5 small ponds (2 acres or less). We have limited resources. We make it work every year. There are 7 people on our board and we round up another 7-10 in addition to paying the local ROTC to bird boy to put on our entire shindig. Limited resources Mark.


This is commendable, and those sound like dream grounds. 5 small ponds with each having enough space to park 50+ rigs and far enough apart tests wouldn't interfere with eachother would mean the difference for so many clubs that now have to use limits. We don't have any shortage of water around here, but finding places that you can get permission to use and that can accommodate the traffic of a big HT are very few and far between. Really, the lack of land is the biggest problem our sport faces, and land access is only going to get worse since it's a finite resource.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

FOM said:


> Okay - I'm just trying to understand. You are a Pro? Sorry did not realize that. So you are looking at this from that perspective, got it.
> 
> But taking "food off your table" doesn't necessarily put any food on my, I don't get paid in any way form of fashion to run a dog or to put on the event, if anything I loose money (vacation days, gas, hotel expense, etc.). So I don't get the "redistribution of wealth argument." But I do understand the, I'm a Pro trying to make a living and limiting my ability to enter hurts my bottom line.
> 
> ...


You and I are now officially on the same page. The redistribution of wealth was a metaphor...maybe I should of said redistribution of available entries? And again I agree that without the volunteers a test is impossible...
Some things I have learned since our club almost went bankrupt:
You have to have volunteers
You have to have birds...cost is irrelevant
You have to have judges...if you can find em locally it really helps the bottom line but they are a necessity
You have to have poppers(hrc)
You have to have bird boys
Without any of these you cannot have a test
I have found it is much easier for a club to be successful if it has a large number or pros that participate. We held MANY tests of predominantly single dog ams that barely broke even, never filled up, and were day of, walk up paperwork nightmares.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Joe,

I think the suggestions made so far are just that - ideas, nothing more. I don't like the idea of a random draw (or similar), I have to plan my vacation days with work and I can't just change the last minute. Pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I don't think taking away a club's ability to manage it's resources is the way to go either (or you get rid of the mandatory split).

I think we are all focusing on the symptoms vs. the issue. I personally think it's the drive to qualify for the MN and the additional titles now offered. Keep in mind HRC does not require a dog to re-qualify for the Grand, hence why you don't see the large numbers in Finish. (At least that's my opinion)

You have to ask yourself, why are there so many Master dogs? 

FOM


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

JoeOverby said:


> OK Mark. One suggestion was to let folks sign up their dogs and then depending on the number to only take the first 3 or 5 or whatever arbitrary number the club chose to meet the predetermined limit. So if I successfully signed up 10 and then the club went back at took away 5 of my spots and gave them to someone else is that not redistribution?? Another solution was to let folks sign up and then place them in a random lottery draw?? So now, after I've signed up I may not even get an entry while someone else does?? Further, it is taking money out of my pocket to allow someone else an opportunity...sounds like social welfare to me.
> As far as lip service...we put on our test (300+ entries, 7 flights) with 5 small ponds (2 acres or less). We have limited resources. We make it work every year. There are 7 people on our board and we round up another 7-10 in addition to paying the local ROTC to bird boy to put on our entire shindig. Limited resources Mark.


Joe,

I am 100% with you on the various proposed solutions. Seems everyone like a solution that allows them in but hurts some other class. But you simply miss the mark that the clubs somehow are limiting entries for the lulz. Of all the HTs in my region, since I am not familiar enough to opine on the grounds and help elsewhere, single one has limited at what I consider a reasonable number. But even if they wanted to limit at less than their max capacity, it is their club and they can do what they want. Couldn't one throw the 'socialism' argument back at you when you are saying that these clubs could hold larger HTs therefore they should so you can make a living?

Besides, your network seems to be working well as you seem to have gotten into every HT that has filled.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

FOM said:


> Joe,
> 
> I think the suggestions made so far are just that - ideas, nothing more. I don't like the idea of a random draw (or similar), I have to plan my vacation days with work and I can't just change the last minute. Pretty sure I'm not the only one.
> 
> ...


100% agree. I will say though that I wish hrc would make requalification for the grand every year mandatory. Personally I would rather worry about how to accommodate monster entries than I would worry about even breaking even. It costs us $10000 to put on a test...we take a gamble every single fall as to whether or not we will cover our cost.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

DoubleHaul said:


> Joe,
> 
> I am 100% with you on the various proposed solutions. Seems everyone like a solution that allows them in but hurts some other class. But you simply miss the mark that the clubs somehow are limiting entries for the lulz. Of all the HTs in my region, since I am not familiar enough to opine on the grounds and help elsewhere, single one has limited at what I consider a reasonable number. But even if they wanted to limit at less than their max capacity, it is their club and they can do what they want. Couldn't one throw the 'socialism' argument back at you when you are saying that these clubs could hold larger HTs therefore they should so you can make a living?
> 
> Besides, your network seems to be working well as you seem to have gotten into every HT that has filled.


You could throw the argument right back at me. You could say its unfair to allow me to get my dogs entered for the sake of making a living and no one else. Which is why my argument was in favor of limiting NO ONE.
No network here...my clients and I watch EE like a hawk...I fear next fall will be much, MUCH worse.


----------



## Twin Willows Labs (Feb 4, 2014)

Ok. As I read these, I am curious why this is not handled the same as other instances where demand exceeds supply. Please note that I am not taking sides in the pro vs. am discussion. Nor have I been fortunate enough to run a dog in a MH test (or unfortunate enough to be shut out of one). I am simply offering a solution that might make sense. If entries are limited (say 60 dogs), and sells out, why not create a wait list of say 10-12 dogs? At some pre-determined date provided by the club (3-7 days ahead maybe?), the person entering the dog MUST confirm on EE that the dog will actually be running. If the entry is not confirmed, one of the wait list dogs fills the spot. In order to prevent the monopolization that many seem to feel disdain towards, perhaps set up a one-dog-per-handler wait list.

Could this work?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Are hunt tests supposed to be a professional game? While the pros do make up a large portion of the entry, it wasn't originally that way. I do believe that if John Doe Amateur with one dog has five tests a year within a reasonable distance, two of which are put on by the club he belongs to, and four of the five tests fill with ten minutes of their opening time while John is working his factory job and not able to access a computer, John is going to find something else to do with his weekends and spare cash. He'll either switch venues, which will be great for HRC, or he'll quit the local retriever club and save his money for a bigger hunting trip. 

For the pros who claim they need all these entries to make a living: I don't see the field trial pros showing up with twelve dogs to run in the open. How on earth do they pay their bills running only a few?

I do think that a per dog, not per handler, lottery would be fairest, if entries must be limited. I'm not sure how this would be unfair, since it puts everybody on equal footing as far as a chance to enter. 

Hunt tests aren't held for pros to make a living. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> Now you are taking money out of my wallet in the interest of fairness...to allow someone else to opportunity to fill a spot that could have otherwise put food on my table.



I can see why you wouldn't think it would be fair to limit your entries, it always comes down to the wallet.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> For the pros who claim they need all these entries to make a living: I don't see the field trial pros showing up with twelve dogs to run in the open. How on earth do they pay their bills running only a few?


LOL. Around here they usually bring twice that


----------



## Gunners Up (Jul 29, 2004)

It seems to me if you are going to have a limited entry then you need to have a published date and time that you are "going live" and accepting entries. 

Quick question, if you saw a hunt test on EE that wasn't finalized, why couldn't you FedEx EE your entries & check? Wouldn't they be obligated to hold those spots for you since you would have a proof of delivery?

RD


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Todd Caswell said:


> I can see why you wouldn't think it would be fair to limit your entries, it always comes down to the wallet.


Again take only a small portion of my argument and use it to support your stance...my point was in reference to all participating pros. None of which will be happy with taking a pay cut.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

DoubleHaul said:


> LOL. Around here they usually bring twice that


You've got pros running 24 dogs each in the open???


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> Hunt tests aren't held for pros to make a living. I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.


Id'e like to think that the pro needs the club more than the club needs the pro, if Joes making his living running HT's guess what he has to have somewhere to run them, and how many times have people spoke up during these MH threads and said " If I can't run my dog I'm not working either" you can only run so many people off befor it takes a toll on the club and as we all know when you loose a good hard working member, there tough to replace, you loose enough of them the club fails and Joe can't make a living.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

As I understand it the VIP status in EE would allow the 1st pro to get all his dogs in. I think in at least one test I looked at two pros had more than 25% entered with one click of the button. The next couple of VIPs had to manually trim their entries to meet left over spots. One pro I talked to this weekend could only get two dogs in. This thing is hurting everyone and lottery is the only fair way to handle it. Entry time and date isn't going to work any better since another guy I talked with got a note from a member saying an event would open at 0700. It was filled by 00015 hrs. BTW I just got the percentage numbers by looking at a random event a couple of minutes ago. This is not isolated.

Blame the clubs who can NOT muster the grounds or the help is just plain wrong.



Gunners Up said:


> It seems to me if you are going to have a limited entry then you need to have a published date and time that you are "going live" and accepting entries.
> 
> 
> 
> RD


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

JoeOverby said:


> You could throw the argument right back at me. You could say its unfair to allow me to get my dogs entered for the sake of making a living and no one else. Which is why my argument was in favor of limiting NO ONE.
> No network here...my clients and I watch EE like a hawk....


So Joe Your argument is for "limiting NO ONE".........If thats the case how would you have handled your Hunt Test if the numbers had been tripled? or maybe 10X the flights and entries on your 5 ponds?

Now do you understand the concept of "LIMITED RESOURCES"??

Then I quote you Joe:......... "No network here...my clients and I watch EE like a hawk"
FYI Joe that ......"MY CLIENTS AND I".... thingy you referred to is called a NETWORK


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

mjh345 said:


> So Joe Your argument is for "limiting NO ONE".........If thats the case how would you have handled your Hunt Test if the numbers had been tripled? or maybe 10X the flights and entries on your 5 ponds?
> 
> Now do you understand the concept of "LIMITED RESOURCES"??
> 
> ...



Quit pickin on Joe, these dog games wouldn't be possible without guys like himself according to what he wrote on page 4




> *I'm telling you, limiting the pros ain't gonna get it. They fund this whole deal whether you want to admit it or not.*


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Julie R. said:


> LOL...the way I read his rantings, Mr. Overby is all in favor of entitlement for HIM. He thinks clubs' lazy or working members are abusing limits, they couldn't possibly have limited grounds or lose money from holding a test, so let's force them to, so he can run all his dogs and put food on his table. Yeah, that sounds like socialism. ((((eyeroll))))


Even though this isn't POTUS it seems to have gone that route. It appears that Mr Overby is actually in favor of "Crony Capitalism". 
He may have a fuure in your Metro area Julie


----------



## fetchtx (May 12, 2005)

Todd Caswell said:


> Id'e like to think that the pro needs the club more than the club needs the pro, if Joes making his living running HT's guess what he has to have somewhere to run them, and how many times have people spoke up during these MH threads and said " If I can't run my dog I'm not working either" you can only run so many people off befor it takes a toll on the club and as we all know when you loose a good hard working member, there tough to replace, you loose enough of them the club fails and Joe can't make a living.


The pro who says he cant make a living by being limited on entrys brings the question - Pros do not all charge for handling a dog at a test, some only charge if the dog passes , others have their monthly training fee high enough to not charge handling fees.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

And now Bryan College Station shows 8 Master slots available after closing and running order posted in the Master. 
https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedIn/viewevent.aspx?eid=6479


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Todd Caswell said:


> Quit pickin on Joe, these dog games wouldn't be possible without guys like himself according to what he wrote on page 4


Haha!! I'm really not picking on Joe or pros in general
But Joe seems a bit myopic to me. If it ain't broke for Joe, then it ain't broke!!

So let me ask you this Joe. You play the HRC game. They limit flights to 30 dogs. For the sake of this hypothetical say that is all the resources available. 30 is a Handy figure in light of the fact that one of the threads about these Master tests closing in 10 minutes mentioned the fact that one pro had 30 dogs. So if that pro comes into your circuit and his "network" is better faster or had more information as to opening times {focus on this last one } than yours such that he gets his 30 dogs entered before you, then you would be blocked out for the whole season, and couldn't run any tests.
Would you still be arguing things are fair & OK and nobody should have to share those spots?

If your kids were wondering why there wasn't any food or they couldn't have Christmas would you respond "Thats because Daddy hates Socialism"!!??


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

JoeOverby said:


> Again take only a small portion of my argument and use it to support your stance...my point was in reference to all participating pros. None of which will be happy with taking a pay cut.


I love this! I have 20-30 members show up at zero dark thirty to stage a HT so Pros who DO NOT lift a flipping finger can make a living off our combined FREE labor at the expense of an individual who, OMG, would like to run his/her own dog but couldn't because he was not able to enter due to the flight being full before he/she had a chance to log in and enter.

Unless it is PRTA event, I could give a rats axx if a pro running HT dogs loses a couple hundred in handlers fees, because most HT pros do not stage events and few offer up help to run them. I was under the impression that a pro TRAINED dogs for a living. My bad for assuming that.

In no way, shape or form is a level playing field the wrong way to address this problem. Clubs need to be able to limit. But more importantly, the members who put the tests on need a fair shot at entering.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> LOL. Around here they usually bring twice that


You beat me to it...12 in the Open for some Texas trialers would be low for them.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

JoeOverby said:


> You could throw the argument right back at me. You could say its unfair to allow me to get my dogs entered for the sake of making a living and no one else. Which is why my argument was in favor of limiting NO ONE.
> No network here...*my clients and I watch EE like a hawk.*..I fear next fall will be much, MUCH worse.


While some folks work a jobs that do not allow this .


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

Gunners Up said:


> Quick question, if you saw a hunt test on EE that wasn't finalized, why couldn't you FedEx EE your entries & check? Wouldn't they be obligated to hold those spots for you since you would have a proof of delivery?
> 
> RD


I've been wondering this exact question. Could I mail in my entry and fee to the hunt test secretary before it was on EE?


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

mjh345 said:


> Haha!! I'm really not picking on Joe or pros in general
> But Joe seems a bit myopic to me. If it ain't broke for Joe, then it ain't broke!!
> 
> So let me ask you this Joe. You play the HRC game. They limit flights to 30 dogs. For the sake of this hypothetical say that is all the resources available. 30 is a Handy figure in light of the fact that one of the threads about these Master tests closing in 10 minutes mentioned the fact that one pro had 30 dogs. So if that pro comes into your circuit and his "network" is better faster or had more information as to opening times {focus on this last one } than yours such that he gets his 30 dogs entered before you, then you would be blocked out for the whole season, and couldn't run any tests.
> ...


To answer your question simply...yes. it would be fair...it ain't the pros fault I didn't do my job and so he should have to give up his spots. And yes, daddy hates socialism...and it ain't crony capitalism...its free market capitalism...but then I don't expect you to understand that.
And, you have taken my while argument to mean that its about me...quite the contrary, I am simply taking the side of the pro...the fact that I happen to be one has no bearing on my argument whatsoever. It seems to be your intent to goad me into an argument over my stance on the subject rather than propose any form of solution. It is my belief that the responsibility lies with the club and that the answer is no limits. I am allowed to have and voice those. You don't have to agree, you don't have to like it...but don't tell me im wrong because we don't share the same idealogy. And don't try and turn this thing into a political debate for your own entertainment. You know good and well the socialism argument was metaphorically speaking. But I see since you have no smart remark to that by which to defend yourself youd rather pick at me about my political leanings. Nice try. Now, unless you have anything worth contributing go back to your hole.


----------



## Cowtown (Oct 3, 2009)

I'm guessing the far majority of handlers at the MN are pros. This entire situation is being driven by the system set up to quality for the MN and the VIP, 1 click entry method on EE is exacerbating the issue, not to mention those that are being tipped off as to when it opens on EE, etc.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Cowtown said:


> I'm guessing the far majority of handlers at the MN are pros. This entire situation is being driven by the system set up to quality for the MN and the VIP, 1 click entry method on EE is exacerbating the issue, not to mention those that are being tipped off as to when it opens on EE, etc.


It is definitely related to the MN but is not related to EE. I could add 50 dogs just as quickly on EE without being a VIP member.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Oh and to answer your question about what we'd do if our test was bigger?? We're adding 2 more flights of finished this fall to accommodate an ever growing event and sport. If need be we will lease more land to be able to hold the event. If need be, we will find another, completely different venue more suitable for the event. Our participants have spoken and so long as they are willing to support us we will do anything possible to hold a test and not turn them away.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

One day master tests would help. In hrc two finished tests are run in a weekend, one on Sat and one on Sun. If multiple flights, then multiple flights on Sat and Sun.
Didn't master used to be just one day?
In theory you could handle twice the dogs with the same resources.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Sharon Potter said:


> Are hunt tests supposed to be a professional game? .......
> ......Hunt tests aren't held for pros to make a living..........


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

fetchtx said:


> The pro who says he cant make a living by being limited on entrys brings the question - Pros do not all charge for handling a dog at a test, some only charge if the dog passes , others have their monthly training fee high enough to not charge handling fees.


Call it whatever you want, but they don't do it for free. The cost is built in somewhere.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> It is definitely related to the MN but is not related to EE. I could add 50 dogs just as quickly on EE without being a VIP member.


Exactly, with a Club Credit Card, the club secretary could enter all the club members and friends that may want to run the trial, a split second after they open the test up for entry. They could also put in extra dogs just to hold spots and give a Heads-up about when they are going to scratch to their friends that didn't initially get in. Kind of like the pros do now. 

Do you still think that's fair?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Doug Main said:


> Exactly, with a Club Credit Card, the club secretary could enter all the club members and friends that may want to run the trial, a split second after they open the test up for entry. They could also put in extra dogs just to hold spots and give a Heads-up about when they are going to scratch to their friends that didn't initially get in. Kind of like the pros do now.
> 
> Do you still think that's fair?



Or a guy could enter dogs that had no intention of running, not even in the same state and resell the spots via a paypal account, kinda like scalping tickets, no matter the rules someone will find a way to cheat the system


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Doug Main said:


> Exactly, with a Club Credit Card, the club secretary could enter all the club members and friends that may want to run the trial, a split second after they open the test up for entry. They could also put in extra dogs just to hold spots and give a Heads-up about when they are going to scratch to their friends that didn't initially get in. Kind of like the pros do now.
> 
> Do you still think that's fair?


My point was that folks seem to think that the EE VIP club is the bogeyman, when it offers no advantage on getting into HTs.

As far as fairness, how do you define it in the dog game? Folks seem to think it is fair if it gives them an advantage to the detriment of others. I generally don't see a whole lot of fairness in the dog game. Is it fair that folks have lots more time and/or money than I do, have better dogs, can take summer and winter trips? If the club secretary wants to enter the entire club, I don't have any real problem with that. Lots of folks would welcome that, I am sure and others would run elsewhere and may not come back if the MN problems is ever solved, but it isn't for me to tell them how to run their club.


----------



## bakbay (May 20, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> One day master tests would help. In hrc two finished tests are run in a weekend, one on Sat and one on Sun. If multiple flights, then multiple flights on Sat and Sun.
> Didn't master used to be just one day?
> In theory you could handle twice the dogs with the same resources.


I have seen very few master tests, since about 1990, that finished in one day. Most of those followed the pattern of a big cut after a tough first series, followed by "relatively" easy second and third series designed to be quick. Even if AKC tests were limited to the 25 or 30 dogs in a finished flight, the dogs would still be required to complete three rather than two series...there will never be (IMO) a change to master tests to limit them to a land and water series only. The changes over the years have been in the other direction; first, a change to make it clear that a master test had to include a triple, and, more recently, to include two triples. None of this is intended to imply anything about the relative difficulty of HRC finished vs. AKC master tests, BTW, since HRC has also made changes over time that "tend" to more difficulty, only to explain why master tests take longer than finished.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

I said it before(most of this had already been hashed out in the deleted thread) but I'll say it again. A hunt test should NEVER favor a pro over an amateur handler...NEVER. I'm not anti pro at all but it wasn't the intent of the hunt tests, in fact I would argue that the intent was partly to get away from pros all together. Pro's are in the game to stay but to sacrifice any amateur handler that wants to play to allow a pro to run a string of dogs is wrong in every way. 
Fair or not the random draw hurts everyone and still risks leaving the local guy out of his nearby tests
A limit to the number a handler can enter each day until full would work but some pros may prefer just being all in or all out. Which brings us to the simplest and IMO best way to do it, Owner/amateur/handlers get a day or two to enter before a pro can. That way the amateur gets his 1 or 2 dogs in, then the pros get to see who has the best computer skills. If they don't get in, they move to the next test even if they have to drive to get there instead of only getting a few of their dogs in before it fills.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

Sheesh, you people are a trip. 

I'm not gonna type all night so I'll be brief. Whether any of you want to admit it or not, Joe is right. Pros drive this sport, fair doesnt have a damn thing to do with anything. Fair doesnt exist in real life. Suck it up buttercup.

If you're an amateur and don't get your dogs signed up, oh well, go fishing, spend some time with your family, or go train some more. 

Funny story, an AKC test is right in my back yard next month, it filled up on the day it opened and I didnt get signed up, guess what? I'm going fishing that weekend. I think I'll live.......


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> Sheesh, you people are a trip.
> 
> I'm not gonna type all night so I'll be brief. Whether any of you want to admit it or not, Joe is right. Pros drive this sport, fair doesnt have a damn thing to do with anything. Fair doesnt exist in real life. Suck it up buttercup.
> 
> ...


LOL, do you see the irony and contradiction in your post?
Just in case you don't I'll give you a hint. If pros drive this sport and every am had the same attitude you do, who would show up to put on the test?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

achiro said:


> I said it before(most of this had already been hashed out in the deleted thread) but I'll say it again. A hunt test should NEVER favor a pro over an amateur handler...NEVER. I'm not anti pro at all but it wasn't the intent of the hunt tests, in fact I would argue that the intent was partly to get away from pros all together. Pro's are in the game to stay but to sacrifice any amateur handler that wants to play to allow a pro to run a string of dogs is wrong in every way.
> Fair or not the random draw hurts everyone and still risks leaving the local guy out of his nearby tests
> A limit to the number a handler can enter each day until full would work but some pros may prefer just being all in or all out. Which brings us to the simplest and IMO best way to do it, Owner/amateur/handlers get a day or two to enter before a pro can. That way the amateur gets his 1 or 2 dogs in, then the pros get to see who has the best computer skills. If they don't get in, they move to the next test even if they have to drive to get there instead of only getting a few of their dogs in before it fills.




Two thumbs up


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Chris Rosier said:


> guess what? I'm going fishing that weekend. I think I'll live.......


are you gonna take Lemon with you, or are y'all still mad with each other? If not, ill go.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Pros do not drive the sport.
Amateurs cut the checks. Without amateurs, no pro has a job.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

achiro said:


> LOL, do you see the irony and contradiction in your post?
> Just in case you don't I'll give you a hint. If pros drive this sport and every am had the same attitude you do, who would show up to put on the test?



Not everybody has the same attitude as me? Oh My God, you mean there are people with different attitudes? Who knew?

I tell you what, maybe you should put on a test and not allow pros to sign up. Amateurs only. Let me know how that works out for ya......


Blaine, I aint mad at Mike, he's going, but I've got a big boat and theres plenty of room, you can ride. Besides, we've gotta have somebody to stay sober and get us back to the hill.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> Whether any of you want to admit it or not, Joe is right. Pros drive this sport, .....


Do tell, seems to me if there was no one to write a check each month professional dog trainers might be professional something but not dog trainers.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> Not everybody has the same attitude as me? Oh My God, you mean there are people with different attitudes? Who knew?
> 
> I tell you what, maybe you should put on a test and not allow pros to sign up. Amateurs only. Let me know how that works out for ya......
> 
> ...


Better yet, we can put on a test only for pros and all go fishing instead of helping and see how that works out for ya...


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

Good grief, can y'all not get the gist of what I was trying to say? Maybe I should've typed, "pros drive the sport because some amateurs have lives outside of running dogs every day and simply cannot devote the time to it to do it at the desired level, therefore they pay a pro"


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

achiro said:


> Better yet, we can put on a test only for pros and all go fishing instead of helping and see how that works out for ya...


I know exactly how it'd work. They'd hire bird boys and a secretary and put on the test. They'd run 300+ dogs and probably be done by Sunday at dinnertime and still have time to catch a fish in the tech pond if they so desired........


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> Good grief, can y'all not get the gist of what I was trying to say? Maybe I should've typed, "pros drive the sport because some amateurs have lives outside of running dogs every day and simply cannot devote the time to it to do it at the desired level, therefore they pay a pro"


Yeah the gist is that they are absentee owners...they are TAKER! They are part of the problem that the ones who are volunteering to put on an event have to support...and those volunteers deserve to have an opportunity to run their own event...

edit: there are many who utilize pros who are not takers...but there seems to be many who are, using a pro does not make you a taker


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Perfect- I'll just pull up a lawn chair and a coupla longnecks and watch this show.

The only thing any 2 Pros can agree on is that other dumb SOB ain't got a clue. I was wondering though- who is going to judge this spectacle? Speaking of ain't got a clue- you must be the Chairman of the board of that particular institution.

Sitting in the shade sipping cold one regards

Bubba


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Chris Rosier said:


> I know exactly how it'd work. They'd hire bird boys and a secretary and put on the test. They'd run 300+ dogs and probably be done by Sunday at dinnertime and still have time to catch a fish in the tech pond if they so desired........


Will ya ask them to put on a few events in CO?! I'd love to enter and sit on my arse...


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

Nope. I'm a "taker". If I came to Colorado, I'd be smoking weed and snow skiing.

Y'all have fun, the fish are biting and I've got to be at the lake early so I can get to my spot before anybody else. Theres a one boat limit on that brush pile and if I don't get to it in time, I don't get to play........get it?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Chris I did not say you specifically a taker, but enjoy fishing hope ya get to your bush, but don't be too upset if there are a few other fisherman crowding ya out of your spot. 

its all good...

but I still think everyone is focusing on the symptoms and not the cause - qualifying for the Master National....but what do I know, I should just stick to HTS/FTS duties, marshaling, chunking birds and whatever else needs to be done...nothing like the smell of dead duck on your hands while ya eat a smushed subway sandwich! Mmmmm....oh memories....oohhhh memories...

maybe I should of ordered that second glass of wine!


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

achiro said:


> LOL, do you see the irony and contradiction in your post?
> Just in case you don't I'll give you a hint. If pros drive this sport and every am had the same attitude you do, who would show up to put on the test?


Fact of the matter is, when entries are low who do you call and ask if they can bring a bunch of dogs??? PROS. The pro was born out of necessity, weather it be from lazy owners or poor handlers, there was a need and they filled it. The End. Good Night. PERIOD. Do they do it for free, I'm sure there are pro bono cases they accept from time to time. But the same bills y'all cry about having to work to pay and can't watch EE, are the same bills they are working to pay. 



BlaineT said:


> are you gonna take Lemon with you, or are y'all still mad with each other? If not, ill go.


Sorry Chris and Blaine, I'm running chubby in the test Chris couldn't get in. Who'd a thunk it? An am got registered for a master test, I'll be danged!

I've come up with a solution...no tests west of Mississippi or north of Tennessee. Apparently no means are available to pull it off outside that boundary


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

achiro said:


> Better yet, we can put on a test only for pros and all go fishing instead of helping and see how that works out for ya...


Isn't that what most ams with pros do?

/paul

sorry trying to stay out of this discussion but I think your missing a point


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

This is copied and pasted from the history of hunt tests from the AKC web page.
In the 1980s hunters with good retrievers, but without the resources, or time, to be able to be competitive in field trials were anxious to have an avenue to test their dogs for hunting abilities. 
What the hell happened?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Perfect- I'll just pull up a lawn chair and a coupla longnecks and watch this show.
> 
> The only thing any 2 Pros can agree on is that other dumb SOB ain't got a clue. I was wondering though- who is going to judge this spectacle? Speaking of ain't got a clue- you must be the Chairman of the board of that particular institution.
> 
> ...


well I can tell ya which pros are sobs with no clue. I'll sit next too ya while we watch my clients run their dogs and volunteer to help while discussing what in gods green earth ever made me decide to take money for training dogs. In fact while sitting in those chairs we can evaluate how each dog did and hand out ribbons at the end. 

Not all pros are evil, we just act evil on the internet 

pass me another beer

/paul


----------



## Tony Marshall (May 15, 2013)

clipper said:


> This is copied and pasted from the history of hunt tests from the AKC web page.
> In the 1980s hunters with good retrievers, but without the resources, or time, to be able to be competitive in field trials were anxious to have an avenue to test their dogs for hunting abilities.
> What the hell happened?


When you watch Duck Dynasty you want to take up duck hunting. When you take up duck hunting you want to get a dog. When you get a dog he eats your wife's shoes. When he eats your wife's shoes you call a trainer. When you call a trainer he gets your dog to the Master level. When he gets to the master level you want to run the Master National. When you want to run the Master National no one can get into tests. Don't not get into tests, get Direct TV!


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

achiro said:


> I said it before(most of this had already been hashed out in the deleted thread) but I'll say it again. A hunt test should NEVER favor a pro over an amateur handler...NEVER. I'm not anti pro at all but it wasn't the intent of the hunt tests, in fact I would argue that the intent was partly to get away from pros all together. Pro's are in the game to stay but to sacrifice any amateur handler that wants to play to allow a pro to run a string of dogs is wrong in every way.
> Fair or not the random draw hurts everyone and still risks leaving the local guy out of his nearby tests
> A limit to the number a handler can enter each day until full would work but some pros may prefer just being all in or all out. Which brings us to the simplest and IMO best way to do it, Owner/amateur/handlers get a day or two to enter before a pro can. That way the amateur gets his 1 or 2 dogs in, then the pros get to see who has the best computer skills. If they don't get in, they move to the next test even if they have to drive to get there instead of only getting a few of their dogs in before it fills.





Chris Rosier said:


> Sheesh, you people are a trip.
> 
> I'm not gonna type all night so I'll be brief. Whether any of you want to admit it or not, Joe is right. Pros drive this sport, fair doesnt have a damn thing to do with anything. Fair doesnt exist in real life. Suck it up buttercup.
> 
> ...





birdboy said:


> Fact of the matter is, when entries are low who do you call and ask if they can bring a bunch of dogs??? PROS. The pro was born out of necessity, weather it be from lazy owners or poor handlers, there was a need and they filled it. The End. Good Night. PERIOD. Do they do it for free, I'm sure there are pro bono cases they accept from time to time. But the same bills y'all cry about having to work to pay and can't watch EE, are the same bills they are working to pay.
> 
> 
> Sorry Chris and Blaine, I'm running chubby in the test Chris couldn't get in. Who'd a thunk it? An am got registered for a master test, I'll be danged!
> ...





Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Isn't that what most ams with pros do?
> 
> /paul
> 
> sorry trying to stay out of this discussion but I think your missing a point


I must be missing some point but I don't think I've missed THE point. A hunt test filled up in EIGHT minutes and something like 10 amateurs got in. Anyone that thinks that isn't a problem is really missing THE point. Go fishing, fine but how many tests will you miss before you finally realize that maybe, just maybe there is a problem? I'm not anti pro, I've paid pros(more than I'd like to know), but as I said before, the amateur/handler should always get priority in a hunt test. Nobody, repeat, NOBODY has said that pros should be eliintated. Putting your head in the sand because it hasn't affected you yet is something I don't understand. If your club members like the way it is and don't have any problems then keep going as is but you don't think clubs should have the option to address the issues they are dealing with? 
So one more time, and this time maybe all you guys poo pooing the discussion can tell me why this is a bad idea, let the clubs have the option to allow amateur/handlers to enter the first day or two and then open it to pro handlers with multiple dogs.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

I am curious as to how many clubs are NOT MN clubs? I ran at a club last year that was not MN and it had great grounds, judges, and help. The entries seemed fine and there was a good mixture of pros and ams...


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

JoeOverby said:


> To answer your question simply...yes. it would be fair...it ain't the pros fault I didn't do my job and so he should have to give up his spots. And yes, daddy hates socialism...and it ain't crony capitalism...its free market capitalism...but then I don't expect you to understand that.
> And, you have taken my while argument to mean that its about me...quite the contrary, I am simply taking the side of the pro...the fact that I happen to be one has no bearing on my argument whatsoever. It seems to be your intent to goad me into an argument over my stance on the subject rather than propose any form of solution. It is my belief that the responsibility lies with the club and that the answer is no limits. I am allowed to have and voice those. You don't have to agree, you don't have to like it...but don't tell me im wrong because we don't share the same idealogy. And don't try and turn this thing into a political debate for your own entertainment. You know good and well the socialism argument was metaphorically speaking. But I see since you have no smart remark to that by which to defend yourself youd rather pick at me about my political leanings. Nice try. Now, unless you have anything worth contributing go back to your hole.


Hey Joe, what color is the sky in your world??

I'm gonna type this real slow; so maybe you can keep up. OK?

Did you see that part in my post where it said others had a better network? That network may have given them inside info as to opening time that allowed those in their network to get the jump on others and take advantage of that short 8 minute window of opportunity to get entered. Additionally a lone Amatuer doesn't have a "network of clients" to monitor EE in order to jump on and enter quickly. Although you accuse us of being socialists, we may actually be Capitalists who are gainfully employed when the magic opening time arrives. Do you still think its fair??

Besides that I thought that the criterea for attaining a Master pass was the dog and handlers abilities; NOT the computer or networking skills of the dogs owner or Pro. In Joe's self involved myopic world will computer skills and "Networking" now become a primary factor to attain a MH title on your dog?

Joe it was you, not me that introduced political terms into this thread. I'd prefer to leave that over on the POTUS page. However I can't help but comment that in these doggy games we play that the clubs and AKC are in effect the government. Your solution to the problem is "NO LIMITS" Once again Joe; What color is the sky in your world?? Kind of sounds like a Socialistic entitlement mentality to me, Joe

Your "NO LIMITS policy would mean that the clubs would have to provide unlimited resources for your needs. If they need to add 2 or 3 more flights to accomodate the Joe Overby's of the world, then so be it. If the 5 members of our HT Committee have to give up their Memorial Day weekend in order to put on a one flight Master;{and not even be allowed to run a dog}, well thats OK in Joe's world. If Joe's world require 3 flights then 15 schmucks like me would be forced to give up their free to time to give to JOE
But it would be Socialism to make that pro give up one of his 30 slots to allow that unpaid working member the opportunity to run his dog. Thats "taking from one to give to another". But asking me and other club members to give our time so as to allow you to run your 30 dogs is doesn't offend your anti Socialistic views??? To me that sounds an awful lot like socialism.
Were you named after Stalin

Have a good Day Comrade


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

JoeOverby said:


> Oh and to answer your question about what we'd do if our test was bigger?? We're adding 2 more flights of finished this fall to accommodate an ever growing event and sport. If need be we will lease more land to be able to hold the event. If need be, we will find another, completely different venue more suitable for the event. Our participants have spoken and so long as they are willing to support us we will do anything possible to hold a test and not turn them away.


I wished I lived where you live. Joe
However I'm forced to live in the land of reality. I checked, but all of the real estate in Joe's Pie in the Sky Land is taken

However, In the world of reality where I, {and most people} reside resources are finite

In the days preceding AKC clubs being allowed to limit entries, it was common place for people to enter on the last day. That would mean it would be Tuesday morning; or 11 days prior to the test before you would know how many entries you had. In Joes Pie in the Sky Land it may be possible to go out and lease grounds, find suitable water, acquire birds, get judges, acquire extra help, equipment etc nearby on 11 days notice. However here in reality land that is a VERY tall order.

In light of the fact that you are hosting an HRC test where you allow walkup entries on the day of the event I'm even more impressed that you have the ability to do all that with no lead time.

Here in reality land we struggle with finite resources that sometimes hinder our ability to meet your "NO LIMITS" capabilities.
That damn finite resources is a real headache for us sometimes Joe
In the words of Margaret Thatcher; "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money"

Have a good day Komrade


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> ...
> In light of the fact that you are hosting an HRC test where you allow walkup entries on the day of the event I'm even more impressed that you have the ability to do all that with no lead time.
> 
> ....
> Have a good day Komrade


I'd like to hear Komrad Josef's views on HRC being able to limit how many dogs one handler can run?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Julie R. said:


> I'd like to hear Komrad Josef's views on HRC being able to limit how many dogs one handler can run?



Here ya go Julie, he already shared his wisdom on that very subject from page 5 just another ME ME ME post



Quote Originally Posted by Todd Caswell View Post
12 is too many, thats why we limit ours to 8, and common sense tells me that you can't effectively judge more than 30 dogs in a one day test.

*Joe wrote*
We fought for years, tooth and nail, to fill up our flights and not lose money on every test we put on. 12 isn't enough. I'd let one pro have an entire flight so long as he'd bring an assistant to take care of his honoring and bye dog issues. If the hrc would allow 15 dogs I'd give 2 pros one flight and let it run itself. I'd bet my life savings it would finish first and be the smootjest run flight on the grounds. And yes, you can effectively judge more than 30 dogs. With 2 flights in one day an hrc judge sees approx 60 a day...WITH breakdown and setup from land to water and vice versa. If you never had to move and dont mis-manage your time its no problem to see 75 a day. I've seen 90 done in 1 8hr day last fall at cooper river. It was a good test too. I'm telling you, limiting the pros ain't gonna get it. They fund this whole deal whether you want to admit it or not.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> OK Mark. One suggestion was to let folks sign up their dogs and then depending on the number to only take the first 3 or 5 or whatever arbitrary number the club chose to meet the predetermined limit. So if I successfully signed up 10 and then the club went back at took away 5 of my spots and gave them to someone else is that not redistribution?? Another solution was to let folks sign up and then place them in a random lottery draw?? So now, after I've signed up I may not even get an entry while someone else does?? Further, it is taking money out of my pocket to allow someone else an opportunity...sounds like social welfare to me.
> As far as lip service...we put on our test (300+ entries, 7 flights) with 5 small ponds (2 acres or less). We have limited resources. We make it work every year. There are 7 people on our board and we round up another 7-10 in addition to paying the local ROTC to bird boy to put on our entire shindig. Limited resources Mark.


Hunt tests were not formed to support the professional. Be thankful for whatever dogs you get in. Things change. 

Pete


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Hey Mark...no need to type slow...it just takes you longer to not make a point. Nobody made you to join a club. You did on your own accord. So it is socialist of me to expect a club to put on an event with enough entries to accommodate all who wish to enter? It is socialist of ME that your CLUB limits entries which in turn doesn't leave enough room for you and Mr Caswell?? Let me say this real slow for you Mark...so maybe you'll understand. In the real world we do whatever it is that needs to be done to make a test happen and keep our participants coming back. That is the real world. Not my world...not some fantasy world. The real one mark. I'm sorry in your lazy, its not fair, gimme gimme gimme world this may not work. Remember, I didn't ask a damn thing from you...your club advertised a test and I entered...who should your beef be with. Oh..I'm sorry... wait. There's no way you'll be able to fathom an organization your highness is affiliated with could do something wrong. How do I put this....
You are not a member of my club therefore I haven't asked you to do anything. YOUR club asked for your time not me. I merely paid my money to come run my dog. Not enough spots??? Well by god blame the man who brought the most money to the game...yeah that's the solution. Don't ask your club to open another flight. Don't let your club know you're unhappy with pro bono work..nope...blame the guy who paid for the overhead on the whole deal with his truck of dogs. Then...here's where it gets really good...just take half his entries and give em to other people in the interest of fairness...don't worry, he'll call the people who own those dogs you slighted and explain it all. 
You really do need a helmet and facemask when you go in public.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Julie R. said:


> I'd like to hear Komrad Josef's views on HRC being able to limit how many dogs one handler can run?


Thanks Todd, but I'm capable of speaking for myself. Julie, I HATE the limit. The funniest part of this whole argument is for years HRC clubs have been screaming "the akc doesn't limit pros, look at their entries" and "they close 2 weeks prior to the event with NO walkups...and they are always full and we know how many we have" and "every weekend we compete with an akc test we lose money"...it ain't that one is better than another...the akc is just better at making money than its dirtneck brethren. As a club, we especially cater to the pros to bring trucks full so we don't have to worry about the bottom line. Like Todd was so kind enough to repost if they'd let me fill a flight with one or 2 pros I wouldn't have to babysit it. In my unrealistic land of just get it done id run 10 flights of finished if 8 of em were 16 pros with 15 dogs a piece...but I guess that's where our club differs...Pete, we are thankful for each and every entry....that's why if we can afford it we open it.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Chris Rosier said:


> I know exactly how it'd work. They'd hire bird boys and a secretary and put on the test. They'd run 300+ dogs and probably be done by Sunday at dinnertime and still have time to catch a fish in the tech pond if they so desired........


Not unless they, the "pros" are all members of the host club, have submitted all the paperwork, obtained judges, booked rooms, provided food et all and found 4 loke minded pros to be the HT commitee. Then stuck around till dark on Sunday cleaning, storing and disposing of all the leftovers.

Without Pro handlers, most clubs would limp along just fine. Without clubs, Pro handlers would be hanging drywall or roofing.

And I find it interesting that the loudest voices that don't find anything out of order with the AKC limited entry system as it now stands, only show mainly UKC titles on the dogs they list on their posts or are pro handlers.


----------



## dlsweep (Dec 3, 2007)

How about the people who put on the tests have a CLUB OPTION to use a staggered entry. You do what you want at your club. Me and my fellow members will do what we want at our test. 

It is interesting reading all of these posts. It is easy to tell the check writers and check cashers from the worker bees.

Give the power to the people who put on these tests.

For those of you who would tell me to "shut up and get back to work putting on tests", I challenge you to look forward and see how this may end. 

First guy there, last guy to leave. Mowing, tree trimming, what ever is needing to mantain grounds. Working long hours. Just shut up and get to work. Your club exists to serve me. Come'on! To me this is not about pro vs, amatuer. It is about clubs having some control, and about people who would use a disproportional amount of limited volunteer resources.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Don't know if anyone mentioned this or not, but a hunt test recently with a limit of 120 dogs had 4 pros scratch all dogs, total of 38 or so dogs. That's a bunch of O/H that could have entered that were turned away.


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

Joe, you have said on more than one occasion that the tests would go smoother and faster with only pro entries. You are probably right. I do not, in any way, think that I am a better trainer/handler than most pros. You also go on and on about the making money aspect of putting on a test. While we all want our clubs to make money on a test, it is not the primary motivation for being involved. 
Your motivation for being involved is $. You are a pro and it is how you make your living. For whatever the reason, you decided to not play the field trial game which is where, in my opinion, pros belong. The tests were developed to get us away from the pro game. Most amateurs are not able to train 6 or 7 days a week and take a lot of their potential training time to plan and work on these tests. They are giving back to a sport that used to give to us. That seems to be changing. Mixing a profession/business with a hobby just might not work. The reasons for being there are just too diverse.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

JamesTannery said:


> Don't know if anyone mentioned this or not, but a hunt test recently with a limit of 120 dogs had 4 pros scratch all dogs, total of 38 or so dogs. That's a bunch of O/H that could have entered that were turned away.


After closing?


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Must have been because there weren't any other dogs taking the place of the scratched dogs.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

clipper said:


> Joe, you have said on more than one occasion that the tests would go smoother and faster with only pro entries. You are probably right. I do not, in any way, think that I am a better trainer/handler than most pros. You also go on and on about the making money aspect of putting on a test. While we all want our clubs to make money on a test, it is not the primary motivation for being involved.
> Your motivation for being involved is $. You are a pro and it is how you make your living. For whatever the reason, you decided to not play the field trial game which is where, in my opinion, pros belong. The tests were developed to get us away from the pro game. Most amateurs are not able to train 6 or 7 days a week and take a lot of their potential training time to plan and work on these tests. They are giving back to a sport that used to give to us. That seems to be changing. Mixing a profession/business with a hobby just might not work. The reasons for being there are just too diverse.


Greg, I'm pretty sure I never said that. I'm guilty of saying a flight filled with 2 pros needs no babysitting and would run extremely smooth but I'm positive I didn't say a test would go smoother and faster with only pro entries. As to the money part...why would a club continue to put on tests if they continually lose money?? This ain't about getting rich but at some point you have to operate in the black. As mad as some get about having to work and not run a dog can you imagine the riot when you then had to ask them to empty their wallets to cover the expenses of a ht as well?? That's fine if you believe pros don't belong in the ht game...however, as someone last night said we fill a need. There are wealthy people out there who will never step foot on the retrieving line because it is easier for them to pat somebody to do it for them. These people don't clean their own houses, pay their own bills, or work non their own cars. Their lives consist of not for profit fundraisers, private schools, gated communities, and personal assistants. Some of y'all even label these folks as "takers". But we use their grounds to run tests, they make large contributions to the clubs raffle to make sure we get out of the red, and they make sure clubs have entries almost every weekend. They aren't going to get their hands dirty...not gonna happen... so what, you gonna tell them if they wanna play they're not allowed to use a pro? Cmon man thats ludacris. FOM is right. We have been arguing and focusing on the symptoms. And we are all so opinionated we can't stay on topic long enough to figure out what the real root cause of the problem is. She believes its the re-qualifications. I see her point but still believe its the limits. However, as posted in another thread, let the club make its own decision. If it doesn't wanna split after 60 then don't make it. If it wants to open early to ams, fine. If bit wants to limit to one flight that's the clubs prerogative. The individual clubs will figure out very quickly what works and what doesn't. Maybe, the answer is less regulation instead of more...but its certainly not about preferential treatment for either pros or ams...
Greg, money makes the world go round. Don't have to like it...but its the truth. And those who have lots of it make the decisions. I personally despise that last one but unfortunately its true too. If clubs cannot stay viable they will not continue to put on these tests...regardless of who attends...so at the end of the day it is about the club making money... at least enough to pay its way.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

dlsweep said:


> How about the people who put on the tests have a CLUB OPTION to use a staggered entry. You do what you want at your club. Me and my fellow members will do what we want at our test.
> 
> It is interesting reading all of these posts. It is easy to tell the check writers and check cashers from the worker bees.
> 
> ...



This guy gets it. The key is to let the clubs do whats best for them. Period.




Golddogs said:


> Not unless they, the "pros" are all members of the host club, have submitted all the paperwork, obtained judges, booked rooms, provided food et all and found 4 loke minded pros to be the HT commitee. Then stuck around till dark on Sunday cleaning, storing and disposing of all the leftovers.
> 
> Without Pro handlers, most clubs would limp along just fine. Without clubs, Pro handlers would be hanging drywall or roofing.
> 
> And I find it interesting that the loudest voices that don't find anything out of order with the AKC limited entry system as it now stands, only show mainly UKC titles on the dogs they list on their posts or are pro handlers.



4 like minded pros? Whats that got to do with anything? You know where there are 4 like minded Ams in any given club?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

JoeOverby said:


> Greg, I'm pretty sure I never said that. I'm guilty of saying a flight filled with 2 pros needs no babysitting and would run extremely smooth but I'm positive I didn't say a test would go smoother and faster with only pro entries. .





JoeOverby said:


> If the hrc would allow 15 dogs I'd give 2 pros one flight and let it run itself. I'd bet my life savings it would finish first and be the smootjest run flight on the grounds. .


Joe I'm done arguing with you. You are so consumed with myopia and selfish motives that you cant begin to focus on objective facts. As proof I give you these two quotes from yourself; you couldn't even win an argument with yourself"
Enjoy yourself in your Socialistic fantasy world of unlimited resources and "NO LIMITS"

When can I expect to recieve your check for the sum of your life savings? Need an address or would you prefer to do a direct deposit

Shouldn't you be training dogs at this time of day?
Good day Komrad Josef


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

I just admitted to saying the latter!! Damn you're ignorant! I said a flight not a test. Big difference... but I tell you what Mark. I'm done arguing with you too...it gets me no where talking to someone who makes no valid point at any time anywhere in any argument ever...
BTW, throwing chip shots at you between water blinds isn't all that hard. Enjoy your pot stirring short bus.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Boys it is time to stop the personal stuff. Give it up and let's all try to get a handle progressively.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Chris Rosier said:


> This guy gets it. The key is to let the clubs do whats best for them. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As you should know you need 5 Club members to be on the HT committee. 4 plus the 1 is 5, like minded pros who are willing to be a AKC licensed club in order to hold an AKC licensed event. Do all of the prep work 3-6 months in advance, show up a day before the test to work with the Saturday judges, host the judges dinner, show up at 6 on Saturday to be sure all of the workers know where they are to be, put out fires from the pros who could run client dogs, clean up everything and come back at 6 the next day.

Because we do have such AM's in our club, we do have 4 like minded people willing to host events so those of us who love the sport have a place to go. When we decide enough is enough, the pro handlers will be left with no where to go unless they decide to become active club members, plan organize and staff the events so they and the other pro handlers have a place to go.

That is what it has to do with having like minded pros.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

jacduck said:


> Boys it is time to stop the personal stuff. Give it up and let's all try to get a handle progressively.


What he said! I'm positive Chris doesn't want/need/desire for another moved thread so he can be beat up for doing such!

FOM
RTF Moderator


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

JoeOverby said:


> I just admitted to saying the latter!! Damn you're ignorant! I said a flight not a test. Big difference... but I tell you what Mark. I'm done arguing with you too...it gets me no where talking to someone who makes no valid point at any time anywhere in any argument ever...
> BTW, throwing chip shots at you between water blinds isn't all that hard. Enjoy your pot stirring short bus.


The valid point he's making is you keep bringing up this right of a pro to earn a living and how these tests would run much smoother if a test was filled with pros only, but neither of those have any merit. There is no such thing as a right to earn a living in this sport - if it weren't for the amateur guys that line up judges, grounds, birds, hotels, equipment, throwers, ribbons, akc approval, lunches, marshalls, entry express, etc. etc. etc., there would be no tests. A hunt test is not a training day, which is what you seem to think. There's a lot more that goes on than what you see on the day of a test. I also question whether a test filled with pros would run more smoothly. What if there's an honor? What if those pros have dogs in different tests on a different property? There's a reason everyone disagrees with you ...


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

Charles C. said:


> The valid point he's making is you keep bringing up this right of a pro to earn a living and how these tests would run much smoother if a test was filled with pros only, but neither of those have any merit. There is no such thing as a right to earn a living in this sport - if it weren't for the amateur guys that line up judges, grounds, birds, hotels, equipment, throwers, ribbons, akc approval, lunches, marshalls, entry express, etc. etc. etc., there would be no tests. A hunt test is not a training day, which is what you seem to think. There's a lot more that goes on than what you see on the day of a test. I also question whether a test filled with pros would run more smoothly. What if there's an honor? What if those pros have dogs in different tests on a different property? There's a reason everyone disagrees with you ...


as an Amateur that assists Joe a lot and is a friend and a fellow club member that helps him run our test every year i can say that you are off base when you say to him "theres a lot more that goes on than what you see on the day of a test". He knows everything that has to happen to put on a successful test. We (Joe, me, and about 6 or 7 other like-minded amateurs are like probably most all other clubs). The minority of the people puts out the majority of the work, sacrifice and sweat to make a test successful. We love the game, the dogs, and most the people involved and do it for them. He's focused on making sure our test can be a good experience for as many people as humanly possible. I would safely say we will do our best to provide probably at least 6 flights of finished dogs a place to run this season as we had to turn dogs away last year with 4. Anyway, just clarifying, that he knows how a test runs.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm kinda hoping Joe continues with the "*Candler Creek Retrievers*" advertising and promotional clinic he has been putting on the last two days..


----------



## Handler Error (Mar 10, 2009)

When I see a pro replying to these posts for hours at a time, it makes it clear to me how a pro trainer has time to get his dog entered in events. 
Off to check EE before my lunch break is over regards


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Golddogs said:


> As you should know you need 5 Club members to be on the HT committee. 4 plus the 1 is 5, like minded pros who are willing to be a AKC licensed club in order to hold an AKC licensed event. Do all of the prep work 3-6 months in advance, show up a day before the test to work with the Saturday judges, host the judges dinner, show up at 6 on Saturday to be sure all of the workers know where they are to be, put out fires from the pros who could run client dogs, clean up everything and come back at 6 the next day.
> 
> Because we do have such AM's in our club, we do have 4 like minded people willing to host events so those of us who love the sport have a place to go. When we decide enough is enough, the pro handlers will be left with no where to go unless they decide to become active club members, plan organize and staff the events so they and the other pro handlers have a place to go.
> 
> That is what it has to do with having like minded pros.


Just entered one where the committee was three like minded pros, the rest clients and relatives basically. Three FTs a year. Not to mention two HTs per year that are run on theses grounds. I can think of several others on my circuit where the pros not only let the trial be held on their grounds but are on the committee, lining up judges, working the event and running dogs and let the grounds be used for HTs. 

You are just dead wrong when you argue that pros don't do anything for putting on events. They don't put them all on but we would lose a big chunk of the ones on our circuit if these folks went away.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

BlaineT said:


> I would safely say we will do our best to provide probably at least 6 flights of finished dogs a place to run this season as we had to turn dogs away last year with 4.


Do tell Blaine
So you are telling us that "Mr NO LIMITS,"who lives in a world of infinite resources and trust fund baby clients & has assured us all that he would do everything possible, including leasing more grounds, moving the test {at the last minute} etc to see to it that there were NO LIMITS and everybody could enter and run; has in fact LIMITED ENTRIES!!!!!!!!

Tell me Blaine is the sky falling at Candler Creek Retrievers and the rest of PIE IN THE SKY LAND??!?!?!??

Your buddy "Josef has managed to imply and outright call other clubs and their members who do this LAZY.
In order to retain your brownie points, Please tell us what excludes Komrade Kandler Kreek from being painted with the same broad LAZY Brush which he so LIBERALLY wields against others


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

BlaineT said:


> as an Amateur that assists Joe a lot and is a friend and a fellow club member that helps him run our test every year i can say that you are off base when you say to him "theres a lot more that goes on than what you see on the day of a test". He knows everything that has to happen to put on a successful test. We (Joe, me, and about 6 or 7 other like-minded amateurs are like probably most all other clubs). The minority of the people puts out the majority of the work, sacrifice and sweat to make a test successful. We love the game, the dogs, and most the people involved and do it for them. He's focused on making sure our test can be a good experience for as many people as humanly possible. I would safely say we will do our best to provide probably at least 6 flights of finished dogs a place to run this season as we had to turn dogs away last year with 4. Anyway, just clarifying, that he knows how a test runs.


That may very well be the case, but his opinion is inconsistent with that knowledge.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

A caveat - I do not run HT. My club does not put on HT. However, in the Colorado Circuit for FT, the pros are very active in putting on FT. Kenny Trott and Marcy Wright work hard on the Centennial Club trial. Paul Knutson works hard on the Rocky Mountain Trial. Bart Peterson works hard on the West Nebraska trial. And all of them will pitch in on other trials if you ask. In Texas, I know that Eckett, Rorem, and Farmer each have Field trials on their property. 

I know that when I judged for the Cape Fear Club, Alan and Gwen Pleasant busted their butts on the trial. 

So in the FT game at least, the pros do pitch in. I would hope that HT pros would do the same.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

mjh345 said:


> Do tell Blaine
> So you are telling us that "Mr NO LIMITS,"who lives in a world of infinite resources and trust fund baby clients & has assured us all that he would do everything possible, including leasing more grounds, moving the test {at the last minute} etc to see to it that there were NO LIMITS and everybody could enter and run; has in fact LIMITED ENTRIES!!!!!!!!
> 
> Tell me Blaine is the sky falling at Candler Creek Retrievers and the rest of PIE IN THE SKY LAND??!?!?!??
> ...



I don't really have any interest in arguing for him or you in a seemingly personal feud. From dealing with people and public communication for the last 15 years I've realized typed words and emotion leave a lot to be lost in translation in these types of venues. Misrepresentation and misinterpretation is inevitable. However I could answer a question of whether or not Joe understands the inner workings of a hunt test. 

My suggestion would be for you to give him a call and the two of you could discuss the issue without keyboards and you can "hear" what's being said rather than assume.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> A caveat - I do not run HT. My club does not put on HT. However, in the Colorado Circuit for FT, the pros are very active in putting on FT. Kenny Trott and Marcy Wright work hard on the Centennial Club trial. Paul Knutson works hard on the Rocky Mountain Trial. Bart Peterson works hard on the West Nebraska trial. And all of them will pitch in on other trials if you ask. In Texas, I know that Eckett, Rorem, and Farmer each have Field trials on their property.
> 
> I know that when I judged for the Cape Fear Club, Alan and Gwen Pleasant busted their butts on the trial.
> 
> So in the FT game at least, the pros do pitch in. I would hope that HT pros would do the same.


Ted don't be fooled by those who are trying to sidetrack this issue into an anti pro issue. That is not it at all. The rational contributors to this thread have not said or implied that Pros are bad and don't work hard

For me the issue is about finding a way to have fairness and finding an equitable process in giving everyone a shot at getting entered without having to have a network to monitor EE 24 hours a day ofr knowing the secret handshake or code to get in the 8 minute window of opportunity that has arisen in some cases.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

BlaineT said:


> My suggestion would be for you to give him a call and the two of you could discuss the issue without keyboards and you can "hear" what's being said rather than assume.


Good idea, but he's busy runnin g water blinds


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Ted don't be fooled by those who are trying to sidetrack this issue into an anti pro issue. That is not it at all. The rational contributors to this thread have not said or implied that Pros are bad and don't work hard
> 
> For me the issue is about finding a way to have fairness and finding an equitable process in giving everyone a shot at getting entered without having to have a network to monitor EE 24 hours a day ofr knowing the secret handshake or code to get in the 8 minute window of opportunity that has arisen in some cases.


Some pros could be proactive and ask their owners to make their own hunt test online entries to be more fair with the limits.

In AKC agility, per the rules - "Guaranteed Entries for Show Workers - The club may guarantee entry spots for "Show Workers" who have agreed to work at the trial."

Which in theory might lead to club expansion in new members and member participation at events. 

Limits did not work in the beginning of hunt tests when entries were smaller, amateurs dominated, landowners shared grounds, and pros were the minority. 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. "


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

DoubleHaul said:


> Just entered one where the committee was three like minded pros, the rest clients and relatives basically. Three FTs a year. Not to mention two HTs per year that are run on theses grounds. I can think of several others on my circuit where the pros not only let the trial be held on their grounds but are on the committee, lining up judges, working the event and running dogs and let the grounds be used for HTs.
> 
> *You are just dead wrong when you argue that pros don't do anything for putting on events*. They don't put them all on but we would lose a big chunk of the ones on our circuit if these folks went away.


 One out of how many?

Not dead wrong but not completely accurate either for which I apologize to those pros who do give back. Never good to use too broad a brush. 

I should have said where we run you will not see any pros putting on HT's and very, very few offering to help. ( this speaks ONLY to the HT's) And more members of clubs and neighbors offer up land to use than HT pros. If not for them, many clubs would be SOOL. Of the 18 or so clubs in driving distance, all are kept going by dedicated people who make no gain from putting on tests. The point of all of this is everyone deserves a level playing field and if things continue on as they are in the South, many of the worker bees will soon decide to spend there time on other pursuits and everyone will hurt.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Golddogs said:


> One out of how many?
> 
> Not dead wrong but not completely accurate either for which I apologize to those pros who do give back. Never good to use too broad a brush.
> 
> I should have said *where we run you will not see any pros putting on HT's and very, very few offering to help*. ( this speaks ONLY to the HT's) And more members of clubs and neighbors offer up land to use than HT pros. If not for them, many clubs would be SOOL. Of the 18 or so clubs in driving distance, all are kept going by dedicated people who make no gain from putting on tests. The point of all of this is everyone deserves a level playing field and *if things continue on as they are in the South*, many of the worker bees will soon decide to spend there time on other pursuits and everyone will hurt.


You say where you run pros do not help. Yet you worry about things are happening in the south. I am in the south and in addition to the several trials and HTs per year that simply would cease to exist without the pros doing everything from soup to nuts, almost every single HT I attend the pros help out significantly. Do they work harder than all the members at those events? No, but they work harder than many of the members--face it, every club has members that only show up and run their dogs as well.


You guys are using this situation as a great opportunity to blame pros for some reason, when it is absolutely not their fault.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

DoubleHaul said:


> You say where you run pros do not help. *Yet you worry about things are happening in the south*. I am in the south and in addition to the several trials and HTs per year that simply would cease to exist without the pros doing everything from soup to nuts, almost every single HT I attend the pros help out significantly. Do they work harder than all the members at those events? No, but they work harder than many of the members--face it, every club has members that only show up and run their dogs as well.
> 
> 
> You guys are using this situation as a great opportunity to blame pros for some reason, when it is absolutely not their fault.


*By referring to the south *I refer to the "10 minute rule" where limited entries are filling before even club members can enter. Filled by pro handlers entering by some magic means milliseconds after the event is finalized, leaving a large number of " worker bees " out of there own clubs event. The fact that you do not see that as a problem for the sport in general speaks volumes. And I again am referring ONLY to HT's. 

And as a wise person mentioned on this thread, the HT was and should be for the average guy/gal who works for a living at things other than dog handling. Further, if said folk continue to be excluded, they will find other things to do and many pro handlers will be taking a bigger hit in the bottom line than if they were limited on how many dogs they could handle in any given test.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

How much clearer can it be made to knock off the personal name calling/attacks/misspelling of name/whatever! 

STOP IT! Is that clear enough???????

Why must some people resort to this type of posts? Are they trying to get a thread pulled so they can then complain about that as well??

Please.....keep it civil and don't resort to personal attacks.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Golddogs said:


> *By referring to the south *I refer to the "10 minute rule" where limited entries are filling before even club members can enter. Filled by pro handlers entering by some magic means milliseconds after the event is finalized, leaving a large number of " worker bees " out of there own clubs event. The fact that you do not see that as a problem for the sport in general speaks volumes. And I again am referring ONLY to HT's.
> 
> And as a wise person mentioned on this thread, the HT was and should be for the average guy/gal who works for a living at things other than dog handling. Further, if said folk continue to be excluded, they will find other things to do and many pro handlers will be taking a bigger hit in the bottom line than if they were limited on how many dogs they could handle in any given test.


Do you have any experience with this "10 minute rule"? On my "my events" page on EE, I have several HTs that have been open, with limited entries for over a week that I could enter right now. 

As far as the worker bees, I keep going back to what I have been saying all along: if your club offers so little to its members that they will quit if they can't run their dogs in those two events per year, you have a much bigger problem.

Why is the original intention of HTs so important while nobody is concerned with the original intention of the MN? Why are you only concerned with the average guy/gal who works for a living but has access to grounds and time during daylight hours to train their dog every day instead the average guy/gal who works for a living but 60 hours per week and could not participate without a pro.

This is not about pros--just a convenient red herring for folks to adapt to their own pro-bashing agenda.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

DoubleHaul said:


> Do you have any experience with this "10 minute rule"? On my "my events" page on EE, I have several HTs that have been open, with limited entries for over a week that I could enter right now.
> 
> As far as the worker bees, I keep going back to what I have been saying all along: if your club offers so little to its members that they will quit if they can't run their dogs in those two events per year, you have a much bigger problem.
> 
> ...


Yup, you are right on all points and there is no problem. Pro handlers are not causing any problems at all, it is the whiny club members causing all of this angst. Clubs that can't support unlimited entries have no business being a club at all. How dare they try to work with in there means and still put on events they can be proud of. Members who can't enter there own test should be thankful they have more free time over the weekend to throw birds for others. Yep, no problems at all and life is good.

To a couple of your points: 

IMO, both the HT and MN are a problem. Both, IMO , have strayed from what they were established for. 

If a person never runs or trains his/her dog they are not participating, they are spectators watching someone run and train their dog. 

The guy/gal who finds time to train and run their animal is usually the same person throwing the flyer at the test so someone else can watch there handler run their dog.

As to the club and what it offers: we will celebrate 30 years as a club this year. We were formed at the beginning and did so to allow retriever lovers a chance to train and test there dogs in this great new sport. We hold 2 HT's each year so our members can run close to home and enjoy our sport together as club members. We do not limit as we have ample grounds and a dedicated membership. We are lucky. Many clubs do not have the ability to hold unlimited events and as such, members should not be penalized by not being able to enter the event they are hosting. If that trend were to continue it will cause people to reflect on why they are members of a club to begin with.

None of these post are anti pro handler specific: All are looking for a system where everyone has a fair chance at entering any given event. 


But then again, I suppose I could be mistaken and there is not problem.


----------



## krapwxman (May 24, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> Do you have any experience with this "10 minute rule"? On my "my events" page on EE, I have several HTs that have been open, with limited entries for over a week that I could enter right now.
> 
> *As far as the worker bees, I keep going back to what I have been saying all along: if your club offers so little to its members that they will quit if they can't run their dogs in those two events per year, you have a much bigger problem.*
> 
> ...


That is really an unfair statement to make. For most, if not all clubs, the biggest events they conduct in a year are their tests. This is what many of those club members look forward to each year. So to expect any hard working member of that club to just suck it up if they are not allowed to participate in their biggest event of the year is very short sighted, IMO. And it doesn't mean that you or your club have much bigger problems.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

krapwxman said:


> That is really an unfair statement to make. For most, if not all clubs, the biggest events they conduct in a year are their tests. This is what many of those club members look forward to each year. So to expect any hard working member of that club to just suck it up if they are not allowed to participate in their biggest event of the year is very short sighted, IMO. And it doesn't mean that you or your club have much bigger problems.


My point is that the value proposition of many clubs seems to be "give us $30 bucks a year and come work your butt off for 4 weeks a year--if you are really good, you can be an officer and work even more prior to these events". 

If that is all a club offers, I can certainly understand why someone who could not run said test would no longer volunteer. If the club offers other things like training days, training groups where folks can get help from more experienced trainers, club trials, access to grounds, etc., it is much easier to convince folks there is a reason they are giving back.

Some of the best workers hardly ever run dogs in club events. They are hunters basically and work to help the club which helps them.

All I am saying is that some clubs need to limit their entries. I get that. We don't have the grounds to split a MH, so we limit our entries. But the problem is not a pro vs. amateur and I value the average person who puts his dog with a pro just as much as the ones who have the luxury of training their own. Regardless of one's status, it is not the fault of the participants for signing up to run their dogs.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

DH, You're wasting your time bud. I gave up around mid-morning. They don't get it, and they wont. They want "fair". I've tried to explain to them that fair doesn't exist but they don't get that either. 

I'm gonna switch over to EE so I don't miss out on gettting signed up for another test. I've gotta get these poor UKC titled dogs of mine some letters BEHIND their names so I'll have some credibility around here.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Nope it's never going to be fair, but the only way to resolve this is for AKC to give the clubs more control over there test and how they want to handle entries, if they choose to have a limit fine, if they choose not to be part of the MN fine, if they want to do a staged or staggered entry giving the O/H (note I didn't say AM. or PRO) first dibs on the spots fine. If a pro has 15 dogs and he only gets 5 entered he may very well say the heck with it and look for another test, he may have to do some traveling, but that's what he does for a living and the additional costs can be split between his clients, they may not like it but it may encourage them to run there own dog and a club may gain a few members in the process. And some clubs may just leave it as is, if that's the case and the test fills up in 10 min. so be it but at least they had the option to make a change.


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

Chris Rosier said:


> DH, You're wasting your time bud. I gave up around mid-morning. They don't get it, and they wont. They want "fair". I've tried to explain to them that fair doesn't exist but they don't get that either.
> 
> I'm gonna switch over to EE so I don't miss out on gettting signed up for another test. I've gotta get these poor UKC titled dogs of mine some letters BEHIND their names so I'll have some credibility around here.


I don't know about around here, but your credibility will always be in question. Hey are you gonna run...shucks, already full.


----------

